Ijtihod ko‘p ma’nolarda “(ustun) fikrni izlash uchun kuch-g‘ayratni sarflash” sifatida ta’riflangan. Bu shunday bo‘lib, mujtahid o‘sha ish borasida shar’iy hukmlardan (ustun) fikrni izlashda o‘zida endi kuch-g‘ayrat sarflay olmaslikni his qilguncha harakat qiladi. Ya’ni, u Qur’on va Sunnatdagi shar’iy matnni tushunishga o‘zining eng yuqori darajasidagi kuch-g‘ayratini sarflagandan so‘ng, shar’iy hukmni bilish maqsadida bu tushunishga erishadi. Demak, shar’iy hukmni istinbot qilishda to‘rt narsa bajarilishi kerakki, shundagina bu amalni qonuniy ijtihod deyish mumkin, ya’ni ijtihod deb atalishi uchun uchta masala bajarilishi lozim bo‘ladi: Birinchidan, o‘zida endi kuch-g‘ayrat sarflay olmaslikni his qilguncha harakat qilish. Ikkinchidan, bu harakat shar’iy hukmlardan bir masala bo‘yicha (ustun) fikrni izlash uchun bo‘lishi kerak. Uchinchidan, bu masala bo‘yicha fikr shar’iy matnlardan bo‘lishi kerak, chunki shar’iy hukmni shar’iy matnlardan bo‘lmagan narsadan izlash mumkin emas. Sababi, hukmi shar’iy bandalarning amallari haqida Shori’ (Shariat qonunchisi)ning xitobidir. Shunga ko‘ra, kuch-g‘ayrat sarflamaydigan kishi mujtahid hisoblanmaydi. Shar’iy hukmlardan tashqari, fan va qarashlardan (ustun) fikrni izlab kuch sarflagan kishi ham mujtahid hisoblanmaydi. Shar’iy matnlardan tashqari narsadan shar’iy hukm izlagan kishi ham mujtahid hisoblanmaydi. Demak, mujtahid Allohning hukmini bilish uchun shar’iy matnlarni tushunishga o‘z kuch-g‘ayratini sarflashi bilan cheklanadi. Bu ta’rifga ko‘ra, ulamolardan mazhab imomining so‘zlarini sharhlaydigan, uning so‘zlarini tushunishga urinib, undan hukmlar chiqaradigan yoki shar’iy dalillar vositasisiz ba’zi ulamolarning fikrini boshqalarning fikridan ustun qo‘yadigan kishilar — ularning hech biri mujtahid hisoblanmaydi. Ijtihod tartibi faqat shariat matnlarini tushunishga cheklanadi, bunda Allohning hukmini bilish maqsadida ushbu tushunishga erishish yo'lida barcha kuch-g'ayratni sarflash lozim. Demak, shariat matnlari tushunish obyekti bo'lib, ular shariat hukmlaridan biror narsa haqida fikr so'rash obyekti hamdir.

Ijtihād has been defined as the expenditure of effort, seeking the (preponderate) opinion about a thing from the Sharī’ah rules in a manner in which the mujtahid feels unable to exert any more i.e, it is the comprehension of the Sharī’ah text from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah after exerting ones outmost in arriving at this comprehension in order to gain cognizance of the Sharī’ah rule. This means three issues need to be fulfilled in the inference (istinbat) of the Sharī’ah rule until it can be said he has made the inference with a legitimate Ijtihād that is, three issues have to be met until the action can be called an Ijtihād: First, exerting effort in a manner he feels himself unable to exert any more. Second, this exertion should be in search for a preponderate opinion about an issue from the Sharī’ah rules. And third, this opinion about an issue should be from the Sharī’ah texts because seeking a thing from the Sharī’ah rules is not possible if it is not from the Sharī’ah texts and that is because the hukm Shar’i is the address of the Legislator regarding the actions of the servants. This means the one who does not exert effort he is not considered a mujtahid. And whoever exerts effort seeking the (preponderate) opinion in other than the Sharī’ah rules from disciplines and views, he is not considered a mujtahid. And whoever seeks an opinion from the Sharī’ah rules from other than the Sharī’ah texts he is not considered a mujtahid. So the mujtahid is restricted in what he exerts his utmost effort in understanding the Sharī’ah texts on order to know the hukm of Allah . Anything other than that in terms of the Ulama; who explain the sayings of the imam of their mazhab (school of thought), attempt to comprehend his sayings and deduce rulings from it, or outweigh the opinion of some Ulama over the opinion of others without the medium of the Sharī’ah evidences etc, None of them are considered mujtahids according to this definition. The order of Ijtihād is restricted to the comprehension of the Sharī’ah texts after exerting the utmost effort in the path of arriving at this comprehension in order to know the hukm of Allah . So the Sharī’ah texts are the object of comprehension and they are the object of seeking the opinion about a thing from the Sharī’ah rules.

