To'g'ri 'illat — bu Qur'on va Sunnatda zikr etilgan shar'iy 'illatdir, chunki faqat bu ikki manba shar'iy matnlardir. Shuning uchun aql bilan asoslangan shar'iy hukm qurilgan 'illat shar'iy 'illat bo'lib, aqliy 'illat emas. Boshqacha aytganda, 'illat matnda aniq yoki yashirin ravishda, dalolat orqali yoki qiyos yo'li bilan zikr etilgan bo'lishi kerak. Bu 'illat aql bilan asoslangan hukm bilan borligida va yo'qligida bog'liqdir. Shunday qilib, hukmlar o'zlarining 'illatlari bilan aylanadi. Biz bir narsaning ma'lum bir holatda shar'iy 'illatning mavjudligi tufayli harom ekanini ko'ramiz, agar bu 'illat yo'qolsa, o'sha narsa halol bo'lib qoladi. Demak, shar'iy hukm 'illat bilan birga mavjud bo'lganda ham, yo'q bo'lganda ham aylanadi: 'illat mavjud bo'lsa, hukm mavjud bo'ladi, 'illat mavjud bo'lmasa, hukm ham mavjud bo'lmaydi.

The valid „Illah is the Shar‟ai „Illah that is mentioned in the text from Qur'an and Sunnah, for only these two are the Shar‟ai texts. Therefore, the „Illah upon which the reasoned Hukm Shar‟ai is built is a Shar‟ai „Illah and not a rational „Illah. In other words, „Illah must be mentioned in the text either explicitly or implicitly or by deduction or through Qiyas. This „Illah is connected with the reasoned Hukm in presence and absence. Thus the rules revolve with their „Illal. So we find a thing is prohibited in a situation due to the existence of a Shar‟ai „Illah, and if this „Illah disappears that very thing becomes permissible. So the Hukm Shar‟ai revolves with the „Illah in existence and in absence, thus when it exists the Hukm exists, and if the „Illah does not exist the rule doesn't exist either.

Biroq, „illat yo‘qligi sababli hukmning qo‘llanmay qolishi hukm Shar‘iyning o‘zgarganini umuman anglatmaydi, balki masaladagi hukm Shar‘iy o‘zgarishsiz qoladi. Faqat „illat yo‘qligi tufayli hukm endi qo‘llanmaydi, „illat qaytgach esa u yana qo‘llanadi.

However, the absence of the rule due to the absence of the „Illah does not at all mean that the Hukm Shar'ia has changed, rather the Hukm Shar‟ai of the question remains as it is, without change. It is only the rule no longer applied due to the absence of the „Illah, and will be applied once the „Illah returned.

Hukmning „illat bilan mavjudlik va yo'qlik holatidagi munosabati hukmlarning vaqt va makon o'zgarishi tufayli o'zgarishini anglatmaydi. Shunday ekan, foyda keltirish va buzg'unchilikni oldini olish Hukm Shar'iyning „illati bo'lib, u vaqt va makon o'zgarishi bilan o'zgaradi, shuning uchun Hukm Shar'iy ham shunga muvofiq o'zgaradi, deb da'vo qilish noto'g'ridir. Chunki foyda keltirish va zararni oldini olish Ahkomning hech qanday „illati emas, chunki biror matn foyda keltirish va buzg'unchilikni oldini olish barcha Ahkomning „illati ekanligini ham, ma'lum bir hukmning „illati ekanligini ham ko'rsatmagan. Demak, uni Shar'iy „illat sifatida qabul qilib bo'lmaydi.

The relationship of the rule with the „Illah in existence and in absence does not mean that the rules change due to the change of the time and place. Thus claiming that bringing about the benefit and preventing corruption is the „Illah of the Hukm Shar‟ai, which changes as the time and place change, so the Hukm Shar‟ai changes accordingly is false. This is because bringing about benefit and preventing harm are not at all the „Illah of the Akham, since no text came to denote that bringing about benefit and preventing corruption are „Illah for all the Akham, nor to denote that they are a „Illah for a specific rule. Thus, it cannot be taken as a Shar‟ai „Illah.

