I can help with that, but no text came through with your message. Please paste the English passage (or the heading or label) you want translated into Arabic, and I'll translate it following the rules above. - نظام الحكم في الإسلام | Quran Course

I can help with that, but no text came through with your message. Please paste the English passage (or the heading or label) you want translated into Arabic, and I'll translate it following the rules above. - نظام الحكم في الإسلام | Quran Course

والدليل على ذلك حديث المسؤولية عن الرعية، حيث قال رسول الله ﷺ: «الإمامُ راعٍ وهو مسؤولٌ عن رعيته». فالخليفة هو المستحِق لمهمة الحكم، وهو مسؤول عن رعيته، أما المعاون المفوَّض فليس مسؤولاً عن الرعية، وإنما هو مسؤول عن أفعاله هو فحسب. وعليه فالمسؤولية عن الرعية تقع على الخليفة وحده. ولذلك يجب على الخليفة أن يراجع أفعال المعاون وأداءه ليقوم بواجبه تجاه رعيته. كما أن المعاون المفوَّض قد يقع منه الخطأ أحياناً، والخليفة ملزم بتصحيح ذلك الخطأ، فيجب عليه أن يراجع جميع أفعال المعاون. فلهذين السببين، وهما: القيام بالمسؤولية تجاه الرعية، وتصحيح ما قد يقع فيه المعاون المفوَّض من أخطاء، يلزم الخليفة مراجعةُ جميع أفعال المعاون.

The evidence for this is the Hadith of responsibility over the subjects where the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said “The Imam is a guardian and He is responsible over his subjects.” Therefore, the Khaleefah is entitled to the task of government and He is responsible over his subjects, whereas the delegated Mu’awin is not responsible over subjects, but He is merely responsible for his own actions. Thus, responsibility about the subjects is for the Khaleefah alone. Therefore, the Khaleefah is obliged to review the actions of the Mu’awin and his performance in order to fulfil his duty towards his subjects. Besides, the delegated assistant can sometimes make errors, and the Khaleefah has to redress such errors, so He has to review all the assistant’s actions. Therefore, it is for these two reasons: fulfilling responsibility towards his subjects and redressing potential errors made by the delegated assistant, that the Khaleefah is obliged to review all of the Mu’awin’s actions.

إذا قرّر المعاون المفوَّض أمرًا وأقرّه الخليفة، جاز للمعاون أن ينفّذه دون أي تغيير. وإذا اعترض الخليفة على ما نفّذه المعاون، فإن الأمر يُنظر فيه. فإن كان المعاون قد نفّذ حكمًا على وجه صحيح، أو أنفق أموالًا في وجوهها المشروعة أو في مشاريع معيّنة، فإن رأي المعاون يُعتدّ به ويَنفُذ، لأن رأيه في الأصل هو رأي الخليفة، وليس للخليفة أن يُبطل ما نفّذه المعاون من الأحكام أو ما أنفقه من الأموال. أما إذا قام المعاون بأنواع أخرى من التصرفات، كتعيين والٍ أو إعداد جيش، فللخليفة الحق في نقض قرار المعاون وإنفاذ رأيه هو، وإبطال تصرفات المعاون، وذلك لأن الخليفة له الحق في نقض تصرفاته هو، فله الحق كذلك في نقض تصرفات معاونه.

If the delegated assistant decided a matter and the Khaleefah approved of it, the Mu’awin could then execute it without any alterations. If the Khaleefah objected to what the Mu’awin had executed, then in this case the matter would be examined. If the Mu’awin had correctly carried out a verdict or if He had spent some funds in the right areas or in certain projects, then the Mu’awin’s opinion comes into force, for, in principle, it is the Khaleefah’s opinion, and the Khaleefah has no right to redress what the Mu’awin had executed in terms of rules or funds He had spent. However, if the Mu’awin had performed other types of actions, such as the appointing of a Wali or the preparation of an army, the Khaleefah has the right to reverse the Mu’awin’s decision and enforce his own and nullify the Mu’awin’s actions. This is because the Khaleefah has the right to redress his own actions so He has the right to redress the actions of his assistant.

