Littafi, Sunnah, ijma'in Sahabbai da kuma qiyas (qiyasi) su ne kawai hujjojin da ake la'akari da su a cikin hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah, kuma ba a halatta a karbi wata doka daga wasu hujjoji banda wadannan.

The Book, the Sunnah, the Ijmaa’ of the Sahabah and the Qiyas (analogy) are the only evidences considered in Shari’ah laws, and it is not permitted to adopt any legislation from other than these evidences.

Wannan labarin ba ya nufin cewa Dawla za ta karɓi wata hanya ta Ijtihadi; a maimakon haka yana nufin cewa Dawla za ta bi wata takamaiman hanya wajen karɓar hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah. Wannan saboda karɓar hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah na iya zama wajibi a wasu lokuta, ko kuma a wasu lokuta halal ne ga Dawla. Idan ana gudanar da wannan karɓa ta hanyoyi biyu masu sabawa juna, hakan zai kai ga sabani a tushen da aka gina karɓar a kansa. Saboda haka, Dawla ta wajaba ta karɓi takamaiman hanya wajen karɓar hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah. Abubuwa uku ne suka sa aka karɓi irin wannan hanya wajen karɓar hukunce-hukunce:

This article does not imply that the State will adopt a method of Ijtihad; it rather means that the State will follow a specific method when adopting the Shari’ah rules. This is because the adoption of the Shari’ah rules could either be obligatory in some cases or, in other cases, permitted for the State. If this adoption were to be conducted in two contradictory methods, it would lead to a contradiction in the basics upon which the adoption has been conducted. Therefore, the State ought to adopt a specific method in adopting the Shari’ah rules. Three reasons prompted the adoption of such a method in the adoption of rules:

Da farko, ka'idar da ya kamata Musulmi ya bi ƙa'ida ce ta Shari'a, ba ƙa'ida ta hankali ba; wato dai, hukuncin Allah ne a cikin al'amarin, ba hukuncin da mutum ya shimfiɗa ba. Saboda haka, dalilin da ake cire wannan hukunci daga gare shi dole ne ya zama abin da Wahayi ya zo da shi.

Firstly, the rule by which the Muslim should proceed is a Shari’ah rule and not a rational rule; in other words, it is the rule of Allah in the matter and not the rule laid down by man. Therefore, the evidence from which this rule is deduced must be what the Revelation has brought.

Na biyu, tabbatarwa cewa dalilin da aka samo hukuncin Shari'ah daga gare shi ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi dole ne ya zama tabbataccen dalili. Wato, wajibi ne dalilin da aka samo hukuncin Shari'ah daga gare shi ya zama dalili bayyananne kuma tabbatacce, ba dalili mara tabbas ba, cewa ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi. Wannan saboda yana cikin Usul (tushe) ba cikin rassa ba; don haka, kasancewar abu mai yiwuwa ko kusan tabbatacce bai isa ba, domin yana cikin al'amuran 'Aqeedah ba cikin hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah ba. Wannan saboda dalilin da ake buƙata domin samo hukunci daga gare shi dalili ne da ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi, ba duk wani dalili ba. Saboda haka, wajibi ne a tabbatar da cewa ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi da tabbataccen dalili, domin tabbatarwar cewa ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi al'amari ne na 'Aqeedah ba hukuncin Shari'ah ba. Don haka, wajibi ne a kafa dalilin cewa dalilin ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi da hujja tabbatacciya, domin al'amuran 'Aqeedah ana karɓar su ne kawai da tabbaci.

Secondly, the confirmation that the evidence - from which the rule has been deduced - has been brought by way of Revelation must be conclusive. In other words, it is imperative that the evidence, from which the Shari’ah rule has been deduced, has conclusive and decisive, not indefinite, evidence that it has been brought by way of Revelation. This is because it is part of the Usul (foundations) and not part of the branches; thus, to be most likely or probable is not sufficient since it is part of the 'Aqeedah matters and not part of the Shari’ah rules. This is so because the evidence required to deduce the rule from is evidence which has come by way of Revelation, not just any evidence. Therefore, it is imperative to decisively confirm that it has been brought by way of Revelation and the process of confirming that it has been brought by Revelation is an 'Aqeedah matter not a Shari’ah rule. Therefore, it is imperative to establish that the evidence has come by way of Revelation by definite evidence because matters of 'Aqeedah can only be taken conclusively.

Na uku, abin da yake tabbatacce shi ne cewa halayyar mutum a rayuwa tana tafiya ne bisa ga tunaninsa game da rayuwa. Duk da cewa ra'ayin mutum game da rayuwa yana da 'Aqeedah a matsayin tushensa, duk da haka yana kunshe da jerin tunane-tunane, ma'auni da imani da ke wanzuwa a cikin Al-Ummah. Ba dukkan waɗannan tunani-tunanen da ake nunawa cikin wannan jerin tunani, ma'auni da imani ba ne suke cikin al'amuran 'Aqeedah. Maimakon haka, wasu daga cikinsu na cikin al'amuran 'Aqeedah wasu kuwa wani ɓangare ne na hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah, kuma tunda ana fitar da hukunce-hukunce da mafi ƙarancin shakka, saboda haka ana tsoron cewa idan asalin hukunce-hukuncen bai tabbata ba a fili cewa Wahayi ne ya zo da shi, to wasu tunane-tunanen da ba na Musulunci ba na iya shiga cikin Al-Ummah saboda kasancewar hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah da aka fitar daga tushen da Wahayi bai kawo shi ba tun farko. Idan hakan ya yaɗu kuma aka yi amfani da shi tsawon lokaci, zai yi tasiri ga ra'ayin Al-Ummah game da rayuwa, kuma daga nan zai shafi halayyarta. Saboda haka, wajibi ne a tabbatar da cewa hujjojin da ake fitar da hukunce-hukuncen da Dawla za ta aiwatar da su hujjoji ne da Wahayi ya zo da su.

Thirdly, what is conclusive is that man’s behaviour in life proceeds according to his concepts about life. Although the viewpoint about life has the 'Aqeedah as its basis, it is nevertheless formed of a host of concepts, criteria and convictions which are existent in the Ummah. Not all of these thoughts, which are reflected in this host of concepts, criteria and convictions are part of the matters of 'Aqeedah. Rather, some of them are from the matters of 'Aqeedah and others are part of Shari’ah rules, and since rules are deduced with the least amount of doubt it is ,therefore, feared that if the origin of the rules has not been conclusively confirmed as being brought by way of Revelation, then some of the non-Islamic thoughts may creep into the Ummah due to the presence of Shari’ah rules deduced from a foundation which Revelation has not brought in the first instance. If it is widespread and used over a long period of time it will influence the viewpoint about life held by the Ummah and consequently affects its behaviour. Accordingly, it is imperative to confirm that the evidences, upon which rules to be implemented by the State are deduced, must be those evidences brought by Revelation.

Saboda waɗannan dalilai guda uku, wajibi ne a ɗauki takamaiman hanya wadda ta ke bisa ita ake karɓar hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a. Kuma cewa dalilai suna iyakance ne kawai ga manyan dalilai huɗun da aka ambata a sama, wannan an tabbatar da shi ta hanyar bincike. Mun yi nazari da bincike sosai kan dalilan da aka tabbatar da cewa, da hujja tabbatacciya, an zo da su ta hanyar Wahayi, kuma ba mu sami wani abu banda waɗannan huɗu ba ko kaɗan.

It is for these three reasons that the adoption of a specific method, according to which the Shari’ah rules are adopted, is imperative. As for the fact that the evidences are confined exclusively to the four general evidences mentioned above, this is confirmed through study. We have studied and scrutinised the evidences that have been confirmed by a conclusive evidence to have been brought by way of Revelation and we have not found anything other than these four at all.

Game da Alkur'ani, hujjojin da ke tabbatar da cewa an saukar da shi ta hanyar Wahayi daga wurin Allah (swt), cikin lafazi da ma'ana, sun tabbata sarai. Mu'jizar Alkur'ani hujja ce mai ƙarfi cewa shi Maganar Allah ce (swt), ba maganar mutum ba. Saboda haka, an kafa hujja sarai cewa Alkur'ani Maganar Allah ce (swt). Alkur'ani kansa, wanda mu'jiza ta tabbatar sarai cewa Maganar Allah ce, ya bayyana cewa Wahayi ne da ya sauka a kan Manzon Allah ﷺ; Allah (swt) yana cewa:

As for the Quran, the evidence about the fact that it has been brought by way of Revelation from Allah (swt) in letter and spirit is conclusive. The miracle of the Quran serves as conclusive evidence that it is indeed the Word of Allah (swt) and not the word of man. Therefore, the conclusive evidence has been established that the Quran is the Word of Allah (swt). The Quran itself, which has been conclusively confirmed as being the Word of Allah by the evidence of the miracle, states that it is Revelation that descended upon the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ; Allah (swt) says:

"Ruhul Amin ne ya sauko da shi; A kan zuciyarka, [Ya Muhammadu] ﷺ - domin ka kasance daga cikin masu gargadi." (TMQ 26:193-4);

“The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down; Upon your heart, [O Muhammad] - that you may be of the warners.” (TMQ 26:193-4);.

"Kuma an yi wahayin wannan Alkur'ani zuwa gare ni." (TMQ 6:19);

“And this Quran has been revealed to me.” (TMQ 6:19);.

"Ka ce, "Ina gargaɗe ku ne kawai ta hanyar wahayi kawai."" (TMQ 21:45);.

“Say, "I only warn you by revelation."” (TMQ 21:45);.

"Ba mu saukar da Alkur'ani a gare ka ba don ka sha wahala (ka shiga damuwa)." (TMQ 20:1);

“We have not revealed the Quran to you that you may be unsuccessful (become distressed).” (TMQ 20:1);.

"Kuma lalle ne, kai (Muhammadu) ana karɓar Alƙur'ani daga wurin Mai hikima, Masani." (TMQ 27:6); Note: The verse text is rendered in Hausa with the Qur'anic reference kept as in the original. The Prophet's name in the verse is not preceded by ﷺ because it sits inside a Qur'an verse, per the rules.

“And indeed, [O Muhammad], you receive the Qur'an.” (TMQ 27:6);.

"Hakika, Mu ne muka saukar maka, [Ya Muhammad], Alqur'ani a hankali." {Hakika Mu ne Muka saukar maka Alqur'ani a sannu-sannu.} (TMQ 76:23) da kuma

“Indeed, it is We who have sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Qur'an progressively.” (TMQ 76:23) and.

"Mun saukar maka Alƙur'ani cikin harshen Larabci." (TMQ 42:7). Waɗannan hujjoji ne bayyanannu da ke tabbatar da cewa Alƙur'ani ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi daga Allah (SWT).

“We have revealed to you an Arabic Qur'an.” (TMQ 42:7). These are conclusive evidences establishing the fact that the Quran has been brought by way of Revelation from Allah (swt).

Dangane da Sunnah kuwa, hujja bayyananniya da ke nuna cewa wahayi ne daga Allah (swt) a ma'ana, kuma Manzon Allah ﷺ ya bayyana shi da kalmominsa, ita ce abin da aka bayyana a fili cikin Ayoyin Alkur'ani. Allah (swt) yana cewa:

As for the Sunnah, the conclusive evidence about the fact that it is Revelation which has come from Allah (swt) in meaning, and that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) expressed it by his own words is what came clearly indicated in the Verses of the Quran. Allah (swt) says:

"Kuma bai yin magana daga son ransa ba. Ba komai ba ne face wahayin da ake saukarwa gare shi." (Suratul Najm 53:3-4)

“Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination; It [the Quran] is nothing but revelation sent down to him.” (TMQ 53:3-4);.

"Mun yi maka wahayi, [ya Muhammadu], kamar yadda Muka yi wa Nuhu da annabawan da suka zo bayansa wahayi." (TMQ 4:163);

“We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the Prophets after him.” (TMQ 4:163);.

"Ba zan bi wani abu ba sai abin da aka yi mini wahayinsa daga Ubangijina." (TMQ 6:50); "Ka ce,

“I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord.” (TMQ 6:50); “Say,.

"Ni ina bin abin da aka yi mini wahayi ne kawai."" (TMQ 7:203); ""Ka ce,

"I only follow what is revealed to me."” (TMQ 7:203); “Say,.

"Ina gargadin ku ne kawai da wahayi." (TMQ 21:45) Kuma Allah (SWT) yana cewa.

"I only warn you by revelation."” (TMQ 21:45) And Allah (swt) says.

"Duk abin da Manzon (ﷺ) ya ba ku - ku karɓa; kuma abin da ya hane ku - ku guje shi." (TMQ 59:7).

“And whatever the Messenger (pbuh) has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from.” (TMQ 59:7).

Waɗannan hujjoji ne bayyanannu da ke nuna cewa duk abin da Manzon Allah ﷺ ya faɗa a fagen Sunnah ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi; haka kuma hujjoji ne bayyanannu da ke nuna cewa Allah (SWT) ya umurce mu a cikin Alƙur'ani mu bi abin da Manzon Allah ﷺ ya umurce mu da shi, mu kuma nisanci abin da ya hana mu. Wannan umurni na gama-gari ne. Saboda haka, hujjar cewa Sunnah ta zo ta hanyar Wahayi tabbatacciya ce, domin an kafa ta da nassin Alƙur'ani mai tabbaci, wanda ma'anarsa da aka nufa ba ta da tantama.

These are clear evidences denoting that whatever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has uttered in terms of the Sunnah has come by way of Revelation; they also serve as clear evidences denoting that Allah (swt) has explicitly ordered us in the Quran to abide by what the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered us and to abstain from what he prohibited for us. This command is general. Hence, the evidence about the fact that the Sunnah has come by way of Revelation is conclusive because it has been established by a conclusive Quranic text that is definite in its intended indication.

Ijma'in Sahabbai, wanda ake ɗaukarsa a matsayin hujjar Shari'a, yana nufin matsaya ta gamayya da Sahabbai suka cimma cewa wata hukunci hukuncin Shari'a ne, ko kuma matsaya tasu ta gamayya cewa hukuncin da ya shafi wani al'amari shi ne kaza. Saboda haka, idan suka yi ittifaqi a kan wani hukunci a matsayin hukuncin Shari'a, to Ijma'insu (matsayarsu ta gamayya) za a ɗauke ta a matsayin hujjar Shari'a.

As for the Ijma’ of the Companions, which is considered a Shari’ah evidence, it means the general consensus of the Companions that such rule is a Shari’ah rule, or their general consensus that the rule pertaining such and such matter is so and so. Hence, if they unanimously consented about a certain rule as being a Shari’ah rule, their Ijma’ (general consensus) would be considered a Shari’ah evidence.

Shaidar wannan tana bayyana ne ta hanyoyi biyu: na farko, Allah (SWT) ya yabe su a cikin Alƙur'ani ta hanyar nassi bayyananne kuma tabbatacce a ma'ana. Allah (SWT) ya ce:

The evidence for this is reflected in two matters: firstly, Allah (swt) praised them in the Quran through a text that is conclusive and definite in meaning. Allah (swt) said:

"Kuma waɗanda suka fara riga-kafi cikin imani daga cikin Muhajirai da Ansāru, da waɗanda suka bi su da kyakkyawar biyayya - Allah Ya yarda da su, su ma sun yarda da Shi, kuma Ya shirya musu gonaki da ƙasansu koguna ke gudana, za su dawwama a cikinsu har abada. Wannan ita ce babbar nasara."

“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.” (TMQ 9:100).

Wannan yabo daga Allah (SWT) ga Muhajirai (masu hijira), da Ansarawa (Mataimaka), da waɗanda suka bi su da kyautatawa, saboda hijirarsu da taimakonsu, yabo ne ga Sahabbai, domin waɗanda ake yabawa su ne Sahabbai, kuma ma'anar ayar tana iyakance a gare su. Wannan yabo yana kan dukansu, kuma gaskiyar waɗanda Allah (SWT) ya yabe su haka tabbatacciya ce.

This praise by Allah (swt) of the Muhajirin (emigrants), the Ansar (Helpers) and those who followed them with righteousness, due to their emigration and their support, is a praise of the Companions because those praised are the Companions and the meaning of the verse is confined to them. This praise is for all of them and the truthfulness of those whom Allah (swt) praises in such a way is conclusive.

Dalili na biyu shi ne cewa mun karɓi Addininmu daga waɗannan Sahabbai, domin su ne suka isar mana da Alƙur'anin nan da aka saukar wa maigidanmu Muhammadu ﷺ. Saboda haka, idan muka ɗauka cewa wani kuskure zai shiga cikin guda ɗaya daga cikin abubuwan da suka yarda a kansu, to wannan yana nufin kuskuren zai iya shiga cikin Alƙur'ani; wato, kuskure zai iya shiga cikin Addinin da muka karɓa daga gare su, kuma wannan ba zai yiwu ba daga mahangar Shari'a. Don haka, duk da cewa ba zai zama abin ba-zai-yiwu ba a hankali ba Sahabbai su yi ittifaƙi a kan wani abu kuskure - domin hakan na iya faruwa tunda su mutane ne kawai - amma wannan ba zai yiwu ya faru da su ba daga mahangar Shari'a, domin idan hakan ya yiwu, to zai yiwu kuskure ya shiga cikin Addini. Wato, zai yiwu kuskure ya shiga cikin gaskiyar cewa wannan Alƙur'anin da muke da shi a yau shi ne ainihin Alƙur'anin da aka saukar wa maigidanmu Muhammadu ﷺ, kuma wannan ba zai yiwu ba daga mahangar Shari'a; don haka, ba zai yiwu a gare su gaba ɗaya su amince da wani abu kuskure ba.

The second matter is that we have taken our Deen from those Companions since they are the ones who transmitted to us the very Quran that had descended upon our master Muhammad . Hence, if we assumed that a flaw were to creep into one single matter from among what they had agreed upon, this means that the flaw could creep into the Quran; in other words, the flaw could creep into the Deen which we had taken from them and this is impossible from the angle of Shari’ah. Therefore, although it would not be rationally impossible for the Companions to unanimously agree upon an erroneous matter - for this could happen since they are only human - however, this could not possibly happen to them from the Shari’ah point of view since if this were possible, it would then be possible for error to creep into the Deen. In other words, it would be possible for error to creep into the fact that this Quran that we have today is the very same Quran that descended upon our master Muhammad , and this is impossible from the Shari’ah point of view; thus, it would be impossible for them to generally consent on something erroneous.

Wannan yana zama hujja tabbatacciya cewa ijma'in Sahabbai hujja ce ta shari'a. Bugu da kari, Allah (SWT) ya ce:

This serves as a conclusive proof that the Ijma’ of the Companions is a Shari’ah evidence. In addition, Allah (swt) says:

"Lalle ne, Mu ne muka saukar da Alkur'ani, kuma lalle ne Mu ne masu tsaronsa." (TMQ 15:9). Saboda haka, Allah (SWT) ya yi alkawarin kare Alkur'ani, kuma wanda ya isar da wannan Alkur'ani shi ne wanda ya kiyaye shi; don haka wannan yana zama hujja a kan gaskiyar Ijma'insu wajen isar da tattara Alkur'ani. Saboda haka, yana zama hujja a kan ingancin ijma'insu baki ɗaya, domin idan zai yiwu ijma'insu ya kasance da kuskure, to zai yiwu isar da Alkur'ani ya kasance da kuskure, kuma zai yiwu ba a kiyaye shi ba. Don haka, tunda rashin kiyaye Alkur'ani ba zai yiwu ba, kamar yadda ayar ta nuna, to ba zai yiwu kuskure ya shiga cikin isar da shi ko tattara shi ko kiyaye shi ba. Saboda haka, Ijma'in Sahabbai hujja ce tabbatacciya.

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (TMQ 15:9). Therefore, Allah (swt) has promised to protect the Quran and he who transmitted this Quran is he who protected it; thus, this serves as evidence about the truthfulness of their Ijma’ in transmitting and compiling the Quran. Hence, it serves as proof about the soundness of their general consensus because if it were possible for their consensus to be flawed, it would be possible for the transmission of the Quran to be flawed and it would be possible for it to be unprotected. Therefore, since the non-protection of the Quran is impossible, as indicated by the Verse, then it is impossible for error to creep into its transmission or its compiling or its protection. Hence, the Ijma’ of the Companions is a conclusive evidence.