Shuni aniq bilish kerakki, shariat matnlari Qur'on va Sunnatdir va boshqasi emas. Har qanday boshqa matn, uni kim aytganidan qat'i nazar, shariat matni hisoblanmaydi. Shunday ekan, Abu Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿAli yoki sahobalardan boshqa birining so'zlari hech qanday tarzda shariat matnlari hisoblanmaydi. Xuddi shunday, Ja'far, al-Shofiʿiy, Molik va boshqa mujtahidlarning so'zlari ham shariat matnlari sanalmaydi. Demak, o'sha kishilarning yoki boshqa har qanday insonning, kim bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, so'zlaridan hukm chiqarishga harakat qilish ijtihod hisoblanmaydi. Balki bu hukm chiqargan shaxsning o'z fikri hisoblanadi va shariatda uning hech qanday qiymati yo'q. Bundan tashqari, sahoba, tobiun, mujtahidlar yoki boshqalarning biror kishisining so'zidan hukm chiqarish shariat tomonidan ruxsat etilmagan, chunki bu Qur'on va Sunnatdan boshqa manbadan shariat hukmini chiqarishdir. Shariatda bu harom, chunki bu Alloh nozil qilgan narsa bilan emas, balki boshqa narsa bilan hukm qilishdir. Alloh nozil qilgan narsa esa Kitob va Sunnat bilan cheklangan bo'lgani uchun, Qur'on va Sunnatdan boshqa har qanday narsa Allohning vahyi emas. Shu sababli, undan hukm olish Alloh nozil qilmagan narsani qabul qilishdan boshqa narsa emas. Alloh nozil qilganiga muvofiq bo'lmagan hukm esa, albatta, harомdir.

What should be clear is that the Sharī’ah texts are the Quran and the Sunnah and none other. Any other text is not considered a Sharī’ah text whatever the status of the one who said it. So the sayings of Abu Bakr , ‘Umar , Ali  or any other from the Sahabah  are not considered as Sharī’ah texts in any way whatsoever. Likewise the statements of Mujtahidin such as Ja’far, al Shafi’i, Malik and other Mujtahidin are not considered Sharī’ah texts at all. So exerting effort in deducing a rule, from the statements of those people or any other human being whoever they may be is not considered Ijtihād. Rather it is considered as the opinion of the person himself who made the inference and it has no value in the Sharī’ah. Not to mention that the deduction of a hukm from the saying of any individual from the Sahabah, Tabi’een, Mujtahidin and others is not allowed by the Sharī’ah since it is an inference of a Sharī’ah rule from a source other than the Qur’ān and Sunnah. This is harām in the Sharī’ah because it is judging by other than what Allah  has revealed. And because what Allah  has revealed is restricted to the Kitab and Sunnah, any thing other than the Qur’ān and Sunnah is not from Allah’s  revelation. So adopting a hukm from it is nothing more than adopting something Allah  has not revealed. And a hukm which is not according to what Allah  has revealed is definitely harām.

