انقطع الوحي، وكمُلت الشريعةُ الإسلاميةُ بوفاةِ رسولِ اللهِ ﷺ. ثم خرجت طائفةٌ من الصحابةِ لاستنباطِ الأحكامِ الشرعيةِ للوقائعِ المستجدةِ، وذلك من خلالِ استنباطِهم من آياتِ القرآنِ الكريمِ ومن أحاديثِ رسولِ اللهِ ﷺ. وكان أولئك الصحابةُ (رضي الله عنهم) مؤهَّلين وقادرين على ذلك، إذ صحبوا رسولَ اللهِ ﷺ في حياته، وكانوا يعيشون زمنَ نزولِ الوحيِ عليه. فكانوا لذلك أعلمَ الناسِ بأسبابِ النزولِ، وبفهمِ معاني النصوص.

The Wahi came to an end and the Islamic Sharee’ah was completed upon the passing of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Then a group from amongst the Sahaabah went forth to provide Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah for the newly occurring realities. They did that through their Istinbaat (deduction) from the Aayaat of Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem and from the Ahaadeeth of the Messenger (saw). Those Sahaabah (rah) were qualified and capable of undertaking that as they had accompanied the Messenger in his life and were living as the Wahi descended upon him. They were therefore the most knowledgeable of people in respect to the Asbaab An-Nuzool (circumstances of revelation) and in comprehending the meanings of the texts.

من بين أولئك الصحابة: الخلفاء الراشدون الأربعة، ومعاذ بن جبل، وعبد الله بن عباس، وعبد الله بن مسعود، وعبد الله بن عمر، وزيد بن ثابت (رضي الله عنهم)، وغيرهم.

From amongst those Sahaabah were the four rightly guided Khulafaa’, Mu’aadh Bin Jabal, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbaas, ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’oud, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar and Zaid Bin Thaabit (rah) amongst others.

بعضُ الرواةِ من التابعين وتابعي التابعين عُنُوا بروايةِ اجتهاداتِ الصحابةِ وأحكامِهم، حتى إنّ بعضَهم دوّنها إلى جانب سنّةِ رسولِ اللهِ ﷺ.

Some of the relators from the Taabi’eeen and Taabi’ At-Taabi’een concerned themselves with the relation of the Ijtihaadaat of the Sahaabah and the judgments they passed to the extent where some of them recorded these alongside the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw).

ثم جاء بعدهم بعض الفقهاء والمجتهدين الذين تعرّفوا على اجتهادات الصحابة، وسعَوا إلى الاستنارة بفهمهم للقرآن والسنة.

They were followed by some Fuqahaa and Mujtahideen who then went on to familiarise themselves with the Ijtihaadaat of the Sahaabah and sought to be enlightened by their understanding of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

ذهب بعض الفقهاء إلى أن اجتهاد الصحابة وقولهم في الشرع حجةٌ شرعية لا يجوز مخالفتها، وذلك لأنهم كانوا أقرب الناس إلى رسول الله ﷺ، وقد اجتمع فيهم من الإخلاص والعقل والمكانة ما جعلهم أقدر الناس على معرفة مقاصد الشرع وأبعاده، ولأن النبي ﷺ قال:

Some other Fuqahaa considered the Ijtihaad of the Sahaabah and their Qawl (opinion) in respect to the Shar’a to be a Hujjah (legal proof) that it is not allowed to contravene or go against. That is because they were the closest to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and they possess in terms of sincerity, reason (‘Aql) and standing that which makes them the most capable of people in respect to the knowledge of the dimensions of the Shar’a and also because the Nabi (saw) said:

هذه أمثلة على اجتهاداتهم وعلى الأحكام التي أصدروها.

The following are examples of their Ijtihaadaat and of the judgments that they passed:

١ – الخلافةُ واجبٌ شرعيٌّ، ويجبُ إقامتُها في الأمة. ولذلك، لما توفي رسولُ الله ﷺ تركه المسلمون مسجًّى على فراشه دون غسلٍ أو تكفينٍ أو دفنٍ، وذهبوا إلى السقيفةِ في بني ساعدة لاختيار خليفةٍ له. فقال الأنصارُ للمهاجرين: «منّا أميرٌ ومنكم أميرٌ». فعارضَ أبو بكرٍ (رضي الله عنه) تلك الفكرةَ، لأنها تعني تقسيمَ أمرِ الأمة، ولأنها مخالفةٌ لقولِ رسولِ الله ﷺ:

1 – The Khilafah is a Shar’iy Waajib and it is obligatory to establish it within the Ummah. For that reason, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away, the Muslims left him (saw) laid out upon his bed without Ghusl, Takfeen (shrouding) or Dafn (burial) and went to the Saqeefah (courtyard) of Bani Saa’idah in order to choose a successor (Khalifah) for him. So the Ansaar said to the Muhaajireen: “(Let there be) from us an Ameer and from you an Ameer (leader)”. Abu Bakr (ra) then opposed that idea because that would mean a division of the Ummah’s affair and because it is contrary to the Qawl of the Messenger (saw):