هذا وصفٌ لكيفية سير المعاون في أداء أعماله، ولكيفية مراجعة الخليفة لأعمال المعاون. ويُستنبط ذلك مما يجوز للخليفة نقضه من التصرفات وما لا يجوز له نقضه، وذلك لأن تصرفات المعاون المفوَّض تُعدّ تصرفاتٍ للخليفة. وبيان ذلك أنه يجوز للمعاون المفوَّض أن يحكم بنفسه وأن يُولّي الولاة كما يجوز ذلك للخليفة، لأن شروط الحكم قد فُوّضت إليه. وله أيضاً أن ينظر في المظالم أو أن يُنيب من ينظر فيها، لأن شروط المظالم قد تحققت فيه. وله كذلك أن يتولى الجهاد بنفسه أو أن يُولّي من يتولاه، لأن شروط الحرب قد تحققت فيه. وله أن ينفذ الأوامر التي يقرّرها أو أن يُنيب من ينفذها عنه، لأن شروط الرأي والتدبير قد فُوّضت إليه. غير أن هذا لا يعني أن الخليفة لا يستطيع نقض ما فعله المعاون متى ما أُطلع عليه. وإنما يعني أن له من السلطات ما للخليفة، لكنه يتصرف نيابةً عنه لا مستقلاً عنه. ولذلك فللخليفة أن يخالف المعاون وأن يُعيد النظر فيما نُفّذ أو أن ينقض أياً من تصرفاته، مع ملاحظة أن هذا يسري فقط على التصرفات التي كان الخليفة نفسه يملك نقضها من تصرفاته هو. فإذا كان المعاون قد نفّذ حكماً على الوجه الصحيح أو صرف الأموال في مواضعها الصحيحة، فلا يكون لاعتراض الخليفة أثرٌ، وينفذ قرار المعاون. وذلك لأن القرار في الأصل قرارُ الخليفة نفسه، وفي مثل هذه الحالات لا يملك هو نقض قراره أو إبطال ما نفّذه بنفسه، ومن ثَمّ لا يملك نقض تصرف معاونه. However, if the Mu'awin had appointed a Wali, an administrator, an army commander or any other appointee, or if he had laid down an economic strategy, a military plan or an industrial programme, or any similar undertaking, then the Khaleefah is allowed to nullify it. This is because, although they are considered the Khaleefah's opinions, they fall under the category of decisions that the Khaleefah is entitled to redress even when done by him. Accordingly, he could do likewise with his Mu'awin's decisions. So in this category, it is allowed for the Khaleefah to nullify the actions of the Mu'awin. The basic rule concerning this would be as follows: any action that the Khaleefah is allowed to redress of his own actions, he is entitled to redress in a like manner if performed by his Mu'awin; and every action the Khaleefah cannot redress of his own actions, he is not allowed to redress if performed by his Mu'awin. Arabic translation: وأما إذا عيّن المعاون والياً أو متولي إدارة أو قائداً للجيش أو أي معيّن آخر، أو وضع استراتيجية اقتصادية أو خطة عسكرية أو برنامجاً صناعياً أو أي عمل مماثل، فإن للخليفة أن يُبطله. وذلك لأن هذه الأمور وإن كانت تُعدّ من آراء الخليفة، فإنها تندرج تحت باب ما يحق للخليفة أن يُصحّحه ولو صدر عنه هو نفسه. وعليه فله أن يفعل ذلك في قرارات معاونه أيضاً. فلهذا يجوز للخليفة في هذا الباب أن يُبطل أفعال معاونه. والقاعدة الأساسية في ذلك: كل فعل يجوز للخليفة أن يُصحّحه من أفعاله هو، فله أن يُصحّحه بالمثل إذا صدر عن معاونه؛ وكل فعل لا يجوز للخليفة أن يُصحّحه من أفعاله هو، فليس له أن يُصحّحه إذا صدر عن معاونه.

This is a description of the way that the Mu’awin follows in performing his actions and of the way that the Khaleefah follows in reviewing the Mu’awin’s actions. It is derived from what sort of actions the Khaleefah is allowed to redress and what actions He is not allowed to redress. This is because the actions of the delegated Mu’awin are considered as actions of the Khaleefah. As an explanation for this, it is allowed for the delegated assistant to rule by himself and to appoint rulers as it is allowed for the Khaleefah. This is because the conditions of ruling have been conferred to him. He is also entitled to investigate complaints or to deputise someone to do so, because the conditions of complaints have been verified for him. He is also entitled to take charge of Jihad by himself, or appoint someone to do so, for the conditions of war have been verified for him. He is entitled to execute orders He has decided upon or to deputise someone to execute them on his behalf, for the conditions of voicing an opinion and management are conferred to him. However, this does not mean that the Khaleefah can’t reverse whatever the Mu’awin performed as long as He had been briefed about it. It means rather that He possesses the same powers as the Khaleefah, but He acts on his behalf and not independent of him. Therefore, the Khaleefah is entitled to disagree with the Mu’awin and redress what has been executed or reverse any of his actions, bearing in mind that this applies only to the sort of actions that the Khaleefah could redress of his own actions. If the Mu’awin had executed a rule correctly or spent funds in the right areas, then the Khaleefah’s objections would carry no weight and the Mu’awin’s decision would be executed. This is because in principle, it is the Khaleefah’s own decision and in such cases He himself could not reverse his decision or nullify what He himself had executed, hence, He could not reverse his Mu’awin’s action. However, if the Mu’awin had appointed a Wali, an administrator, an army commander or any other appointee or if He had laid down an economic strategy, a military plan or an industrial programme or any similar undertaking, then the Khaleefah is allowed to nullify it. This is because, although they are considered as being the Khaleefah’s opinions, they fall under the category of decisions that the Khaleefah is entitled to redress even when done by him. Accordingly, He could do likewise with his Mu’awin’s decisions. So in this category, it is allowed for the Khaleefah to nullify the actions of the Mu’awin. The basic rule concerning this would be as follows: Any action that the Khaleefah is allowed to redress of his own actions, He is entitled to redress in a like manner if performed by his Mu’awin; and every action the Khaleefah cannot redress of his own actions, He is not allowed to redress if performed by his Mu’awin.

