Ko‘plab ulamolar istihsonni qabul qilib, uni hukmlarning dalillari orasidagi bir dalil deb hisoblaganlar, garchi ular uning ta’rifi borasida ixtilof qilganlar.

Many of the ‘Ulamaa’ adopted Al-Istihsaan and considered it to be a Daleel from amongst the Adillah of the Ahkaam whilst they have disagreed in respect to its definition.

Ulardan ba'zilari, masalan Hanafiyya, buni bir dalilning boshqa dalil ustidan ustunlik qilishi deb hisoblagan va shuning uchun bu nass bilan sobit bo'lgan hukmni ifodalaydi, istihsan emas.

Some of them like the Hanafiyah considered it to represent an outweighing of a Daleel over a Daleel and therefore it represents a Hukm that is established by the text and no Istihsaan.

Shu sababli, biz Abu Ishoq Ash-Sheeroziy Ash-Shofi‘iyning, Hanafiy fuqahoning istihson ma’nosiga oid ba’zi qarashlarini keltirgandan so‘ng, shunday deganini ko‘ramiz: “Agar u (istihson) butunning bir qismini uni tahsis qiluvchi dalil bilan tahsis qilishni yoki ikki dalilning eng kuchlisi bilan hukm chiqarishni anglatsa, bu hech kim rad eta olmaydigan narsadir” (Al-Lam‘u, 68-bet).

For that reason, we see Abu Ishaq Ash-Sheeraaziy Ash-Shaafi’iy, after presenting some of the views of the Fuqahaa of the Ahnaaf in respect to the meaning of Al-Istihsaan, saying: “If it means specifying some of the sum of the whole with a Daleel that specifies it or by judging by the strongest of two evidences, then this is from that which nobody can reject” (Al-Lam’u p68).

Va biz ko'ramizki, As-Sam'oniy va Al-Qaffol ushbu oyatning ma'nosi haqida shunday deganlar:

And we see that As-Sam’aaniy and Al-Qaffaal said the meaning of:

"Istihsanning (al-Istihsaan) dalildan, undan kuchliroq boshqa dalilga o‘tish sifatida izohlanishi – biz aytadigan va rad etmaydigan narsadir" (Ash-Shawkaniy, "Irshad al-Fuhul", 241-bet).

“The explanation of Al-Istihsaan as being a departure from a Daleel to a Daleel that is stronger than it, is something that we say and do not reject” (Irshaad Al-Fuhool of Ash-Shawkaani, p241).

Istihsonni qabul qilganlar orasida: hanafiylar, Imom Molik va uning izdoshlari bor edi. Ibn ul-Hojib esa o'zining "Muxtasar" asarida shunday degan:

Those who upheld Al-Istihsaan included: The Hanafiyah, Al Imaam Maalik and his followers whilst Ibn ul-Haajib said in his ‘Mukhtasir’:

Hanafiylar va Hanbaliylar buni qabul qilganlar, boshqalari esa uni rad etganlar.

The Hanafiyah and Al-Hanaabilah upheld it whilst the others rejected it.

Shofiʼiylar, ularning boshida Imom Ash-Shofiʼiyning o‘zi bo‘lgan holda, Zohiriylar va ko‘plab Mutakallimlar istihsonning hujjiyati (dalil sifatidagi haqqoniyati) yo‘q, uning asosida shar'iy hukmlar qurish esa joiz emas, degan fikrda bo‘lganlar.

The Shaafi’iyah, at the head of which was Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy himself, the Zhaahiriyah and many of the Mutakallimeen held the opinion of the absence of the Hujjiyah (evidential validity) of Istihsaan and the impermissibility of building legal rulings upon it.

Ash-Shaafi’iy ning mashhur bo‘lib ketgan quyidagi so‘zi:

The following statement of Ash-Shaafi’iy became well-known:

“Kim Istihsaanni qo‘llasa, demak u shariat qonunini joriy qilgan bo‘ladi” degan so‘zi bilan birga, uning: “Istihsaan — nafsni qondirish va havoyi istakka asoslangan ra’y demakdir” degan bayonini ham (al-Omidiy, 4-jild, 209-bet).

“Whoever utilises Istihsaan then he has legislated” in addition to his statement: “Al-Istihsaan is self-gratification and an opinion based on desire” (Al-Aamaadiy Vol.4 p209).