قال لهم: «لن تُدان العرب إلا لهذا الحيّ من قريش» – يعني مكة. وعلى هذا استدلّ بضرورة كون الإمامة والخلافة في قريش، لما لهذا الموضع من مكانة عند العرب، فطلب منهم أن يبايعوا عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه، ثم رأى عمر أنه لا يسعه إلا أن يبايع أبا بكر رضي الله عنه. ثم مدّ المهاجرون والأنصار أيديهم لمبايعة أبي بكر بالخلافة.

He said to them: “The Arabs will not be directed by other than this place – Makkah – from Quraish”. As such, he reasoned the necessity of the Imaamah and Khilafah to be within the Quraish due to the standing of the location held by the Arabs and he requested that they give their pledge of allegiance (Bai’ah) to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) and then ‘Umar saw that there was nothing for him to do except pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra). Then the Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar both stretched out their hands to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr with the Khilafah.

2 – قال الله تعالى:

2 – Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

كان رسول الله ﷺ يعطي من يُتألَّف قلوبهم، وكذلك فعل أبو بكر من بعده. غير أنهم لما جاؤوا عمر بن الخطاب ليعطيهم من مال الزكاة، رفض ذلك ولم يُعطِهم. وكان يرى أن النص لا ينطبق عليهم في زمانه، لأن إعطاء المؤلفة قلوبهم إنما كان لأن الدولة الإسلامية كانت لا تزال في بداياتها، وكان هناك خوف على الدولة من قوتهم ونفوذهم وشرهم (مكائدهم). أما في زمن عمر فلم تعد هذه العلة موجودة، وذلك بسبب انتشار الإسلام وازدياد قوته وعزته. فلم يعد هناك سبب لتأليف القلوب أو استمالتها (بإعطائهم العطاء أو الحافز). ٣ – في عام الجدب والمجاعة، سرق غلمان لحاطب بن أبي بلتعة ناقةً لرجل من مزينة. فأتى بهم عمر فاعترفوا بذلك. ثم أرسل إلى عبد الرحمن بن حاطب، فجاء، فقال له: "إن غلمان حاطب سرقوا ناقةً لرجل من مزينة فاعترفوا". فقال عمر لأحد الصحابة: "اذهب فاقطع أيديهم". فلما همّ بالذهاب، ردّهم عمر ثم قال: "والله لولا أني أعلم أنكم تستعبدونهم وتُجيعونهم، حتى لو أكل أحدهم ما حرّم الله لحلّ له، لقطعتُ أيديهم. والله، إن لم أفعل ذلك لأفرضنّ عليك غرامة تُوجعك". ثم قال: "يا مُزَنيّ، بكم تريد ناقتك؟" قال: "بأربعمائة". فقال عمر: "يا عبد الرحمن، أعطه ثمانمائة". (لفظ مختصر من الموطأ)

The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave to the category of those whose hearts are sought to be reconciled or softened as did Abu Bakr (ra) after him. However, when they (this category of people) came to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab for him to provide them from the wealth of the Zakaah he rejected and did not give it to them. He held the view that the text did not apply to them in his era because the provision to reconcile the hearts was due to the Islamic state being still in its early days and there had been fear in respect to the state from their power, influence and their evil (intentions/plans). This is whilst at the time of ‘Umar this ‘Illah (reasoning) was no longer present and that was due to the spread of Islaam and the increase of its strength and might. There was therefore no longer a reason to reconcile or soften the hearts (by providing them with a provision or incentive). 3 – In the year of the drought and famine, boy servants belonging to Haatib Bin Abi Balta’ah stole a she camel belonging to a man from Mazeenah. So ‘Umar brought them and they admitted it. Then he sent for ‘Abdur Rahmaan Bin Haatib; so he came and he said to him: “Verily the boy servants of Haatib stole a she camel belonging to Mazeenah and they admitted it”. Then ‘Umar said to one of the Sahaabah: “Go and cut off their hands”. Then when they had turned to go ‘Umar brought them back and then said: “By Allah, had I not known that you exploited them and starved them to the point where had one of them eaten that which Allah had made Haraam it would have been Halaal for him, I would have cut off their hands. By Allah, if I haven’t done that then I will impose upon you a fine that will hurt you”. Then he said: “O Muzniy, how much do you want for your she camel?” He said: “Four hundred”. ‘Umar said: “Abdur Rahman, go and give him 800” (A summarized wording from Al-Muwatta’).

