作为废止（Naasikh）的证据，无论是一节经文还是一段圣训，都必须有legislative（Shar'iyah）的证据表明它是废止的，否则不能被视为废止。两段证据之间仅仅表面上出现冲突或矛盾，并不意味着其中一段废止了另一段，因为有可能将二者调和，那样二者之间实际上就不存在矛盾。

The Daleel An-Naasikh (Abrogating evidence), whether it is an Aayah or a Hadeeth, must have a Shar’iyah proof to indicate that it is abrogating, otherwise it would not be considered to be as such. The mere appearance of a clash or contradiction between two evidences does not mean that one is abrogating the other as it could be possible to reconcile between them in which case there would not actually be a contradiction between them.

以下是对"Naasikh"（nāsikh，废止者）与"Mansookh"（mansūkh，被废止者）进行辨识的沙里尔证据如下：

The Shar’iyah Hujjah (proof) to identify the Naasikh and the Mansookh is as follows:

1 ——later evidence states that it abrogates (naasikh) the earlier evidence, either in its wording (lafẓ) or in its meaning, such as the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “I had forbidden you from visiting the graves, but (now) visit them” (Ad-Daaru Qutniy 259/4), or like the saying of Allah Ta‘ala:

1 – That the later evidence states that it is a Naasikh for the previous evidence in its Lafzh (wording) or in its meaning like the statement of the Messenger (saw): “I had forbidden you from visiting the graves but (now) visit them” (Ad-Daaru Qutniy 259/4) or like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

2 – 如果两条证据在各方面都相互矛盾，且无法调和，那么后出者废止先出者。这适用于后出的证据与先出的证据强度相当，或比先出的证据更强的情况。

2 – If two evidences are contradictory from every angle and it is not possible to reconcile between them, then the latter of them abrogates the former. That is in the case where the latter is of the same strength (or weight) as the former or stronger than it.

3 – 可以通过使者(愿安拉赐福他并使他平安)的行为来辨识废止经文者(Naasikh),例如他(愿安拉赐福他并使他平安)用石头打死了犯通奸罪的马益兹,而没有对他施以一百鞭。他(愿安拉赐福他并使他平安)的这一行为确立了其话语被废止的事实:“已婚者与已婚者通奸,处一百鞭并用石头打死。”在此,他的行为(Fi'l)废止了他的话语(Qawl)。

3 – The Naasikh can be identified by the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and an example of that is when he (saw) stoned Maa’iz who had committed Zinaa and did not lash him with one hundred lashes. This action of his (saw) establishes the abrogation of his speech: “The Thayyib (married) with the Thayyib (married), one hundred lashes and stoning with rocks”. Here, his action (F’il) abrogated his speech (Qawl).

因此,除非所主张的废止(An-Naskh)依据是上述三种证据之一,否则不予接受。若这三种证据均不存在,

Therefore, the claim of the occurrence of An-Naskh (abrogation) is not accepted unless the Shar’iyah proof was from amongst one of those proofs mentioned above. If none of these three Hujaj (proofs)

那么就没有废止（Naskh）。

then there is no abrogation.