المعاون المفوَّض لا يُعيَّن لقسم معيّن، كقسم التعليم مثلًا، ولا لعمل معيّن، كإعداد الجيش وأنظمة أسلحته، لأنّ تعيينه عامّ. وهو كذلك لا يتولّى الأمور الإدارية، بل له، كالخليفة، إشرافٌ عامّ عليها. فلو عُيِّن على هذا الوجه لما انعقدت له الوزارة بهذا التعيين، ولما كان معاونًا للخليفة فيما عُيِّن فيه، وذلك لأنّ هذا العقد مقيَّد، فلا يشمل الإشراف العامّ، وهو شرطٌ في تعيين المعاون المفوَّض. أمّا تعيين قاضي القضاة، فلا يُعدّ تعيينًا لمعاون للخليفة في القضاء، بل هو تعيينٌ لوالٍ له ولايةٌ خاصّة في غير الحكم، كإمارة الجيش، أو إمارة الصدقات ونحوها. وتُعقد مثل هذه المناصب كعقود الولايات، لا كتعيين المعاون المفوَّض. ولذلك يكون قاضي القضاة أميرًا له أن يعيّن القضاة ويتفقّد الأمور القضائية ويحكم بين الناس، لكنه ليس معاونًا. فلا يجوز إذن قصر المعاون المفوَّض على قسم معيّن؛ فإن قُصر عليه بطل عقده. ولكي يصحّ تعيين المعاون المفوَّض يجب أن يكون عقدًا، أي أن يُعبَّر عنه بألفاظ صريحة تتضمّن شرطين: أولهما العموم، وثانيهما النيابة. وتقييده بقسم معيّن يُفقده أحد الشرطين، فيبطل عقد تعيينه. وإضافةً إلى ذلك، لا يجوز له مباشرة الأمور الإدارية؛ لأنّ من يباشرها هم الموظفون المدنيون لا الحكّام. بما أن المساعد المفوَّض حاكمٌ لا موظفٌ مدنيّ، وأن وظائف المساعدين هي رعاية الشؤون، فلا يجوز له أن يؤدي الوظائف التي يُعيَّن الموظفون المدنيون لأدائها.

The delegated Mu’awin is not designated to a particular department, like the education department for example; nor a particular action, like the preparation of an army and its weaponry systems, because his appointment is general. He also does not carry out administrative matters, but He has like the Khaleefah, a general supervision over them. If He had been appointed as such then the Wizara (the assistantship) would not be conferred to Him by this appointment nor will He be assistant to the Khaleefah in the matter in which He was appointed. This is because such a contract is specific and thus does not include general supervision, which is a condition in appointing the delegated assistant. As for the appointment of the Supreme Judge, this is not considered an appointment of an assistant to the Khaleefah in the Judiciary, but an appointment of a Wali with a specific Wilayah in other than the ruling; like the Imarah of the army, or the Imarah of the Sadaqat and the like. Such posts would be convened like those of the Wilayahs, not like the appointment of the Mu’awin-ut-Tafweedh. Hence the supreme judge is an Ameer, with a mandate to appoint Judges and to examine the judicial matters, and to judge between people, but He is not an assistant. Therefore, it would be wrong to confine the delegated assistant to a particular department. If He were confined to a particular department, his contract would be null and void. In order for the appointment of the delegated assistant to be valid, it must be a contract i.e. it should be expressed in clear wording that contains two conditions: one would be its generality and the second is the deputyship. By limiting Him to a certain department would make Him miss one of the two conditions of his contract, and accordingly the contract of his employment would be nullified. In addition to this, He is not allowed to practice the administrative matters; this is because those who practice administrative matters are civil servants not rulers. Since the delegated assistant is a ruler, not a civil servant, and his (assistants’) functions are to look after the affairs, He is not to perform the functions that the civil servants are employed to perform.