From the most important studies related to the Hukm is the knowledge of whom the issuing of the Hukm returns back to. The one who holds the position of authority like the head of state is not the one who is intended by Al-Haakim here. Rather, what is intended by Al-Haakim is the one who possesses the right of issuing the Hukm upon the actions and things, so as to pass the judgement, for instance, that milk is Mubaah, Khamr is Haraam and that Al-Bai’u (trade) is Halaal whilst Ribaa’ (usury) is Haraam and so on… In the case where the issuing of the Hukm upon the actions of the human being or the things related to his actions has a relationship to the human himself, then the Hukm either belongs to Allah Ta’Aalaa or it belongs to him. In other words, this Hukm belongs to the Shar’a or to the ‘Aql (mind).

What is meant by the issuing of the Hukm is the specification of the position or stance of the human being towards the action in respect to whether he does it or leaves it? (i.e. refrains from it). Or does he have a choice between doing and leaving it? It similarly relates to specifying his position towards the things related or connected to his actions in terms of whether he should take them or leave them? Or whether he has been provided with a choice between taking and leaving them?

The position or stance of the human in respect to actions and things rests upon his viewpoint towards them in regards to them being Hasanah (pretty or right) or Qabeehah (ugly or wrong)? Or are they equal in respect to the Husn and the Qubh (prettiness and ugliness)?

As such, the issuing of the Hukm upon actions and things is built and based upon determining the Husn and Qubh in respect to them. So who or what determines that; the Shar’a or the ‘Aql (mind)?

1 – Madh’hab Al-Mu’tazilah and a group from among the Ja’fariyah:

They viewed that there exists an intrinsic Husn (good/prettiness) and Qubh (bad/ugliness) within the actions and things, and that the human ‘Aql (mind) is capable of perceiving the Husn and Qubh in respect to the things and actions. They determined that what the ‘Aql saw as being Hasan is Hasan with Allah and that the human should do the action which is accompanied by commendation and reward. Similarly, what the ‘Aql (mind) views to be Qabeeh then it is Qabeeh with Allah and it is required of the human to leave it whilst the action is accompanied by blameworthiness and punishment.

Upon that basis the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’a in their view comes in agreement or conformity to what the mind comprehends in respect to the Husn or Qubh of the actions and things. So in respect to what the mind perceives to be Husn, the Shar’a came requesting it to be undertaken and what the mind perceives to be Qubh, the Shar’a has come requesting for it to be left. They then built upon that the understanding that the human is Mukallaf before the sending of the Messengers to them or before the Da’wah had reached them, and that is because his ‘Aql perceives and comprehends the Husn and Qubh of the actions and things.

2 – Madh’hab Al-Ash’ariyah, the follows of Abu-l-Hasan Ash’ariy and the Fuqahaa’ who agreed with him and are considered to represent the majority of the scholars of Usool.

They viewed that the actions and things do not have an intrinsic Husn or Qubh present within them. Therefore, the Hasan is that which the Shar’a has requested to be undertaken and the Qabeeh is that which the Shar’a has come requesting to be left or refrained from. Consequently, the Husn and Qubh are both Shar’iy (i.e. determined by the Shar’a and not the ‘Aql).

Upon that they built the understanding that the human is not Mukallaf before the sending of the Messengers or before the Da’wah reaching them. Consequently, there is no Hukm, Takleef or Hisaab (being held to account) before the presentation of the Shar’a.