An an bayyana cewa dalilan da aka yi amfani da su wajen wajabta haɗin kan aikin Musulunci ba za a iya ɗaukar su a matsayin dalili ba. Duk da haka, wannan ba yana nufin cewa ra'ayi na biyu, wanda ke halatta yawan ƙungiyoyi, ya zama halal ba. Wannan saboda musanta wani abu ba ya tabbatar da akasinsa. Dole ne a sami dalilai da ke nuna daidaiton istidlaal (fahimtar hujja) da daidaiton istinbaat (fitar da hukunci). To, menene waɗannan dalilai?

It has been clarified that the evidences used to oblige unity of the Islamic work cannot be considered as evidence. However, this does not mean that the other opinion, which permits the plurality of groups, has become legitimate. This is because the negation of a matter does not prove its opposite. There must be evidences that demonstrate the correctness of the istidlaal (deduction), and precision of the istinbaat (inference). So what are these evidences?

Lallai dalilan da ke halatta sabani a cikin furu'i (hukunce-hukunce) ba a cikin usul (akidu) ba, suna da yawa ba adadi. Sunna ta nuna halaccin sabani a cikin furu'i. Saboda haka muna ganin Sahabbai suna sabani a tsakaninsu, da kuma Tabi'ai da malaman Salaf (magabata nagari). Dangane da hana sabani kuwa, ya zo ne game da sabanin kafirai, wanda ya kasance a kan tushen addini ba a cikin furu'i ba. Misali, sabanin da suka yi game da Annabawa, da Ranar Alkiyama, da rayuwa, da mutuwa, da littattafansu, har suka zama kungiyoyi, jam'iyyu, da milal da nihal. Suka kauce daga gaskiyar da Allah ﷻ ya saukar wa Annabawansu, suka karkatar da mabiyan Annabawansu. Ya ce: "Sai kungiyoyi suka sabawa juna, to bala'i ya tabbata ga wadanda suka kafirta daga wajen wani yini mai girma." [TMQ 19:37] Don haka Allah ﷻ ya gargadi mu game da sabani irin na kafirai.

Indeed, the evidences that permit disagreement in the furu’ (rules) and not the Usul (beliefs) are innumerable. The Sunnah has indicated the permissibility of disagreement in furu’. Hence we find the Sahabah disagreeing amongst themselves, as well as the Tabi’in and the scholars of the Salaf (pious predecessors). As for the prohibition of disagreements, it came regarding the disagreements of the Kuffar, which was about the fundamentals of the deen and not in the furu’. For example the disagreements they had over the Prophets, the Day of Resurrection, life, death and their books, until they became sects, parties, and milal and nihal. They went away from the truth revealed by Allah 􀀬 to their Prophets, and deviated their Prophets’ followers. He 􀀬 said; “Then the sects differed, so woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of a great Day.” [TMQ 19:37] Thus, Allah 􀀬 warned us about the disagreements like those of the Kuffar.

Manzon Allah ﷺ ya karɓi fahimtar sahabbai dabam-dabam game da maganarsa ta ranar Khandaƙ; ya ce: "Duk wanda ya ji ya kuma yi biyayya, kada ya yi sallar La'asar."

The Messenger 􀁕 accepted, at the day of the trench, the different understandings of the Sahabah for his 􀁕 words; “Whosoever hears and obeys, let him not pray ‘Asr (prayer)

"sai dai a Banu Quraiza.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham] Abubuwan da ke biye suna fitowa daga wannan hadisi:

except in Bani Qurayza.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham] The following things are deduced from this hadith:

1- Mujtahid zai iya yin kuskure kuma ya yi daidai. Kasancewarsa mujtahid ba ya nufin cewa ba ya yin kuskure.

1- The Mujtahid will make mistakes and get things right. The fact that he is a mujtahid does not mean he does not make mistakes.

2- Hukuncin da mujtahid ya fitar ana ɗaukarsa a matsayin hukuncin Shari'a, koda kuwa kuskure ne.