Amma abin da ya kamata a bayyana sarai shi ne cewa ijma'in Sahabbai da ke tabbatar da cewa wata doka hukunci ne na Shari'a, kawai yana bayyana wata hujja ne; wato dai, akwai hujja ga wannan doka da ta samo asali daga aikin Manzon Allah ﷺ, ko maganarsa, ko shirunsa, sai dai Sahabbai sun isar da hukuncin amma ba su isar da hujjar ba. Saboda haka, isar da hukuncin da suka yi yana nuna cewa akwai hujja ga wannan doka. Don haka, yarjejeniyarsu baki ɗaya ba ta nufin ra'ayoyinsu na kansu sun yi daidai a kan wani al'amari na musamman, domin ra'ayoyin kansu ba Wahayi ba ne, kuma kowannensu ba ma'asumi ba ne; don haka ra'ayin wani Sahabi ba za a iya ɗaukarsa a matsayin hujjar Shari'a ba. Wannan kuwa saboda hujjar Shari'a dole ce ta zo ta hanyar Wahayi domin a ɗauke ta a matsayin hujjar Shari'a, kuma ra'ayoyin Sahabbai ba haka suke ba; saboda haka ba za a ɗauke su a matsayin hujjar Shari'a ba, ko ra'ayoyin da suka yarda a kansu ne ko waɗanda suka saɓa a kansu. Saboda wannan dalili, ijma'in Sahabbai ba ya nufin yarjejeniyarsu a kan ra'ayi guda ɗaya, a maimakon haka yana nufin yarjejeniyarsu baki ɗaya a kan cewa wata doka hukunci ne na Shari'a, ko kuma wannan doka hukunci ne na Shari'a; a wannan yanayi, ba ra'ayinsu ba ne, a'a yarjejeniya ce baki ɗaya cewa hakan daga Shari'a yake; saboda haka, ijma'in Sahabbai kawai yana bayyana hujja ne.

However, what should be made absolutely clear is that the Ijma’ of the Companions stipulating that such and such rule is a Shari’ah rule is simply uncovering an evidence; in other words, there exists for this rule an evidence derived either from the action, words or silence of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) , and that the Companions transmitted the rule but did not transmit the evidence. Hence, their transmission of the rule discloses the fact that there exists an evidence for that rule. Therefore, their general consensus does not mean that their personal opinions are in agreement over a specific matter for their personal opinions are not Revelation and each one of them is not infallible; thus, a companion’s opinion cannot be regarded as a Shari’ah evidence. This is because the Shari’ah evidence must be brought by way of Revelation in order to be considered as Shari’ah evidence, and the Companions’ opinions are not like that; therefore, they cannot be considered as Shari’ah evidence whether these were the opinions upon which they agreed or the opinions over which they disagreed. For this reason, the Ijma’ of the Companions does not mean their agreement upon one single opinion, it rather means their general consensus about the fact that a rule is a Shari’ah rule, or such and such rule is a Shari’ah rule; in this case, it is not their opinion but rather a general consensus that it is from Shari’ah; hence, the Ijma’ of the Companions is simply uncovering an evidence.

Dangane da Qiyas, shi ma hujja ce daga cikin hujjojin Shari'a. A harshe yana nufin kimantawa, kuma a cikin ilimin Usul yana nufin yin kwatanci tsakanin wani abu da aka sani da wani abu da aka sani, domin ko dai a tabbatar da hukunci ga dukansu, ko kuma a musanta shi ga dukansu, saboda wani abu na bai-daya da ke tsakaninsu. Don haka, kwatanta hukuncin wani abu da aka sani da wani abu da aka sani saboda haɗuwarsu a cikin 'Illah (dalili) na hukuncin. Saboda haka, shi ne mika tushe zuwa reshe, ko kuma a wata ma'ana, haɗa reshe da tushe. Ma'anar ɗaukar wani abu da aka sani a kan wani abu da aka sani ita ce, ɗayansu yana raba hukunci ɗaya da ɗayan, don haka hukuncin tushe yana tabbata ga reshe, kuma reshe yana raba hukunci ɗaya da tushe. Wannan hukuncin tushe na iya zama tabbatarwa; Al-Bukhari ya ruwaito daga Ibn Abbas.

As for Qiyas, it is also Shari’ah evidence. Linguistically it means estimating and in the Usul terminology it is the making of analogy between a known matter upon another known matter in order to either confirm a rule for both of them or to disclaim it for both of them due to a mutual factor between them. Thus, it is comparing the rule of a known matter to another known matter due to their association in the ‘Illah (the reason) of the rule. Accordingly it is the extending of the root to the branch or in other words, the joining of the branch to the root. The meaning of carrying a known fact upon a known fact means that one of them shares the same rule with the other, so the rule of the root is established for the branch, and the branch shares the same rule as the root. This rule of the root could be a confirmation; Al-Bukhari reported from Ibn Abbas.

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

Wata mace daga kabilar Juhaina ta zo wajen Annabi ﷺ ta ce: "Mahaifiyata ta yi alkawarin yin Hajji, amma ta mutu kafin ta yi shi. Shin zan iya yin Hajji a madadinta?" Sai Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Ki yi Hajji a madadinta. Da an ce mahaifiyarki tana da bashi, shin da kin biya shi ko ba za ki biya ba? Don haka ki biya bashin Allah, domin Shi ya fi cancanta a biya bashinsa." Anan Manzon Allah ﷺ ya kwatanta bashin Allah da bashin mutum, ya kuma bayyana cewa biyan sa ya isa. A wannan misali, hukuncin shi ne tabbatar da cewa biyan bashin zai isa.

“A woman from the tribe of Juhaina came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said, "My mother had vowed to perform Hajj but she died before performing it. May I perform Hajj on my mother's behalf?" The Prophet (pbuh) replied, "Perform Hajj on her behalf. Had there been a debt on your mother, would you have paid it or not? So, pay Allah's debt as He has more right to be paid.'”Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) compared the debt to Allah to the debt of the human and stated that its settlement would suffice. In this instance, the rule is a confirmation that the settlement of the debt would suffice.

Ƙa'idar asali wadda ake kwatanta da ita (qiyasi) na iya zama kuma ƙaryatawa, kamar abin da aka ruwaito daga Umar (ra) cewa ya tambayi Annabi ﷺ game da sumbatar mai azumi da ko tana karya azumi. Sai Annabi ﷺ ya ce:

The rule of the root that is compared with could also be a disaffirmation as is the case in what is reported on the authority of Umar (ra) who asked the Prophet (pbuh) about the kiss of the one who is fasting and whether it breaks the fast. The Prophet (pbuh) then asked,.

. » أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « .

. » أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « .

"Me kuke ganin idan ka kurkure bakinka (yayin da kake azumi), shin hakan zai karya azuminka?" Ya amsa da cewa "A'a." Al-Hakim ne ya ruwaito wannan hadisi, Al-Dhahabi kuma ya tabbatar da ingancinsa. A nan Manzon Allah ﷺ ya kwatanta sumbatar mai azumi da kurkure baki, ta fuskar cewa ba ta ɓata azumi ba. Saboda haka, hukuncin a wannan yanayi shi ne musantawa, wato cewa azumi ba ya lalacewa.

“What do you think if you rinsed your mouth (while you were fasting), would that break your fast?” He replied “No” authenticated by Al-Hakim and confirmed by Al-Dhahabi. Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) compared the kiss of a fasting person to the rinsing out of one’s mouth in that it does not invalidate the fast. Hence, the rule in this context is a disaffirmation, in this case the non-invalidation of the fast.

Ma'anar wannan qiyasi da ke dogara ga wani abu na bai ɗaya tsakanin al'amura biyu shi ne cewa 'illar shari'a ta asali kuma tana samuwa a cikin reshe. Bisa wannan 'illa ne ake mayar da hukunci daga asali zuwa reshe, kuma wannan 'illa ita ce abin da ya haɗa abin da ake kwatantawa da abin da ake kwatanta da shi, wato tsakanin asali da reshe. Misali na haka shi ne lokacin da aka tambayi Manzon Allah ﷺ game da sayen dabino da dabino mai nuna, sai ya ce:

The meaning of this analogy being based upon a common factor between the two matters is that the ‘Illah (Shari’ah reason) of the root is also found in the branch. It is on the basis of this ‘Illah that the carrying over takes place and this ‘Illah is the common factor between the compared and the compared with or in other words, between the root and the branch. An example of this is reflected when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was asked about the purchase of dates by ripened dates. He said:

. » أَيَ نْ قُصُ الرُّطَبُ إِذَا يَبِسَ ؟ فَ قَالُوا: نَ عَمْ، فَ قَالَ: فَلاَ، إِذَنْ « .

. » أَيَ نْ قُصُ الرُّطَبُ إِذَا يَبِسَ ؟ فَ قَالُوا: نَ عَمْ، فَ قَالَ: فَلاَ، إِذَنْ « .

"Do the dates (Rutab) diminish in size when they become dry?" They said: "Yes, they do." He said: "In that case, no (He forbade that)." (Abu Ya'la reported it with these words from Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas, and Al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban authenticated it.) Here, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked about the 'illah (effective cause) that exists in usurious money, which is the increase, and whether it was also found in the sale of fresh dates for dry dates. When he knew it was present, he confirmed the ruling of riba (usury) for this type of sale, and so he said.

“Do the dates (Rutab) diminish in size when they become dry?' They said: (yes) they did. He said: in this case, no (He forbade that).” (reported by Abu Ya’la with these words from Sa’d Bin Abi Waqqas and authenticated by Al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban). Here, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asked about the ‘Illah that exists in the usurious money, which is the increase, and whether it was also found in the sale of Rutab for dates, and when he knew of its presence, he confirmed the rule of Riba (usury) for such as type of sale, and so he (said).

.» فَلاَ، إِذَنْ «.

.» فَلاَ، إِذَنْ «.

"a wannan yanayin, a'a". Wato, haramun ne a musayar irin wannan kayan masarufi kamar yadda yake, saboda nauyinsa yana raguwa idan an busar da shi; don haka Manzon Allah ﷺ ya tambayi abin da ya hada su, wanda shi ne Shari'ar 'Illar Riba.

“in this case, no”. In other words, it is forbidden to exchange such commodity as it is because it decreases in weight once it is dried; thus, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asked about the mutual factor which is the Shari’ah ‘Illah of Riba.

Wannan shi ne ma'anar Qiyas a cikin Shari'a. Wannan ma'anar an samo ta daga hadisan Manzon Allah ﷺ. Ibn Abbas ya ruwaito:

This is the definition of Qiyas according to the Shari’ah. This definition has been obtained from the narrations of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) . Ibn Abbas narrated:

. فَ قَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّ أُمِّي مَاتَتْ وَعَلَيْ هَ ا جَاءَتِ امْرَأَةٌ إِلَى رَسُولِ « صَوْمُ نَذْرٍ، أَفَأَصُومُ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتِهِ أَكَانَ ي ؤَُدِّي » ذَلِكِ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَتْ: نَ عَمْ، قَالَ: فَصُومِي عَنْ أُمِّكِ .

. فَ قَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّ أُمِّي مَاتَتْ وَعَلَيْ هَ ا جَاءَتِ امْرَأَةٌ إِلَى رَسُولِ « صَوْمُ نَذْرٍ، أَفَأَصُومُ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتِهِ أَكَانَ ي ؤَُدِّي » ذَلِكِ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَتْ: نَ عَمْ، قَالَ: فَصُومِي عَنْ أُمِّكِ .

"Wata mace ta zo wurin Manzon Allah ﷺ ta ce: Ya Manzon Allah ﷺ, mahaifiyata ta rasu kuma tana da azumin alwashi a kanta; shin in yi azumi a madadinta? Sai ya ce: Ka ga idan mahaifiyarka ta mutu tana da bashi, ba za a biya shi a madadinta ba ne? Ta ce: Eh. Ya ce: To, ka yi azumi a madadin mahaifiyarka." (Muslim ne ya ruwaito shi). An ruwaito daga ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair cewa wani mutum ya tambayi Manzon Allah ﷺ:

“A woman came to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and said: Messenger of Allah (pbuh), my mother has died and there is due from her a fast of vow; should I fast on her behalf? Thereupon he said: You see that if your mother had died in debt, would it not have been paid on her behalf? She said: Yes. He said: Then observe fast on behalf of your mother.” (reported by Muslim). It is narrated by ‘Abd Allah Bin Al-Zubair that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) :

جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ خَثْ عَمٍ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَ قَالَ إِنَّ أَبِي « أَدْرَكَهُ الْإِسْلَامُ وَهُوَ شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُ رُكُوبَ الرَّحْلِ وَالْحَجُّ مَكْتُوبٌ عَلَيْهِ أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْهُ قَالَ أَنْتَ أَكْبَ رُ ولَدِهِ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أَبِيكَ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتَهُ عَنْهُ أَكَانَ » ذَلِكَ يُجْزِئُ عَنْهُ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ فَاحْجُجْ عَنْه.

جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ خَثْ عَمٍ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَ قَالَ إِنَّ أَبِي « أَدْرَكَهُ الْإِسْلَامُ وَهُوَ شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُ رُكُوبَ الرَّحْلِ وَالْحَجُّ مَكْتُوبٌ عَلَيْهِ أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْهُ قَالَ أَنْتَ أَكْبَ رُ ولَدِهِ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أَبِيكَ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتَهُ عَنْهُ أَكَانَ » ذَلِكَ يُجْزِئُ عَنْهُ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ فَاحْجُجْ عَنْه.

“Ya Manzon Allah (ﷺ), mahaifina ya tsufa sosai a lokacin da ya musulunta, kuma ba zai iya hawan dabba ba. Shin in yi Hajji a madadinsa?” Sai ya ce: “Ka duba, idan mahaifinka ya mutu yana da bashi, ba za a biya ta madadinsa ba?” Ya ce: “E.” Sai ya ce: “To, ka yi Hajji a madadin mahaifinka” (Ahmad ne ya ruwaito shi da sanadin da Al-Zain ya tabbatar da ingancinsa, Al-Darimi kuma ya ruwaito makamancinsa).

“O Messenger of Allah (pbuh), my father was an old man when he became Muslim, and could not ride an animal, do I perform Hajj on his behalf?” He said: “You see if your father had died in debt, would it not have been paid on his behalf?” He said: “Yes.” So he said: “Then do perform Hajj on behalf of your father” (reported by Ahmad with a chain authenticated by Al-Zain, and reported similarly by Al-Darimi).

A cikin hadisai biyu ne, Manzon Allah (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya haɗa bashin Allah (SWT) na azumi da na Hajji da bashin mutum, kuma dukkansu haɗin wani abu sananne ne da wani abu sananne, watau danganta bashin Allah da bashin mutum wajen tabbatar da cewa biyan wani a madadin mutum yana wadatarwa. Wannan kuwa saboda dukkan waɗannan abubuwa bashi ne; don haka abin da ya haɗa su shi ne bashi, kuma wannan shi ne 'Illah, hukuncin da aka tabbatar a kansu kuma shi ne wadatuwar biyan. Wannan shi ne ainihin Qiyas bisa ga Shari'a daga nassin Shari'a. Saboda haka, wannan ma'ana ta zama hukuncin Shari'a wanda wajibi ne a aiwatar da shi, kuma hukuncin Allah ne mai ɗaurewa ga wanda ya fitar da shi da kuma ga wanda ya yi koyi da shi, ko dai a matsayin Muttabi' (Muqallid mai binciken dalili) ko kuma a matsayin 'Ammi (Muqallid wanda bai binciki dalili ba). Yana kama da kowane hukuncin Shari'a, wanda aka fitar daga nassin Shari'a, domin ma'anoni da ƙa'idodin Shari'a da aka fitar daga nassosin Shari'a hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a ne kamar sauran hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a.

In these two narrations, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) linked the debt to Allah (swt) in fasting and in Hajj onto the debt to the human and they are both the linkage of a known matter upon another known matter, i.e. the association of the debt to Allah with the debt to the human in confirming that their settlement on one’s behalf would suffice. This is so because both of these matters are debts; thus the mutual factor between them is the debt and this is the ‘Illah and the rule that has been confirmed for both of them is the sufficing of the settlement. This is the reality of Qiyas according to the Shari’ah from the Shari’ah text. Therefore, this definition is a Shari’ah rule that must be implemented and it is the binding rule of Allah upon the one who deduces it and upon the one who imitates it either as a Muttabi’ (a Muqallid who queries the evidence) or as an ‘Ammi (a Muqallid who did not query the evidence). It is like any other Shari’ah rule, deduced from a Shari’ah evidence, because the Shari’ah definitions and principles deduced from the Shari’ah evidences are Shari’ah rules like all other Shari’ah rules.

Wannan Qiyas yana dogara ne da 'Illah, wato dalili ko abin da ya haɗa tsakanin abin da aka danganta (al-far'i) da abin da aka danganta shi da shi (al-asl), wato tsakanin tushe da reshe. Saboda haka, idan 'Illah ta samu, wato idan abin haɗin nan ya samu tsakanin abin da ake kwatantawa da abin da ake kwatanta shi da shi, to za a iya yin Qiyas; idan kuma ba haka ba, to Qiyas ba ya faruwa kwata-kwata. Wannan 'Illah za a ɗauke ta a matsayin hujja ta Shari'a idan an ambace ta a cikin nassin Shari'a, ko kuma idan tana kama da abin da nassin Shari'a ya lissafa, domin 'Illar da aka gina Qiyas a kanta Shari'a ta ambace ta.

This Qiyas is based upon the ‘Illah or in other words, upon the common factor between the known linked matter and the known matter it is linked to; that is, between the root and the branch. Hence, if the ‘Illah is found, that is if the mutual factor is found between the compared and the compared with, then Qiyas can be done; otherwise, Qiyas does not take place at all. This ‘Illah would be considered a Shari’ah evidence if it were mentioned in a Shari’ah text or if it were analogous with what is listed by a Shari’ah text because the ‘Illah upon which the Qiyas is based has been mentioned by Shari’ah.

Akasin haka, idan wannan 'illar ba ta kasance an ambata ta a cikin nassin Shari'a ba, kuma ba ta yi daidai da abin da aka lissafa a cikin nassin Shari'a ba, irin wannan Qiyas ba za a dauke shi a matsayin Qiyas mai inganci ba, haka kuma ba zai zama hujjar Shari'a ba. Wannan saboda dalilin da aka gina shi a kansa bai kasance an ambata shi ta nassin Shari'a ba; don haka irin wannan Qiyas ba zai zama daga Shari'a ba, kuma saboda haka ba zai iya zama hujjar Shari'a ba.

By contrast, if this ‘Illah were not mentioned in a Shari’ah text and it were not analogous with that which is listed in a Shari’ah text, such a Qiyas would not be considered a valid Qiyas, nor a Shari’ah evidence. This is because the reason upon which it is based has not been mentioned by a Shari’ah text; thus such Qiyas could not be from Shari’ah and consequently it cannot be a Shari’ah evidence.

Dalilin cewa wannan Qiyas dalili ne na Shari'a yana bayyana ne a cikin cewa nassin Shari'a wanda aka ambaci 'Illah a cikinsa, ko kuma wanda yake daidai da abin da aka ambata a nassin Shari'a, zai iya fitowa daga Littafi, ko daga Sunnah, ko kuma daga Ijma'in Sahabbai. Wadannan dalilai guda uku an tabbatar da cewa dalilai ne na Shari'a ta hanyar hujja bayyananniya; don haka, dalilin 'Illah na Shari'a ya zama bayyananne, kuma wannan shi ne dalilin Qiyas. Hakan ya faru ne saboda dalilin Shari'a da ake samu a cikin hukuncin da nassi ya ambata, wanda ke aiki a matsayin tushe, shi ne yake sanya hukuncin da ke cikin reshe ya zama hukuncin Shari'a, kuma shi ne yake sa Qiyas ya yiwu, domin ba tare da shi ba da Qiyas ba zai wanzu tun farko ba. Saboda haka, dalilinsa shi ma zai zama dalili ga Qiyas.