Qur’on va Sunnat arab tilida. Kitob va Sunnat Allohdan vahiy sifatida kelgan — ham ma’no va lafz jihatidan, masalan Qur’on, ham faqat ma’no jihatidan. Payg‘ambar ﷺ bu ma’noni o‘z so‘zlari bilan ifodalagan, bu hadisdir. Qanday bo‘lmasin, ular (ya’ni Qur’on va Sunnat) Allohning Elchisi ﷺ so‘zlashgan arab tilidadir. Bu nutq yo faqat lug‘aviy ma’noga ega bo‘ladi, masalan «mutrafin» (boy-badavlat kishilar) so‘zi kabi, yoki faqat shar’iy ma’noga ega bo‘ladi, bunda lug‘aviy ma’no unutiladi, masalan «g‘oyit» so‘zida bo‘lganidek, yoki ham lug‘aviy, ham shar’iy ma’noga ega bo‘ladi, masalan «tahara» so‘zida, «tahhara» (poklamoq) va «mutahhirun» (pokланганлар) misollarida bo‘lganidek. Shu sababli uni tushunish uchun matnni tushunib, Allohning hukmiga yetish imkoni bo‘lguncha lug‘at va shar’iy ilmlarga tayanish lozim. Natijada, ijtihodning barcha shartlari ana shu ikki narsa atrofida aylanadi, ular: lug‘aviy va shar’iy ilmlarning mavjudligidir. Islomning boshlanishidan hijriy ikkinchi asrning oxirigacha musulmonlarga shar’iy matnlarni tushunish uchun, na lug‘aviy, na shar’iy nuqtai nazardan, maxsus qoidalar kerak bo‘lmagan. Buning sababi, ularning Allohning Elchisi ﷺ davriga yaqinligi va hayotdagi yagona qaygʻusi dinning o‘zi bo‘lgani edi. Bunga ularning tilining sofligi va tilining pokligi ham sabab bo‘lgan. Shuning uchun ijtihodning ma’lum shartlari bo‘lmagan. Ammo ijtihod masalasi keng ma’lum edi. Mujtahidlar esa minglab sanalgan. Barcha sahobalar mujtahid bo‘lgan, deyarli hukmdorlar, hokimlar va qozilarning ko‘pchiligi mujtahidlardan bo‘lgan. Biroq arab tili buzila boshlagach, uni tuzatish uchun maxsus qoidalar belgilab qo‘yildi. Dunyoga berilib ketgan odamlar ko'paygan, dinni (o'rganishga) bag'ishlangan kishilar kamayib, Rasul ﷺ tiliga ahadis mansub qilishda yolg'on keng tarqalgan vaqtda, nasx (nosix va mansux) qoidalari, ahadislarni qabul qilish yoki rad etish qoidalari, ohat va hadisdan hukmni istinbot qilish usulini tushunish qoidalari vaz etildi. Bularning hammasi yuz bergach, mujtahidlar soni kamaydi va mujtahid o'z ijtihodini muayyan qoidalarga tayangan holda olib bora boshladi; bu qoidalar orqali u boshqalarning qoidalaridan farq qiladigan muayyan xulosalarga keldi. Bu qoidalar esa ikki yo'l bilan shakllandi: yo matnlardan hukm chiqarishda ko'p mashq qilish orqali, go'yo ular unga faqat bir yo'l bo'yicha yurish uchun belgilab qo'yilgandek; yoki u ma'lum qoidalarga amal qildi va so'ng ularga muvofiq hukm chiqara boshladi. Natijada mujtahid Shariat matnlarini tushunishda va Shariat hukmini ulardan olishda muayyan uslubga ko'ra ijtihod qiladigan bo'ldi. Ba'zi mujtahidlar birovning ijtihod usulida unga ergashdilar, ammo hukmlarida unga ergashmay, o'sha kishining uslubiga ko'ra hukmlarni o'zlari chiqardilar. Ba'zi musulmonlar Shariat ilmlaridan biror narsada chuqur bilimga ega bo'lib, o'ziga taqdim etilgan muayyan masalalarda, barcha masalalarda emas, Shariat hukmi yuzasidan fikr olishga harakat qildilar. Aslida, shu sababli musulmonlar orasida uch turdagi mujtahidlar paydo bo'ldi: mujtahidi mutlaq (mutlaq ijtihod qiluvchi), mujtahidi mazhab (muayyan mazhab doirasidagi mujtahid) va mujtahidi mas'ala (bitta masala doirasidagi mujtahid).

Mujtahid mazhab esa boshqa mujtahidlarning ijtihod usulini kuzatadigan, lekin ahkomda o'zi ijtihod qiladigan va o'z mazhabining imomiga ergashmaydigan kishidir. Mujtahid mazhab bo'lish uchun mazhabning hukmlari va dalillarini bilishdan boshqa hech qanday shart yo'q. U mazhab hukmlariga amal qilishi yoki o'z fikri bilan ularga, o'sha mazhab doirasida, muxolif bo'lishi mumkin. Shu sababli mazhabga ergashuvchi kishi, agar unga biror dalil kuchliroq ko'rinsa, o'sha mazhab doirasida ijtihod qilishi va ba'zi hukm va masalalarda mazhab imomiga muxolif bo'lishi joizdir. Imomlardan ularning shunday degani rivoyat qilingan:

As for the mujtahid mazhab he is someone who follows other Mujtahiddin in their methodology of Ijtihād, however he exercises Ijtihād in ahkām but does not imitate the imam of his school. There are no conditions for the mujtahid mazhab except having knowledge of the rules and evidences of the mazhab and he is allowed to follow the rules of the mazhab or disagree with them with his own opinion within the same mazhab. Due to this, it is allowed for the one who follows a mazhab to exercise Ijtihād within this mazhab and disagree with the imam of the mazhab in some rules and issues if an evidence appears to him to be stronger. It has been reported about the imams that they used to say

Ulardan eng aniq misollardan biri imom G‘azzoliydir. U Shofi‘iy mazhabiga ergashgan edi, lekin uning mazhabida shunday ijtihodlari bor ediki, ular bizzat imom Shofi‘iyning ijtihodlariga zid kelardi. Ikkinchisi – mujtahid masalasidir. Uning aniq shartlari yoki maxsus usuli yo‘q. Lekin Shariat ba’zi ilmlarini va shariat matnlarini tushunishga imkon beruvchi tilshunoslik fanlarini bilgan kishiga, bitta masalada ijtihod qilishi joizdir. Demak, unga bitta masalada mujtahidlarning qarashlarini, dalillarini va ularning fikr yuritish yo‘lini o‘rganishi, shu asosda eng kam shubha bilan hukmi shar’iy deb bilgan ma’noni anglashi joiz bo‘ladi – u fikr mujtahidlarning qarashiga mos kelsinmi yoki unga zid bo‘lsinmi, farqi yo‘q. Bitta masalada unga shariat dalillarini o‘rganib, bu masala mujtahidlar tomonidan oldin o‘rganilganmi yoki yo‘qmi, shunga qaramay, eng kam shubha bilan hukmi shar’iy deb bilgan narsani tushunishi joiz bo‘ladi. Mujtahid bitta masalada faqat shu masalaga tegishli narsalarni bilishi kifoya qiladi va buni anglashi shart; lekin u bu masalaga aloqasi bo‘lmagan, usul va fiqh (huquqshunoslik) masalalariga oid boshqa narsalardan xabarsiz bo‘lsa, unda zarar yo‘q.

One of the clearest examples for this is that of imam Ghazali who was a follower of the Shafi’i mazhab, but he had Ijtihāds in the mazhab of Shafi’i which contradicted the Ijtihāds of al-Shafi’i himself. The second is the mujtahid mas’ala. He has no specific conditions or method. However, it is allowed for whoever has knowledge of some of the Sharī’ah and linguistic disciples which enables him to understand the Sharī’ah texts, to exercise Ijtihād in a single issue. So it is allowed for him, in a single issue, to study the views and evidences of mujtahiddin, and their line of reasoning and from that he can reach a specific understanding of the hukm Shar’i which he presumes with the least amount of doubt to be the hukm Shar’i whether it agrees with the opinion of the Mujtahiddin or disagrees with it. In a single issue it is allowed for him to study the Sharī’ah evidences and understand from it what he deems with least amount of doubt to be the hukm Shar’i whether this issue has been previously studied by the Mujtahiddin or not. It suffices for the mujtahid in a single issue to be knowledgable about whatever relates to that issue, and it is essential that he is cognizant of that, but there is no harm if he is unaware of issues not related to it, from matters related to Usul and fiqh (jurispudence).