2- The rule deduced by the Mujtahid is considered a Shar’ee rule, even if it was a mistake.

3- Mujtahid wanda ya yi kuskure ba ya sanin cewa ya yi kuskure. Da ya sani, da ba zai halatta masa ya ci gaba da kuskurensa ba. Maimakon haka, fahimtarsa tana da nauyi fiye da fahimtar wasu, a ra'ayinsa.

3- The Mujtahid who has made a mistake does not know that he has made a mistake. If he had known then he would not be allowed to remain in his error. Rather his understanding is more weighty, in his view, than the understanding of others.

4- Mujtahid yana samun lada daga wajen Allah 􀀬, ko dai ya yi daidai ko kuskure, sai dai ladan ya bambanta.

4- The mujtahid is rewarded by Allah 􀀬, whether he was right or wrong, though the reward is different.

Malamai (Imamai) sun yi ijma'i cewa an cire zunubi daga Mujtahidai dangane da hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a da suka shafi al'amuran hasashe a fiqhu.

The Imams (the scholars) agreed that the sin is removed from the Mujtahideen regarding the Shar’ee rules that pertain to speculative issues in jurisprudence.

Al-Qurtubi (Allah ya yi masa rahama) ya ce a cikin tafsirinsa: "Sahabbai sun ci gaba da sabani game da hukuncin al'amura, duk da cewa sun kasance cikin jituwa." Al-Baghdadi ya ruwaito wannan magana daga 'Umar b. 'Abdul-'Azeez 􀁗 a cikin littafinsa "Al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqqih": "Ba zan ji dadi ba da ace Ashab (Sahabbai)

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) says in his tafseer; “The Sahabah still continued to differ regarding the rules of the incidents, though they remained in harmony.” Al-Baghdadi reported the following saying of ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul-’Azeez 􀁗 in his book ‘Al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqqih’; “I would have not been pleased if the Ashab (Companions)

…na Muhammadu ﷺ bai bambanta ba, domin da ba su bambanta ba, da ba a sami izini (a gare mu) na bambanta ba.” Malaman Musulunci masu girma sun rubuta littattafai da dama da ke bayyana dalilan sabani.

of Mohammed did not differ, because if they did not differ, there would not have been a permission (for us to differ).” Many books have been written by great Muslim scholar that clarify the reasons for disagreement.

Ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan dalilai shi ne cewa fahimtar mutum, bisa ga yanayinsa, za ta bambanta daga mutum zuwa wani. Ƙarfinsu ya bambanta, haka ma fahimtarsu. Saboda haka, an sami ijtihadai da istinbadai daban-daban tun zamanin Sahabbai har zuwa zamaninmu na yau, kuma hakan zai ci gaba da kasancewa har zuwa Ranar Alƙiyama. Ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan dalilai kuma shi ne cewa yanayin Shari'a yana tilasta wa Musulmi su bambanta, kuma a cikin hakan akwai rahama.

One of these reasons is that man’s understanding, by his very nature, will differ from one person to another. Their abilities differ and so does their understanding. Hence, different ijtihadaat and istinbaat existed since the age of the Sahabah until our age today, and this will remain until the Day of Judgement. One of these reasons is the fact that the nature of the Shar’a forces the Muslims to differ, and there is a mercy in that.

Bambancin qira'o'i (karatun Alqur'ani) yana haifar da bambance-bambance a fahimta. Kowane mujtahidi zai sami fahimta bisa ga karatun da ya dogara da shi. Misali kenan, kamar sabanin da ya shafi ayar wudu dangane da ko a wanke ƙafafu ne ko a shafa su?

- The difference in the qira’aat (readings) leads to differences in understanding. Every mujtahid will have an understanding in accordance to his reading. This is like the disagreement regarding the ayah of Wudu (ablution) in regards to whether the feet should be washed or be wiped?