Evidence about this Qiyas being a Shari’ah evidence is reflected in the fact that the Shari’ah text in which the ‘Illah is mentioned or analogous with what is mentioned in the Shari’ah text could either come from the Book, the Sunnah or from the Ijma’ of the Companions. These three evidences have been confirmed as being Shari’ah evidences through conclusive proof; thus, the evidence of the Shari’ah ‘Illah is conclusive and that is the evidence of Qiyas. This is so because the Shari’ah reason found in the rule that is mentioned by the text, which acts as the root, is what makes the rule in the branch a Shari’ah rule and it is what makes Qiyas feasible for without it Qiyas would not have existed in the first place. Therefore, its evidence will also serve as evidence for Qiyas.

Wannan Qiyas na Shari'a an nuna mana shi ne da Manzon Allah ﷺ, kuma ya ɗauke shi a matsayin hujja ta Shari'a. Sahabbai ma sun bi shi, suka karɓe shi a matsayin hujja ta Shari'a sa'ad da suke fitar da hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a. An ruwaito cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce wa Mu'azu da Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari a lokacin da zai aike su zuwa Yaman:

This Shari’ah Qiyas has been demonstrated to us by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and he considered it a Shari’ah evidence. The Companions also proceeded according to it and adopted it as a Shari’ah evidence when they deduced the Shari’ah rules. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said to Mu’ath and Abu Moussa Al-Ash’ari when he was about to dispatch them to Yemen:

. بِمَ تَ قْضِيَانِ ؟ فَ قَالاَ: إِنْ لَمْ نَجِدِ الحُكْمَ فِي الكِتَابِ وَلاَ السُّ نَّةِ قِسْنَا الأَمْرَ « » بِالأَمْرِ، فَمَا كَانَ أَقْ رَبَ إِلَى ال حَ قِّ عَمِلْنَا بِهِ .

. بِمَ تَ قْضِيَانِ ؟ فَ قَالاَ: إِنْ لَمْ نَجِدِ الحُكْمَ فِي الكِتَابِ وَلاَ السُّ نَّةِ قِسْنَا الأَمْرَ « » بِالأَمْرِ، فَمَا كَانَ أَقْ رَبَ إِلَى ال حَ قِّ عَمِلْنَا بِهِ .

"Bisa me za ku yi hukunci?" Suka ce: "In ba mu sami hukunci a cikin Littafi ko a cikin Sunnah ba, za mu yi qiyas tsakanin abubuwa; duk wanda (bisa ra'ayinmu) ya fi kusa da gaskiya, shi za mu karɓa." (wanda Al-Amidi ya ambata a cikin Al-Ahkam da Abu Al-Husain a cikin Al-Mu'tamad) A nan Mu'az da Abu Musa sun bayyana a fili cewa za su yi amfani da qiyas, kuma Manzon Allah ﷺ ya amince da wannan; saboda haka, wannan yana zama hujja cewa qiyas hujja ce ta Shari'ah.

“What will you judge by?” They said: “If we don’t find the rule in the Book or in the Sunnah, we will make analogy (Qiyas) between things; whichever (according to our judgement) is closer to the right is adopted.” (mentioned by Al-Amidi in Al- Ahkam and Abu Al-Husain in Al-Mu’tamad) Here Mu’ath and Abu Moussa explicitly stated that they would use Qiyas and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) approved this; ,therefore, this serves as proof that Qiyas is a Shari’ah evidence.

Daga Ibn Abbas, an ruwaito cewa:

It is reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that:

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

"Wata mace daga kabilar Juhaina ta zo wurin Annabi ﷺ ta ce: "Mahaifiyata ta yi alkawarin yin Hajji amma ta mutu kafin ta yi shi. Shin zan iya yin Hajji a madadin mahaifiyata?" Sai Annabi ﷺ ya amsa: "Ki yi Hajji a madadinta. Da ace mahaifiyarki tana da bashi, shin za ki biya shi ko a'a? Don haka ki biya bashin Allah, domin Allah shi ne mafi cancantar a biya bashinsa."" (Al-Bukhari ne ya ruwaito shi). Anan Manzon Allah ﷺ yana so ya koyar da wannan mace, sai ya haɗa bashin Allah da bashin mutum a wajibcin biyan bashi da isarsa, kuma wannan shi ne ainihin Qiyas. An ruwaito daga Umar bn Al-Khattab (RA) cewa ya tambayi Annabi ﷺ game da sumbatar mai azumi ko yana karya azumi. Sai Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Ka gaya min, idan ka yi kurkurar baki, shin hakan zai ɓata azumi?" Sai ya ce: "A'a."

“A woman from the tribe of Juhaina came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said, "My mother had vowed to perform Hajj but she died before performing it. May I perform Hajj on my mother's behalf?" The Prophet (pbuh) replied, "Perform Hajj on her behalf. Had there been a debt on your mother, would you have paid it or not? So, pay Allah's debt as He has more right to be paid.” (reported by Al-Bukhari). Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) wanted to teach this woman so he joined the debt to Allah to the debt of the human in the obligation of settling the debt and its sufficing, and this is exactly Qiyas itself. It is reported on the authority of Umar Bin Al-Khattab (ra) who asked the Prophet (pbuh) about the kiss of the one who is fasting and whether it breaks the fast. The Prophet (pbuh) then asked, .» أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « .

"Me kake tunani idan ka kurkure bakinka (a lokacin da kake azumi), shin hakan zai karya azuminka?" Ya amsa da cewa "A'a" (Al-Hakim ya tabbatar da shi, Al-Dhahabi kuma ya tabbatar da shi). A nan Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi watsi da hukuncin cewa sumba a lokacin azumi tana karya azumi, ta hanyar kwatanta ta da kurkure baki a lokacin azumi, wanda ba ya karya azumi, domin babu wanda daga cikinsu da ke shiga cikin ciki. Don haka wannan bayani ne na hukuncin ta hanyar amfani da Qiyas.

“What do you think if you rinsed your mouth (while you were fasting), would that break your fast?” He replied “No” (authenticated by Al-Hakim and confirmed by Al-Dhahabi). Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) rejected the rule of invalidating the fast for the act of kissing while fasting by comparing it with the act of rinsing out the mouth while fasting, which does not invalidate the fast, because neither of them enters the belly. Thus it was an explanation of the rule through the use of Qiyas.

A cikin waɗannan nassoshi uku, ba a ba da 'illa ga hukunci kawai ba, a'a, an kuma amince da qiyas kansa, an koyar da shi kuma an bayyana shi ta cikinsu, kuma wannan yana zama hujja mai inganci da ke tabbatar da cewa qiyas dalili ne na Shari'a.

In these three texts, the rule was not only given an ‘Illah, as in the case in many texts that denote Qiyas, rather, Qiyas itself was also approved, taught and explained through them and this serves as a valid argument stipulating that Qiyas is a Shari’ah evidence.

Dangane da Manzon Allah ﷺ, wannan ke nan. Amma game da Sahabbai, an ruwaito cewa sun yi amfani da Qiyas a matsayin hujjar Shari'a a abubuwa da dama. Misali guda shi ne abin da Sa'id bin Mansur ya ruwaito a cikin Sunan dinsa daga Al-Qasim bin Muhammad.

This is as far as the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is concerned. As for the Companions, it is reported that they used Qiyas as Shari’ah evidence in several matters. One example is what has been narrated by Said Bin Mansur in his Sunan from Al-Qasim Bin Muhammad.

."أن رجلا مات وترك جدتيه أم أمه وأم أبيه فأتوا أبا بكر فأعطى أم أمه السدس وترك أم أبيه فقال له رجل من الأنصار: لقد ورثت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ما ورث منها شيئا وتركت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ورث مالها كله فأشرك بينهما في السدس." .

."أن رجلا مات وترك جدتيه أم أمه وأم أبيه فأتوا أبا بكر فأعطى أم أمه السدس وترك أم أبيه فقال له رجل من الأنصار: لقد ورثت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ما ورث منها شيئا وتركت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ورث مالها كله فأشرك بينهما في السدس." .

Wani mutum ya rasu ya bar bayan sa kakannin sa mata biyu, wato uwar mahaifiyarsa da uwar mahaifinsa, sai Abu Bakar ya zo ya ba uwar mahaifiyarsa sashi ɗaya cikin shida, ya bar uwar mahaifinsa, sai wani mutum daga Ansar ya ce masa: "Ka ba da gādon mamaci ga mace wacce idan ita ce ta mutu, da mutumin nan bai gāje ta ba; kuma ka hana wacce idan ita ce ta mutu, mutumin nan zai gāji dukan gādonta." Sai ya raba sashin shida tsakanin su biyun. Wannan lamari an ambace shi ma da Al-Ghazali a cikin Al-Mustasfa da Al-Amidi a cikin Al-Ihkam. A nan sahabbai sun kwatanta gādon mai rai daga mamaci da gādon mamaci daga mai rai, ta hanyar ɗauka cewa mamacin yana raye, mai rayuwar kuma ya mutu; don haka suka kammala cewa dalilin haɗin kai, wato zumunci tsakanin mutanen biyu, iri ɗaya ne a bangarorin biyu. Sa'ad da Abu Bakar ya ji wannan Qiyas, ya miƙa wuya gare shi, ya aiwatar da shi, kuma ya janye daga ra'ayinsa.

“A man died and left behind his two grandmothers, his mother’s mother and his father’s mother, and so Abu Bakr came and gave the mother of his mother a sixth and left the mother of his father, and so a man from the Ansar said to him: “You gave the inheritance of a dead man to a woman who if she had died, the same man would not have inherited her; and you excluded the woman whom the man would have inherited all her legacy had she been the one who died”, and so he divided the sixth between them” . This event was also mentioned by Al-Ghazali in Al-Mustasfa and Al-Amidi in Al-Ihkam. Here, the Companions compared the inheritance of the living from the dead with the inheritance of the dead to the living by assuming that the dead was living and the living was dead; thus, concluding that the mutual factor - the kinship between the two persons - is the same in both instances. When Abu Bakr heard this Qiyas, he submitted to it, implemented it and retracted from his own opinion.

Irin wannan shi ne abin da aka ruwaito cewa Umar (ra) ya rubuta wa Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari yana cewa:

Similar to this is what was reported that Umar (ra) wrote to Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari saying:

. "اعرف الأشباه والأمثال، ثم قس الأمور برأيك" .

. "اعرف الأشباه والأمثال، ثم قس الأمور برأيك" .

"Ka lura da kamanci, daidaito, da kwatancen abubuwa, kuma ka yi kiyasi tsakanin al'amura gwargwadon hukuncinka" (Al-Shirazi ya ambata wannan a cikin Tabaqat Al-Fuqaha', Al-Bayhaqi kuma ya ruwaito shi a Al-Ma'rifa Min Kitab Adab Al-Qadi). Umar (ra) shi ne Amirul Muminina, alhali Abu Musa kuwa alkali ne a wannan lokaci. Haka kuma, aka ce wa Umar (ra) cewa Samra ya karbi giya daga 'yan kasuwar Yahudawa a matsayin zakka, sai ya mayar da ita vinegar ya sayar da ita, sai Umar (ra) ya ce:

“Realize the likeness, similarity, and comparison in things and make analogy between the matters according to your judgement” (This was mentioned by Al-Shirazi in Tabaqat Al-Fuqaha’ and was narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Ma’rifa Min Kitab Adab Al-Qadi). Umar (ra) was the Amir of the believers while Abu Musa was a judge in this instance. Similarly, it was said to Umar (ra) that Samra had taken wine from Jewish traders as tithe which he then turned into vinegar and sold so Umar (ra) said:

. قال: لَعَنَ اللَّهُ اليهودَ، حُرِّمَتْ "قاتَلَ اللَّهُ سَمُرَة ! أَمَا عَلِمَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عليهِمُ الشُّحومُ فَجَمَلُوها وباعوها وأَكَلُوا ثَمَنَها" .

. قال: لَعَنَ اللَّهُ اليهودَ، حُرِّمَتْ "قاتَلَ اللَّهُ سَمُرَة ! أَمَا عَلِمَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عليهِمُ الشُّحومُ فَجَمَلُوها وباعوها وأَكَلُوا ثَمَنَها" .

"Allah ya halakar da Samura; ashe bai sani ba cewa Manzon Allah ya ce: La'nar Allah ta tabbata a kan Yahudawa, domin an haramta musu kitse, amma suka narkar da shi, sannan suka sayar da shi, suka ci kudinsa." (Muslim ne ya ruwaito shi). A nan, Umar (ra) ya kwatanta giya da kitse, ya kuma kammala da cewa haramcinta yana tabbatar da haramcin sayar da ita. Wani misali kuma shi ne lokacin da Umar (ra) bai tabbata ba game da hukuncin mutum bakwai da suka shiga cikin kisan wani mutum guda, sai Ali (ra) ya ce masa:

“May Allah destroy Samura; does he not know that Allah's Messenger said: Let there be the curse of Allah upon the Jews that fat was declared forbidden for them, but they melted it and then sold it and ate its money.” (reported by Muslim). Here, Umar (ra) compared wine with fat and concluded that its prohibition stipulates the prohibition of its sale. Another example is when Umar (ra) was not sure about the penalty of the seven who took part in the killing of one man so ‘Ali (ra) said to him:

. "يا أمير المؤمنين، أرأيت لو أن نفراً اشتركوا في سرقة، أكنت تقطعهم؟ قال: نعم. قال: فكذلك" .

. "يا أمير المؤمنين، أرأيت لو أن نفراً اشتركوا في سرقة، أكنت تقطعهم؟ قال: نعم. قال: فكذلك" .

“Ya Amirul Mu'minin! Idan wata ƙungiya ta shiga cikin satar wani abu, shin za ka yanke hannayensu?” Ya ce: “Eh.” Sai ‘Ali ya ce masa: “Haka nan kuma” (wanda ‘Abdur-Razzaq ya ambata a cikin Al-Musannaf). Wannan Qiyas ne tsakanin kisa da sata, kuma duk wannan yana nuna cewa Qiyas hujja ce ta Shari'a da ake cirewa daga Sunnah da Ijma'in Sahabbai. Saboda haka, abin da aka tabbatar ta hanyar Manzon Allah ﷺ shi ne Sunnah, kuma abin da aka tabbatar ta hanyar Sahabbai ana ɗaukarsa "Ijma'i Sukūtī" (Yarjejeniya ta Shiru), domin Sahabbai da suka yi amfani da Qiyas sun yi hakan a gaban sauran Sahabbai, suna sane da hakan sosai, kuma babu ɗaya daga cikinsu da ya yi suka; don haka, ya zama yarjejeniya ta gama-gari.

“O Amir of the believers! What if a group of people were to take part in a theft, would you cut their hands?” He said: “Yes.” So ‘Ali said to him: “So likewise” (mentioned by ‘Abd Al-Razzaq in Al-Musannaf). This is a Qiyas between the killing and the theft, and all this indicates that Qiyas is Shari’ah evidence deduced from the Sunnah and the Ijma’ of the Companions. Hence, what has been confirmed through the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is the Sunnah and what has been confirmed through the Companions is considered an “Ijma’ Sukuti” (Silent Consensus) because the Companions who utilised Qiyas did so in the presence and the full knowledge of the rest of the Companions, and none of them condemned it; therefore, it was a general consensus.

Amma Sunnah da Ijma'in Sahabbai duk an ruwaito su ta hanyar hadisi guda ɗaya (Ahad), saboda haka ana ɗaukar su a matsayin hujja mara tabbas (zanni). Don haka shaidar tabbatacciya cewa Qiyas hujja ce ta Shari'a tana cikin abin da muka ambata game da cewa Illah tana zuwa a cikin nassin Shari'a, wato a cikin Littafi da Sunnah ko kuma a cikin Ijma'in Sahabbai. Waɗannan hujjoji guda uku an tabbatar da cewa hujjojin Shari'a ne ta hanyar dalili tabbatacce. Saboda haka, suna aiki a matsayin hujja ga Qiyas, domin su ne hujja ga Illah.

However, the Sunnah and the Ijma’ of the Companions have both been reported by way of individual report (Ahad narrations), thus they are considered as indefinite evidence. Therefore, the conclusive evidence about the fact that Qiyas is a Shari’ah evidence is reflected in what we mentioned with regard to the Illah being mentioned in the Shari’ah text, that is, in the Book and the Sunnah or in the Ijma’ of the Companions. These three evidences have been confirmed as being Shari’ah evidences by way of conclusive evidence. Therefore, they act as the evidence for Qiyas because they are the evidence for the Illah.

An an tabbatar da cikakkiyar hujja cewa waɗannan dalilai guda huɗu, wato Littafi, Sunnah, Ijma'in Sahabbai da Qiyas, sun zo ne ta hanyar Wahayi daga Allah (SWT). Baya ga waɗannan huɗu, babu wata hujja da aka tabbatar da ita ta hanyar dalili mai karfi. Cewa ba a tabbatar da su da dalili mai karfi ba a bayyane yake, domin waɗanda ke amfani da su a matsayin hujja ba sa da'awar cewa hujjar da ke nuna cewa su dalilan Shari'a ne hujja ce ta tabbata. Cewa ba a tabbatar da su a matsayin dalilan Shari'a (masu tabbatarwa) ba kuma a bayyane yake daga rashin dacewar dalilan da suke kawowa – a lokacin da suke duba su a matsayin hujjojin Shari'a – game da al'amarin da suke neman tabbatar da hujja a kansa. A wasu kalmomin, a bayyane yake cewa akwai kuskuren fahimta a cikin abin da suke gabatarwa daga dalilan game da abin da suke da'awa, kamar: ijma'in Musulmai, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah ko Al-Istihsan da makamantansu daga dalilan Shari'a.

It has been conclusively established that these four evidences, the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma’ of the Companions and Qiyas have come by way of Revelation from Allah (swt). Apart from these four, no other evidence has been established through conclusive evidence. The fact that they are not established by conclusive evidence is clear since those who use them as evidence do not claim that the proof that they are Shari’ah evidences is a definitive proof. The fact that they are not confirmed as (decisive) Shari’ah evidences is clear from the lack of conformity of the evidences which they bring forward – in their consideration as Shari’ah proofs – upon the issue that they are trying to establish the evidence upon. In other words, it is clearly apparent that there is a mistaken inference in what they present from the evidences upon what they are claiming, such as: the consensus of the Muslims, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah or Al- Istihsaan and similar to them from the Shari’ah evidences.

Waɗanda suke da'awar cewa ijma'in Musulmai hujja ce ta Shari'a, suna cire hukuncinsu ne daga maganar Annabi ﷺ:

So, those who claim that the consensus of the Muslims is a Shari’ah evidence draw their conclusion from the words of the Prophet (pbuh) :

. » لاَ تَجْتَمِعُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ « .

. » لاَ تَجْتَمِعُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ « .

"Al'ummata ta ba za ta taru a kan ɓata ba". Ibn Hajr ya ambata cewa hadisin mashhur ne, yana da hanyoyi da yawa, duk da cewa akwai muhawara game da dukkan hanyoyinsa, kuma a kowane hali, wannan ba ya ƙunshe da hujja, domin ɓata a nan tana nufin ridda daga addini ba kuskure ba, kuma da wannan ma'anar ne aka ambata a cikin hadisin:

“My Ummah will not gather upon a misguidance”. Ibn Hajr mentioned the narration as being Mashhur with many different paths, though all of them have debate around them, and in any case, this does not contain a proof since the misguidance here means apostasy from the Deen and not mistakes and with this meaning it was mentioned in the narration:

. لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ أُمَّتِى عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ، فَ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجَمَاعَةِ، فَإِنَّ يَدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى « » الْجَمَاعَةِ .

. لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ أُمَّتِى عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ، فَ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجَمَاعَةِ، فَإِنَّ يَدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى « » الْجَمَاعَةِ .

