Mataki na 83 - Tsarin Mulki na Daular Khilafah (Daftarin Farko) | Quran Course

Mataki na 83 - Tsarin Mulki na Daular Khilafah (Daftarin Farko) | Quran Course

0% read · 3 min left

Tsarin Mulki na Daular Khilafah (Daftarin Farko) Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

Mataki na 83

Article 83

by Sheikh Taqiuddin An-Nabahani3 min readViewed 189 times

Babu kotun daukaka ƙara, babu kuma kotun ƙoli, don haka dangane da hanyar da ake bi wajen shari'ar al'amura, shari'a tana kan mataki ɗaya guda. Idan alƙali ya yanke hukunci, hukuncin zai zama wajibi a bi shi, kuma ba zai taɓa yiwuwa a soke shi da hukuncin wani alƙali ba, sai dai idan ya yi hukunci da abin da ba Musulunci ba ne, ko ya saɓa wa wata nassi tabbatacce daga Alƙur'ani, ko Sunnah, ko Ijma'i na Sahabbai, ko kuma ya bayyana a fili cewa hukuncin da ya yanke ya saɓa wa gaskiyar al'amarin.

There is no court of appeal, and no court of cassation, so the judiciary, as far as the method by which the cases are treated, is of a single level. If the judge pronounced a verdict, it would become binding, and it cannot ever be annulled by the verdict of another judge unless he ruled by other than Islam, or contradicted a definite text from the Quran, Sunnah or Ijmaa’ of the companions, or it became clear that he gave a verdict that contradicted the reality of the situation.

Wannan makala tana bayyana cewa hukuncin alkali ba za a iya soke shi ba, ba ta wajen kansa ba, ko ta wajen wani alkali. Shaidar cewa ba a soke hukuncin alkali ba ita ce, sahabbai sun yi Ijma'i a kan haka. Abu Bakr (ra) ya yi hukunci a al'amura bisa ga Ijtihadinsa, Umar (ra) kuma ya saba masa bai soke hukuncinsa ba, Ali (ra) ya saba wa Umar (ra) a Ijtihadinsa bai soke hukuncinsa ba, Ali (ra) ya saba wa duka Abu Bakr (ra) da Umar (ra) bai soke hukuncinsu ba. Mutanen Najran sun zo wurin 'Ali (ra) suka ce: "Ya shugaban muminai, hukunci yana hannunka, kuma afuwarka tana kan harshenka." Ya ce: "Kaiton ku! Umar an shiryar da shi daidai, kuma ba zan mayar da hukuncin da Umar ya yanke ba." An ruwaito cewa Umar (ra) ya yi hukunci cewa a gadon da ake rabawa tare, hakkin 'yan'uwa na uba an soke su. Sa'an nan ya umarta cewa suna da rabo, sa'an nan ya ce: "Wannan hukunci yana aiki ga wannan al'amari, wancan kuma yana aiki ga wancan," ya aiwatar da hukuncan biyu duk da sabanin da ke tsakaninsu. Ibn Qudamah ya ambata wannan a cikin Al-Mughni, da Al-Bayhaqi daga Al-Hakam Bin Mas'ud Al-Thaqafi. Ya kuma yi hukunci daban dangane da kaka, kuma bai taba mayar da wani daga cikin hukuncin da ya gabata ba, kamar yadda Al-Bayhaqi ya ambata a cikin Al-Sunan Al-Kubra.

“Kuma idan wani namiji ko mace ya mutu ba tare da ya bar iyaye ko ’ya’ya ba, amma yana da ɗan’uwa ko ’yar’uwa, to ga kowannensu akwai sashe na shida.” (TMQ 4:12). Sai kuma ya sauya hukuncinsa kamar yadda wasu riwayoyi suka ambata. Ibn Qudāmah ya amsa wannan a cikin Al-Mughni, a babin shari’a, yana cewa: “Ba a tabbatar da cewa Ali ya sauya hukuncinsa ba. Amma idan an tabbatar da hakan, zai yiwu Ali ya tabbata cewa hukuncin ya saɓa wa nassin Alƙur’ani a cikin ayar da ya ambata, don haka ya soke hukuncinsa.” An tabbatar da cewa sahabbai suna yanke hukunci a al’amura bisa ijtihadinsu, kuma halifa yana saɓa musu a ijtihadinsu a zamanin Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) da Ali (ra), amma babu ɗayansu da yake soke hukuncin ɗayan. Haka kuma an tabbatar da cewa Umar (ra) ya yi hukunce-hukunce masu saɓani da juna a al’amari guda, kuma yana aiwatar da dukkan hukunce-hukuncen, bai kuwa mayar da hukuncin farko da na biyu ba, koda yake sun saɓa juna. An kuma tabbatar da cewa ya ce game da wannan: “Wannan magana tana aiki ga wannan hali, wannan magana kuma tana aiki ga wancan.” (Ibn Qudāmah ya ambace shi a cikin Al-Mughni, da Al-Bayhaqī daga Al-Hakam b. Mas’ud Al-Thaqafī). Wannan yana nuna cewa hukuncin alƙali ba ya sauyawa. Ibn Qudāmah ya ce a cikin Al-Mughni: “Amma idan ijtihadinsa ya canza ba tare da ya saɓa wa nassi ko ijma’i ba, ko kuma ijtihadinsa ya bambanta da ijtihadin waɗanda suka gabace shi, bai kamata ya mayar da shi saboda bambancin ba, domin sahabbai sun yi ijma’i a kan haka.”