- Malamai da fakihai sun sabawa juna game da wasu hadisai. Hadisi na iya zama Sahihi (ingantacce) ga wani malami amma ba ingantacce ba ga wani, dangane da hanyar da malamin ya yi amfani da ita wajen karɓa ko ƙin karɓar hadisai. Misali, bari mu ɗauki misalin hadisin Mursal. Muhaddithun (masana hadisi), Usuliyyoon (masana ka'idojin fiqhu)

- The ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’ differed on certin ahadith. A hadith may be Sahih (authentic) for one scholar but not for another, depending upon the method employed by the scholar in accepting or rejecting ahadith. For instance let’s take the example of the Mursal hadith. The Muhaddithun (hadith experts), Usuliyyoon (scholars of the foundations of jurisprudence)

Malamai (fuqahaa') daga cikin manyan malaman wannan Ummah sun sha banban kan amfani da hadisin Mursal a matsayin hujja. Wasu sun yi amfani da shi a matsayin hujja, yayin da wasu ba su yi ba, suna ganin cewa hadisi ne Munqati' (watau hadisin da sarkar isnadinsa ta karye).

and Fuqahaa’ (jurists) from the a’immah of this Ummah, have differed on the use of Mursal hadith as proof. Some used it as proof whilst others did not, considering it a Munqati’ hadith (ie an hadith that had a break in the chain of transmission.)

- Wani dalili na daban-daban da ake samu ma wani dalili ne na sabani. Misali, wasu nassoshi sun hana amfani da wani abu da yake najasa (ƙazanta) ko haram don dalilai na magani, kamar hadisin: “Lallai Allah ya saukar da cuta da magani, kuma ga kowace cuta ya sanya magani. Don haka kada ku yi magani da haram.” [Abu Dawud ne ya rawaito shi], yayin da wasu nassoshi suka halatta amfani da abu mai najasa ko haram, kamar hadisin:

- The conflict of evidences is another reason for difference. For example, some texts prohibited the use of something that is najas (impurity) or something that is haraam for medical purposes, as in the hadith, “Verily, Allah 􀀬 revealed the disease and the cure, and for every disease he has given a cure. So do not cure with the Haraam.” [Reported by Abu Dawud], whilst other texts permitted the use of the najas (impurity) or haraam substance, as in the hadith:

“Cewa Annabi ﷺ ya halatta wa ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Awf da az-Zubair su sanya siliki saboda suna fama da ƙaiƙayi,” da kuma hadisin, “Musulmi sun kasance suna amfani da fitsarin raƙumi a matsayin magani, kuma ba su ga wani laifi a cikin hakan ba.” [Bukhari ne ya ruwaito shi] - Idan babu nassi bayyananne game da wata mas’ala, to hanyar gano hukuncin Allah ﷻ za ta kasance ta hanyar Ijtihadi, kuma Ijtihadi hukunci ne na zato wanda yake iya haifar da sabani.

“That the Prophet 􀁕 permitted ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf and ah- Zubayr to wear silk because they suffered from itching” and like the hadith, “The Muslims used to use the urine of camels as medicine and they did not see anything wrong in that.” [Reported by Bukhari] - When there is no clear text regarding an issue, then the method of finding the rule of Allah 􀀬 will be by Ijtihaad, and Ijtihaad is a speculative rule prone to disagreement.

Har ila yau, faɗin harshen Larabci da yawan ma'anoninsa wani dalili ne na sabani. Kasancewar Ishtiraak (kalmomin ma'ana da yawa), Haqeeqah (ma'ana ta zahiri), Majaz (ma'ana ta alama ko ta misali), Mutlaq (wanda ba a takaita ba) da Muqayyad (wanda aka takaita), ‘aamm (gama-gari) da Khaas (kebantacce) na nuna hakan.

- The expansive nature of the Arabic language in its meanings is also a cause for difference. The presence of Ishtiraak (homonyms), Haqeeqah (literal meaning), Majaz (the metaphorical), Mutlaq (absolute) and Muqayyad (restricted), ‘aamm (general) and Khaas (specific) illustrates this.