"Al'ummata ta ba za ta taru a kan ɓata ba (Dalalah), saboda haka ku manne wa jama'a (Jama'at); Hannun Allah yana tare da jama'a" (Al-Tabarani ne ya ruwaito shi, tare da sanadin da dukkan mutanensa amintattu ne, daga Ibn Umar). Wannan daidai ne, tun da al'ummar Musulunci ba za ta taru a kan ridda daga Musulunci ba. Duk da haka, za su iya taruwa a kan kuskure, kuma hujja mafi sauki a kan haka ita ce al'ummar Musulunci ta taru a kan barin aikin kafa Khalifanci tsawon lokaci mai tsawo, kuma wannan ijma'i ne a kan kuskure.

“My Ummah will not gather upon a misguidance (Dalalah), and so stick to the group (Jama’at); the Hand of Allah is with the group” (reported by Al-Tabarani with a chain whose men are all trustworthy through Ibn Umar). This is correct since the Islamic Ummah would never unite upon apostasy from Islam. However, they could possibly unite upon a mistake and the simplest evidence for that is that the Islamic Ummah united upon leaving behind the work to establish the Khalifah for a long period and that was consensus upon a mistake.

Dangane da waɗanda suke cewa neman amfani da kawar da cuta shi ne illar shari'a (Shari'ah Illah) ga hukunce-hukuncen shari'a, kuma suna amfani da Qiyas bisa haka, suna fitar da wannan hukunci ne daga kalmomin Allah (SWT):

With respect to those who say that seeking the benefits and repelling the harms is a Shari’ah Illah for the Shari’ah rules and apply Qiyas accordingly, they infer this by the words of Allah (swt):

“Kuma ba mu aiko ka ba, [ya Muhammadu], face ka zama rahama ga talikai.” (TMQ 21:107). Don haka, suna ɗaukar gaskiyar cewa shi rahama ce a matsayin ʿIllar Shari’ah, kuma babu rahama sai ta hanyar samun amfani da kawar da cutarwa; saboda haka, hakan ƙa’ida ce ta shari’ah domin yin doka. Wannan fahimta ba daidai ba ce ta fuskoki biyu; na farko, abin da aka tattauna shi ne aikewarsa, wato kasancewarsa Manzo, ba dokokin Shari’ah ba. Idan muka ɗauka cewa manufar aikewarsa ita ce saƙonsa, wato Shari’ah, to abin da ake magana a kai zai kasance dukan Shari’ah, daga al’amuran ʿAqeedah da hukunce-hukunce tare, ba hukunce-hukuncen Shari’ah kaɗai ba. Na biyu kuwa, cewa aikewarsa a matsayin rahama ga halittu duka bayani ne kawai na Hikima (hikimar) da ke bayan aikewar Annabi ﷺ; wato, abin da zai faru a sakamakon aikewarsa. Haka kuma maganar Allah (SWT):

“And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds ( all mankind).” (TMQ 21:107). So, they consider the fact that he is a mercy as a Shari’ah Illah, and there cannot be mercy except through the attainment of the benefits and the repulsion of harm, and therefore, it is a Shari’ah Illah for the legislation. This inference is incorrect from two angles; the first is that the subject was his being sent, or in other words, the fact he was a Messenger, and not the Shari’ah laws. If we submit that the intention of sending him was his message i.e. the Shari’ah, the subject would be the whole of Shari’ah from the matters of 'Aqeedah and rules collectively and not the Shari’ah rules alone. The second issue is that the fact that sending him as a mercy for the universe is only a clarification for the Hikma (wisdom) behind sending the Prophet (pbuh) ; in other words, what would occur as a consequence of sending him. In the same manner, the words of Allah (swt):

"Ban halicci aljannu da mutane ba sai don su bauta mini" (TMQ 51:56). Wato sakamakon halittarsu shi ne ibada, don haka ita ce Hikima ta halittarsu, ba ita ce ‘Illa ta halittarsu ba. Haka nan faɗin Allah (SWT):

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” (TMQ 51:56), in other words, the result of creating them would be the worship so it is the Hikma of their creation and not the ‘Illah for their creation. Likewise His (swt) words:

"Domin su shaida amfanin kansu." (TMQ 22:28). Ayar tana bayyana Hikima ta Hajji, watau sakamakon da za a iya samu daga Hajji. Maganarsa,

“That they may witness benefits for themselves.” (TMQ 22:28). The verse describes the Hikma from the Hajj, that is, the result that may be gained from the Hajj. His Words,.

"Lalle sallah tana hana alfasha da mugun aiki." (TMQ 29:45), yana bayyana Hikima ga sallah; wato sakamakon da za a iya kaiwa ta hanyar sallah da sauransu. Saboda haka, ayar nan ba ta cikin yanayin ƙayyade Illah, domin Illah ita ce abin da idan yana nan hukunci yake samuwa, ko kuma, wato, abin da ake shar'anta hukunci saboda shi. Domin fahimtar Illar da ke cikin nassi, dole ne ya zama sifa, kuma wannan sifa dole ta nuna Illar a ɓoye, ta yadda za ta zama Sabab (dalili/sanadi) na shar'anta hukuncin, ko kuma, ta yadda shar'anta hukuncin ya kasance saboda ita; a irin wannan yanayi sifar ba ta rabuwa, ba ta taɓa ɓacewa ba, tun da sanadi koyaushe yana haifar da sakamako, saboda haka idan Illah ta samu, sakamako ma yana samuwa. Kalmomin nan…

“ Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing.” (TMQ 29:45), describe the Hikma for the prayer; in other words, the result that may be reached from prayer and so on. So, the verse here is not in the context of specifying an Illah because the Illah is the thing that due to its presence the rule is found or, in other words, is legislated. In order to understand the underlying Illah in the text, it is imperative that it must be an attribute and this attribute must indicate the underlying ‘Illah, in that it is the Sabab (reason/cause) for the legislation or in other words, that the legislation was for its sake, and in such a circumstance it is an inseparable attribute which is never absent, since the cause always results in the effect and ,therefore, if the Illah is found then the effect is found. The words.

"Rahama ga talikai (dukkan mutane)" (TMQ 21:107) da sauran ayoyin da suka gabace su, koda an dauke su a matsayin siffofi, kuma cikin ayoyin akwai harrufan da ke nuna wata illa a boye, mahallin kalmomin ba ya nuna kasancewar wata illa, domin za a iya rasa ta, kuma shari'ar ba don ita aka shimfida ta ba. Saboda haka, Shari'ar Musulunci na iya zama rahama ga wanda ya yi imani da ita kuma ya yi aiki da ita, kamar magabatan farko na Musulmi, kuma tana iya zama masifa ga wanda ya kafirta da ita, kamar kafirai. Don haka aika Manzon Allah ﷺ masifa ce ga kafirai, kuma su na cikin 'Aalameen. Bugu da kari, sakon Musulunci yana nan a yau. Wannan saboda aikewar ta tabbata a zahiri, kuma tare da hakan Musulmin da suke da imani da wannan sako suna cikin wahala a yau. Don haka, ba aikewar kadai ba, wato kasancewar Shari'ah kadai ba, ita ce rahama, kuma saboda haka ba ita ce illar Shari'ah ba. Bisa hakan, samun amfani da kawar da cutarwa ba illar Shari'ah ba ce; don haka ba a daukar su a matsayin tushen Qiyas.

“Mercy to the worlds (all mankind)” (TMQ 21:107) and the rest of the previous verses, even if they are considered as attributes and within the verses are the letters that would indicate an underlying Illah, the context of the words does not indicate the existence of an Illah because they could be absent and because the legislation was not for its sake. Accordingly, the Islamic Shari’ah could be a mercy for the one who believes in it and who acts according to it, such as: the first generations of Muslims, and it could be an affliction for whoever disbelieves in it, such as the disbelievers. So, the sending of the Messenger (pbuh) is an affliction upon the disbelievers and they are from the ‘Aalameen. Additionally, the Islamic message is present today. This is since the sending has practically taken place and with that the Muslims who themselves believe in that message are today in hardship. So, it is not the sending alone, that is the existence of the Shari’ah alone, that is a mercy, and for that reason it is not an Illah for it. Based upon that, attaining the benefits and repelling the harms is not a Shari’ah Illah; so, it is not taken as a basis for Qiyas.

Game waɗanda suke cewa hankali yana cikin dalilan Musulunci, mu kuwa muna cewa maganar tana kan hukuncin Shari'a ne, ko abin da aka fi tsammani, bisa yawan yiwuwa, cewa hukuncin Allah ne. Wannan ba ya samuwa sai a cikin abin da ya zo ta hanyar Wahayi, kuma Wahayin bai ambaci hankali ba. Saboda haka, babu wata hujja, ko ta tabbata ko ta zato, da za a samu da ke nuna cewa hankali yana cikin dalilan Shari'a na hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a; don haka ba a ɗaukarsa a matsayin ɗaya daga cikin dalilan Shari'a kwata-kwata.

As for those who say that rationality is from the Islamic evidences, we say that the discussion is about the Shari’ah rule or what is considered, with the most probability, as the rule of Allah. This is not present except in what came by Revelation, and the Revelation did not mention the rationality, and for that reason, there is no evidence whether conclusive or inconclusive to be found that states that rationality is from the Shari’ah evidences for the Shari’ah rules; so it is not considered to be from the Shari’ah evidences at all.

Dangane da waɗanda suke cewa maganar sahabi tana cikin dalilan Shari'a, suna kawo hujjarsu da cewa dalilan da suka tabbatar da ijma'in Sahabbai su ma dalilai ne ga sahabi ɗaya, domin yabon da aka yi musu gaba ɗaya shi ma yabo ne ga ɗaya daga cikinsu. Haka kuma, tun da ba zai yiwu a sami kuskure a isar da Addinin nan ga dukansu ba, to babu shakka game da isar da shi daga ɗaya daga cikinsu. Bugu da ƙari, akwai maganganun Manzon Allah ﷺ,

With respect to those who say that the opinion of the companion is from the Shari’ah evidences, they deduce this by saying that the two evidences for the Ijma’ of the Companions are evidences for the single companion as well, since the praise for them (collectively) is also praise for one of them. In the same manner, since there cannot be shortcomings in their conveyance (of the Deen) collectively, there can be no doubt with respect to the conveyance of one person from amongst them. Additionally, the words of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ,.

.» أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ، بِأَيِّ هُمُ اقْ تَدَيْ تُمُ اهْ تَدَيْ تُمْ « .

.» أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ، بِأَيِّ هُمُ اقْ تَدَيْ تُمُ اهْ تَدَيْ تُمْ « .

“Ṣaḥābatī ka’n-nujūm, fa-bi-ayyihim iqtadaytum ihtadaytum” (Sahabata kamar taurari ne, duk wanda kuka bi, kun shiryu), wannan yana goyon bayan cewa maganar sahabi hujja ce. Wannan fahimta ba daidai ba ce, domin yabon Annabi ﷺ ga sahabbai gaba ɗaya, ba daidaikunsu ba, hujja ce da ke nuna cewa ijma'in sahabbai dokar shari'a ce, kuma kasancewar sahabbai ba su isar da Alkur'ani daidaiku ba, hujja ce da ke nuna cewa yardarsu tare hujja ce ta shari'a. Hujjar shari'a a nan ita ce yabon da aka yi musu, da kuma yarjejeniyarsu gaba ɗaya cewa wata doka ita ce dokar shari'a. Don haka hujjojin guda biyu ne, yabo da ijma'i, kuma ba a samun waɗannan a cikin sahabi ɗaya. A irin wannan yanayi, yabo da isar da Alkur'ani ba su dace su zama hujja ba cewa maganar wanda ya isar da Alkur'ani daga cikin waɗanda Allah (SWT) ya yabe su hujja ce ta shari'a, domin kamar yadda Allah (SWT) ya yabi sahabbai, haka nan ya yabi waɗanda suka bi su, kuma ko da isar da Alkur'ani ta hannun waɗanda Allah (SWT) ya yabe su, hakan ba ya sa maganar wanda ya isar da shi ta zama hujja ta shari'a, saboda haka kuma hujjar da aka gabatar ba ta inganta ba. Abin da ke nuna rashin ingancin wannan hujja shi ne cewa abin da sahabi ɗaya ya isar, da abin da ya ruwaito daga hadisai, ba a ɗauke shi a matsayin tabbatacce ba, sai dai a matsayin wanda ba tabbatacce ba. Saboda haka, “Idan tsoho da tsohuwa suka yi zina, to ku jefe su da duwatsu” ba a ɗauke shi a matsayin ayar Alkur'ani ba, duk da cewa wani sahabi ne ya isar da shi, domin babu ijma'i a kansa. Haka nan, hadisan da sahabbai suka ruwaito na ɗaiɗaiku ba a ɗauke su a matsayin tabbatattu ba, sai dai a matsayin waɗanda ba tabbatattu ba.

“My companions are like stars, whoever you follow you follow guidance”, support the opinion of a companion being an evidence. This deduction is incorrect since the praise of the Prophet (pbuh) for the companions collectively not individually is a proof that the Ijma’ of the Companions is a Shari’ah evidence and the fact that the Companions did not convey the Quran individually is a proof that their consensus is a Shari’ah evidence. Rather, the Shari’ah evidence is the praise upon them and the fact that they collectively agree that a rule is the Shari’ah rule. So the evidence is two matters, praise and consensus and these are not found in the individual companion. In which case, the issue of praise and the conveyance of the Quran are not suitable to be proofs that the words of whoever conveyed the Quran from those whom Allah (swt) praised are Shari’ah evidences because in the same manner that Allah (swt) praised the Companions, He (swt) also praised those who followed them, and since the conveyance of the Quran even if by those whom Allah (swt) has praised does not make the words of the one who conveyed it a Shari’ah evidence, and due to that the inference made is invalid. What indicates the invalidity of this inference is that what an individual companion conveyed and what he narrated from the narrations is not considered to be definite – rather it is indefinite. Therefore, “When the old man and the woman commit fornication then have them stoned.” is not considered to be a verse from the Quran even though it was conveyed by a companion since there was no Ijma’ upon it. In the same manner, the narrations that are transmitted by the Companions from the singular reports are not considered definite - rather they are indefinite.

Wannan ya bambanta da Ijma'in Sahabbai, domin abin da suka amince da shi baki ɗaya a matsayin daga Alkur'ani ana ɗaukarsa Alkur'ani ne kuma tabbatacce ne, kuma abin da suka amince da shi baki ɗaya game da hadisai waɗanda aka isar daga gare su ta hanyar Mutawatir (sarƙoƙin rahoto masu yawa da jere) ana ɗaukarsu hujjoji tabbatattu. Saboda haka, bambanci yana da girma tsakanin abin da Sahabbai suka amince da shi baki ɗaya, inda babu saɓani, wato yana da tabbas kuma wanda ya musanta shi kafiri ne, da abin da wani Sahabi ɗaya ya ruwaito, wanda ba shi da tabbas kuma wanda ya musanta shi ba a ɗaukarsa kafiri. Don haka, Ijma'in Sahabbai hujja ce ta Shari'a, alhali ra'ayin wani Sahabi ɗaya ba a ɗaukarsa daga hujjojin Shari'a. Bugu da ƙari, sabanin Ijma'in Sahabbai waɗanda ba sa amincewa da kuskure, wani Sahabi ɗaya yana iya yin kuskure kuma ba ya tsira daga gare shi. Sahabbai sun kasance suna saɓani a kan al'amura, kowannensu yana karɓar ra'ayin da ya bambanta da na wani; saboda haka, idan ra'ayin Sahabi hujja ne, to hujjojin Allah (SWT) za su kasance cikin saɓani da karo juna. Saboda haka, ra'ayin Sahabi ba a ɗaukarsa hujjar Shari'a.

This is different from the Ijma’ of the Companions since what they agreed upon unanimously as being from the Quran is considered to be Quran and to be definite, and what they agreed upon unanimously in terms of narrations and were transmitted from them by Mutawatir (successive multiple chains) are considered to be definite evidences. Accordingly, the difference is vast between what the Companions agreed upon unanimously - where there is no disagreement, meaning it is definite and the one who denies it is a disbeliever - and what the single companion narrated which is indefinite and the one who denies it is not considered to be a disbeliever. Therefore, Ijma’ of the Companions is Shari’ah evidence whereas the opinion of the individual companion is not considered to be from the Shari’ah evidences. In addition to that, contrary to the Ijma’ of the Companions who do not agree upon a mistake, the individual companion can make mistakes and he is not free from them. The Companions used to differ over issues and each of them adopted a different opinion from the other; so, if the opinion of the companion were a proof then the proofs of Allah (swt) would be in disagreement and contradictory. Therefore, the opinion of a companion is not considered to be Shari’ah evidence.

Game da waɗanda suke cewa "shari'ar waɗanda suka gabace mu shari'a ce a gare mu", suna amfani da maganar Allah (SWT) da ke cewa a matsayin hujja:

As for those who say “the Shari’ah of those before us is Shari’ah for us”, they use the following words of Allah (swt) as evidence:

"Lalle ne, Mun yi wahayi zuwa gare ka, [Ya Muhammad ﷺ], kamar yadda Muka yi wahayi zuwa ga Nuhu."

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah.” (TMQ 4:163),.

"Ya shar'anta muku na addini abin da Ya wasiyyanta wa Nuhu." (TMQ 42:13) da kuma maganarSa (SWT).

“He has ordained for you of religion what He enjoined upon Noah.” (TMQ 42:13) and His (swt) words.

“Sannan Mun yi maka wahayi, [Ya Muhammadu], ka bi addinin Ibrahim (Millatu Ibrahim).” (TMQ 16:123). Wadannan ayoyi sun nuna cewa shari'ar Annabawan da suka gabata ta shafe mu. Bugu da kari, aikin Manzo (ﷺ) shi ne ya zo ne domin ya sanar da abin da Allah (SWT) ya wajabta mana mu bi. Saboda haka, kowane harafi a cikin Alkur'ani da kowane aiki da ya fito daga Annabi (ﷺ), duk wata kalma da ya furta ko duk wani tabbatarwa daga gare shi, dole ne a bi shi, sai dai abin da aka ambata cewa na sa ne shi kadai ko na wani bayan sa. Don haka, muna da umarni da duk abin da Alkur'ani ko hadisi ya ambata, sai dai idan wata nassin Shari'a ta zo tana bayyana cewa wannan hukunci na sahabban shari'o'in da suka gabata ne kawai (jam'in Shari'ah), kuma muna da umarni da duk abin da ba a ambata ta wannan hanya ba, tun da Allah bai ambata shi a cikin Alkur'ani ba tare da dalili ba, don haka dole ne mu kasance da shi.

“Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham (Millat of Ibrahim) .” (TMQ 16:123). These verses indicate that we are addressed by the legislation of the previous Prophets. In addition, the very duty of the Messenger (pbuh) is that he came to inform about what Allah (swt) has obliged us to adhere to. Due to that, every letter in the Quran and every action that emanated from the Prophet (pbuh) , any word that he pronounced or any confirmation from him must be adhered to except what was mentioned as being specific to him or other than him. So we are ordered by everything that is mentioned by the Quran or by narration except when a Shari’ah text comes to explain that it is specific to the Companions of the previous Shara’ih (plural of Shari’ah), and we are ordered by whatever has not mentioned in such a manner since Allah did not mention it in the Quran without reason and, therefore, we must be addressed by it.

Wannan hukunci ba daidai ba ne. Dangane da ayoyin, ma'anar ayar farko ita ce wahayi ana saukar masa kamar yadda aka saukar wa sauran Annabawa, kuma manufar ayar ta biyu ita ce an shar'anta tushen Tauhidi (imani da Tawhidin Allah (SWT)), kuma shi ne abin da Nuhu aka umarce shi da shi. Ma'anar da aka nufa a ayar ta uku ita ce bin tushen Tauhidi, tun da kalmar "Millah" na nufin: tushen Tauhidi. Dukkan ayoyin irin wannan suna kan wannan tsari, kamar faɗinSa (SWT):

This inference is incorrect. With respect to the verses, the intention of the first verse is that revelation is sent to him in the same way it was sent to other Prophets, and the purpose of the second verse is that the basis of Tawheed (belief in Oneness of Allah(swt)) was legislated and that was what Nuh was ordained with. The intended meaning of the third verse is to follow the root of Tawheed since the word “Millat” means: the root of Tawheed. All the verses from this type are in this manner, such as His (swt) words:

"Saboda haka ka yi koyi da shiriyarsu." (Suratul An'am 6:90) da sauran ayoyi. Dangane da maganarSa (SWT).

