两个类比推理（Qiyaas）之间可能在某一事实的判定上相互冲突，例如：通过第一个类比推理对该事实推导出的判定为“واجب”（必须），而通过另一段经文、同样借助类比推理推导出的判定则为“حرام”（禁止）。在这种情况下，穆扎希德（Mujtahid）需要在二者之间进行权衡取舍，以确定哪一个更为优先。

Two Qiyaas(s) could conflict with each other in respect to the Hukm upon a reality where for instance the first Hukm deduced by Qiyaas upon this reality is Waajib, whilst the second Hukm deduced also by Qiyaas from another text is Haraam. At such a time or circumstance the Mujtahid needs to outweigh one over the other.

以下是权衡相互冲突的类比（Qiyas）时所依据的一些原则：

From amongst the principles of outweighing the conflicting Aqyisah (analogies) are the following:

1 – 如果两段相互冲突的文本在“illah”（推定的理由）方面是相等的（Mutasaawi），即两者各自的“illah”属于同一种类或类型，比如两者都是Dalaalah（隐含意义）、都是Saraahah（明示意义）、都是Istinbaat（推导得出）或都是Qiyaasiyah（类比推理）。在这种情况下，这两段文本的处理方式，与在“At-Tarjeeh”（取舍）主题以及我们上面讨论过的文本冲突中所提及的两段冲突文本相同。

1 – If the two conflicting texts are equal (Mutasaawi) in respect to the ‘Illah in the case where the ‘Illah in each of them is of the same kind or type, like they were both Dalaalah (implicit) or both Saraahah (explicit) or Istinbaat (deduced) or Qiyaasiyah (analogised). If that is the case, then the two texts are treated or dealt with like the two conflicting texts as mentioned in the topic of ‘At-Tarjeeh’ and the conflict between two texts that we discussed above.

2 – 若两条相互冲突的证据在Sanad（传述链）方面相等——即在传述或传述人的角度上，证据被确认的强度相同——在Matn（正文）方面也相等——即文本对Hukm（判定）的Dalaalah（指示含义）相同——而两条证据在‘Ilal（复数形式，单数为‘Illah，即隐性瑕疵）方面存在差异，那么就依据证据中所存在的‘Illah的强弱来权衡，有较弱‘Illah的证据将被较强‘Illah的证据所超越。

2 – If the two conflicting evidences are equal in terms of the Sanad (chain), which refers to the strength of the affirmation of the evidence from the angle of the narration or narrators, and was also equal in respect to the Matn, which refers to the Dalaalah (indicative meaning) of the text upon the Hukm, but the two evidences differed in respect to the ‘Ilal (plural of ‘Illah), then one of the evidences would outweigh the other in accordance to the strength of the ‘Illah found within the evidence.

按照强弱程度，"علل"（理由/致因）的排列从最强到最弱如下：

The ‘Ilal (reasonings) in accordance to their strength are ranked from strongest to weakest as follows:

首先是明文提及的“illah”（Ta'lil的依据），其次是暗示的（Dalaalah），再次是通过推导的（Istinbaatan），最后是通过类比的（Qiyaasiyan）。

First is the ‘Illah that is mentioned Saraahah (explicitly), then Dalaalah (implicitly), then Istinbaatan (by deduction) and then Qiyaasiyan (by analogy).

因此,诸“илла”依照此次序而被权衡。若两段文本在传述链(Sanad)上相同,在文本的所指意义(Matn,即Dalaalah)上亦相同,但在“илла”上不同,则依其中所提及的“илла”之强度,其中一段文本将优于另一段。由此,若一个证据中的“илла”是以明示(Saraahah)的方式提及,那么据此以类比(Qiyaas)推导出的断定(Hukm),便优于另一条相冲突证据所推导出的断定,而那条证据中的“илла”是通过推论(Istinbaat)或类比性(Qiyaasiyah)的方式得出的。

The ‘Ilal are therefore outweighed in accordance to this order. As such, if the two texts are equal in respect to the Sanad (chain of transmission) and in respect to the Matn (the Dalaalah of the text) but are different in respect to the ‘Ilal, then one of the texts would outweigh another based upon the strength of the ‘Illah mentioned within it. Consequently, the Hukm that is deduced by Qiyaas from a Daleel in which its ‘Illah is mentioned Saraahah (explicitly) outweighs the Hukm which has been deduced by Qiyaas from another conflicting Daleel in which the ‘Illah has been deduced Istinbaatan or Qiyaasiyah.

示例:

Example:

安拉(SWT)说:

Allah (swt) said:

通过类比（Qiyaas），在我们当今的时代和世纪，对于战马的准备而言，有义务准备能够使敌人产生恐惧或惊恐的武器。这包括先进的导弹、核弹以及其他现代武器。原因在于文本中提到的明确（Sareeh）的动因（'Illah）是“Irhaab”（使人恐惧或惊恐）。

By analogy (Qiyaas) upon the steeds of war it is obligatory to prepare weapons that strike fear or terror into the enemy in our current time and century. This includes sophisticated missiles and nuclear bombs amongst other modern weaponry. That is because of the Sareeh (explicit) ‘Illah mentioned in the text which is ‘Irhaab’ (to strike fear or terror).

安拉(SWT)说:

Allah (swt) says:

基于类比(Al-Qiyaas)，依据经文中提到的惩罚，我们只需准备与敌人武器相当的战备武器即可。这是因为通过推导(Istinbaat)出的一个被认为存在的“Illah”（判断依据），将战争与惩罚进行了类比，而二者之间存在相似之处。

Based on analogy (Al-Qiyaas) upon the punishment mentioned in the Aayah it would be sufficient for us to prepare weaponry for war which is equal to the weaponry of the enemy. This is based on having made analogy of the war upon the punishment due to a perceived ‘Illah that had been deduced (Istinbaat) based upon the resemblance between the war and the punishment.