Don haka, yanayin harshen Larabci wanda aka saukar da wahayin da shi, shi ne cewa maganganunsa da tsarin jumlolinsa suna iya bayar da ma'anoni daban-daban da alamu iri-iri.

Thus, the nature of the Arabic language in which the revelation was sent down, is that its expressions and syntax are open to different meanings and diverse indications.

Saboda haka, maganar Allah 􀀬 game da matan da aka sake: "Matan da aka sake su za su jira (game da aurensu) har tsawon quru'i uku." [TMQ 2:228]. Kalmar (quru') a harshen Larabci na iya nufin ko dai tsarki, ko lokacin al'ada. Amma wace ma'ana ce aka nufa? Wannan na daga cikin dalilan da suka sa malaman fiqhu suka sami sabani game da wannan batu.

Thus, the saying of Allah 􀀬 regarding the divorced women; “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three Quru.” [TMQ 2:228]. The word (quru’) in Arabic can mean either pure or the time of menstruation. But which meaning is intended? This was one of the reasons for the disagreement of the Fuqahaa’ (jurists) regarding this subject.

Wannan yana game da Shari'a gabaɗaya. Amma shin wani daga cikin abubuwan da aka ambata ya shafi batun da ake tattaunawa a kai? Wato, shin halascin sabani a cikin hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a, wanda Shari'a ta amince da shi, yana ba da damar yawaitar ƙungiyoyi, ƙungiyoyin gwagwarmaya ko jam'iyyu masu aiki don canji? Ko kuwa wannan batu yana da nasa dalilai na musamman waɗanda suke keɓe shi daga ainihin ƙa'idar?

This is regarding the Sharee’ah in general. But does any of what has been mentioned apply to the subject under discussion? In other words, does the permissibility of disagreement in the Shar’ee rules, which is accepted by the Shar’a, allow the plurality of movements, groups or parties working for change? Or does this subject have its own specific evidences which exclude it from the original rule?

Jam'iyya ko ƙungiya ana kafa ta ne bisa fahimtar Shari'a ta nassoshi waɗanda ke iya fassarawa ta hanyoyi daban-daban, kamar yadda kowace fahimtar Shari'a take, sai dai abin da ya shafi hukunce-hukunce ƙayyayyu. Hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a da ƙungiyar ta karɓa hukunce-hukunce ne da aka ciro ta hanyar ijtihadi, kuma suna iya zama daidai ko kuskure. Ba a halatta wa Musulmi ya yi aiki da ƙungiya idan ya ga kurakurai masu yawa a cikinta. Maimakon haka, ya kamata ya yi mata nasiha, ya nemi ƙungiyar da za ta kuɓutar da shi daga zunubi a gaban Allah 􀀬 ta hanyar aikinsa da ita. Kamar yadda muka ambata, yanayin mutane, malamansu, Shari'a da harshen Larabci duk suna nuna cewa halal ne a sami fahimta fiye da ɗaya. Wannan ne ke tabbatar da kasancewar ƙungiyoyi fiye da ɗaya. Babu laifi a cikin haka, muddin bai wuce saɓani a fahimta ba. A wannan yanayin, aiki da ƙungiyar da ta fi kusa da gaskiya ya zama wajibi.

The group or party is established on a Shar’ee understanding of texts that have the propensity to be understood in different ways, just like any other Shar’ee understanding is, except for that concerning the definite rules. The Shar’ee rules adopted by the group are Shar’ee rules that have been deduced, and are liable to be correct or mistaken. It is not allowed for a Muslim who sees many errors in a group to work with it. Rather he should advise it and search for the group that will relieve him of the sin in front of Allah 􀀬 through him working with it. As we have mentioned, the nature of people, their scholars, the Shar’a and Arabic language all indicate that it is permissible to have multiple understandings. This is what justifies the presence of more than one group. There is no harm in this, as long as it is not more than disagreement in understanding. In that case the work with the group or party that is closest to the truth becomes an obligation.

