Shar'iy dalil hukmning shar'iy hukm ekanligining isbotidir. Shuning uchun hukmning shariat qoidasi sifatida qabul qilinishi uning dalilini e'tiborga olishga bog'liqdir. Demak, dalilning hukmi haqidagi muhokama shariat qoidalarini e'tiborga olishning asosidir. Biror voqea uchun uning hukmi shu yoki bu ekanligini isbotlaydigan munosib dalil mavjud bo'lsa, bu hukm o'sha voqea uchun dalilini e'tiborga olish asosida shariat qoidasi hisoblanadi. Lekin agar bir voqea uchun ikkita munosib dalil bo'lsa: biri ma'lum hukmni, masalan, harom qilishni (hurma) ko'rsatsa, ikkinchisi boshqa hukmni, masalan, ruxsat berishni (ibaha) ko'rsatsa, unda ulardan birini ikkinchisidan ustun qo'yish (tarjeeh) kerak bo'ladi, to shunda uning dalili boshqasidan kuchliroq deb qabul qilib, hukm chiqarish mumkin bo'lguncha. Shu sababli, eng kuchli dalilni boshqalardan ustun qo'yib qabul qilishni osonlashtirish uchun, isbot sifatida ishlatiladigan munosib dalillarni tarjeeh qilish yo'llarini bilish lozim. Eng kuchli dalilni tarjeeh qilish va unga amal qilish majburiyatining dalili sahobalarning ijmosidir. Ular Oisha roziyallohu anhoning rivoyatini ikki xatna qilingan joyning tegishi masalasida ustun qo'yganlar. Uning so'zi:

The Sharī’ah evidence is a proof that the hukm it denotes is a hukm shar’i. Therefore, the consideration of a hukm as a Sharī’ah rule depends on the consideration of its evidence. Consequently, the discussion about the judgement of an evidence is the basis in considering the Sharī’ah rules. When there is a suitable evidence for an incident to prove that its hukm is such and such, then this hukm is considered a Sharī’ah rule for that incident based on the consideration of its evidence. However, if there are two appropriate evidences for an incident; one indicates a certain hukm, a prohibition (hurma) for example and the other indicates a different hukm such as permissibility (ibaha). Then we must outweigh (tarjeeh) one of the evidences over the other until it becomes possible to adopt a hukm on the premise that its evidence is stronger than the other. Therefore, one must know the angles of outweighing (tarjeeh) the appropriate evidences that are used as proof so as to facilitate adopting the strongest evidence by outweighing it over other evidences. The evidence for the obligation of outweighing and acting upon the strongest evidence, that is, the strongest evidence, is the ijma’ of the Sahabah (May Allah be pleased with them for that). So, they (the Sahabah) outweighed the report of ‘A'isha  with regards to the touching of the two circumcised parts. Her statement:

Ular uning gapini ortiqcha deb hisoblashdi, Abu Sa’id al-Xudriy rivoyat qilgan hadis tufayli, u aytdi: Payg‘ambar ﷺ dedilar:

They outweighed her saying over the report of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said that the Prophet PBUH said:

Bu, Payg'ambarning ﷺ xotinlari bu masalalarni erkaklardan ko'ra yaxshiroq bilganliklari sababli edi. Sahobalar ham Payg'ambarning ﷺ xotinlaridan birining rivoyat qilganicha, u zot tong vaqtida junub holatida uyg'onar edilar, degan xabarni, Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan, al-Fadl ibn Abbosdan naql qilingan, Payg'ambarning ﷺ shunday degan so'zlariga qarshi bo'lgan rivoyatdan ustun qo'yishgan.

This is because the wives of the Prophet PBUH were more versed about these matters than the men. The Sahabah also outweighed the report of one of his PBUH wives who narrated that he used to wake up in the morning in a state of janaba (major ritual impurity) against what Abu Hurairah  reported from al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet PBUH said:

Xuddi shunga o'xshab, 'Ali ibn Abi Tolib Abu Bakrning rivoyatini kuchliroq deb topdi, shu sababli uni boshqalarga qilganidek qasamga chaqirmadi. Xuddi shunga o'xshab, Abu Bakr al-Mug'iraning buvining merosi haqidagi rivoyatini, unga qo'shimcha ravishda Muhammad ibn Maslama tomonidan rivoyat qilingan narsa sababli, kuchliroq deb topdi. Shuningdek, 'Umar Abu Muso al-Ash'ariyning isti'zon (ruxsat so'rash) haqidagi rivoyatini Abu Sa'id al-Xudriy rivoyati bilan tasdiqlangandan keyin kuchliroq deb topdi. Sahoba fikrlar va qiyosni matnlarni shu darajada o'rganmasdan turib, undan ortiq borish imkoni bo'lmagunicha, tarjih qilmagan. Ularning ahvolini diqqat bilan kuzatib, ijtihodlarining haqiqatlarini ko'rgan kishi shubhasiz bilib oladiki, ular ikki zanniy dalildan kuchsizi o'rniga kuchliroq dalilni qo'llashni majburiy deb bilishgan. Buni Payg'ambar ﷺ Mu'azni qozi sifatida Yamanga yuborganida, dalillar tartibi va bir dalilning boshqasidan ustunligi haqidagi qabul qilishlari ham ko'rsatadi.

In a similar way ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib found the report of Abu Bakr stronger, thus he did not put him to oath as he did with others. In a similar way abu Bakr found the report of al-Mughira about the inheritance of the grandmother stronger due to what was narrated in addition to it by Muhammad ibn Maslama. Also, ‘Umar found the report of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari about the isti’zan (seeking permission) stronger after it has been corroborated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri’s narration. The Sahabah did not outweigh opinions and analogies except after studying the texts up to the point that it was not possible to go (in study) any further. Whoever scrutinises their situation and observes the facts of their Ijtihādat will come to know without any doubt whatsoever that they used to oblige the use of a preponderant evidence as opposed to a weaker one from two speculative (zanni) evidences. This is also indicated by the Prophet’s  acceptance of Mu’az, when he sent him to Yemen as a judge, on the order of evidences and the precedence of one evidence over the other.

Lekin ikki dalil o'zaro ziddiyatga kelganda, ularning birini ikkinchisidan ustun qo'yishga murojaat qilish to'g'ri bo'lmaydi, faqat ikkalasini birgalikda qo'llash imkoni bo'lmagan hollar bundan mustasno. Agar ikkalasiga ham amal qilish mumkin bo'lsa, bu yaxshiroqdir, chunki dalillardan birortasini butunlay e'tiborsiz qoldirishdan ko'ra ikkalasiga ham amal qilish afzalroqdir, zero dalilning asli amal qilinishi, e'tibordan chetda qoldirilishi emas. Bundan tashqari, ikki dalilga bahona va uydirmalar orqali amal qilish to'g'ri emas, balki matnning ko'rsatmasi asosida amal qilinishi kerak. Ikki ziddiyatli dalilni birgalikda qo'llashga misol qilib Nabiy ﷺ ning so'zlarini keltirish mumkin:

However, when two evidences conflict it will not be correct to resort to the outweighing of one evidence over the other except in the event when it not possible to use both of them together. If it is possible to act upon both of them that is better, since it is better to act upon both evidences than to disregard one of them altogether because an evidence in principle is to act upon and not to disregard. Furthermore, it is not correct to act upon both evidences through excuses and pretexts but according to the indication of the text. An example of using two conflicting evidences is the saying of the Prophet :

Uning sozi:

And his saying :