因此,在对抗敌人时所需武器的属性(Siffah)在两个Qiyaas中有所不同,第一个Qiyaas所推导出的Hukm优先于第二个Qiyaas所推导出的Hukm。这是因为第一段经文的'Illah是通过暗示(Dalaalatan)得出的,并体现在"使敌人感到恐惧、震慑敌人"之中。而第二段经文的'Illah则是通过推论(Istinbaatan)得出的,它是Zhanniyah(推测性的),并且因为它与文本中所提及的'Illah相对立,所以被排除,不予考虑。因此,穆斯林不得采纳他们与敌人之间实现战略均衡的观点。这是因为该观点与第一条Daleel文本中所述的内容相对立、相违背,而且它是不洁的思想,是由异教徒和非信仰国家输出的,他们自己并不遵守这一思想,却要求穆斯林遵守,从而使穆斯林在他们面前处于弱势地位。

Consequently, the Siffah (description) of weaponry required in the fighting of the enemy differs in the two Qiyaas’s and the Hukm deduced by the first Qiyaas outweighs the Hukm that has been deduced from the second Qiyaas. That is because the ‘Illah of the first text has come Dalaalatan (by implication) and this is manifested in the ‘terrifying or striking fear into the enemy’. That is whilst the ‘Illah in the second text has been deduced by way of deduction (Istinbaatan). It is Zhanniyah (speculative) and because it is opposing the ‘Illah that has been mentioned within the text it is rejected and not given consideration. As such, it is not permissible for the Muslims to adopt the thought of strategic balance between them and their enemies. That is because it is in opposition and contrary to what the first Daleel has mentioned in its text in addition to it being a dirty thought that has been exported by the disbelievers and disbelieving states, which they do not stick to whilst they demand that the Muslims stick to it, so that the Muslims remain in a position of weakness before them.

3 – 至于通过推导（istinbaat）或类比（qiyaas）所得出的“illah”（法律理由），则可能因不同的穆智台希德（mujtahid）而有所差异。因此，一位穆智台希德从某段文本中推导出的“illah”，可能与另一位穆智台希德所推导出的“illah”相悖。由此，依据所推导出的“illah”之不同，分支层面的“Ahkaam”（律例）之间也会产生分歧。例如：

3 – As for the ‘Ilal (legal reasonings) that have been deduced by Istinbaat (deduction) or Qiyaasiyan (by analogy) then these could differ from one Mujtahid to another. So a Mujtahid could deduce an ‘Illah from a text which is contrary to the ‘Illah that another Mujtahid has deduced. As a consequence, there will be a conflict amongst the Ahkaam of the branch in line with the difference of the deduced ‘Illah. For example:

安拉(SWT)说:

Allah (swt) said:

关于这节经文，学者们在女孩监护权（Wilaayah）的“illah”（成因、理由）上存在分歧。阿布·哈尼法认为，监护权的成因是年幼（As-Sighar），因此监护权在达到成年（青春期）时终止。若女孩到达成年，她的监护人（Waliy）对她的监护权便随之消失，她可以不经监护人许可自行结婚。至于沙斐仪，他认为成因是处女身份（Al-Bakaarah），而这一成因不会终止，除非女子结婚并成为已婚者（Thayyib，即已婚且不再是处女）。因此，只要她仍处于婚前状态，未经监护人许可她便不得结婚，而无论她是否已到达成年，只要她结了婚，这一监护权便从她身上消失。

In relation to this Aayah they differed in respect to the ‘Illah of the Wilaayah (guardianship) over the girl. Abu Hanifah considered the ‘Illah of the guardianship to be young age (As-Sighar) and as such the guardianship ends at the time of the reaching or maturity (puberty). So if the girl reaches the age of maturity the guardianship of the Waliy (guardian) would fall from her and he permitted for her to marry without the Wali’s permission. As for Ash-Shaafi’iy, then he considered the ‘Illah to be Al-Bakaarah (virginity) and that this ‘Illah does not end unless the woman marries and becomes Thayyib (i.e. married and no longer a virgin). For that reason, it is not permitted for her as long as she remains in a state prior to marriage to marry without the permission of her Waliy (guardian) whilst this guardianship over her would fall from her if she became married, whether she had reached the age of maturity or not.

如果我们仅仅依据这节经文来推导律例，那么艾布·哈尼法伊玛目的观点就会优于沙斐仪伊玛目的观点。这是因为经文中提到的“Ar-Rushd”一词明确指向的是成年（Buloogh），而完全没有暗示处女（Al-Bakaarah）之义。

If we were to have restricted ourselves to taking the Hukm from this Aayah alone then the opinion of Al-Imaam Abu Hanifah would have outweighed the opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy. That is because the word ‘Ar-Rushd’ mentioned in the text is explicit in that it is indicative of the Buloogh (maturity) alone whilst it does not allude in any way to the meaning of virginity (Al-Bakaarah).

然而,如果我们回顾所有与监护人(Waliy)相关的证据,以及沙里亚为他在婚约方面规定的强制性权力与责任,就会发现伊玛目沙斐仪(愿真主喜悦他们二人)的观点是有其位置的。

If, however, we were to refer back to all of the evidences related to the Waliy (guardian) and the mandatory powers and responsibilities that the Shar’a has provided him with, in relation to the contract of marriage, we would find that there is a place for the opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy (may Allah be pleased with them both)