Va Sahoba va Tobe'inlar davridagi ahvol hamda mazhablar va imomlar paydo bo'lganidan keyin yuz bergan voqealardan tashqari, shariat matnlarini tushunib, Sahoba davridagidek hech qanday shartlarsiz ulardan to'g'ridan-to'g'ri hukmlar chiqaradigan kishilar ham bo'lgan. Ma'lum bir mazhabga ergashib davom etgan, ammo o'z imomlarining fikriga zid ijtihodlari bo'lgan kishilar ham bo'lgan. Demak, voqelikka ko'ra, mujtahid mazhab va mujtahid masala mavjud bo'lgan. Bu voqelik nuqtayi nazaridan shunday. Ijtihodning o'ziga kelsak, uni qismlarga bo'lish mumkin. Shuning uchun bir kishi ba'zi matnlarda mujtahid bo'lib, boshqalarida mujtahid bo'lmasligi mumkin. Ayrim kishilarning, ijtihod qobiliyati barcha e'tirof etilgan ilmlarni bilganda hosil bo'ladi, degan fikriga kelsak, bunday ta'rifning asosi yo'q va u voqelikka mos kelmaydi, chunki kishi qobiliyatga ega bo'lishi, lekin masalani o'rganishning mashaqqatini o'z zimmasiga olmagani uchun mujtahid bo'lmasligi mumkin. Chunki malaka fahm va bog'liqlikning kuchini bildiradi. Uni juda zakiy bo'lgan, til va shariat ilmlaridan ozroq xabardor kishi ham egallashi mumkin va u til hamda shariat ilmlarining hammasini o'zida jamlashga muhtoj emas. Shariat va til ilmlarini o'qish hamda ta'lim olish tufayli bilim sifatida mavjud bo'lishi mumkin, ammo bu olimda fikrlash bo'lmagani uchun malaka mavjud bo'lmasligi mumkin. Ijtihod esa natijalari ko'rinadigan, amalda hukm chiqarish uchun harakat qilishdan iborat aniq jarayondir. Malaka mavjudligi esa ijtihod deb atalmaydi. Shunday qilib, kishi ba'zi masalalarda ijtihod qila oladi, boshqalarida esa qila olmaydi. U furu'da ijtihod qila olishi, ammo boshqa sohalarda qila olmasligi mumkin. Demak, ijtihodning bo'linishi aniq bo'lib qoladi, lekin ijtihodning bo'linishi shuni anglatmaydiki, mujtahid fiqh sohalarining ba'zilarida ijtihod qila oladi, boshqalarida esa qila olmaydi. Balki ijtihodning bo'linishi ma'nosi shuki, ayrim dalillarni ularning aniqligi va noaniqlikdan xoliligi tufayli tushunish mumkin. Dalillarni tushuna olmaslik esa ularning chuqurligi va murakkabligi, shuningdek, bir-biriga zid ko'rinadigan turli dalillarning mavjudligi tufaylidir. Bu holat usul asoslarida (qawa'id usuliyya) yoki shariat hukmlarida yuz berishi mumkin. Shunday ekan, ijtihodning bo'linishi xulosa chiqarish qobiliyatiga nisbatandir, fiqh sohalariga nisbatan emas.

Va U dedi:

And He  said:

Ikki oyat ham guvohlik berish haqida. Birinchisi guvohlar musulmonlar orasidan bo‘lishi kerakligini bildiradi. Ikkinchisi esa guvohlar musulmonlar va musulmon bo‘lmaganlar orasidan bo‘lishi mumkinligini bildiradi. Ya’ni birinchi oyat guvohning musulmon bo‘lishini shart qilib qo‘yadi, oxirgisi esa guvohning musulmon bo‘lmagan kishi bo‘lishiga ruxsat beradi. Ularning qanday uyg‘unlashtirilishini bilish muhimdir, ya’ni birinchi oyat guvohlik masalasida mutlaq ekanini, ikkinchi oyat esa safarda vasiyat (vasiyya) guvohligini muqayyad qilishini bilish zarur. Ikkinchi oyat vasiyat paytida va shunga o‘xshash tijorat muomalalarida musulmon bo‘lmaganlarning guvohligiga ruxsat berishini bilish kerak. Boshqa narsalarda esa bu hukm yanada kuchliroq ravishda shunday bo‘lishi lozim. Shuningdek, ushbu ikki oyat guvohlik adolatli ikki guvohdan bo‘lishi kerakligini ko‘rsatadi. Buni Allohning quyidagi so‘zi bilan tasdiqlangan boshqa oyat ham qo‘llab-quvvatlaydi:

Both ayāt are about giving testimony. The first states that the witnesses should be from the Muslims. The second states that they should be from Muslims and from non-muslims. i.e, the first ayah stipulates that the witness be a Muslim while the latter permits the witness to be a non muslim. It is essential to know the way in which they are reconciled that is, it is essential to know that the first ayah is unrestricted (mutlaq) with regards to testimony and the second restricts (muqayyad) the testimony of bequests (wasiyya) on journeys. It must be known that the second ayah permits the testimony of non-muslims at the time of the bequest and the like in terms of commercial transactions. It is by greater reason that this should be the case in other things. As well, those two verses indicate that the evidence should be (from) two just witnesses. It is supported by another ayah which is the saying of Allah :