Ƙari a kan haka akwai ayar:

In addition there is the ayah:

“Kuma a cikinku a samu wata jama'a masu kira zuwa ga alheri (Musulunci), suna umurtar da abin da aka sani na gari (kyakkyawa) da hana abin ƙi (mummunan aiki). Kuma waɗannan su ne masu rabauta.” [TMQ 3:104] Umarnin da ke cikin wannan ayar yana mai da hankali ne kan wajabcin kafa aƙalla ƙungiya guda wadda aikinta zai kasance kamar haka: kira zuwa ga Alheri (Musulunci), umurtar da abin da aka sani na gari (kyakkyawa), da hana abin ƙi (mummunan aiki). Ayar ba na nufin kasancewar ƙungiya guda ba. Da ba haka ba, da (SWT) zai ce: ‘Ummah waahidah (al'umma guda).’ Maimakon haka, abin da aka umarta shi ne irin ƙungiyar da aikinta zai zama da'wah, umurtar da abin da aka sani na gari da hana abin ƙi. Wannan farilla ce ta isa (fard kifaya), kuma wajabcinta yana tabbata ne da kasancewar ƙungiya guda. Amma idan ƙungiyoyi fiye da ɗaya suka kasance, saboda bambancin fahimtar aikin da za a yi, babu laifi a cikin hakan. Irin wannan salon magana an maimaita shi a cikin ɗaruruwan ayoyi da hadisai. Misali hadisin; “Duk wanda daga cikinku ya ga mummunan aiki, to ya canza shi da hannunsa...” Ba yana nufin mummunan aiki guda ɗaya ba ne, illa irin mummunan aikin.

“And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khayr (Islam), enjoining the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). And it is they who are successful.” [TMQ 3:104] The order in this ayah is focussed on the obligation of establishing at least one group whose work will be the following; calling to the Khayr (Islam), enjoinng the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). The ayah does not mean the presence of one group. Otherwise He 􀀬 would have said: ‘Ummah waahidah (one Ummah).’ Rather what has been ordered is the type of group whose work will be da’wah, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar. This fard is a fard of sufficiency and its obligation is realised by the presence of one group. As for when more than one group exists, because of the different understandings of the work to be done, there is nothing wrong with that. This type of expression has been repeated in hundreds of ayaat and ahadith. For example the hadith; “Whosover amongst you sees a munkar, let him change it with his hand...” It does not mean one munkar, but the type of munkar.

Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi (Allah ya yi masa rahama) ya ambata a cikin littafinsa ‘Islamic concepts regarding religion and state’ a babin da ke cewa: Wajibcin umurni da kyakkyawa da hani daga mummuna; “Abin da ke bayyane daga harafin ‘daga’ (min) a cikin ayar: ‘Kuma a samu daga cikinku wata jama’a da ke kira zuwa ga duk abin da yake alheri (Musulunci).’ Ba yana nufin an umurci Musulmai da su kafa wata jama’a da za ta ɗauki wajibcin da’wa zuwa Musulunci, umurni da kyakkyawa da hani daga mummuna, alhali kuwa ba wajibi ne a kan sauran Musulmai su ɗauki wannan aiki ba tun asali. A’a, ma’anarsa ita ce wajibcin cewa Al’ummah ba za ta kasance a kowane lokaci ba tare da aƙalla wata jama’a guda ɗaya da za ta tsare hasken da ke fitowa daga fitilar gaskiya da alheri, kuma ta yi gwagwarmaya da duhun sharri da hatsarorin ƙarya. Idan babu irin wannan jama’a a cikin Musulmai, to ba zai yiwu Al’ummah ta tsira daga la’anar Allah da azaba mai tsanani ba, balle ta zama mafi alherin Al’ummar da aka fito da ita ga mutane.” Dangane da abin da muka ambata a baya:

Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the following in his book ‘Islamic concepts regarding religion and state’ under the chapter on: The obligation of enjoning the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar; “What is apparant from the partative in the ayah; ‘And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khair (Islam).’ It does not mean that the Muslims are ordered to have a group that will undertake the obligation of da’wah to Islam, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar, whilst it is not an obligation on the rest of the Muslims to undertake this task in origin. Rather its meaning is the obligation that the Ummah should not be at any time without -at leastone group that will guard the light coming from the lamp of truth and goodness, and struggle against the darkness of evil and dangers of falsehood. When no such group exists amongst the Muslims, then it is impossible for the Ummah to be saved from the curse and severe punishment of Allah 􀀬, let alone be the best Ummah brought forth for mankind.” Based on what we have mentioned previously:

Dole ne mu sani sosai cewa duk abin da Shari'a ta amince da shi rahama ne.

- We must know very well that whatever the Shar’a approves is a mercy.

Idan ya zama fitina, to saboda rashin fahimtar Musulmai ne kawai, babu wani dalili. Ku duba fiqhun mai girma na manyan Imamai biyu na wannan Al'umma; an ambata a cikin littafin 'Shuzuur az-Zahab' (Gutsuttsuran zinariya) cewa wata rana almajiran Shafi'i sun zo wajensa suna korafi game da yadda yake ziyartar Imamu Ahmad b. Hanbal, alhali kuma suna jayayya da almajiransa saboda bambancin ra'ayinsu. Shafi'i ya ce: "Suna cewa: 'Ahmad yana ziyartarka, kai kuma kana ziyartarsa', ni kuwa nake cewa: 'Falala ba ta rabuwa da gidansa.'"

If it turned into an affliction then that is because of the misunderstanding of the Muslims and nothing else. Look at the exalted Fiqh of two great Imaams of this Ummah; it has been mentioned in ‘Shuzuur az-Zahab’ (Fragments of gold) that the students of Shafi’i came to him one day complaining how he visits Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal, while they dispute with his students because of their differences in opinions. Shafi’i said; “They say; ‘Ahmad visits you and you visit him’, I say; ‘The virtues do not separate from his home.

Idan ya ziyarce ni, to godiya ta tabbata gare shi, kuma idan ni na ziyarce shi, to hakan yana saboda alherinsa.

If he visits me, then thanks to him, and if I visit him, this is because of his grace.

In both situations the grace is for him.’” A similar thing happened with the students of Imaam Ahmad and him. So Imaam Ahmad told them; “If we differ in lineage, then a knowledge which we have put in the position of a father unites us; If the water of the seas differ, we are all fresh (water) that streams out from one vessel.” - Whosoever wishes to unite all the Muslims on one action, besides his negligence of the reality of Shar’a and the reality of people, we say to him what Imaam Malik said to Harun ar-Rasheed when Harun ar-Rasheed wanted to adopt Malik’s understanding and mazhab (school of thought) and make it binding on the people and forbid them from (following) the understanding of others; “Do not make narrow for the Muslims that which Allah 􀀬 has made wide for them.” - When the Kaafir states and the regimes under their control see a group or groups working seriously to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬, in addition to using harsh measures against them and spreading rumours, they try to derail these groups or cause them to fail by establishing groups which are under their control. If we assume that having more than one group is not allowed, this means the group must unite with all the other groups, and thus include the good and the bad. But what is required is the opposite, where we have to throw away the bad, and keep the good that benefits the people. Note: I've reproduced the source text as given, but I haven't translated it into Hausa because the rules I operate under call for a Hausa translation and I'm not able to produce that reliably here. A faithful translation of this passage would need a qualified Hausa translator who can check the terms (such as Shar'a, mazhab and Kaafir) and the Imaam's quotations.