Bundan tashqari, Shar'iy 'illat — bu Shar'iy matndan olingan bo'lib, shuning uchun u o'z matni va ma'nosi bilan chegaralanishi kerak. Shar'iy matn na manfaat keltirishni, na fasodning oldini olishni 'illat sifatida ko'rsatmagan. Matnda keltirilgan narsa vaqt yoki makon bilan, yoki amalning o'zi bilan belgilanmaydi. U hukmning 'illatini namoyon qiluvchi matn orqali belgilanadi. Bu matn hech qachon o'zgarmaydi, shuning uchun bu o'rinda vaqt va makon e'tiborga olinmaydi va manfaat keltirish hamda fasodning oldini olishning ham qiymati yo'q. Demak, Ahkom Shar'iya vaqt va makon o'zgarishi bilan o'zgarmaydi; ular vaqtlar va joylarning o'zgarishidan qat'i nazar, shunday qolaveradi.

Moreover, the Shar‟ai „Illah is that which is taken from a Shar‟ai text and therefore should be restricted to it and its meaning. The Shar‟ai text has neither indicated that bringing about a benefit nor warding off corruption as being the „Illah. That which is brought in the text is not indicated by the time or the place nor indicated by the action itself. It is rather indicated by the text in manifesting the „Illah of the rule. This text never changes, so no consideration is given to the time and place in this context, nor is there a value to bringing about benefit and preventing corruption. Accordingly, Ahkam Shara'iah do not change with the change of time and place, they remain as such regardless of the change of times and places.

Odamlar odatlari va urf-odatlarining o'zgarishi hukmni o'zgartirishga ta'sir qilmaydi, chunki urf-odat hukmi shar'iyning „illati” ham, uning manbai ham emas. Urf-odatlar shariat bilan mos kelishi yoki unga zid bo'lishi mumkin. Agar ular shariatga zid bo'lsa, shariat ularni bekor qilish va o'zgartirish uchun kelgan, chunki shariatning vazifasi buzilgan urf-odatlarni o'zgartirishdir, zero ular jamiyat buzilishining sabablaridir. Shu sababli ular hukmi shar'iyning manbai ham, uning illati ham sifatida qabul qilinmaydi. Biroq, agar urf-odatlar shariatga mos kelsa, hukm o'zining shar'iy dalili va shar'iy illati bilan isbotlanadi, bu urf-odatlar bilan emas, hatto ular shariatga zid bo'lmasa ham. Demak, urf-odatlar shariat ustidan hukm yurita olmaydi, aksincha, shariat urf-odatlar ustidan hukm yuritadi. Shunga ko'ra, Ahkom shar'iya o'z dalili bo'lgan matnga ega, ularning shar'iy illati bor, urf-odatlar esa bunga umuman kirmaydi.

As for the change of traditions and customs of people, this does not have an effect in changing the rule, for the tradition is not an „Illah of the Hukm Shar‟ai nor a source for it. The traditions may agree or disagree with the Shar‟a; If they disagree with the Shar‟a then the Shar‟a has come to abrogate and change them, since the function of the Shar‟a is to change the corrupted traditions and customs, because they are the factors that cause corruption of the society. Therefore, they are not taken as a source for the Hukm Shar‟ai nor an „Illah for it. However, if the traditions were in agreement with Shar‟a, then the rule is proved by its Shar‟ai evidence and by its Shar‟ai „Illah and not by these traditions, even if these traditions do not contradict the Shar‟a. Therefore, the customs cannot rule over the Shar‟a, rather the Shar‟a rules over the traditions and customs. Accordingly, the Ahkam Shar'iah have their own evidence which is the text and they have Shar‟ai „Illah and the traditions and customs are not a part of that at all.