“So from their guidance take an example.” (TMQ 6:90) and other verses. As for His (swt) words.

"Lalle ne, Mun saukar da Attaura, wadda a cikinta akwai shiriya da haske. Annabawan da suka mika wuya [ga Allah] suna yin hukunci da ita." (TMQ 5:44), Allah (swt) ya nufi da wannan Annabawan Banu Isra'ila, ba Muhammadﷺ ba, kuma Musulmi suna da Annabi guda ɗaya ne kawai. Amma game da abin da aka ruwaito daga Abu Hurairah cewa Manzon Allahﷺ ya ce:

“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The Prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it.” (TMQ 5:44), Allah (swt) by this meant the Prophets of the Tribe of Israel and not Muhammad , and the Muslims only have one Prophet. As for what is narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

. » الأَنْ بِيَاءُ إِخْوَةٌ مِنْ عَلاَّتٍ، وَأُمَّهَاتُ هُمْ شَتَّى، وَدِينُ هُمْ وَاحِدٌ «.

. » الأَنْ بِيَاءُ إِخْوَةٌ مِنْ عَلاَّتٍ، وَأُمَّهَاتُ هُمْ شَتَّى، وَدِينُ هُمْ وَاحِدٌ «.

"Annabawa ’yan’uwan juna ne a cikin imani, suna da uwaye daban-daban. Addininsu (Deen), duk da haka, daya ne." (wanda Muslim ya rawaito), ma’anar "addininsu daya ne" ita ce Tauhidi, wanda shi ne tushen da babu wanda ya sabawa a kansa. Ba ma’anar cewa abin da aka aiko daga addinin daya ne ga dukkansu ba ne, domin muna fahimtar akasin haka daga maganar Allah (SWT):

“Prophets are brothers in faith, having different mothers. Their religion (Deen) is, however, one .” (reported by Muslim), the meaning of “their Deen is one” is the Tawheed which is the basis that none differed upon. It does not mean what was sent from the Deen is one with all of them since we understand the opposite from His (swt) words:

"Ga kowannenku mun sanya shari'a da hanya bayyananniya." (TMQ 5:48). Daga wannan, ya bayyana cewa waɗannan hujjoji ba su dace a yi hukunci da su ba, kuma hukunci daga gare su don tabbatar da cewa shari'ar da ta gabace mu shari'a ce a gare mu ba daidai ba ne.

“To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way.” (TMQ 5:48). From this, it becomes clear that these evidences are not suitable to be inferred from, and the inference from them to prove that the Shari’ah from before us is a Shari’ah for us is incorrect.

A kuma, akwai dalilai bayyanannu da ke hana bin shari'ar waɗanda suka gabace mu, ko an same ta a cikin Alƙur'ani, ko a cikin Sunnah, ko kuma ba a same ta a cikin su biyu ba. Allah (SWT) ya ce:

On the other hand, there are evidences that decisively forbid the following of the Shari’ah of those before us whether it came in the Quran, the Sunnah or not in both. Allah (swt) said:

"Kuma duk wanda ya nemi wani addini banda Musulunci - ba za a karɓi hakan daga gare shi ba." (TMQ 3:85) Allah (SWT) ya ce:

“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him.” (TMQ 3:85) and Allah (swt) said:

"Lalle addinin da yake wajen Allah shi ne Musulunci." (TMQ 3:19). To haka, idan akwai nassin Shari'a da ke tabbatar da cewa karɓar kowane addini banda addinin Musulunci ba a karɓa ba tabbatacce ne, to ta yaya za a iya neman Musulmi su bi shi? Allah (SWT) ya ce:

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is.” (TMQ 3:19). So, when there is a Shari’ah text stating that for anyone to embrace any Deen other than the Deen of Islam is conclusively not accepted, then how can it be requested from the Muslims to follow it? Allah (swt) says:

"Kuma Mun saukar maka [ya Muhammadu], Littafin da gaskiya, yana mai tabbatar da abin da ya gabace shi daga Littafai, kuma mai tsaro a kansa (mai sa ido a kansa)." (TMQ 5:48). Girman Alkur'ani a kan littattafan da suka gabace shi ba ya nufin cewa ya zama tabbatarwa a gare su, domin an faɗa a cikin aya guda cewa shi ne mai tsaro a kansu.

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it (guardian over it).” (TMQ 5:48), the supremacy of the Quran over the previous Books does not mean that it was a confirmation for them since it is said in the same verse.

“Tabbatarwa” da haka ma yana nufin cewa hakan soke su ne. Haka kuma, akwai ijma’i cewa Shari’ar Musulunci soke dukkan shari’o’in da suka gabace ta ne. Fiye da haka, Allah (SWT) yana cewa:

“Confirming” and so it rather means that it is an abrogation of them. Also, there is an Ijma’ that the Shari’ah of Islam is an abrogation for all the previous Shara’ih. More than that, Allah (swt) says:

Ko kuwa kun kasance shaidu lokacin da mutuwa ta kusato Ya'qub, lokacin da ya ce wa 'ya'yansa, "Me za ku bautawa bayan raina?" Suka ce, "Za mu bauta wa Ubangijinka da Ubangijin kakanninka, Ibrahim da Isma'il da Ishaq - Ubangiji guda ɗaya. Kuma mu masu miƙa wuya [ga umarninsa] ne a gare Shi." {Wannan wata al'umma ce da ta shuɗe. Za ta sami [sakamakon] abin da ta aikata, ku kuma za ku sami abin da kuka aikata. Ba za a tambaye ku game da abin da suke yi ba.} (TMQ 2:133-4). Don haka, Allah (SWT) ya sanar da mu cewa ba zai tambaye mu game da abin da waɗannan Annabawa suka aikata ba. Idan kuwa ba a lissafta mu game da ayyukansu ba, to ba za a lissafta mu game da Shari'arsu ba, tun da isar da ita da aiki da ita na ɗaya daga cikin ayyukansu. Abin da ba mu da alhakin sa, ba a umarce mu da shi ba, kuma ba mu buƙatar sa. Bugu da ƙari, an rawaito daga Jabir cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

“Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, "What will you worship after me?" They said, "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac - one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."; That was a nation which has passed on. It will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (TMQ 2:133-4). So, Allah (swt) informs us that He will not ask us about what those Prophets did, and if we are not accounted about their actions, then we will not be accounted about their Shari’ah since conveying it and working according to it is from their actions. What we are not accountable for, we are not commanded with it and it is unnecessary for us. Additionally, it is narrated from Jaber that the Prophet (pbuh) said:

. أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ ي عُْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَ بْلِي: كَانَ كُلُّ نَبِيٍّ ي بُْ عَثُ إِلَى قَ وْمِهِ خَاصَّةً « » وَبُعِثْتُ إِلَى كُلِّ أَحْمَرَ وَأَسْوَدَ .

. أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ ي عُْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَ بْلِي: كَانَ كُلُّ نَبِيٍّ ي بُْ عَثُ إِلَى قَ وْمِهِ خَاصَّةً « » وَبُعِثْتُ إِلَى كُلِّ أَحْمَرَ وَأَسْوَدَ .

"An ba ni wasu abubuwa guda biyar waɗanda ba a bai wa kowa kafin nan ba (kuma waɗannan su ne): Kowane Annabi an aiko shi ne musamman ga mutanensa, amma ni an aiko ni ga dukkan ja da baƙi (dukkan ɗan Adam)." (Muslim ne ya ruwaito shi) Kuma daga Abu Hurairah cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce.

“I have been conferred upon five (things) which were not granted to anyone before me (and these are): Every Prophet (pbuh) was sent particularly to his own people, whereas I have been sent to all the red and the black (all mankind).” (Reported by Muslim) and from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (pbuh) said.

.» فُضِّلْتُ عَلَى الأَنْبِيَاءِ بِسِتٍّ « .

.» فُضِّلْتُ عَلَى الأَنْبِيَاءِ بِسِتٍّ « .

"An ba ni girma fiye da Annabawa da abubuwa shida" (Muslim ne ya ruwaito), sannan ya ambaci su, kuma daga cikinsu akwai ﷺ. Wait, that breaks a rule: the ﷺ belongs after the Prophet's mention, and this sentence has no mention of him. Correcting that, the faithful translation is: "An ba ni girma fiye da Annabawa da abubuwa shida" (Muslim ne ya ruwaito), sannan ya ambaci su, kuma daga cikinsu akwai

“I have been honored over the Prophets with six (things)” (reported by Muslim), and then he mentioned them and amongst them was.

.» وَأُرْسِلْتُ إِلَى الْخَلْقِ كَافَّة « .

.» وَأُرْسِلْتُ إِلَى الْخَلْقِ كَافَّة « .

"Kuma an aiko ni zuwa ga dukkan mutane." Saboda haka, Annabi ﷺ ya ruwaito cewa kowane Annabi kafin Annabinmu ﷺ an aike shi ne ga mutanensa kawai; don haka ba a aike shi ga wanda ba mutanensa ba, kuma ba a wajabta wa mutanen wani Annabi ba sai shari'ar Annabinsu. Saboda haka, an tabbatar da cewa babu wani daga cikin Annabawa da aka aika zuwa gare mu, don haka shari'arsu ba za ta zama shari'a a gare mu ba. Wannan yana samun goyon baya daga abin da aka ambata a sarari a cikin ayoyin Alkur'ani.

“And I have been sent to all mankind”. Hence, the Prophet (pbuh) has narrated that every Prophet (pbuh) before our Prophet (pbuh) was only sent specifically to their people; so, he was not sent to other than his people and they were not obliged by the Shari’ah of a Prophet (pbuh) other than their own. Therefore, it is confirmed that no one from the Prophets were sent to us and so their Shari’ah cannot be a Shari’ah for us. This is supported by what is mentioned clearly in verses from the Quran.

Kuma zuwa ga Thamud (Muka aika) ɗan'uwansu Salih.

“And to Thamud [We sent] their brother Salih.”,.

"Kuma zuwa ga 'Ad [Mun aika] ɗan'uwansu"

“And to 'Aad [We sent] their brother”,.

“Kuma zuwa ga Madyan [Mun aiko] ɗan'uwansu.” (TMQ 11:50, 61, 84).

“And to Madyan [We sent] their brother .” (TMQ 11:50, 61, 84).

Daga wannan duka, a bayyane yake cewa Shari'un waɗanda suka riga mu ba Shari'a ce a gare mu ba, saboda dalilai uku: na farko shi ne, hujjojin da aka yi amfani da su a matsayin shaida suna nuna tushen Tauhidi ne kawai, ba su nuna cewa dukkan Shari'un Annabawa ɗaya ne ba. Na biyu, nassosin Shari'a da suka ambaci hana bin wata Shari'a banda Shari'ar Musulunci. Na uku kuma, kowane Annabi (amincin Allah ya tabbata a gare shi) an aiko shi ga mutanensa musamman, mu kuwa ba daga mutanensa muke ba, don haka shi ba Manzo ba ne a gare mu. Saboda haka ba a yi mana magana da Shari'arsa ba, kuma ba mu ɗaurin ta. A wannan yanayi, Shari'ar waɗanda suka riga mu ba a ɗauke ta a matsayin ɗaya daga cikin hujjojin Shari'a ba.

From all this, it is clear that the Shara’ih of those who came before us is not Shari’ah for us for three reasons: the first of them being that the proofs used as evidence only indicate the basis of Tawhid and do not indicate that all of the Shara’ih of the Prophets is one. Secondly, the Shari’ah texts which mention the prohibition of following any Shari’ah other than the Shari’ah of Islam, and thirdly every Prophet (pbuh) was sent to his people specifically and we are not from his people so he is not a Messenger for us. We are, therefore, not addressed by his Shari’ah and are not bound by it. In that case, the Shari’ah of those before us is not considered from the Shari’ah evidences.

Dangane da amfani da su a matsayin dalili, to amma dangane da hukuncinsu cewa Manzon Allah (ﷺ) ya zo ne domin ya isar da duk abin da ya wajaba a bi daga wurin Allah, wannan daidai ne game da abin da ya sanar da mu cewa wajibi ne mu bi daga wurin Allah, wato Shari'ar da ya zo da ita. Amma ba daidai ba ne (hukuncinsu) game da abin da bai umarce mu da bi ba. Manzon Allah (ﷺ) ya isar mana daga wurin Allah (SWT) labarin halin al'ummomin da suka gabace mu, amma ya sanar da mu hakan ne saboda darasi da gargadi, ba don mu zama dole mu bi Shari'arsu ba. Don haka, labarun Annabawa, da al'amuransu, da al'amuran al'ummominsu, an ba mu labarinsu, kuma an bayyana mana halinsu da dokokin da suke bi. Duk wannan kuwa don darasi da gargadi ne kawai, babu wani abu dabam, kuma ba don mu zama dole mu bi Shari'arsu ba.

This is with regards to their use of the verses as proof. However, with respect to their inference that the Messenger (pbuh) came to convey from Allah everything that must be adhered to, this is correct as to what he informed us that we must adhere to from Allah which is the Shari’ah that he came with. However, it is not correct (their inference) with respect to what he did not order us to adhere to. So, the Prophet (pbuh) conveyed to us from Allah (swt) about the circumstances of those before us from the previous nations, but he informed us of that for the sake of example and admonition and not for us to be bound by their Shari’ah. So, the stories of the Prophets, as well as their affairs and the affairs of their nations, were narrated to us and their circumstances and what rules they used to follow were made clear to us. In addition, all of that was only for the sake of example and admonition and nothing else and it was not in order to be bound by their Shari’ah.

Game da labarai da kuma rahotanni (Akhbaar), a bayyane yake cewa sun zo ne domin wa'azi da darussa, kuma wannan ba ya bukatar wata hujja. Dangane da halin al'ummai da abin da suke bi na dokoki, an ambace shi ne ta hanyar rahotanni game da su, ba a ambace shi ba ta fuskar cewa mu ma muna daure da su. Suna kama da labarai da suka zo don bayyana yanayin annabawan da suka gabata da al'ummomin da suka gabata.

With respect to the stories and to the news (Akhbaar), it is apparent that they came for admonition and lessons and this does not need any proof, and as for the conditions of the nations and what they used to follow in terms of rules, this was mentioned in way of reports about them and they were not mentioned from the perspective of being bound by them. They are like stories that came to explain the circumstances of the previous Prophets and the previous nations.

Bayan wannan, wasu daga cikin waɗannan ƙa'idodi suna saɓa wa Shari'ar Musulunci dalla-dalla; saboda haka, idan an yi mana magana da su, to da an yi mana magana da Shari'o'i biyu daban-daban, kuma wannan ba zai yiwu ba. Misali daga shari'ar Sulaiman, Allah (SWT) ya ce:

Above and beyond this, several of these rules contradict the Islamic Shari’ah in their details; therefore, if we were addressed by them, we would have been addressed by two different Shara’ih and this is not possible. As an illustration from the legislation of Sulayman, Allah (swt) said:

"Ya duba tsuntsaye, sai ya ce, 'Me ya sa ban ga hudhud ba? Ko kuwa yana cikin waɗanda suka ɓace?; Lallai zan azabtar da shi da azaba mai tsanani, ko kuwa in yanka shi, sai dai idan ya kawo mini hujja bayyananniya.'" (TMQ 27:20-1) Babu wani saɓani tsakanin Musulmai game da haramcin azabtar da tsuntsu, ko da kuwa ya yi rashin biyayya; a gaskiya ma, babu wani saɓani ko game da rashin ingancin azabtar da kowace dabba, kuma akwai nassosin Shari'a da suka zo game da wannan. Annabi ﷺ ya ce:

“And he took attendance of the birds and said, "Why do I not see the hoopoe - or is he among the absent?; I will surely punish him with a severe punishment or slaughter him unless he brings me clear authorization."” (TMQ 27:20-1) and there is no difference amongst the Muslims regarding the prohibition of the punishment of the bird and even if it was disobedient; rather, there is no difference even regarding the invalidity of punishing any animal and there are Shari’ah texts that came regarding this. The Prophet (pbuh) (saw) said:

.» الْعَجْمَاءُ جَرْحُهَا جُ بَارٌ «.

.» الْعَجْمَاءُ جَرْحُهَا جُ بَارٌ «.

"Raunin da dabba ta haifar ba shi da diyya" (an amince da shi ta hanyar Abu Hurairah); an ambata shi a cikin kamus na Al-Muheet: "Al-Jubaar kamar gajimare ne wanda ya halakar da matsoraci, kuma Al-Jubaar asara ce kuma bata ce". Saboda haka, barnar da dabbobi suka haifar, da kuma tsuntsu, ba a biyan diyya a kanta (watau mai ita ba shi da alhakin biya). Dangane da Shari'ar Musa, Allah (SWT) yana cewa:

“The injuries caused by the beast are without liability” (agreed upon through Abu Hurayrah); it is mentioned in Al-Muheet dictionary: “The Jubaar is like the cloud which destroyed the cowardly, and Jubaar is loss and invalid”. Therefore, the damage caused by livestock, as well as the bird, is not indemnified (i.e. the owner is not liable). With respect to the Shari’ah of Musa, Allah (swt) says:

"Kuma ga waɗanda suke Yahudawa Mun haramta kowace dabba mai tafin da ba ta rabu ba; kuma daga cikin shanu da tumaki Mun haramta musu kitsensu, sai abin da ya manne a bayansu ko cikin hanjinsu ko abin da ke haɗe da ƙashi." (TMQ 6:146), kuma a cikin Shari'ar Musulunci duk wannan an halatta shi ga Musulmai ta hanyar maganar Allah (SWT):

“And to those who are Jews We prohibited every animal of uncloven hoof; and of the cattle and the sheep We prohibited to them their fat, except what adheres to their backs or the entrails or what is joined with bone.” (TMQ 6:146), and in the Shari’ah of Islam all of that has been made permitted for the Muslims by His (swt) word:

"Kuma abincinku halal ne a gare su." (TMQ 5:5), kuma wannan kitse yana cikin abincinmu, saboda haka halal ne a gare su. Maganar Umm Maryam a cikin Alƙur'ani,

“And your food is lawful for them.” (TMQ 5:5), and this fat is from our food so it is permitted for them. The words of Umm Maryam in the Quran,.

“[Ka ambata, ya Muhammadu ﷺ], lokacin da matar 'Imran ta ce, 'Ya Ubangijina, lalle ni na yi wa Kai alkawarin abin da ke cikin cikina, an keɓe shi don bautarKa.' {TMQ 3:35}, yana cikin Shari'ar mutanen zamanin Zakariyya, kuma wannan ba a halatta shi ba a Musulunci asali. Kalmomin,.”

“[Mention, O Muhammad], when the wife of 'Imran said, "My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service].” (TMQ 3:35), are part of the Shari’ah of the people at the time of Zakariyyah and this is not permitted in Islam in origin. The words,.

“Duk abinci halal ne ga Banu Isra’ila sai dai abin da Isra’ila ya haramta wa kansa.” (TMQ 3:93), suna cikin Shari’ar Ya’qub, kuma a Musulunci ba a yarda mutum ya haramtawa kansa abin da Allah (SWT) ya halatta ba. Shi (SWT) ya ce:

“All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had made unlawful to himself.” (TMQ 3:93), are part of the Shari’ah of Ya’qub and in Islam it is not permitted to prohibit oneself from what Allah (swt) allowed; He (swt) says:

"Ya Annabi, don me kake haramta abin da Allah ya halatta maka." (TMQ 66:1). Shari'ar Ahlul Kitab a zamanin sahabban Kogon ta hada da,

“O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you.” (TMQ 66:1). The Shari’ah of the People of the Book at the time of the companions of the Cave includes,.

"Waɗanda suka yi galaba suka ce, "Lallai za mu gina masallaci a kansu."" (TMQ 18:21), kuma wannan an haramta shi a Musulunci; Annabi ﷺ ya ce.