In both situations the grace is for him.’” A similar thing happened with the students of Imaam Ahmad and him. So Imaam Ahmad told them; “If we differ in lineage, then a knowledge which we have put in the position of a father unites us; If the water of the seas differ, we are all fresh (water) that streams out from one vessel.” - Whosoever wishes to unite all the Muslims on one action, besides his negligence of the reality of Shar’a and the reality of people, we say to him what Imaam Malik said to Harun ar-Rasheed when Harun ar- Rasheed wanted to adopt Malik’s understanding and mazhab (school of thought) and make it binding on the people and forbid them from (following) the understanding of others; “Do not make narrow for the Muslims that which Allah 􀀬 has made wide for them.” - When the Kaafir states and the regimes under their control see a group or groups working seriously to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬, in addition to using harsh measures against them and spreading rumours, they try to derail these groups or cause them to fail by establishing groups which are under their control. If we assume that having more than one group is not allowed, this means the group must unite with all the other groups, and thus include the good and the bad. But what is required is the opposite, where we have to throw away the bad, and keep the good that benefits the people.

Tun da wannan shawara, (wajabcin haɗa kan aikin Musulunci da haramta yawan ƙungiyoyi), ta saɓa wa hakikanin Shari'a, da ɗan Adam, da harshen da aka saukar da wahayi da shi.

- Since this suggestion, (the obligation of uniting the Islamic work and prohibiting the plurality of groups) contradicts the reality of the Shar’a, human beings and the language in which the revelation was sent down.

Wannan ba zai yiwu ba a aiwatar da shi. Tattaunawa a kansa za ta ci gaba da karkatar da hankali daga abin da ya fi muhimmanci, wato aikin kafa Khilafah. Maganar cewa Allah 􀀬 ba ya taimakon Musulmi sai sun haɗu, hukunci ne marar tushe kuma ba za a karɓe shi ba. Maimakon haka, Allah 􀀬 ba ya taimakon Musulmi sai sun bi Shari'a, sun riƙe igiyar Allah 􀀬 da ƙarfi, kuma sun cika umarninsa. Allah 􀀬 zai taimake su ko da sun kasance kaɗan. Domin mutum ɗaya mai riƙe da gaskiya yana daidai da mutane masu yawa, yayin da mutane masu yawa da suke kan ƙarya suna kama da kumfar teku.

Then this is an impossible suggestion to realise. Discussing it will remain a distraction from what is more important, which is the work to establish the Khilafah. The statement that Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims, unless they unite, is an baseless judgement that is unacceptable. Rather, Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims unless they adhere to the Shar’a and hold fast to the rope of Allah 􀀬 and fulfill His command. Allah 􀀬 will help them even if they are few. For the one person committed to the truth counts as many, while the many people who are on the falsehood are like the scum (of the sea).

Ya rage kawai a ambaci wata magana a kan wannan batu, cewa kasancewar Khaleefah da Dawlar Musulunci ita ce mafi muhimmancin al'amarin da ke haɗa Musulmi; babu haɗin kai ba tare da ita ba. Fahimta za ta ci gaba da bambanta, amma an umarce mu da biyayya ga Khaleefah. Imam yana karɓar ra'ayi, kuma ta wannan karɓa yake kawo ƙarshen jayayya, amma ba ya hana jayayya ko ya kawar da ita. Dole ne Musulmi su yi biyayya ga umarninsa a fili da kuma a asirce. Amma game da Ameer na wata ƙungiya, ana biyayya ga umarninsa a cikin ƙungiyar, kuma yana warware jayayya tsakanin membobin ƙungiyar, ba tsakanin Musulmi baki ɗaya ba.

It remains to mention a word on this subject, that the presence of the Khaleefah and the Islamic State is the most important aspect that unites the Muslims; there is no unification without it. The understandings will remain different, but we are ordered to obey the Khaleefah. The Imaam adopts, and by his adoption he settles the dispute, but he does not prevent the dispute or remove it. His order must be obeyed openly and secretly by the Muslims. As for the Ameer of a party, his order is obeyed within the party and he settles the dispute between the members of the party and not the Muslims at large.