“And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth.” (TMQ 4:12), and he then reversed his ruling as is mentioned in some narration. Ibn Qudamah replies to this in Al-Mughni in the chapter of the judiciary saying “It is not confirmed that Ali reversed his ruling, but if it was confirmed it may be that Ali was certain that he contradicted the text of the Quran in the verse which he mentioned and ,therefore, he voided his ruling”. It is confirmed that the companions used to rule in issues according to their Ijtihad and that the Khalifah used to differ with them in their Ijtihad in the eras of Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and ‘Ali (ra), and none of them would annul the rulings of the other. And it is confirmed that Umar (ra) ruled by opposite and different rulings in single issues, and would execute all of the rulings and not reverse the first ruling by the second one even though they were contradictory, and it is confirmed that he said regarding this “That sentence applies to that case and this sentence applies to this one” (mentioned by Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni and Al-Bayhaqi from Al-Hakam b. Mas’ud Al-Thaqafi). This indicates the irreversibility of the judge’s rulings. Ibn Qudamah said in Al-Mughni: “As for if his Ijtihad changed without contradicting a text or an Ijma’, or if his Ijtihad differed from the Ijtihad of those before him, he should not reverse it just because it is different, for the companions have an Ijma’ on that”.

Abin da aka ruwaito daga wasiƙar Umar Bin Al-Khattab (ra) zuwa Abu Musa, daga kalmominsa: “Kada ka bari hukuncin da ka yanke jiya, wanda ka sake duba shi ka kuma samu shiriya ta gaskiya, ya hana ka komawa ga gaskiya, domin gaskiya tsohuwa ce, kuma komawa ga gaskiya ya fi ci gaba da ƙarya,” kamar yadda Al-Bayhaqi ya ruwaito a cikin Al-Sunan daga Sa‘id Bin Abi Burdah, da Khatib Al-Baghdadi a cikin Al-Tarikh daga Sa‘id Bin Abihi, da kuma Al-Daraqutni daga Abu ’l-Malih Al-Hathali, abin da aka nufa a cikin wasiƙar shi ne: idan ka yanke hukunci jiya sannan ka fahimci cewa ba daidai ba ne, kada wannan ya hana ka sauya shi da yanke wani hukunci daban a wani shari’ar. Ba yana nufin cewa ya kamata ka soke hukuncin jiya ba. Shi ya sa Umar (ra) ya ce “komawa ga gaskiya,” bai ce ka soke hukuncinka ba. Komawa ga gaskiya na nufin barin ra’ayin da ba daidai ba da karɓar wanda yake daidai. Saboda haka, wasiƙar ba ta zama hujja ga halascin soke hukunci ba. Shi ya sa a Musulunci babu abin da ake kira hukuncin da ya gabata a matsayin doka (judicial precedent). Wato, babu wurin cewa a irin wannan shari’a hukunci zai kasance haka da haka. Idan an yanke wani hukunci a kan wata shari’a ta musamman, wannan hukunci ba ya wajabta wa wani ya yi hukunci irin sa. Amma an halatta a yanke hukunci daban a kan irin wannan shari’a ga wani alƙali dabam idan ya ga cewa sabon hukuncin ya fi daidai. Dangane da shari’ar kanta, dokar Allah (swt) za ta kasance an riga an yi amfani da ita a kanta, saboda haka alƙali an hana shi soke wannan doka ko canza ta. Shi ya sa babu kotunan ɗaukaka ƙara (courts of appeal) a Musulunci, haka ma babu kotun yanke hukunci na ƙarshe (court of cassation). Shari’ar, daga fuskar tsari, ya kamata ta kasance a matsayi ɗaya. Ƙa’idar Shari’a ta ce: “Ijtihadi ba ya ɓata da wani ijtihadi.” Don haka babu wani Mujtahid da zai zama majiyar hukunci mai iko ga wani Mujtahid, don haka zai zama haramun a kafa kotuna da za su soke hukuncin sauran kotuna.

As for what has been narrated from the message of Umar Bin Al-Khattab (ra) to Abu Musa from his words “Do not allow a judgement you passed yesterday, which you reviewed and gained the right guidance, to prevent you from returning to the truth, for the truth is Qadim (old), and to return to the truth is better than to continue with the falsehood” as reported by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan from Sa‘id Bin Abi Burdah, and Khatib Al-Baghdadi in Al-Tarikh from Sa‘id Bin Abihi, and Al-Daraqutni from Abu ’l-Malih Al-Hathali, what was intended in the letter was if you passed a judgement yesterday and then realised that it was wrong, do not let this stop you from changing it and passing a different judgement in another case. It does not mean that you should annul yesterday’s judgement. That is why Umar (ra) said “to return to the truth” and he did not say to reverse your judgement. To return to the truth means to abandon the wrong opinion and adopt the right one. Therefore, the letter does not serve as evidence that it is permissible to annul a judgement. This is why in Islam there is nothing called judicial precedent. In other words, there is no place to say that in such and such a case the judgement would be so and so. If a certain verdict was passed on a particular case, that verdict does not oblige anyone else to judge accordingly. It is rather permitted to pass a different judgement on a similar case by a different judge if he thinks that the new ruling is more correct. As for the case itself, the rule of Allah (swt) would have been applied to it, ,therefore, the judge would be forbidden from annulling that rule or changing it. This is why there are no courts of appeal in Islam, and nor there is any court of cassation. The judiciary, from the point of view of process, should be of the same level. The Shari'ah principle states: “Ijtihad is not annulled by another Ijtihad.” So no Mujtahid could serve as an authoritative source for another Mujtahid, and thus it would be forbidden to have courts that annul the judgements of other courts.