“The ones who won said “we shall build a place of worship over them”.” (TMQ 18:21), and this is prohibited in Islam; the Prophet (pbuh) said.

. إِنَّ أُولَئِكَ إِذَا كَانَ فِيهِمُ الرَّجُلُ الصَّالِحُ فَمَاتَ بَ نَ وْا عَلَى قَ بْرِهِ مَسْجِدًا وَصَوَّرُوا « » فِيهِ تِلْكَ الصُّوَرَ، فَأُولَئِكَ شِرَارُ الْخَلْقِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ي وَْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ .

. إِنَّ أُولَئِكَ إِذَا كَانَ فِيهِمُ الرَّجُلُ الصَّالِحُ فَمَاتَ بَ نَ وْا عَلَى قَ بْرِهِ مَسْجِدًا وَصَوَّرُوا « » فِيهِ تِلْكَ الصُّوَرَ، فَأُولَئِكَ شِرَارُ الْخَلْقِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ي وَْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ .

"Idan wani mai ibada daga cikinsu (cikin ƙungiyoyin addini) ya mutu, sai su gina wurin bauta a kan kabarinsa, sannan su ƙawata shi da irin waɗannan hotuna. Su ne mafi munin halitta a wurin Allah a Ranar Alƙiyama." (wanda aka yarda da shi). Wannan na cikin ƙa'idojin Shari'ar Musa ne.

“When a pious person amongst them (among the religious groups) dies they build a place of worship on his grave, and then decorate it with such pictures. They would be the worst of creatures on the Day of judgment in the sight of Allah.” (agreed upon). Part of the Shari’ah of Musa are the words.

"Kuma Mun wajabta musu a cikinta cewa rai da rai, ido da ido, hanci da hanci, kunne da kunne, haƙori da haƙori, kuma raunuka suna da ramuwa bisa doka. Amma duk wanda ya yafe shi sadaka ce, kuma kaffara ce a gare shi. Kuma duk wanda bai yi hukunci da abin da Allah ya saukar ba, to waɗannan su ne azzalumai." (TMQ 5:45), amma ba mu karɓar wannan daga cikinsa ba domin ba a umarce mu da shi ba, sai dai waɗanda ba mu ne aka umarta da shi ba. Musulunci kawai ya wajabta mana ramuwa a kan dukan waɗannan da sauran al'amura ta hanyar maganarsa (SWT):

“And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (TMQ 5:45), while we do not take from this because we are not ordered with it and only other than us were ordered by it. Islam only obligated us with retaliation from all of these and in other issues by His (swt) words:

"Saboda haka duk wanda ya far maka hari, to ka far masa hari irin yadda ya far maka." (TMQ 2: 194), Maganar Allah (SWT),

“So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (TMQ 2: 194), His (swt) saying,.

"Kuma idan kuka yi ukuba, ya ku mumini, to ku yi ukuba da irin abin da aka yi muku" (TMQ 16:126), da kuma maganarsa (swt).

“And if you punish, O believers, punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.” (TMQ 16:126) and His (swt) words.

"Kuma sakamakon mugun aiki mugun aiki ne irinsa." (TMQ 42:40). Bugu da kari, faɗinsa (SWT).

“And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it.” (TMQ 42:40). In addition, His (swt) words.

“Kuma saboda raunuka akwai ramuwar gayya ta doka.” (TMQ 5:45) ta saɓa wa Qisas (diyya ko ramuwa) a Musulunci, tun da Qisas a Musulunci shi ne diyya, babu kuma abin da ke cikin Attaurat game da karɓar diyya. Hakika, diyya tana cikin dokar Musulunci kawai, kuma diyyar abin da ya gaza kisa ana kiranta diyya. Haka nan, da yawa daga cikin ƙa'idodin Qisas da ake ba da labarinsu game da Annabawa da al'ummomin da suka gabata, suna bayyana yanayinsu da abin da suke bi na dokoki, sun saɓa wa dokokin Musulunci; to ta yaya za a yi mana magana da su?

“And for wounds is legal retribution.” (TMQ 5:45) conflicts with Qisas (recompense) in Islam since the Qisas in Islam is the fine, and there is nothing in the Torah about accepting the fine. Rather, the fine is only in Islamic law and the fine is the blood money; so, the blood money for what falls short of life is called the fine. Likewise, many rules about Qisaas in the stories that have been narrated about the previous Prophets and nations, explaining their circumstance and what they used to follow from laws, contradict the laws of Islam; so how can we be addressed by them?

Ba za a iya cewa an soke waɗannan hukunce-hukuncen ta hanyar Shari'ar Musulunci ba, tun da an ruwaito su ba tare da ƙayyadewa ba, kuma hukunce-hukuncen da suka zo mana ba su zo a matsayin soke hukunce-hukuncen da suka gabace su ba. Maimakon haka, sun zo ne a matsayin Shari'a a gare mu, kuma babu wata dangantaka tsakanin waɗannan hukunce-hukunce. Saboda haka, batun soke hukunci ba ya nan, kuma kiran da ake yi a kansa da'awa ce marar tushe, tun da soke hukunci shi ne ɓata hukuncin da aka fahimta daga nassin Shari'a da ya gabata ta hanyar nassin da ya biyo baya, kamar maganar Manzon Allah ﷺ:

It cannot be said that these laws have been abrogated by the Islamic Shari’ah since they were narrated without restriction and the laws which have come to us did not come as abrogation for laws before us. Rather they came as a Shari’ah for us and there is no relationship between these laws. Accordingly, the issue of abrogation is not found and the call regarding it is a claim that has no backing since abrogation is the nullification of the rule which is understood from a previous Shari’ah text by a subsequent one, such as the words of the Messenger (pbuh) :

.» نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ، فَ زُورُوهَا « .

.» نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ، فَ زُورُوهَا « .

"Na hana ku ziyartar kaburbura, amma yanzu kuna iya ziyartar su." (Muslim ne ya ruwaito shi ta hanyar Buraidah), da kuma ruwayar Al-Rabi' a cikin Musnadinsa ta hanyar Ibn Abbas,

“I forbade you to visit graves, but you may now visit them.” (reported by Muslim through Buraydah), and the report of Al-Rabi’ in his Musnad through Ibn Abbas,.

.» كُنْتُ نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ القُبُورِ، أَلاَ فَ زُورُوهَا « .

.» كُنْتُ نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ القُبُورِ، أَلاَ فَ زُورُوهَا « .

(A baya) na hana ku ziyartar kaburbura, amma yanzu ku ziyarce su.”; saboda haka, soke da ɗaga dokar da ta gabata ta wata nassi na Shari'a na gaba shi ne naskh (nassakawa). Don haka, domin naskh ya faru dole ne a sami dokar da aka naskhe wadda aka saukar kafin dokar da ke naskhewa, kuma a cikin nassin da ke naskhewa dole ne a sami alama da ke nuna cewa naskhi ne ga wannan doka ta musamman, kuma duk abin da ya sha bamban da wannan ba a ɗaukarsa naskhi ba. Bambancin kawai tsakanin dokoki biyu, ko sabanin da ke tsakaninsu, ba ya sa ɗaya daga cikinsu ya zama naskhi ga ɗayan; sai dai dole ne a sami alama a cikin nassin da ke naskhewa wadda ke nuna cewa naskhi ne ga takamaiman doka. Saboda haka, waɗannan dokoki da aka karɓo daga Shari'o'in da suka gabata ba a naskhe su ta dokokin Musulunci da suka sha bamban da su ko suka saɓa musu ba, domin babu wata alama da ke nuna hakan. Haka kuma, babu alaƙa tsakanin su da dokokin Musulunci ta fuskar shari'a; don haka, an naskhe su ta hanyar soke Shari'o'in da suka gabata da Shari'ar Musulunci, ba ta hanyar dokoki na musamman da suka zo domin soke su ba. Da wannan, a bayyane yake cewa hukuncin cewa mu ana yi mana magana da abin da Manzo (ﷺ) ya zo da shi, kuma an iyakance mu da shi, hukunci ne mara inganci, domin mu ana yi mana magana ne da abin da ya zo mana da shi daga dokokin Musulunci kuma an iyakance mu da shi, ba mu ake yi wa magana da abin da ya ba mu labari a kan labaran Annabawan da suka gabata da tarihinsu ba, kuma ba mu ake yi wa magana da abin da ya bayyana mana game da yanayin al'ummomin da suka gabata da dokokin da suke bi ba. Saboda haka, a bayyane yake sarai cewa dokokin waɗanda suka gabace mu ba dokoki ne a gare mu ba, kuma rashin ingancin ɗaukarsu daga hujjojin Musulunci shi ma a bayyane yake.

“(In the past) I forbade you from visiting graves, but visit them now.”; therefore, the nullification and raising of the previous rule by a subsequent Shari’ah text is abrogation. Therefore, for abrogation to take place there must be an abrogated rule that was revealed before the abrogating rule, and for an indication to be present in the abrogating text that it is an abrogation for that rule, and anything other than this is not considered to be abrogation. The mere difference between two rules or contradiction between them does not make one of them an abrogation for the other; rather, there must be an indication in the abrogating text which indicates that it is an abrogation for a specific rule. Accordingly, these rules, narrated from the previous Shara’ih, are not abrogated by the rules of Islam which differs with them or contradicts them since there is nothing which indicates that. Furthermore, there is no relationship between them and the rules of Islam in legislation; so, they are abrogated by the abrogation of the previous Shara’ih by the Shari’ah of Islam and not by laws specific to them that came to abrogate them. With this, it is clear that the inference that we are addressed by what the Messenger (pbuh) came with and are restricted by it as being an invalid inference since we are addressed by what came to us with him from the legislation of Islam and restricted by that, and we are not addressed by what he related to us from the stories of the previous Prophets and their narrations, and neither are we addressed by what he explained to us from the circumstances of the previous nations and what laws they used to follow. Accordingly, it has become apparent with clarity that the legislation of those before us is not legislation for us and the invalidity of considering it being from the Islamic evidences is also apparent.

Amma idan aka sami wata nassin Shari'a dake ɗauke da hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ar waɗanda suka gabace mu, wanda ke nuna cewa su ne aka yi wa magana da shi, to a lokacin wannan hukuncin zai zama an same shi a cikin Littafi ko a cikin Sunna, kuma tare da shi za a sami wata nassin Shari'a da ke nuna cewa an yi mana magana da shi a cikin Shari'armu, kuma umarnin Mai Shari'a (SWT) a gare mu yana can, wanda ke nuna cewa yana gare mu, don haka a lokacin zai wajaba a aikata shi. Sai dai hakan ba zai kasance ba saboda Shari'ar waɗanda suka gabace mu ne, a'a, saboda umarnin da ke cikin wannan hukuncin da yake namu ne; wato, saboda Allah (SWT) ya yi mana magana da shi, kuma Manzo ﷺ ya sanar da mu cewa yana daga cikin Shari'ar da ya zo da ita, watau hukunce-hukuncen Musulunci.

However, if another Shari’ah text is found with the laws from the Shari’ah of those before us which indicates that we are addressed by them, then, in that case, this rule would become found in the Book or in the Sunnah, and alongside it a Shari’ah text would be found that indicates that we are addressed by it in our Shari’ah and the address of the Legislator (swt) for us existed there which indicates that it is for us and so it would be obligatory to take action upon it then. However, this would not be because it was a Shari’ah of those before us but because of the address found in the same rule that is for us; in other words, because Allah (swt) addressed us by it and the Messenger (pbuh) informed us that it was from the Shari’ah which he had come with, i.e. the laws of Islam.

Ya bayyana ga wanda ya bi dokokin da suka zo a cikin Littafi, da Sunnah, da Shari'o'in da suka gabata, cewa nassin da ya zo yana nuna cewa mu ne ake magana da shi, kuma cewa yana daga Shari'armu, zai iya zuwa ta hanyoyi uku:

It becomes apparent to the one who follows the laws that have come in the Book, the Sunnah and the previous Shara’ih that the text that comes indicating that we are addressed by it, that it is from our Shari’ah, could come in three circumstances:

Da farko, idan ayar da hukuncin ya zo da ita ta fara da kai tsaye zuwa gare mu, kamar ayar game da Kanz (dukiyar da aka tara), Allah (SWT) ya ce:

Firstly, when the verse which the rule came with begins by directing the address towards us such as the verse regarding Kanz (hoarded wealth), Allah (swt) says:

“Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani, lallai da yawa daga cikin malamai da rahibai suna cin dukiyar mutane ta haramtacciyar hanya, kuma suna kangewa daga hanyar Allah. Waɗanda kuma suke tara zinariya da azurfa, ba sa ciyar da ita a hanyar Allah – to ka yi musu bushara da azaba mai raɗaɗi.” (TMQ 9:34). Allah (SWT) ya yi mana magana da wannan ayar; saboda haka, duk abin da ta ambata shari’a ce a gare mu. Saboda haka, kanz an haramta shi a shari’armu, ko da yake sashen ayar da ta haramta shi yana bayyana halin malaman Yahudawa da rahibai.

“O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah - give them tidings of a painful punishment.” (TMQ 9:34). Allah (swt) has addressed us with this verse; so, whatever it mentioned is a Shari’ah for us. Accordingly, Kanz is prohibited in our Shari’ah even though part of the verse that prohibited it was explaining the circumstances of the rabbis and monks.

Na biyu, idan ayar da ta zo tare da ita ta zo da kalma da ke nuna gaba ɗaya, kamar ayoyin da ke ambaton hukunci da abin da Allah bai saukar ba. Allah (SWT) yana cewa:

Secondly, when the verse which came with the rule has come with a word which indicates generality, such as the verses which mention ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. Allah (swt) says.

"Duk wanda ba ya yin hukunci da abin da Allah ya saukar ba - to, waɗannan su ne kafirai." (TMQ 5:44). Don haka, kalmar "duk wanda" tana nuna gaba ɗaya, ma'ana tana ƙunshe da mu, saboda haka mu ma muna cikin waɗanda ake magana da su a cikinta. Haka kuma, Allah (SWT) ya ce:

“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (TMQ 5:44). So, the word “whoever” indicates generality and this means that it encompasses us and thus we are addressed by it. Similarly, Allah (swt) says:

"Kuma duk wanda ba ya yin hukunci da abin da Allah Ya saukar ba, to waɗancan su ne azzalumai." (TMQ 5:45), da kuma haka.

“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (TMQ 5:45), and in the same way.

"Kuma duk wanda bai yi hukunci da abin da Allah ya saukar ba, to waɗancan su ne azzalumai."

“And whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.” (TMQ 5:49).

Na uku, idan ayar ta ƙare da wani abu da ke jawo hankalinmu ga hukunce-hukuncen da ke cikinta, kamar ayar Qisas inda aka ambaci Qaaruna; Allah (SWT) ya ce:

Thirdly, if the verse ends with something that draws our attention to the laws which are within it, such as the verse of Qisas where Qarun was mentioned; Allah (swt) says:

Lalle Qarun yana cikin mutanen Musa, amma ya yi zalunci a kansu. Mun kuma ba shi daga dukiyoyi wadanda makullansu za su gajiyar da wata kungiya ta mutane masu karfi.” har zuwa maganarsa (SWT):

“Indeed, Qarun was from the people of Moses, but he tyrannized them. And We gave him of treasures whose keys would burden a band of strong men.” until His (swt) words:

"Kaico, kafirai ba sa rabauta!" (TMQ 28:76-82). Wannan ayar tana biye kai tsaye da maganar Allah (SWT):

“Oh, how the disbelievers do not succeed!” (TMQ 28:76-82). This verse is followed directly afterwards by His (swt) words:

“Wannan gida ta Lahira muna sanyawa ga waɗanda ba sa son girman kai a bayan ƙasa ko ɓarna. Kuma ƙarshen abu mai kyau yana ga masu taqawa.” {Duk wanda ya zo da aiki nagari zai sami fiye da shi.} (Suratul Qasas 28:83). Don haka ayoyin sun zama jawabi ga Manzon Allah ﷺ da kuma mumnai. Wannan yana jawo hankali ga hukunce-hukuncen da suka zo cikinsu, lokacin da aka ce:

“That home of the Hereafter We assign to those who do not desire exaltedness upon the earth or corruption. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous; Whoever comes [on the Day of Judgement] with a good deed will have better than it.” (TMQ 28:83), and so the verses became an address to the Messenger (pbuh) and to the believers. This draws attention to the laws which came (within them) when it is said:

"Waɗanda ba sa son ɗaukaka a cikin duniya".

“Those who do not desire exaltedness upon the earth”.

Waɗannan dokoki sun shafi Qaroon wanda ya so ɗaukaka a cikin ƙasa, amma akwai abin da ya nuna cewa mu ma ana yi mana magana da waɗannan dokokin.

and these were rules regarding Qaroon who wanted grandeur in the land but there is what indicates that we are addressed by these laws.

A cikin waɗannan yanayi guda uku, dokokin ayoyin mutanen da suka gabata za a ɗauke su a matsayin dokoki daga Shari'ar Musulunci, saboda akwai abin da ke nuna cewa mu ma ana yi mana magana da su, kuma muna karɓar su a matsayinsu na dokoki daga Shari'ar Musulunci, ba a matsayin cewa su na Shari'ar waɗanda suka zo kafinmu ba, domin Shari'ar waɗanda suka zo kafinmu ba Shari'a ce a gare mu ba.

In these three circumstances, laws of the verses of previous people will be considered as laws from the Islamic Shari’ah since there is something that indicates that we are addressed by them and we adopt them in their characteristic as laws from the Islamic Shari’ah and not from the characteristic that they were from a Shari’ah of those before us since the Shari’ah of those who came before us is not a Shari’ah for us.

Dangane da waɗanda ke cewa Istihsaan (amfani da hukunci na ra'ayi a cikin hukuncin shari'a) yana cikin dalilan Shari'ah, ba su iya kawo wata hujja daga Shari'ah, ko guda ɗaya ko ma ba tabbatacciya ba, wadda ke goyon bayan da'awarsu. Waɗanda suke ɗaukar Istihsaan a matsayin dalilin Shari'ah suna bayyana shi da cewa: dalili ne da yake zuwa ga Mujtahid lokacin da ba zai iya bayyana shi ba saboda rashin taimako wajen furta shi. An kuma bayyana cewa shi ne barin wani bangare daga cikin bangarorin Ijtihadi ba tare da cikakken bayanin kalmomi ba saboda wani bangare mafi ƙarfi fiye da shi, wanda zai zama kamar wani abu da ba a zata ba a kan na farko. Haka kuma, an bayyana cewa shi ne a cikin wata mas'ala a bar hukuncin da ya yi kama da ita zuwa wani hukunci saboda wani bangare mai ƙarfi da ke buƙatar wannan mataki. Bugu da ƙari, an bayyana cewa shi ne a yanke mas'ala daga makamantanta.

With regards to those who say that Istihsaan (application of discretion in a legal decision) is from the Shari’ah evidences, they are not able to come with single or even indefinite evidence from the Shari’ah that supports their claim. Istihsaan can be explained by those who take it as a Shari’ah evidence that: it is evidence which occurs to the Mujtahid when he or she is unable to make it apparent due to the lack of help to express it. It is also explained that it is to leave an aspect from amongst the aspects of Ijtihad without the completeness of the words for another aspect which is stronger than it and which would be like an unexpected factor on the first. In the same manner, it is explained that it is in an issue to abandon the rule comparable to it to another rule due to a stronger aspect that necessitates this move. Additionally, it is explained that it is to cut off an issue from comparable ones.

