Labari na 138 - Tsarin Mulki na Daular Khilafah (Daftarin Farko) | Quran Course

Labari na 138 - Tsarin Mulki na Daular Khilafah (Daftarin Farko) | Quran Course

“Ya yi wa’azi/minbari an yi shi” kamar yadda Al-Bukhari ya ruwaito daga Sahl b. Sa’d Al-Sa’idi, kuma ana kera abubuwa ne daga hannun mutanen da suke da masana’antar da kansu. Bugu da kari, a zamanin Manzon Allah ﷺ mutane suna sa a yi musu abubuwa, shi kuwa yana yin shiru game da hakan, har ya kai ga wasu daga cikinsu suna kera makamai, kamar Khubab wanda yake kera takobi a Jahiliyya (zamanin jahilci kafin Musulunci) kuma ya ci gaba da yin hakan bayan ya karbi Musulunci. Labarinsa yana cikin Sirar Ibn Hisham tare da Al-‘As Bin Wa’il Al-Sahmi lokacin da ya sayi takobi daga wajen Khubab. Lokacin da Khubab ya zo wajen Al-‘As don tabbatar da farashin, sai ya yi masa wasa yana cewa: Zan biya maka farashinsa a Aljanna. Wannan yana nuna cewa ya tabbatar da mallakar masana’anta ga mutum daya, ba tare da la’akari da ko masana’antar makamai ce, ma’adanai, aikin kafinta ko wani abu daban ba. Ba a ruwaito cewa ya hana mallakar masana’anta ba, kuma babu wata nassi da ke cewa masana’anta mallakin jama’a ne, kamar yadda babu nassi da ke cewa masana’antu mallakin Gwamnati ne. Saboda haka, shaidar cewa masana’anta za ta iya zama mallakin mutum ta kasance a gaba daya. Wannan ita ce hujja ga bangare na farko. Amma ga na biyu, hujjarsa ita ce ka’ida:

“had a pulpit made” as reported by Al-Bukhari from Sahl b. Sa’d Al-Sa’idi, and they were produced by individuals who personally owned the factory. Additionally, people used to have things made for them at the time of the Messenger (pbuh) and he remained quiet over it, to the point that some of them used to make weapons, like Khubab who used to make swords in Jahiliyyah (the era of ignorance before Islam) and continued after he embraced Islam, and his story is mentioned in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham with Al-‘As Bin Wa’il Al-Sahmi when he bought a sword from Khubab. When Khubab came to Al-‘As to confirm the price he joked with him saying: I’ll pay the price for it in Paradise. This indicates that he affirmed individual ownership of factories, irrespective of whether they were weapon, mineral or carpentry factories or anything else. It is not reported that he prohibited the ownership of factories, and there is no text which states that factories are public property, in the same way that there is no text which states that factories belong to the State. Therefore, the evidence that factories can be private property remains general. This is the evidence for the first part. As for the second, its evidence is the rule:

Allah (SWT) ta la'anci giya, mai shanta, mai zuba ta, mai sayar da ita, mai saya ta, mai matse ta, wanda aka matse ma, mai ɗaukar ta, da wanda aka ɗauka mata. Saboda haka, haramcin matse giya ba haramcin matsewa kanta ba ne, sai dai haramcin matse giya musamman ne. Don haka, matsewa ba haram ba ne (Haram) a kanta, sai dai matsewar da ake yi don samar da barasa ce haram. Matsewa ta haramta saboda haramcin barasa, don haka ta ɗauki hukuncin abin da ake matsewa dominsa, kuma haramcin ya shafi matsewa, wato tsarin matsewa, don haka ya shafi kayan aikin da ake amfani da su wajen matsewa. Haka nan, samarwa tana ɗaukar hukuncin kayan da take samarwa, kuma masana'anta tana ɗaukar hukuncin kayan da take kerawa. Wannan ita ce shaida cewa masana'anta tana ɗaukar hukuncin abin da take samarwa, wato hujja ce ga wannan hukunci, domin haramcin masana'antar ya samo asali ne daga haramcin kayan da take samarwa. Hadisin ba hujja ba ne cewa masana'anta mallakin jama'a ce; hujja ce kawai ga cewa masana'anta tana ɗaukar hukuncin kayan da take samarwa. Wannan ita ce hujja ga kashi na biyu; wato hukuncin da aka fitar daga hadisin shi ne hujja ga wannan ɓangare.

“Allah (swt) has cursed wine, its drinker, its server, its seller, its buyer, its presser, the one for whom it is pressed, the one who conveys it, and the one to whom it is conveyed.”, and so the prohibition of pressing wine is not a prohibition of pressing itself, but rather it is a prohibition of pressing wine specifically. Therefore, pressing is not forbidden (Haram), but rather it is the pressing to produce alcohol which is forbidden. So pressing is forbidden due to the forbiddance of alcohol, and so it took the rule of the thing that it was being pressed for, and so the prohibition applies to pressing, or in other words, the process of pressing, and so it applies to the instruments used for pressing. Therefore, the production takes the rule of the product that it is producing, and the factory takes the rule of the product that it manufactures, and this is the evidence that the factory takes the rule of what it produces, in other words, it is the evidence for this rule, since the forbiddance of the factory came from the forbiddance of the product that it produces. The narration is not evidence that factories are public property; rather it is only evidence for the factory taking the rule of the product that it produces. This is the evidence for the second part; in other words, the rule deduced from the narration is the evidence for this part.