فَبَعْدَ التَّمْحِيصِ فِي هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ وَجَدَ عُمَرُ (رضي الله عنه) أَنَّ السَّرِقَةَ فِي هَذِهِ الْحَالِ كَانَتْ بِسَبَبِ الْإِكْرَاهِ وَالْحَاجَةِ الشَّدِيدَةِ إِلَى الطَّعَامِ، بَيْنَمَا قَالَ اللهُ (سبحانه وتعالى):

فكيف يمكنه أن يُقيم الحدَّ من حدود الله على شخصٍ قد غفر الله له ذنبه؟

So how could he apply the Hadd from the Hudood (set punishments) upon a person whom Allah had forgiven his sin.

٤ – الدِّيَةُ واجبةٌ وفقَ الشَّرعِ على العاقلةِ في بعضِ صُوَرِ القتلِ، كالقتلِ شبهِ العمدِ أو الخطأِ. وكانتِ العاقلةُ في عهدِ رسولِ اللهِ ﷺ هم أقاربُ الجانيِ وأفرادُ قبيلتِه.

4 – The Diyah (blood money) is obligatory in accordance to the Shar’a upon the ‘Aaqilah in some forms of killing like when it is semi intentional or mistaken. The ‘Aaqilah at the time of the Messenger (saw) were the relatives of the criminal and the individuals of his tribe.

لَمَّا دَوَّنَ عُمَرُ رضي الله عنه الدَّوَاوِينَ وَنَظَّمَ أُمُورَ الجَيْشِ، جَعَلَ الدِّيَةَ تَقَعُ عَلَى أَهْلِ دِيوَانِ القَاتِلِ، أَيْ عَلَى المُقَاتِلَةِ البَالِغِينَ الَّذِينَ أُثْبِتَتْ أَسْمَاؤُهُمْ فِي الدِّيوَانِ. وَكَانَتْ تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَعْطِيَاتِهِمْ عَلَى أَسَاسِ أَنَّ النُّصْرَةَ قَدِ انْتَقَلَتْ مِنْ أَقَارِبِ القَاتِلِ وَعَشِيرَتِهِ إِلَى أَهْلِ دِيوَانِهِ، يَنْصُرُ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا، وَلَوْ كَانُوا مِنْ قَبَائِلَ شَتَّى فِي أَصْلِهِمْ. وَقَدْ أَخَذَ بِهَذَا الرَّأْيِ الحَنَفِيَّةُ مِنْ بَيْنِ الفُقَهَاءِ.

When ‘Umar (ra) made the Dawaaween (registers plural of Deewaan) and organised the affairs of the army he made the Diyah (blood money) fall upon the people of the Deewaan (register or organisational unit) of the killer i.e. upon the mature fighting men whose names were registered in the Deewaan. The Diyah would be taken from their wages upon the basis that the Nusrah (support) had been transferred from the relatives of the killer and his tribe to the people of his Deewaan who would provide support to one another and even if they were from a number of different tribes in origin. This opinion was taken by the Hanafiyah from amongst the Fuqahaa.

٥ – رَوَى البُخَارِيُّ وَمُسْلِمٌ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: «كَانَ الطَّلَاقُ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ، وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَسَنَتَيْنِ مِنْ خِلَافَةِ عُمَرَ، طَلَاقُ الثَّلَاثِ وَاحِدَةً، فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: إِنَّ النَّاسَ قَدِ اسْتَعْجَلُوا فِي أَمْرٍ كَانَتْ لَهُمْ فِيهِ أَنَاةٌ، فَلَوْ أَمْضَيْنَاهُ عَلَيْهِمْ». فَأَمْضَاهُ عَلَيْهِمْ. وَمَعْنَى ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ جَعَلَ الطَّلَاقَ الثَّلَاثَ فِي مَجْلِسٍ وَاحِدٍ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الطَّلَاقِ الْبَائِنِ (الْبَيْنُونَةِ الْكُبْرَى). وَاسْتَدَلَّ بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ مَصْلَحَةَ الْإِيقَاعِ أَقْوَى (أَوْ أَعْظَمُ) مِنْ مَفْسَدَةِ الْوُقُوعِ. وَالصَّحِيحُ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ كَانَ اجْتِهَادًا مِنْ عُمَرَ وَفْقَ فَهْمِهِ لِلنُّصُوصِ الشَّرْعِيَّةِ.

5 – Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from Ibn ‘Abbaas that he said: “The Talaaq (divorce) in the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr and two years of the Khilafah of ‘Umar was (the pronouncement of) three divorces counting as one then ‘Umar brought an end to it”. This means that he made the divorce of three times in a single sitting equivalent to the Talaaq Baa’in (irrevocable divorce) (Baynoonah Kubraa). Some reasoned this by stating that the Maslahah of terminating was stronger (or greater) than the Mafsadah of Wuqoo’ (falling or occurrence [into sin]). The correct view however is that it represented the understanding of ‘Umar in accordance to his understanding of the Shar’iyah texts.