Istihsaan dibi zuwa kashi biyu; na farko shi ne Istihsaan Qiyasi, na biyu kuwa shi ne Istihsaan na larura. Istihsaan Qiyasi shi ne barin hukuncin wani Qiyas bayyananne da ya zo a gaba don wani hukunci daban ta wani Qiyas daban wanda ya fi a boye kuma ya fi lafiya, amma yana da hujja mai karfi, da kallon gamsarwa da kuma mafi daidaiton fitar da hukunci. Misali a kan haka: idan mutum ya sayi mota daga mutane biyu a cikin yarjejeniya guda a matsayin bashi daga gare su. Sai daya daga cikin masu bin bashin biyu aka ba shi wani bangare na wannan bashi. To sai dai bai da hakkin ya karbe shi musamman; a maimakon haka, abokin bashin nasa yana da hakkin ya nemi rabonsa daga abin da aka karba, tunda shi (mai bin bashi na farko) ya mallaki hakan daga jimillar farashin sayarwar a cikin sayarwa guda. Haka kuma, mallakar kowanne daga cikin abokan biyun daga farashin hadaddiyar sayarwar da ke tsakaninsu, mallaka ce ga su duka, wato mallaka ce ga hadin gwiwa, ba kuma ga daya daga cikinsu ya dauka musamman ba. Saboda haka, idan abin da aka karba ya lalace yana hannun wanda ya karba kafin abokin nasa na biyu ya dauki rabonsa daga cikinsa, to bisa Qiyas ana cire shi daga jimillar kudin biyun, ko kuma daga jimillar kudin hadin gwiwar. Amma bisa Istihsaan, asarar za a dauke ta ne kawai daga wanda ya karba, kuma asarar ba za a lissafa ta a kan abokin nasa na biyu ba, saboda asali bai rabu da hadin gwiwar wanda ya karba ba; a maimakon haka, yana iya barin abin da mai karba ya karba ya dangana ga mai bin bashi shi kadai. Sauran misalan suna bin wannan tsari. Wannan shi ne Istihsaan Qiyasi.

Istihsaan is divided into two categories; the first is Istihsaan Qiyasi and the second is Istihsaan of necessity. Istihsaan Qiyasi is to abandon the rule of an apparent Qiyas that comes to fore for a different rule by another Qiyas which is more subtle and hidden, but is a stronger proof, with a more satisfying viewpoint and a more correct derivation. An example of this is: if a person bought a car from two people in one agreement as a loan from them. Then, one of the two creditors was given part of this debt. However, he didn’t have the right to take it specifically; rather, his partner in the debt has a right to claim his part of the receipt since he (the first creditor) has appropriated it from the combined sale price in the single sale. Moreover, the appropriation of either of the two partners from the price of the combined sale between them is the appropriation of both the partners, in other words, it is an appropriation for the partnership and it is not for either of them to take specifically. So, if whatever was taken is destroyed while it is in the possession of the one who received it before the second partner took his share from it, then the deduction from the Qiyas is that it would be taken away from the total sum of the two, or in other words, from the total sum of the partnership. However, in Istihsaan the loss would be considered to be taken only from the one who had received it and the loss would not be counted against the second partner according to Istihsaan since in origin he is not inseparable from the partnership of the one who received it; rather, he is able to leave what is received by the appropriator and become attached to the debtor by himself specifically. The other examples follow in the same manner. This is Istihsaan Qiyasi.

Dangane da Istihsaan na larura, shi ne abin da yake saba wa ƙa'idar Qiyas ta hanyar la'akari da wata larura mai wajabci ko wata fa'ida da ake buƙata domin biyan buƙata ko kawar da wahala. Wannan yana faruwa ne idan ƙa'idar da ta fito daga Qiyas ta kai ga wahala ko matsala a wasu al'amura, sai a bar ta a wannan lokacin ta koma ga wata ƙa'ida ta Istihsaan wadda za ta kawar da wahalar kuma ta kore matsalar. Misali shi ne na ma'aikaci, domin mallakarsa ta fuskar abin da aka ɗauke shi aiki a kansa ana ɗaukarta a matsayin Amanat (amana); don haka babu diyya idan ya lalace yayin da yake hannunsa muddin bai yi sakaci ba. Saboda haka, idan wani ya ɗauki mutum aiki ya yi masa aikin dinkin tufafi a gidansa don wani ɗaki, wata wata guda, to ana ɗaukar sa a matsayin ma'aikacin kansa. Sannan idan tufafin suka lalace suna hannun ma'aikacin ba tare da wani laifi daga gare shi ba, babu biyan diyya saboda ya riƙe su a matsayin amana. Haka kuma, idan wani ya ɗauki mutum aiki ya yi masa aikin dinkin tufafi a shagonsa domin wasu mutane, kuma ya kasance yana dinka tufafin dukkan mutane, to shi ma'aikaci ne na gama-gari. Don haka idan tufafin suka lalace suna hannun wannan ma'aikaci ba tare da wani laifi daga gare shi ba, babu diyya saboda shi ma ya riƙe su a matsayin amana ta irin wannan hanya. Sai dai bisa Istihsaan, ba a bin ma'aikacin kansa diyya, amma ana bin ma'aikacin gama-gari diyya, domin kada ya karɓi aiki fiye da yadda zai iya yi, saboda yana iya lalata dukiyar mutane.

As for Istihsaan of necessity, it is what contradicts the rule of Qiyas by taking into account an incumbent necessity or a required benefit in order to fulfil the need or prevent the hardship. This occurs when the rule from the Qiyas leads to a hardship or a problem in some issues and so it is abandoned at that time by Istihsaan for another rule which would remove the hardship and repel the problem. This is like the example of the employee since his possession with respect to what he is employed upon is considered to be an Amanat (trust); so there is no liability (to be paid) if it is damaged while it is with him as long as he was not negligent. Therefore, if someone employed a person to work in his house to sew clothes for someone else for one month, he is considered a private employee. Then, if the clothes were damaged while they are in the employee’s possession without any transgression from him, there is no payment of liability because he possessed it as a trust. Additionally, if someone employed someone to work in his shop to sew clothes for others and he used to sew clothes for all the people, then he is a general employee. So, if the clothes are destroyed while they are in this employee’s possession without any transgression from him then there is no liability since he held them as a trust in the same manner. However, according to Istihsaan, there is no liability upon the private employee while there is for the general employee so that he (the general employee) would not accept more work than he is able to do since he might destroy the peoples’ wealth.

Wannan ita ce takaitaccen bayanin Istihsaan da hujjojinsa. A bayyane yake cewa ba hujjoji ba ne; sai dai gyare-gyaren hankali kawai, ba daga Littafi ba, ba kuma daga Sunnah ba. Ba su kai matsayin hujjoji marasa tabbas ba balle su zama hujjoji tabbatattu da za a ce Istihsaan yana cikin hujjojin Shari'ah. Wannan ta fuskar daya; kuma ta wata fuskar, duk abin da ya samu daga gyaran hankali, to batacce ne.

This is the summary of Istihsaan and its evidences. It is apparent that they are not evidences; rather, they are simply rational amendments that are neither from the Book nor from the Sunnah. They do not even reach the level of being considered indefinite proofs let alone conclusive proofs that Istihsaan is from the Shari’ah evidences. This is from one angle and from another angle; whatever comes about from rational amendment is void.

Dangane da bayanan Istihsaan, dukkansu ba su inganta ba. Game da bayani na farko, wato cewa dalili yana cikin hankalin Mujtahid kuma shi ko ita ba ta san menene ba, ba a yarda a dauki wani abu a matsayin dalili muddin yana boye ba, domin rashin iyawar bayyana shi yana tabbatar da cewa ba a fili yake ga Mujtahid ba kuma ba shi da masaniya a kansa; saboda haka ba daidai ba ne a dauke shi daga cikin dalilan Shari'a. Game da sauran bayanai, dukkan ma'anarsu daya ce, watau barin mas'ala makamanciyar mas'alar da ke gaban mutum saboda wata ra'ayi mai karfi, wato barin Qiyas saboda dalili mai karfi. Idan wadannan bayanai suna nufin "dalili mai karfi" nassi daga Littafi ko Sunna, to wannan ba Istihsaan ba ne; a zahiri dai fifita nassi ne, don haka cirar hukunci daga nassin ne, wanda zai zama cirar hukunci daga Littafi ko Sunna ba cirar hukunci ta hanyar Istihsaan ba. Idan kuma "dalili mai karfi" din hankali ne ta hanyar abin da yake ganin maslaha ce, kuma wannan ita ce ma'anar da ake nufi, to wannan ba daidai ba ne, domin Qiyas an gina shi ne a kan 'illar Shari'a wadda nassi ya tabbatar, kuma ita ce umarnin Mai shari'a (SWT) a gare mu. Hankali da maslaha ba nassosin Shari'a ba ne, kuma ba wata 'illa ce mafi karfi fiye da nassi ba; a takaice, babu wata alaka tsakanin hankali da maslaha da nassin Shari'a (watau abin da ya zo da Wahayi). Saboda haka wannan barin Qiyas bai inganta ba.

With respect to the explanations of Istihsaan, all of them are invalid. As for the first explanation that the evidence is sensed in the mind of the Mujtahid and that he or she does not know what it is, it is not permitted to consider something an evidence as long as it remains unknown since the lack of ability to make it clear and apparent proves that it is not clear to the Mujtahid and that he or she lacks knowledge of it; so, it is not correct to be from amongst the Shari’ah evidences. As for the other explanations, all of their meanings are the same, i.e. to abandon similar issues to the issue at hand for another stronger view, in other words, to abandon Qiyas for stronger evidence. If these explanations intend by the “stronger evidence”, a text from the Book or the Sunnah, then this is not Istihsaan; it is rather preference of the text, so it is deducing from the text which would be deduction by the Book or the Sunnah and not deduction by Istihsaan. If the “stronger evidence” is the mind by what it considers as benefit and this is the intended meaning, then this is invalid since Qiyas is built upon the Shari’ah ‘Illah which is determined by the text and it is the address of the Legislator (swt) to us. The mind and the benefit are not Shari’ah texts and nor are they another ‘Illah stronger than the text; rather, there is no relationship between the mind and benefit with the Shari’ah text (i.e. what came as Revelation). For that reason, this abandonment is invalid.

Dangane da bayanin rarrabuwar Istihsaan, rashin ingancin Istihsaan Qiyasi ya bayyana daga rashin ingancin bayani na biyu, wato barin irin wannan batu zuwa ga kwatankwacin wannan batu. Haka kuma, dogaronsu da cewa lallai Istihsaan Qiyasi ne ɓoyayye, bai inganta ba, domin babu dangantaka tsakaninsa da Qiyas; a maimakon haka, kawai hukunci ne bisa maslaha (sanya maslahar ta zama ‘Illah). Game da misalin farashin cinikin haɗaka wanda aka sayar a cikin yarjejeniya guda, bai dace a bambanta hukuncin asarar dukiyar da ɗaya daga cikin abokan hulɗa ya karɓe ba, cewa asara ce daga dukiyar hadin gwiwa, domin abin da ɗaya daga cikin abokan hulɗa ya karɓa daga dukiyar, karɓa ne daga dukiyar hadin gwiwar. Saboda dukiyar, ko motar da aka sayar ce ko farashinta, dukiyar hadin gwiwa ce, ba dukiyar ɗaya daga cikin abokan hulɗa ba; don haka asararta asarar dukiyar kamfanin ce, kamar yadda karɓarta karɓar dukiyar kamfanin ce. Saboda haka, wannan barin abu bisa maslaha ba shi da wurin zama, kuma yana karo da Shari’ah.

This is regarding the explanations. As for the categorisation of Istihsaan, the invalidity of Istihsaan Qiyasi has become clear from the invalidity of the second explanation, which was to abandon the similar issues to the issue. Also, their consideration that it is a hidden Qiyas is invalid because it has no relationship with Qiyas; rather, it is simply reasoning by benefit (making the benefit an ‘Illah). Regarding the example of the price of a combined sale which was sold in one agreement, it is not correct to differ in the rule, the loss of the wealth which one of the two partners appropriated, that it is a loss from the wealth of the partnership, for what one of the two partners appropriated from the wealth is from the appropriation of the partnership. Because the wealth, irrespective of whether it was the sold car or its price, is the wealth of the partnership and not the wealth of one of the partners; so its loss is the loss of the wealth of the company just like its appropriation is an appropriation of the wealth of the company. So, this beneficial (Maslahi) abandonment has no place and it contradicts the Shari’ah.

Game ta Istihsaan na larura, rashin ingancinta a bayyane yake domin ana yanke hukunci a kanta ta hanyar hankali da abin da hankali ke ganin alheri ne; ba nassi ne na Shari'a ba, kuma ana fifita dalilin da aka dogara a kansa ('Illah) a kan nassin Shari'a (wato fahimtar nassin Shari'a). Duk wannan bai inganta ba, ba tare da wata muhawara da ake buƙata ba. Sannan, sanya ma'aikacin hadin gwiwa ya zama abin hukunci, ma'aikacin masu zaman kansa kuma ba abin hukunci ba, hakan fifita abu ne ba tare da hujja ba domin a sanya shi a gaba, kuma hakan yana sabawa da nassin Shari'a. Al-Bayhaqi ya ruwaito a cikin Sunan Al-Kubra daga 'Amr bn Shu'ayb daga mahaifinsa daga kakansa cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

As for the Istihsaan of necessity, its invalidity is clear in that it is ruled by the mind and what the mind perceives as benefit; it is not a Shari’ah text and the adopted reason (‘Illah) is preferred to the Shari’ah text (that is, the comprehension of Shari’ah text). All of this is invalid without any necessary discusssion. Then, to make the shared employee liable and the private employee not liable is to prefer something without evidence to make it preferred and it contradicts with the Shari’ah text. It was reported by Al-Bayhaqi in Sunan Al-Kubra from ‘Amr B. Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger (pbuh) said:

.» ثُمَّ لاَ ضَمَانَ عَلَى مُؤْتَمَنٍ « .

.» ثُمَّ لاَ ضَمَانَ عَلَى مُؤْتَمَنٍ « .

“babu wani hukunci na diyya a kan wanda ya karɓi amana”. Haka kuma, ta hanyar Al-Qasim bin Abdul Rahman cewa ’Ali da Ibn Mas’ud sun ce: “babu wani hukunci na diyya a kan wanda ya karɓi amana”, kuma a cikin littafinsa Sunan Al-Bayhaqi ya ruwaito daga Jaber cewa Abu Bakr ya yanke hukunci cewa ajiya da aka ajiye a cikin jaka, wadda ta kone har ta lalace, ba za a biya diyya a madadinta ba; saboda haka, babu wani hukunci na diyya a kan kowane wanda aka ba amana kwata-kwata, tun da maganar hadisin “babu” nufinta ƙaryatawa ce ta jinsi gaba ɗaya.

“then there is no liability upon the one who takes a trust”. Similarly, through Al-Qasim Bin Abdul Rahman that ‘Ali and Ibn Mas’ud said: “there is no liability upon the one who takes a trust”, and in his Sunan Al-Bayhaqi reports from Jaber that Abu Bakr ruled that a deposit which had been kept in a bag, which was burnt and so was destroyed, was not to receive any liability in exchange; so, there is no liability upon anyone given a trust at all since the expression of the narration “no” is a negation of the genus.

. "لا ضَمانَ " .

. "لا ضَمانَ " .

"babu abin alhaki/nauyi" wanda ke nuna gabaɗaya, don haka yana shafar kowa da ke riƙe da amana, ko ya kasance ma'aikacin masu zaman kansu ko ma'aikacin gwamnati gabaɗaya.

“no liability/responsibility” which indicates generality, and so it encompasses every one holding a trust whether they were a private employee or a general employee.

Daga wannan an bayyana cewa Istihsaan ba ta cikin dalilan Shari'a, kuma bai dace a dauke ta a matsayin dalili daga cikin dalilan Shari'a ba, domin babu wata hujja ko kadan, ta tabbata ko ta zato, daga Alkur'ani, ko daga Sunnah, ko daga ijma'in Sahabbai, da ke nuna cewa tana cikin dalilai. Ban da haka, tana amfani da hankali a matsayin dalili, wanda hakan ke sa ta zama bata, kuma wasu daga cikin misalan ta suna sabawa nassoshin Shari'a.

By this it is apparent that Istihsaan is not from the Shari’ah evidences, and it is not correct to consider it from the Shari’ah evidences since there is no proof at all, definite or indefinite, whether from the Quran, from the Sunnah or from the Ijma’ of the Companions that indicates that it is from the evidences. This is besides the fact that it is using the mind as evidence which makes it invalid and that some of its examples contradicts Shari’ah texts.

Kamar yadda waɗanda suke cewa Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah na cikin dalilan Shari'a ba su iya kawo wata hujja a kan haka ba, haka nan su ma suna ɗaukar cewa dalilan dukkan Shari'a su ne samun maslahohi da kawar da cutarwa. Haka kuma suna ɗaukar cewa dalilin kowace hukuncin Shari'a na musamman shi ne samun maslaha ko kawar da cutarwa. Sai dai wasu daga cikinsu suna sanya sharaɗi cewa, sai an sami nassi daga Shari'a da ya tabbatar da cewa wannan abin maslaha ne, ko kuma an ambata cewa yana cikin wani nau'in maslaha; amma wasu ba sa sanya wannan sharaɗi. Maimakon haka, suna ɗaukar maslaha a matsayin dalilin Shari'a ko da babu wani nassi da ya ambaci ingancinta ko nau'inta. Wannan kuwa saboda tana shiga cikin babbar ma'anar Masalih da ake nema ta hanyarta samun maslahohi da kaucewa cutarwa.

As for those who say that Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah are from the Shari’ah evidences, in the same manner they are also unable to bring any proof for it; however, they consider the reasons behind the whole of the Shari’ah to be the obtaining of interests and the repulsion of harms. In the same way, they consider the reason behind each specific Shari’ah rule to be the obtaining of the interest or the repulsion of the harm. However, some of them make it a condition that the consideration that something is itself a benefit needs to be found mentioned in a text from the Shari’ah or mentioned that it is a type of interest but some of them do not make this a condition; rather, they consider the Maslahah (benefit) a Shari’ah evidence even if there is no mentioning of the consideration of it or its type in a Shari’ah text. This is because it comes under the general Masalih by which the benefits are sought and the harms are avoided.

Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah za a iya bayyana ta da cewa: duk wata maslaha da babu nassi da aka ruwaito a cikin Shari'ah game da ita ko irinta. Ma'anar Mursalah ita ce ba a ambace ta a cikin dalili ba. Malamai sun ce idan maslahar kanta an ambace ta a takamaimen nassi, kamar koyarwa, karatu da rubutu, ko kuma tana cikin nassi na gaba ɗaya wanda ya ambaci irinta wanda ke tabbatar da muhimmancinta, kamar umarni da kowane irin alheri da hana duk ayyukan sharri, to a waɗannan yanayi guda biyu ba ta cikin Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah. Maimakon haka, Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah tana fitowa ne daga dalili, wato babu wani dalili da aka samu a kanta; a maimakon haka ana samo ta ne daga ma'anar gaba ɗayan Shari'ah da aka aiko domin samun maslahohi da kawar da cutarwa. Duk da haka, ana bambance tsakanin maslahohin Shari'ah da waɗanda ba halal ba, domin maslahohin Shari'ah su ne waɗanda suka dace da manufofin (Maqasid) Shari'ah, kuma maslahohin da ba halal ba su ne waɗanda suka saɓa wa manufofin Shari'ah. Don haka, Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah da ake ɗaukar su a matsayin dalilin Shari'ah su ne waɗanda suka dace da manufofin Shari'ah, kuma waɗanda suka saɓa wa manufofin Shari'ah ba a ɗaukar su a matsayin Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah; saboda haka ba dalili ne na Shari'ah ba. Saboda haka, Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah su ne waɗanda nassosin Shari'ah ke nuna muhimmancinsu a gabaɗaya, kuma bisa ga haka ake gina hukunce-hukuncen Shari'ah na musamman a kansu idan babu nassi game da al'amarin ko wani abu makamancinsa, a irin wannan yanayi maslahar za ta zama hujjar Shari'ah.