Uning "Al-Umm" kitobida u ettinchi jildda "Istihsonning botilligi" sarlavhasi ostida alohida bob ajratgan. Quyida uning istihsonni batil deb hisoblash uchun keltirgan dalillari qisqacha berilgan:

In his book ‘Al-Umm’ he dedicated a chapter in the seventh volume under the title of: ‘Invalidating Istihsaan’. The following, in summary, are the Adillah that he used to invalidate it:

1 - Shariat — bu nass (matn) va qiyos orqali matndan hukm chiqarishdir. Agar istihson bu ikki toifadan biri bo‘lsa

1 - The Sharee’ah is a Nass (text) and taking an understanding from the text by way of Qiyaas. If Istihsaan is one of these two (categories)

Shunga ko'ra, buni zikr qilishning hojati yo'q va agar bu ikki toifadan tashqarida bo'lsa, u Shariatdan emas.

then there is no need to mention it and if it is outside of these two (categories) then it is not from the Sharee’ah.

2 - Darhaqiqat, Alloh Ta’oloning aytishicha:

2 - Verily Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

Va Al-Istihsaan Kitob ham, Sunnat ham emas va u Kitob hamda Sunnatga qaytishni ifodalamaydi.

And Al-Istihsaan is neither the Kitaab nor the Sunnah and it does not represent referring back to the Kitaab and the Sunnah.

3 - Allohning Elchisi ﷺ o‘z istihsoni asosida hukm bermas edilar, balki sahobalarining savollariga javob berish uchun vahiy nozil bo‘lishini kutardilar. Xuddi zihor (Mujodala surasi) va li’on (Nur surasi, 6–10-oyatlar) haqiqati masalasida bo‘lgani kabi.

3 - The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not provide verdicts based on his Istihsaan but rather he would await the descent of the Wahi to respond to the queries and questions of his companions like what happened in respect to the reality of Azh-Zhihaar (Soorah AlMujaadalah) and of Al-Li’aan (Soorah An-Noor 6-10).

4 - Alloh elchisi (ﷺ) istihsonga asoslanib ish tutgan sahobalarni koyigan. Masalan, u zot (ﷺ) mushrikni soya beruvchi daraxt ostida qolgan odamni yoqib yuborgan ayrim sahobalarni koyidi va Usома ibn Zaydni "Laa ilaaha illallah" degan odamni o‘ldirgani uchun koyidi, chunki u bu so‘zni faqat qo‘rquv va qilich tahdidi ostida aytgan deb asos keltirgan edi.

4 - The Messenger of Allah (saw) rebuked the Sahaabah who adopted based upon their Istihsaan. So for example he (saw) rebuked some of the Sahaabah because they had burnt a Mushrik sheltered by a tree and he (saw) rebuked Usaamah Bin Zaid because he killed a man who said: ‘Laa Ilaaha Illallah’ whilst using the argument that he only pronounced it due to fear and under the threat of the sword.

5 - Al-Istihsaan bila dalil hech narsa bilan boshqarilmaydi va haqni nohaqdan ajratish uchun foydalaniladigan mezon yo‘q. Shunday ekan, bitta masala doirasida dalilsiz turli hukmlar paydo bo‘lar edi va ulardan birini ikkinchisidan ustun qo‘yadigan asos bo‘lmas edi.

5 - Al-Istihsaan without evidence has nothing governing it and no measure to be used to evaluate the truth from the falsehood. As such, within one single matter, there would be a variety of Ahkaam without a base to outweigh one over the other.

6 - Agar Al-Istihsan mujtahid uchun ruxsat etilgan bo‘lib, uni qo‘llashda u shar’iy dalilga tayanmagan bo‘lsa, u holda u Kitob va Sunnatni bilmaydigan kishi uchun ham ruxsat etilgan bo‘lar edi. Buning natijasi shu bo‘ladiki, hukm ilmga emas, balki hissiy istakka asoslangan bo‘lar edi.

6 - If Al-Istihsaan was permissible for a Mujtahid and in its use he did not depend upon a Daleel Shar’iy, then it would also be permitted for someone who does not have knowledge of the Kitaab and the Sunnah. The result of that is that the opinion would be based on desire and not ‘Ilm (knowledge).