Demak, Elchi (ﷺ) shohidlik berishga chaqirilmasdan oldin shohidlik bergan kishini maqtadi, va u shohidlik berishga chaqirilmasdan oldin shohidlik bergan kishini tanqid qildi. Shunday qilib, Payg'ambarning (ﷺ) shohidlikni so'ralmasdan oldin bergan kishini maqtashi bu ishning Shar'iy qonun chiqaruvchi tomonidan buyurilganini bildiradi. Payg'ambarning (ﷺ) shohidlikni so'ralmasdan oldin bergan kishini tanqid qilishi esa bu ishning Shar'iy qonun chiqaruvchi tomonidan man etilganini bildiradi. Bu ikki dalil o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir va ularning murosasi shundaki: Allohning haqqi bo'yicha shohidlik berilganda, Shariat uni so'ralmasdan ham berishni buyurgan. Bandaning haqqi bo'yicha shohidlik berilganda esa, Shariat shohidning uni so'ralmasdan oldin berishini man etgan. Ikkala dalil bo'yicha ham amal qilishga harakat qilish juda muhimdir. Agar ularni birga amalga oshirish mumkin bo'lmasa va ular kuch hamda umumiylik jihatidan teng bo'lsa-yu, bir-biriga zid kelsa, u holda ularni tekshirib chiqish kerak. Agar keyingi dalil ma'lum bo'lsa, u oldingi dalilni bekor qiladi, ikkala dalil ham qat'iy (qat'iy) yoki taxminiy (zanniy) bo'lsin, Qur'ondan yoki Sunnatdan bo'lsin. Ikkala dalil bir vaqtning o'zida ham Qur'ondan, ham Sunnatdan bo'lishi mumkin emas, chunki Sunnat, hatto mutavotir (ommaviy rivoyat) bo'lsa ham, Qur'onni bekor qilmaydi. Keyingi dalil noma'lum bo'lganda esa, ikkalasi ham zanniy bo'lishi kerak, chunki qat'iy dalillar bir-biriga zid kelmaydi. Agar ular zanniy bo'lsa, ularning kuchi solishtirilishi va kuchliroq dalil qo'llanishi kerak. Dalilning kuchi deganda, uning dalillar tartibidagi kuchi va zanniy dalillarning har bir turida xulosani ko'rib chiqish darajasidagi kuchi nazarda tutiladi. Dalillar tartibiga kelsak, Qur'on Sunnatdan kuchliroqdir, hatto Sunnat mutavotir bo'lsa ham. Mutavotir (ketma-ket rivoyat qilingan) sunnat ijmoʼdan kuchliroqdir, va ketma-ket rivoyat qilingan ijmoʼ yakka xabar (khabar al-ahad)dan kuchliroqdir. Yakka xabar (khabar al-ahad) qiyosdan (analogiya) kuchliroqdir, agar uning illati ishora (dalola), istidlol yoki qiyos orqali olingan bo‘lsa. Agar uning illati ochiq-oydin ifodalangan bo‘lsa, u illatni aniq bayon qilgan matn kabi hisoblanadi va dalil kuchi jihatidan o‘z hukmini oladi. Agar matn Qur’on bo‘lsa, uning hukmi Qur’onning hukmi bo‘ladi, agar sunnat bo‘lsa, uning hukmi sunnatning hukmi bo‘ladi. Agar u ijmoʼ bilan dalolat qilingan bo‘lsa, ijmoʼning hukmi olinadi. Taxmin (zanniy) dalillarning har bir turidagi istidlolni hisobga olish jihatidan, taxminiy dalillar ikki turga bo‘linadi: birinchisi sunnat, ikkinchisi qiyosdir. Har birining dalillarni tarjih qilishda o‘ziga xos e’tibor jihatlari bor, ya’ni dalilning kuchiga asoslangan holda. Sunnatga kelsak, unga nisbatan dalilning kuchi uning isnod (rivoyat zanjiri) jihatidan kuchi, matn jihatidan kuchi va ma’no jihatidan kuchi demakdir. Sunnat dalilining isnod jihatidan kuchi quyidagi masalalarga asoslanadi:

So the Messenger  praised the one who gave witness before he was called to give testimony, and he  criticised the one who gave witness before he was called to give testimony. Thus, the Prophet’s  praise of the one who gave witness before he was asked to give it indicates that it has been ordered by the Legislator. And the Prophet’s  criticism of the one who gave witness before he was asked to give testimony indicates that it has been prohibited by the Legislator. This is a contradiction between the two evidences, and their reconciliation is: that giving testimony regarding a right of Allah , the Sharī’ah has ordered to provide it without being requested to do so. And giving testimony regarding a right of the servant, the Sharī’ah has forbade that the witness testifies before he is asked to do so. It is absolutely essential that one attempts to act upon both the evidences. If it is not possible to practise them both together and they contradict despite being equal in strength and generality, then it must be looked into. If the later evidence is known then it abrogates the earlier one whether both evidences were definite (qat’i) or speculative (zanni), whether from the Quran or Sunnah. Both evidences cannot be from the Quran and Sunnah at the same time because the Sunnah does not abrogate the Quran, even if it is mutawatir (recurrent report). As for when the later evidence is unknown; then both of them must be speculative (zanni) because definite evidences (qat’i) do not contradict each other. If they are speculative (zanni), then they should be outweighed and the stronger evidence is used. The strength of the evidence means its strength in terms of the order of the evidences and in terms of the level of considering the deduction in each type of the speculative evidences. As for the order of the evidences; the Quran is stronger than the Sunnah even if the Sunnah is mutawatir (recurrent). The mutawatir (recurrent) Sunnah is stronger than the ijma’ (consensus) and the ijma’ which has been transmitted recurrently is stronger than the isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad). The isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad) is stronger than the qiyas (analogy) if its ‘illah was taken by way of indication (dalāla), deduction or analogy. As for when its ‘illah is taken explicitly, it is treated as the text which has indicated the ‘illah explicitly, and it takes its rule in terms of the strength of the evidence. If the text was Qur’ānic then its hukm is that of the Qur’ān, and if it was the Sunnah then its hukm is that of the Sunnah. If it is indicated by the ijma’ then the rule of the ijma’ is taken. In terms of considering the deduction in each type of the speculative evidences, the speculative evidences are of two types; the first is the Sunnah and the second is the analogy (qiyas). Each one has specific considerations in the outweighing of evidences. i.e, based on the strength of the evidence. As for the Sunnah, the strength of the evidence with respect to it means its strength in terms of the chain (sanad) of transmission, its strength in terms of the text, and its strength in terms of the meaning. As for the strength of the Sunnah evidence in terms of the chain (sanad) it will be based on the following issues:

Ibn ‘Abbas rivoyat qilgan hadisga ko‘ra, bu ish afzaldir, deb aytilgan.

It is preferred to the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas that

Shu sababli, Abu Rofi‘ ular o‘rtasida vositachi bo‘lgan va uning nikohida Rasululloh ﷺ ning vakili bo‘lgan. Hadis ravining huquqiy idrokiga ko‘ra tarjih qilinadi. Faqih (fiqh olimi) bo‘lgan ravining rivoyati faqih bo‘lmagan ravining rivoyatidan afzaldir. Yodlash orqali rivoyat qilingan hadis yozma materiallar orqali rivoyat qilingan hadisdan afzaldir. Shunday ekan, ikki ravidan biri hadisni yodlab olganiga, ikkinchisi esa yozma materiallarga tayanganida, yodlagan kishi ko‘proq shubhadan xoli bo‘lgani uchun afzalroqdir. Mashhur ravi tomonidan rivoyat qilingan hadis kam mashhur ravi tomonidan rivoyat qilingan hadisdan afzaldir.

This is because Abu Rafi’ was the mediator between them and he was the representative of the Messenger of Allah  in her marriage to him. And the hadīth is outweighed according to the legal comprehension of the transmitter. The report of a transmitter who is a faqih (jurist) is preferable over the report of a transmitter who is not a faqih (jurist). The hadīth which has been transmitted by a rawi through memorisation is preferred to the hadīth which has been transmitted by a rawi through the medium of written materials, So when one of the two transmitters relies on his memorisation of the hadīth and the other relies on written materials, the one who has committed it to memory is more preferable because he is more free from suspicion. The hadīth narrated by a well known transmitter is preferred to the hadīth narrated by a lesser known transmitter.

Ikkinchidan: Xuddi shu xabar bilan bog'liq holda. Mutavatir xabar (khabar mutawatir) yakka xabar (khabar al-ahad) ustidan afzaldir. Sanadi to'liq bo'lgan xabar (musnad) mursal xabardan afzaldir, chunki musnadning rivoyat qiluvchisini bilamiz, mursalning rivoyat qiluvchisini esa bilmaymiz.

Second: Pertaining to the same report. The recurrent hadīth (khabar mutawatir) is preferred to the isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad). The report which has a complete chain (musnad) is preferred to a mursal report because we know the transmitter of the musnad and we do not know the transmitter of the mursal.

Uchinchisi: Rivoyat qilish vaqtiga oid. Voyaga yetgan paytida hadisni rivoyat qilgan rivoyatchi, bolaligida rivoyat qilingan hadisdan afzal hisoblanadi, ya'ni u bola bo'lgan paytda rivoyat qilingan hadisdan.

Third: Pertaining to the time of transmission. The transmitter who narrated the hadīth in his maturity is preferred to the hadīth which has been narrated by a transmitter at the time of his childhood that is, when he was a child.