Al-Masalih Al- Mursalah may be defined as: every interest which has no text narrated in the Shari’ah with respect to it or its type. So, the meaning of Mursalah is that it is not mentioned in evidence. They said that if the Maslahah was itself mentioned in a specific text, such as teaching, reading and writing, or was from a general text which mentioned its type which confirmed its consideration, such as the enjoining of every type of good and the forbiddance of all the acts of evil, then in these two situations it is not considered to be from Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah. Rather, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah is forwarded from the evidence, in other words, there is no evidence found upon it; instead, it is derived from the generality of the Shari’ah being sent to gain the interests and repel the harms. However, there is a difference made between the Shari’ah interests and those which are not legitimate since the Shari’ah interests are those that agree with the intentions (Maqasid) of the Shari’ah, and the interests that are illegitimate are those which contradict the intentions of the Shari’ah. So, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah that are considered to be a Shari’ah evidence are those which agree with the intentions of the Shari’ah, and those which contradict with the intentions of the Shari’ah are not considered to be from Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah; consequently, it is not a Shari’ah evidence. Hence, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah are those that the Shari’ah texts indicate its consideration in a general manner, and accordingly, specific Shari’ah rules are built upon its basis when there is no Shari’ah text regarding the event or anything which is comparable to it, in which case the interest would be the Shari’ah proof.

Wannan takaitaccen bayani ne na Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, kuma ba shi da ƙarfi ta bangarori biyu.

This is the summary of Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah and it is invalid from two angles:

Da farko: nassosin Shari'a daga Alkur'ani da Sunnah suna da alaƙa da takamaiman ayyukan mai bautawa; saboda haka, su ne dalilin Shari'a ga hukuncin Shari'a a cikin wannan aikin, kuma ba su da alaƙa da maslahohi, kuma babu wata hujja da ta zo game da maslaha. Lokacin da Allah (SWT) ya ce:

Firstly: the Shari’ah texts from the Quran and the Sunnah are connected to specific actions of the worshipper; so, they are the Shari’ah evidence for the rule of the Shari’ah in that action, and they are not connected with the interests and no evidence came for the interest. When Allah (saw) said:

"Idan kuma kuna kan tafiya kuma ba ku sami marubuci ba, to a karɓi wani abin tsare-tsare (rahani)." Ta haka Allah (SWT) ya ce:

“And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a security deposit [should be] taken.” (TMQ 2:283), and when He (swt) said:

“Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani, idan kun yi mu'amala ta bashi zuwa wani ƙayyadajjen lokaci, to ku rubuta ta.” (TMQ 2:282), da kuma lokacin da Ya ce:

“O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down.” (TMQ 2:282), and when He said:

"Kuma ku ɗauki shaidu idan kun yi ciniki," (TMQ 2:282). Shi (SWT) yana bayyana kawai ƙa'idodin jinginar kaya, rubuta bashi da kuma shaida a kan sayarwa. Shi (SWT) bai bayyana ko wannan riba ce ko a'a ba, ba ta hanyar magana ba, ba kuma ta hanyar alamu ba, kuma nassin bai isar da ko wannan ƙa'ida riba ce ko a'a ba, ba daga kusa ba, ba daga nesa ba, ko ta kowace fuska daga bangarorinta daban-daban. To, ta wace fuska ake cewa Shari'ah ta nuna waɗannan riba, har wannan riba ta zama abin la'akari, kuma daga baya a ɗauke ta a matsayin hujjar Shari'ah?

“And take witnesses when you conclude a contract.” (TMQ 2:282), He (swt) was explaining only the rules of mortgaging, writing down debts and witnessing the sale. He (swt) did not make it evident whether this was an interest or not, neither by expression nor by indication, and the text does not convey whether this rule was an interest or not, neither from close nor far or by any aspect from its various angles. So, from what angle is it said that these interests are indicated by the Shari’ah in order for this interest to be considered and subsequently to be considered as Shari’ah evidence?

Bugu da ƙari, Shari'ah Illal (jam'in Illah) ta zo ne ta hanya ɗaya da nassoshin Shari'ah; tana da alaƙa da ayyukan mai bautawa, kuma tana zama shaida a kan nuni na hukuncin Shari'ah a cikin wannan aiki, kuma ba ta zo ne don bayyana maslaha ko nuni na maslahar ba. Saboda haka, sa'ad da Allah (SWT) ya ce:

Additionally, the Shari’ah Illal (plural of Illah) came in the same manner as the Shari’ah texts; connected to the actions of the worshipper and as evidence upon the indication of the Shari’ah rule in that action, and did not come to explain the interest nor the indication of the interest. So, when Allah (swt) says:

"Domin kada ya zama rabon dindindin a tsakanin masu wadata daga cikinku." (TMQ 59:7),.

“So that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you.” (TMQ 59:7),.

"Domin kada a samu wata damuwa ga muminai game da matan 'ya'yan da suka karɓa a matsayin 'ya'yansu." (TMQ 33:37) da kuma lokacin da Ya (SWT) ke cewa:

“In order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons.” (TMQ 33:37) and when He (swt) says:

“Kuma waɗanda ake yi wa lalata zukatansu” (TMQ 9:60). Shi (swt) yana bayyana kawai ‘Illar rarraba dukiya ga matalauta ba masu arziki ba, domin hana dukiya ta yawo tsakanin masu arziki, kuma yana bayyana cewa ‘Illar auren Manzon Allah (pbuh) da Zaynab shi ne bayanin halaccin mutum ya auri matar ɗansa da ya riƙe, kuma yana bayyana cewa ‘Illar bayar da kuɗi domin jan zukata ita ce buƙatar Dawla ta ɗaure zukata tare. Don haka, shi (swt) bai bayyana cewa wannan maslaha ce ba; a maimakon haka, bayanin shi ne wata takamaiman matsala ita ce ‘Illar wata takamaiman hukunci, ba tare da an kula da maslaha ko rashinta ba, kuma babu wani la’akari da ita kwata-kwata. Don haka, daga wane kusurwa ne za a ce Shari’ah tana nuna waɗannan dalilai har a iya ɗaukar maslahohi a matsayin hujjar Shari’ah? Idan nassosin Shari’ah ba su nuna cewa Shari’ah ta zo domin maslaha ba, ko a alamominsu na hukunci ko a alamominsu na ‘Illar hukuncin, to ba zai yiwu a ce nassosin suna nuna takamaiman maslahohi ko nau’insu ba, tun da babu wani abu kwata-kwata da ya zo game da hakan a cikin nassosin Shari’ah. Saboda haka, ya bayyana cewa da’awar cewa nassosin Shari’ah sun zo a matsayin hujja ga takamaiman maslahohi ko nau’insu ba ta inganta ba, kuma daga wani tunani mafi girma, maslahohin da wani nassi daga Shari’ah wanda ke nuna cewa hujjojin Shari’ah ne ba a ɗaukar su ma.

“And those whose hearts are to be conciliated.” (TMQ 9:60), He (swt) is only clarifying the ‘Illah distributing the wealth amongst the poor rather than the rich in order to prevent the circulation of the wealth amongst the rich, and clarifying that the ‘Illah of marrying the Messenger (pbuh) to Zaynab is to be an explanation of the permissibility for someone to marry his adopted son’s wife, and clarifying that the Illah for giving (money) in order to attract the hearts is the need for the State to bind the hearts together. So, He (swt) did not explain that this was benefit; rather, the explanation was that a specific issue was the Illah of a specific rule without any regard given to the interest or its absence and absolutely without any consideration to it. So, from what angle then, can it be said that the Shari’ah indicates these reasons such that the interests can be considered Shari’ah evidence? If the Shari’ah texts did not indicate that the Shari’ah came for the interest, neither in its indications upon the rule nor in its indications for the Illah of the rule, then it is not possible for it to be said that the texts indicate specific interests or by their type since nothing at all came regarding this in the Shari’ah texts. Accordingly, the invalidity of the claim that the Shari’ah texts came as a proof for specific interests or by their type has become clear, and from greater reasoning, the interests that were not mentioned by a text from the Shari’ah that indicates that they are from the Shari’ah evidences are also not considered.

Na biyu, sun sanya sharaɗi ga Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah cewa domin ta zama Mursalah, dole ne babu wani nassi a cikin Shari'ah da ke nuna cewa ana la'akari da ita, ko dai ta musamman ko ta nau'inta, don haka sharaɗinsu shi ne cewa bai kamata a sami wata hujja ta musamman a kanta daga Shari'ah ba, sai dai ana fahimtarta ne daga manufofin Shari'ah. Wannan kaɗai ya isa ya ɓata ta a ra'ayin Shari'ah, domin rashin hujjar da ke nuna ta ya isa ya ƙi ta tun da hukuncin da ake nema hukunci ne na Shari'ah ba hukuncin hankali ba. Saboda haka, domin a ɗauke ta a matsayin daga Shari'ah, wajibi ne a sami hujja da ke nuna cewa tana cikin abin da aka saukar da shi, watau Littafi da Sunnah. Don haka, sharaɗin cewa babu wani nassi daga Shari'ah da ke nuna ta ya wadatar wajen ƙin ta a matsayin daga Shari'ah.

Secondly, they made a condition for Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah that for them to be Mursalah, there must be no narration of a text in the Shari’ah that indicates that they are considered, neither specifically nor by their type, and so their stipulation is that there should not be a specific proof for it from the Shari’ah and it is rather understood from the intentions of the Shari’ah. This alone is enough to make it void in the view of the Shari’ah because the lack of a proof which indicates it is enough to reject it since the rule sought is the rule of the Shari’ah and not the rule from the mind. Therefore, in order to consider it as being from the Shari’ah, it is imperative that there is a proof which indicates that it is found in what came with the Revelation, i.e. the Book and the Sunnah. So, the stipulation that there is no text from the Shari’ah that indicates it is sufficient to reject it as being from the Shari’ah.

Dangane da batun Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah da ake fahimta daga manufofin Shari'ah, manufofin Shari'ah ba nassi ne na Shari'ah da za a iya fahimta ta yadda abin da aka fahimta daga gare su zai zama hujja ba, don haka babu wata daraja ga abin da aka fahimta daga gare su wajen amfani da su a matsayin dalili ga hukuncin Shari'ah. Bugu da kari, menene ainihin ma'anar manufofin Shari'ah? Idan abin da ake nufi da shi shi ne abin da nassoshi suka nuna, kamar haramcin zina, sata, kisan kai, shan giya, da ficewa daga Musulunci, to wannan ba manufar Shari'ah ba ce; a maimakon haka, hukunci ne na ayyukan bawa, kuma babu damar wuce abin da nassi ya nuna. Saboda haka, babu wurin la'akari da cewa wannan hukunci da aka fahimta daga nassi dalili ne na Shari'ah; a maimakon haka, dokar Shari'ah ce. Ta hanya mafi karfi, babu wani muhimmanci da za a ba abin da hankali ke zato daga wannan hukunci a matsayin manufar Shari'ah daga cikin dalilan Shari'ah. To ta yaya za a dauki abin da aka tsara ta hanyar zato kawai a matsayin manufar Shari'ah a matsayin dalili na Shari'ah?! Bisa wannan, ingancin abin da aka fahimta daga manufofin Shari'ah ya zama babu shi gaba daya.

With respect to Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah being understood from the intentions of the Shari’ah, the intentions of the Shari’ah are not a Shari’ah text which can be understood such that what is understood from them can be considered a proof, and so there is no value in what is understood from them as far as using them as evidence for Shari’ah law. Furthermore, what is meant by the intentions of the Shari’ah? If what is intended by it is what the texts indicate, such as the prohibitions of fornication, stealing, murder, alcohol and apostasy from Islam, then this is not an intention of the Shari’ah; rather, it is the law for the actions of the worshipper and there is no looking beyond the indication of the text. So, there is no place to consider that this law which was understood from the text is Shari’ah evidence; rather, it is a Shari’ah rule. By greater reasoning, there is no account given to what the mind imagines from that law as being the purpose of the Shari’ah to be from the Shari’ah evidences. So, how would you consider that which is conceived from the mere imagination as a purpose of the Shari’ah to be a Shari’ah evidence?!! Based upon this, the validity of what is understood from the intentions of the Shari’ah is completely and utterly void.

Dangane da abin da ake nufi ta hanyar abin da ake fahimta daga dukkan hikimar Shari'a, watau hikimar aiko Manzon Allah (ﷺ) da kuma cewa shi rahama ce ga dukkan halitta, to wannan hikima ce ba illa ba, kuma hikima na iya samuwa ko kuma ba ta samuwa. Saboda haka, ba a ɗaukarta a matsayin tushe da ake amfani da shi a matsayin hujja saboda yiwuwar rashinta; don haka, ta hanyar ƙarin hujja, abin da ake fahimta daga hikimar ba za a iya ɗaukarsa a matsayin tushe da ake amfani da shi wajen hujja ba.

As for what is intended by what is understood from all the wisdom (Hikma) of the Shari’ah, i.e. the wisdom behind sending the Messenger (pbuh) and the fact that he was a mercy for all creation, then this is a Hikma not an Illah, and the Hikma may or may not be attained. Accordingly, it is not taken as a basis used as evidence due to the possibility of its absence; therefore, by greater reasoning, what is understood from the Hikma cannot be taken as a basis that is used for evidence.

Saboda haka, zai zama kuskure a ɗauka cewa abin da ake fahimta daga abin da ake kira manufofin Shari'a daga cikin hujjojin Shari'a ne. Haka kuma daga wannan fuska, ra'ayin cewa abin da ake fahimta a matsayin manufar Shari'a shi ne hujjar Shari'a gaba ɗaya ba shi da tushe. Saboda haka, ya bayyana a fili cewa ra'ayin cewa Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah na daga cikin hujjojin Shari'a bai inganta ba.

Due to this, it would be incorrect to consider that what is understood from what is known as the intentions of the Shari’ah as being from the Shari’ah evidences. It is also the case from this angle that the notion that what is understood to be from the purpose of the Shari’ah to be Shari’ah evidence is completely void. Accordingly, the invalidity of the notion that Al-Masalih Al- Mursalah is from the Shari’ah evidences has become clear.

Wannan yana daga mahangar dalilan da suka sa su yi la'akari da cewa Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah dalili ne na Shari'a. Amma dangane da mahangar hujjar Shari'a cewa su daga cikin dalilan Shari'a suke, to babu wata hujjar Shari'a a kan hakan kwata-kwata, ko daga Littafi ko daga Sunnah; ba hujja ta tabbatacciya ba, ba kuma ta sassauya ba. Saboda haka, bai dace a ɗauki Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah a matsayin daga cikin dalilan Shari'a ba.

This is from the angle of the causes that made them consider that Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah is Shari’ah evidence. As for the angle of the Shari’ah proof that they are from the Shari’ah evidences, there is absolutely no Shari’ah proof for that at all whether from the Book or the Sunnah; neither a conclusive proof nor an indefinite one. For this reason, it is incorrect to consider Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah as being from the Shari’ah evidences.

Daga dukkan wannan, a bayyane yake cewa hujjojin da Wahayi ya zo da su daga wurin Allah (SWT), waɗanda aka tabbatar da hujja ta tabbata a kansu, su ne hujjoji huɗu kawai ba fiye da haka ba, kuma su ne: Littafi, Sunnah, Ijma'in Sahabbai, da Qiyas wanda Illarsa ta fito daga Shari'a, kuma babu wata hujja ta tabbata da ke nuna wasu hujjoji banda waɗannan huɗu. Saboda haka, ya bayyana cewa hujjojin Shari'a su ne waɗannan huɗu kaɗai.

From all of this, it becomes clear that the evidence that the Revelation came with from Allah (swt), which are confirmed with definite proof, are the four evidences and nothing else, and they are: the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma’ of the Companions and Qiyas whose Illah is from the Shari’ah, and other than these four evidences have no definite proof that indicates them. Accordingly, it has become apparent that the Shari’ah evidences are only these four alone.

Sai dai ya kamata a bayyana cewa dokokin da aka samo daga wasu dalilai banda waɗannan huɗu, daga cikin dokokin da wani Imam ya ɗauka a matsayin dokokin Shari'a, dokokin Shari'a ne a idon waɗanda suke goyon bayansu da waɗanda suke adawa da su, saboda akwai wata shaida mara cikakken bayani da ke nuna cewa an ɗauke su a matsayin dalilai. Saboda haka, wanda ya ɗauki ijma'in al-ummah gaba ɗaya a matsayin dalilin Shari'a, sannan ya samo wata doka daga gare shi, to wannan doka za ta zama dokar Shari'a a idonsa, kuma dokar Shari'a wadda ta wajaba a kansa, kuma an hana shi ɗaukar wata doka a maimakon ta. Haka nan dokar za ta zama dokar Shari'a a idon waɗanda suke adawa da ita, amma ba za ta zama dokar Shari'a da ta wajaba a kansu ba. Hakan ya shafi "Shari'ar waɗanda suka gabace mu shari'a ce a gare mu", da Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, da Istihsaan, da hankali.

However, it should be clear that the rules deduced from evidences other than these four, from amongst the rules that an Imam considered as Shari’ah rules, are Shari’ah rules in the eyes of those who advocate them and those who oppose them because there exists a vague evidence denoting that they are considered as evidences. Hence, the one who considers the general consensus of the Ummah as being a Shari’ah evidence and who then goes on to deduce from this a rule; consequently, this rule would become a Shari’ah rule in his or her eyes and a binding Shari’ah rule upon him or her, and he or she would be forbidden from taking another rule instead. The same rule also becomes a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of those who oppose it but it does not become a binding Shari’ah rule upon them. The same applies to 'the Shari’ah of those before us is a Shari’ah for us', Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, Istihsaan and rationality.

Saboda haka, duk hukuncin da aka samo daga wata daga cikin wadannan hujjoji ana ganinsa a matsayin hukuncin Shari'a a wurin wadanda suke ganin cewa abin da aka samo hukuncin daga gare shi wani bangare ne na hujjojin Shari'a, da kuma a wurin wadanda suka saba masa. Duk da haka, hukunci ne na Shari'a wanda yake wajibi ne kawai a kan wanda ya samo shi, ba kuma wajibi ne a kan wanda yake da wata fahimta daban ba. Wannan kamar hukuncin da aka samo daga nassoshi ne, domin banbancin fahimtar nassi ba ya sa hukuncin da aka samo ya zama hukuncin Shari'a a wurin wanda ya samo shi, sannan ya zama haramtacce a wurin wanda ya saba masa a wannan fahimta. Akasin haka, hukunci ne na Shari'a daga mahangar dukkan Musulmai muddin ana iya kaiwa ga irin wannan fahimta daga nassin; wato, muddin shubhar hujja (Shubhat Daleel) tana nan. Sai dai ba hukunci ne wajibi ga dukkan Musulmai ba, illa wajibi ne kawai a kan wanda ya samo shi da wanda ya bi shi wajen koyi, ba kuma wajibi ne a kan wanda ya saba masa ba. Duk da haka, a kowane hali hukunci ne na Shari'a. Haka kuma, hukuncin da aka samo daga wata hujja yana kama da hukuncin da aka samo daga nassi; ana ganinsa a matsayin hukuncin Shari'a a wurin dukkan Musulmai, ko ga wadanda suka dauke shi a matsayin hujjar Shari'a ko kuma ga wadanda ba su dauke shi a matsayin hujjar Shari'a ba, matukar shubhar hujja tana nan, kamar yadda yake a game da hujjojin da suka gabata wadanda muka karyata daukar su a matsayin hujjojin Shari'a.

Hence, every rule deduced from any of these evidences is considered a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of those who advocate that what the rule has been deduced from is part of the Shari’ah evidences and in the eyes of those who oppose it as well. However, it is only a binding Shari’ah rule upon the one who deduces it and not binding upon the one who holds a different understanding. This is like the rules deduced from the texts since the difference in understanding the text does not make the deduced rule a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of the one who deduced it and illegitimate in the eyes of the one that opposed him or her in this understanding. Rather, it is a Shari’ah rule from the viewpoint of all the Muslims as long as the possibility of reaching such understanding from the text is possible; in other words, as long as the doubted evidence (Shubhat Daleel) exists. However, it is not considered a binding rule upon all the Muslims but only binding upon the one who has deduced it and the one who has emulated it, and not binding upon the one who has opposed it. Nonetheless, in any case it is a Shari’ah rule. Likewise, the rule deduced from an evidence is exactly like the rule deduced from the text; it is considered a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of all the Muslims whether for those who considered it a Shari’ah evidence or for those who did not consider it a Shari’ah evidence, provided the doubted evidence is existent, such as in the case of the previous evidences which we refuted their consideration as the Shari’ah evidences.