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.

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.

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).

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.

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:

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

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):

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 – Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

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’).

So after scrutinising the issue ‘Umar (ra) found that the theft in this reality was due to compulsion and their dire need for food whilst Allah (swt) has said:

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

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.

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.

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.