Bu Sahihi Buxoriydagi Payg'ambarimiz ﷺ ning emizish (rada') masalasida bitta ayolning guvohligini qabul qilgani va da'vogarning qasami bilan bitta guvohning guvohligini qabul qilgani haqidagi rivoyatlar bilan qanday mos keladi? Ibn 'Abbos rivoyat qilgan:

How does that fit in with what has been established in the Sahih (of Bukhari) about the Prophet  that he accepted the testimony of one woman in regard to fosterage (rada’a)? And that he accepted the testimony of a single witness with an oath of the plaintiff? Narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas:

Yana bir hadisda, uni Jobir rivoyat qiladi

In another Hadith which is narrated by Jabir

Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib rivoyat qilgan:

It is narrated by Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib:

Görünishiga ko‘ra dalillar o‘rtasida ziddiyat bor. Biroq, masalani tekshirayotgan mujtahid oyat va hadislarda zikr etilgan son guvohlikda eng to‘liq son ekanini topadi. To‘liq son bajarilmasa, boshqa har qanday sonning qabul qilinmasligi degani emas, chunki nisob guvohlik mas’uliyatini olishga taalluqlidir. Qozining o‘z vazifasini ado etishi va hukm chiqarishiga kelsak, guvohlar soni belgilanmagan, balki belgilangan narsa dalildir — ya’ni da’vogar (sohib al-haqq) qasami bilan birga bitta ayol yoki bitta erkakning guvohligi bilan ham haqiqatni ochib beradigan har qanday narsa. Ammo agar shariat matni zino haqidagi guvohlikdagi kabi guvohlar sonini belgilab kelgan bo‘lsa, u holda matn bilan cheklanadi. Shuningdek, Payg‘ambar ﷺ Uhud jangida mushriklarni qaytardi. U ularni musulmonlar bilan birga jangda ishtirok etishga qabul qilmadi. U ﷺ shunday dedi:

It seems that there is a contradiction between the evidences. However the mujtahid who scrutinises the issue finds that what the ayah and the ahadith mention is the most complete number in testimony. If the complete number is not met it does not mean any other number is not accepted, since the nisab (number) concerns taking up the responsibility of testimony. As for the judge’s discharging of his duty and ruling, the number of witnesses has not been stipulated but what is stipulated is the proof, which is whatever will demonstrate the truth even by the testimony of a single woman or single man along with the oath of the plaintiff (sahib al-haqq). However, if the Sharī’ah text has come specifying the number of witnesses as in the testimony for fornication, then it is restricted by the text. Also, the Prophet  rejected the Mushrikin at the battle of Uhud. He did not accept them to participate with the Muslims in the battle. He  said:

Lekin u Hunayn jangida mushriklarning yordamini qabul qildi. Bu ikki dalil o'rtasini qanday muvofiqlashtirish kerak? Mujtahid bilishi kerakki, Payg'ambar ﷺ Uhud jangida mushriklarning yordamini qabul qilmagan va ulardan yordam so'ramagan, chunki ular o'z bayrog'i ostida jang qilishni xohlagan, zero ular o'z bayrog'i bilan ajralib turish uchun kelgan edi. Demak, uning rad etishining sababi (ʼillat) bor, u ham bo'lsa, ular o'z bayrog'i va davlati ostida jang qilayotgan edi. U Hunayn jangida ularning yordamini qabul qildi va so'radi, chunki ular Payg'ambarning ﷺ bayrog'i ostida jang qilayotgan edi. Ulardan yordam so'rashni rad etishning ʼillati yo'q, shuning uchun yordam so'rash joiz. Shu izoh va boshqa shunga o'xshash misollar bilan dalillar ziddiyati barham topadi.

But he accepted the help of the Mushrikin at Hunayn. How are those two evidences to be reconciled? The mujtahid should know that the Messenger  did not accept the Mushrikin at Uhud and refused to seek their help because they wished to fight under their own banner since they came distinguishing themselves with it. So his refusal has an ‘illah (reason), which is that they were fighting under their own banner and state. He  accepted and sought their help in Hunayn because they fought under the banner of the Messenger . The ‘illah of refusing to seek help from them is absent so seeking help is allowed. And with this clarification and other such examples the conflict of evidences cease.