To'rtinchi: Rivoyat usulига doir. Sanadi (raf'ihi) Payg'ambarga ﷺ muttasil ekani borasida ittifoq qilingan rivoyat, sanadi Payg'ambarga ﷺ muttasil ekani borasida ixtilof qilingan rivoyatdan afzaldir. Payg'ambar ﷺ so'zlarining aynan o'zini keltirgan rivoyat, ma'nosi bo'yicha naql qilingan rivoyatdan afzaldir.

va Uning sallallohu alayhi va sallamning

and His  saying,

Va uning ushbu so'zi sababli:

And due to his  saying:

Va Uning aytishi:

“And his  saying:

Ikkinchi: Agar rivoyatlardan biri taqiqni, ikkinchisi ruxsatni bildirsa, taqiqni bildiruvchi rivoyat ruxsatni bildiruvchi rivoyatdan afzal hisoblanadi, chunki Nabiy ﷺ shunday deganlar:

Second: If one of the reports conveys a prohibition and the other conveys a permission. The report which indicates a prohibition is preferred to the report which indicates a permission due to his  saying:

Uchinchisi: Agar rivoyatlardan biri taqiqni, boshqasi esa majburiyatni bildirsa, ustunlikni bildiruvchi qarina (dalil) mavjud bo'lmasa, taqiqni bildiruvchi rivoyat majburiyatni bildiruvchi rivoyatdan afzal ko'riladi.

Third: If one of the reports conveys a prohibition and the other conveys an obligation. If an indication (qarina) for outweighing does not exist then the report which indicates a prohibition is preferred to the report which indicates an obligation.

To'rtinchi: Agar rivoyatlardan biri vojib bo'lishni, ikkinchisi esa mubohlikni bildirsa, vojib bo'lishni bildiruvchi rivoyat mubohlikni bildiruvchi rivoyatdan afzaldir. Chunki vojibni tark etish gunohni taqozo etadi, mubohni tark etish esa hech narsani taqozo etmaydi. Demak, gunohdan uzoqroq bo'lish, hech narsani taqozo etmaydigan narsadan uzoqroq bo'lishdan ko'ra to'g'riroqdir. Sababi, vojibni bildiruvchi rivoyatda qat'iy talab bor, mubohlikni bildiruvchi rivoyat esa yo ixtiyor beruvchi talab, yo o'zi ixtiyordir. Qat'iy talab boshqa talablardan afzaldir.

Fourth: If one of the reports conveys an obligation and the other conveys permissibility, then the report which indicates an obligation is preferred to the report which indicates a permissibility. Because leaving an obligation entails a sin and leaving a permissibility does not entail anything. So, being further from the sin is more proper than being further from a thing that does not entail anything. Because, the report which indicates an obligation has a decisive request and the report which indicates a permissibility is either a request giving choice or it is itself a choice. The decisive request is preferred to other requests.

Bu Sunnatdagi tarjeeh masalalariga tegishlidir. Qiyosdagi tarjeeh masalalariga kelsak, ular ‘illat dalilining holatiga ko‘ra belgilanadi. Shunday ekan, ‘illat tavsifi (‘illayat wasfihi) qat’iy matn bilan isbotlangan qiyos, ‘illat tavsifi zanniy matn bilan sobit bo‘lgan qiyosdan afzaldir. Chunki qat’iy matnning ‘illatdan boshqasini ko‘rsatishi tasavvur qilib bo‘lmaydi, zanniy matn esa bunday emas. ‘Illati ochiq-oydin isbotlangan qiyos, ‘illati istiqro’, istidlol yoki qiyos orqali sobit bo‘lgan qiyosdan afzaldir. ‘Illati istidlol orqali sobit bo‘lgan qiyos, ‘illati qiyos orqali sobit bo‘lgan qiyosdan afzaldir. Demak, qiyosni tarjeeh qilish ‘illatga va uning dalilига ko‘ra amalga oshiriladi.

This is with respect to the considerations of tarjeeh in the Sunnah. As for the considerations of tarjeeh in analogy (qiyas), they are according to the evidence of the reason (‘illah). So the analogy (qiyas) whose reasoning of its description (‘illayat wasfihi) is proved by the definite text is preferred to the one whose reasoning of its description is established by non definite text. Because the definite text is inconceivable to indicate other than reasoning (‘illah), while the indefinite text is not. The analogy whose ‘illah is proved explicitly is preferred to the one whose ‘illah is established through induction, deduction or analogy. That whose ‘illah is established by deduction is preferred to that whose ‘illah is established by analogy. Thus the outweighing (tarjeeh) of analogy is according to the ‘illah and its evidence.