My Opinion And Comment In Regards To The Previous Examples
Most of the Ahkaam mentioned in the previous examples are based upon a Daleel Shar’iy from the Kitaab, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah.
So the permissibility of appointing a Khalifah when there is somebody who has greater merit is due to the conditions of the contraction of the Khilafah being met by him in the case where being a Mujtahid are not from amongst those conditions. The Sahaabah (rah) gave the Bai’ah to ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan (ra) even though some of them viewed that ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib was better than him. None rebuked them for that and as such it represented an Ijmaa’ which represents a considered source from sources of the Islamic legislation.
As for banishing the people of Fasaad, then ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) banished Nasr Bin Al-Hajjaaj and no one rebuked him for that and as such it represents an Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah which is a Daleel and not a Maslahah.
As for destroying or ruining that which is most likely to be believed to give strength to the enemy, then the Muslims destroyed the palm trees of Bani An-Nadeer. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:
Whatever you have cut down of [their] palm trees or left standing on their trunks - it was by permission of Allah and so He would disgrace the defiantly disobedient (Al-Hashr ).
In respect to the permission to tax the rich if the Bait ul-Maal doesn’t have the necessary sufficient funds to meet the expenditures which are obligatory upon the State, then this is taken from the Khalifah’s obligation to foster and take care of the affairs of the people and from the principle:
‘That which the Waajib is not completed except with it is (in itself) Waajib’
This Qaa’idah (principle) is a Qaa’idah Shar’iyah deduced from the texts of the Kitaab and the Sunnah.
As for guaranteeing what is destroyed under the hand of the craftsmen without any shortcoming (or negligence) from them then the Messenger of Allah (saw) has forbidden such a guarantee in the Hadeeth:
There is no liability upon the thing that has been entrusted (Ad-Daaruqutniy).
In regards to hitting the one accused in order to get him to confess then Al-Ghazaaliy refuted that in addition to the existence of the Qaa’idah Al-Fiqhiyyah (Fiqhi principle):
‘The origin is the innocence of the responsibility’.
And the Qaa’idah:
‘The proof is upon the one making the claim and the Yameen (oath) is upon the one who denies (it)’ (Al-Baihaqi in a Saheeh Isnaad).
It is therefore not permitted to strike or hit someone to extract a confession.
As for compelling those who have monopolised to sell what they have at a similar cost (i.e. market price) then this represents the removal of a harm (Darar) that has afflicted the Ummah as a result of their monopolising of the commodities. It is therefore the right of the Khalifah or Haakim (ruler) to remove this harm due to the Qawl of the Messenger (saw):
There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm (Ahmad).
It is therefore a Hukm that is taken from the Nass (text).