Shunday qilib, dalillarni tushunish va ularni solishtirish qobiliyati asosiy shartdir. Binobarin, mujtahid mutlaq shariat hukmlarini farqlashni, ularning turlarini, ularni isbotlash usullarini, ma’nolaridan dalolatlarining (wujuh dalālatiha ala madlulatiha) jihatlarini, darajalar farqini va e’tirof etilgan shartlarni bilishi shart. Shuningdek, dalillar bir-biriga zid kelganda ularni tarjih qilish yo‘llarini bilishi kerak. Bu esa uni ruvotlar (ruwwa) bilan tanish bo‘lishga, rad etish va tasdiqlash usullarini (jarh va ta’dil) bilishga majbur qiladi hamda matnlardagi nozil bo‘lish sabablarini (asbab nuzul) va nosix va mansux masalasini bilishga undaydi.

So the ability to comprehend the textual evidences and to compare them is a basic condition. Consequently, the mujtahid mutlaq must be conversant with discernment of the Sharī’ah rules and their divisions, ways of establishing them, aspects of their textual implications from their meanings (wujuh dalālatiha ala madlulatiha,) difference of levels and recognised conditions. And he must know the angles of outweighing them when they contradict. This obliges him to be acquainted with transmitters (ruwwa), methods of invalidation and attestation (jarh wa ta’dīl), and he should be familiar with the causes of revelation (asbab nuzul) and abrogation (nasikh wa mansukh) in the texts.

Matnli ma'noning dalolatlarini bilish (dalālat al-lafz) arab tilini bilishni talab qiladi. Arab tilini bilish orqali kishi iboralarning ma'nosini, ularning balog'at jihatlarini va ma'nolarini, shuningdek, bir so'z borasida mavjud ixtilofni ishonchli rivoyat qiluvchilarga va lug'atshunos olimlarning bu haqdagi so'zlariga murojaat qilmaguncha bilib oladi. Lug'atdan "qur'" so'zi tozalik va hayz holatini bildirishini, "nikoh" so'zi jinsiy aloqa va nikoh shartnomasini anglatishini bilishning o'zi yetarli emas. U umumiy ma'noda arab tilini, ya'ni grammatika, sarf (so'z yasalishi va o'zgarishi), balog'at, iboralar va boshqa jihatlarni bilishi kerak. Bu uni arablarning tili va balog'atli kishilarning odatiga ko'ra bir so'z va jumlaning ma'nosini o'rganishga, arab tili kitoblarini tekshirib, kerakli narsani ulardan tushunishga imkon beradi. Lekin bu uning tilning tarmoqlarida mujtahid bo'lishi shart degani emas. Al-Asma'iy kabi tilshunos yoki Sibavayh kabi grammatik bo'lishi shart emas. Uning uchun iboralarning ko'rsatgan ma'nolarini (dalolat al-alfaz), jumlalarni va uslublarni, masalan, mutobaqa (muvofiqlik), tadmin (ma'noni ichiga olish), haqiqat (to'g'ri ma'no), majoz (ko'chma ma'no), kinoya (yashirin ishora), mushtarak (ko'p ma'noli so'z), muterodif (ma'nodosh so'z) va boshqalarni farqlay oladigan darajada uslub ilmini bilish kifoya. Qisqasi, mutlaq ijtihod darajasiga faqat ikki sifatga ega bo'lgan kishi erishishi mumkin: birinchidan, matnli dalillarni tushunish orqali shariat maqsadlarini (maqosid) anglash; ikkinchidan, arab tilini, uning iboralari, jumlalari va uslublarining ma'nolarini tushunish. Shu yo'l bilan hukmlarni tushunish asosida chiqarish mumkin bo'ladi. Mujtahid bo‘lish uchun u har bir matnni qamrab olishi va istalgan hukmni chiqara olishi shart emas, chunki mutlaq mujtahid ko‘p masalalarda mujtahid bo‘lishi mumkin, mutlaq ijtihod darajasiga yetgan bo‘lishi mumkin. Va u o‘zidan tashqaridagi ba’zi masalalarni bilmasa ham, mutlaq mujtahidning sharti barcha masalalarni, masalalarning barcha hukmlarini va ularni farqlashni bilishi emas. Shunga ko‘ra, mutlaq mujtahidning mavjudligi qiyin ish emas, balki haqiqatan ham qat’iy niyat qilinsa, bu mumkin va amalga oshirilishi mumkin. Mujtahid mas’ala darajasiga tilshunoslik va shariat ilmlaridan zarur bo‘lganini o‘rganganidan keyin hamma erishishi mumkin.