Hukunce-hukuncen da suka dogara ga Al-istishaab - Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh | Quran Course

Hukunce-hukuncen da suka dogara ga Al-istishaab - Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh | Quran Course

Ana sani cewa asalin abin da ya shafi zimmar mutum (wajibcin nauyi a kansa) shi ne cewa ba ya da hakkin kowa a kansa, sai dai idan an kafa hujja (daleel) a kan haka.

It is known that the Asl (origin) in respect to the Dhimmah of the Insaan (liability/responsibility of the person) is its non-preoccupation in relation to the right of anybody unless a Daleel is established over it.

Misali:

Example:

Idan mutum ya yi iƙirarin cewa yana da bashi a wurin wani, sai wanda ake da'awar ya musanta bashin, to za a bi Istishaab na Al-Baraa'ah Al-Asliyah (asalin 'yanci daga abin ɗaurawa), wato a 'yantar da Dhimmah (alhakin) nasa daga bashin. Wannan kuwa ya kasance sai dai idan mai da'awar ya tabbatar da kasancewar bashin ta hanyar Bayyinah (hujjar shaida). Idan kuma aka nemi wanda ake da'awar da ya rantse (Hilf) amma ya ƙi, ba a yanke hukunci a kansa saboda ƙin nasa ba. Wannan saboda asali shi ne 'yanci daga alhaki, kuma Yameen (rantsuwa) tana kan mai da'awar ne kawai; idan ya yi haka, sai a yanke hukunci a kan wanda ake da'awar ko wanda ake yi wa da'awar (watau a yanke hukunci a kansa).

If a person claims that he has a debt owed to him from somebody and that person denies the debt, then it would follow the Istishaab of Al-Baraa’ah Al-Asliyah (original innocence) which is the freeing of his Dhimmah (liability) from the debt. This is unless the claimant proves the existence of the debt by way of a Bayyinah (testimonial evidence). And if the one who has the claim made against him is requested to swear an oath (Hilf) but refuses, judgment is not passed against him because of his refusal. That is because the origin or original position is being free of liability and the Yameen (swearing of an oath) is only upon the claimant and then if he does that the one being accused or who has a claim against him is judged against (i.e. the verdict is passed against him).

The user's message "Another example:" is a label to translate. Wani misali kuma:

Another example:

Idan abokin kasuwanci ya ce bai samu riba ba daga kasuwancin da aka gudanar, ana yarda da maganarsa, domin riba wani abu ne da ya samu bayan asali, wanda ba ya nan tun farko, sai dai idan an kawo hujja (bayyana) da ke tabbatar da samun riba.

If the partner claims that he has not received profit from the trade that has been conducted, he is believed in his speech because the profit is a newly added matter upon the original non-existence unless a Bayyinah (evidence) is brought confirming the gaining of profit.

Idan Ijma'i ya tabbata a kan wani Hukunci na wata Mas'ala (batun shari'a), sannan wannan Siffa (siffa ko halayyar bayani) da ke cikin batun ta canja, to shin Hukuncin batun yana nan kamar yadda yake ne? Malamai sun sha banban game da wannan.

If Ijmaa’ occurs upon a Hukm of a particular Mas’alah (issue) and that Siffah (descriptive element/attribute) that is in the issue changes, then does the Hukm of the issue remain as it is? They (the ‘Ulamaa) have differed in respect to that.

Misali:

Example:

Menene hukuncin wanda ya yi tayammum saboda rashin ruwa, sannan ya gano ruwa yana cikin salla? Kuma ta yaya ya kamata ya yi game da ko ya cika sallarsa ko kuma bai cika ba?

What is the Hukm if the one who has made Tayammum due to the absence of water discovered water during his prayer? And how should he act in respect to completing his Salaah or not completing it?

A – Abu Haneefah ya ce sallarsa ta ɓaci idan ya ga ruwa, kuma wajibi ne a gare shi yin alwala, sannan ya ci gaba da sallarsa. Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy, Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabari, Ibn As-Sabaagh da sauran malaman fiqhu su ma sun amince da wannan ra'ayi. B – Amma Ash-Shaafi'iy, shi ya ce sallarsa ingantacciya ce, kuma ganin ruwa a lokacin sallah ba shi da wani tasiri a kan sallarsa. Wannan ra'ayi kuma Dawood Azh-Zhaahiriy, Al-Aamadiy da Ibn ul-Haajib suka tabbatar, a cikin wasu.

A – Abu Haneefah views that his Salaah is invalidated upon the sighting of the water and Wudoo’ is necessary for him and to resume his Salaah. Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy, Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabari, Ibn As-Sabaagh and other Fuqahaa’ also agreed with this opinion. B – As for Ash-Shaafi’iy then he viewed that his Salaah is Saheeh (valid) and the sighting of the water during his prayer has no impact or effect upon his Salaah. This opinion was also upheld by Dawood Azh-Zhaahiriy, Al-Aamadiy and Ibn ul-Haajib amongst others.

At-Tarjeeh (Rinjaye):

At-Tarjeeh (outweighing):

- Ɓacin ingancin Tayammum idan ruwa ya kasance ga wanda ya yi Tayammum saboda rashin ruwa yana tabbata ne da nassi ba da ijma'i ba. - Idan wanda ya yi Tayammum ya shiga Sallah yana ci gaba da halin rashin ruwa (Istishaab), sai ya fara Sallarsa yana cika sharuddan ingancinta gaba ɗaya, kuma ba ya fita daga Sallar sai da abin da yake ɓata ta. Ganin ruwa ba ya karya Sallah ko ɓata ta, kuma Sallah aiki ɗaya ne mai ci gaba, wanda ya fara da Takbiratul-Ihram ya ƙare da Sallama. Saboda haka, Sallarsa tana karɓuwa a gare shi matuƙar ya cika sharuddan ingancinta.

- The invalidity of At-Tayammum when water is present of the one who has made Tayammum due to the absence of water is established by the text and not by Ijmaa’. - When the one who made Tayammum entered into the state of the Salaah he was continuing upon (Istishaab) the case of the absence of the water and so he began his Salaah having met the conditions of its validity in full (completely) and he does not exit from his Salaah apart from by that which invalidates it. Seeing water does not break or invalidate the prayer and the prayer is one continuous action beginning with the Takbeer Al-Ihraam and ending with Salaam. Therefore, his performance of the Salaah counts for him as long as he had fulfilled the conditions for its validity.