36.2 Babu hukunci kafin zuwan wahayi.

36.2 Babu hukunci kafin zuwan wahayi. - Halin Musulunci | Quran Course

(al-Nisā’: 165); kuma saboda hukunci ba ya tabbata sai ta ɗaya daga cikin hanyoyi biyu: shar’i ko hankali. Game da hankali, ba shi da wuri a nan, domin al’amarin wajibi ne da haramci, kuma ba halal ba ne ga hankali ya wajabta ko ya haramta, domin wannan ba fagensa ba ne. Fagen shar’i ne wannan, don haka hukunci ya dogara ga shar’i. Domin babu shar’i kafin zuwan shari’a, hukunci ya dogara ne ga zuwan shar’i daga Allah, wato zuwan manzo dangane da cikakkiyar shari’a, da kuma dalilin shar’i dangane da wata mas’ala da ake neman dalili a kanta. Dangane da (zuwan) manzo, wannan yana bayyana ne daga ma’anar sarīh na āyar, domin kore azaba ga mutane kafin zuwan manzo yana nuna cewa ba su da alhakin taklīf na kowace hukunci ko akida, wato ba su da alhakin komai. Wannan ba wani abu ba ne face cikakken kore hukunci ga mutanen da ke kafin Allah ya tayar musu da manzo. Don haka ahl al-fatrah, wato waɗanda suka rayu tsakanin ɓacewar saƙo da zuwan saƙo, kamar waɗanda suka rayu kafin zuwan Muhammad ﷺ (kuma bayan ɓatar da saƙon Isa (as)), an tsare su daga azaba, hukuncinsu kuma shi ne hukuncin waɗanda saƙo bai isa gare su ba. Haka kuma waɗanda saƙon Muhammad ﷺ bai isa gare su a sigarsa ta gaskiya ba, an tsare su daga azaba kamar ahl al-fatrah, domin āyar tana shafe su, kuma ana ɗaukarsu kamar ba a aiko musu da manzo ba, domin saƙon bai isa gare su ba, kuma zunubin rashin isar da shi yana kan waɗanda suka iya kai musu amma ba su kai ba. Saboda haka, kafin zuwan Manzo ba a cewa hukuncin abubuwa halal ne ko haram ne, domin ba su da wani hukunci, haka nan ga ayyuka. A'a, har sai Allah ya aika manzo, mutum yana da 'yanci ya yi abin da yake so, ba tare da yana ƙarƙashin wani hukunci ba, kuma babu abin da ya wajaba a kansa daga wajen Allah. Idan aka aiko manzo, sai mutum ya zama wajibi a kansa ya bi hukunce-hukuncen Allah waɗanda manzon yake isar da su gare shi, kamar yadda aka isar wa manzon daga wajen Allah.

(al-Nisā’: 165); and because the hukm is not established except by one of two: the shar’ or the intellect. As for the intellect, it has no place here because the matter is one of obligation and prohibition, and it is not permissible for the intellect to obligate or prohibit, for this is not its realm. Rather this is the realm of the shar’, thus the hukm depends on the shar’. Because there is no shar’ before the coming of the shar’, the hukm thus depends on the coming of the shar’ from Allah, that is, on the coming of a messenger with regards to a whole shari’ah, and the shar’i evidence with regards to a given issue for which evidence is sought. With respect to (the coming of) a messenger, then this is clear from the explicit meaning [sarīh] of the āyah, because the negation of punishment on the people prior to the advent of a messenger indicates upon their not having responsibility [taklīf] for any rules or beliefs, that is, their not having responsibility for anything. This means naught but a complete negation of the hukm for the people prior to Allah raising for them a messenger. Thus the ahl al-fatrah – those who lived between the loss of a message and the advent of a message, like those who lived before the advent of Muhammad (saw) (and after the corruption of the message of Isa (as)) – are saved from punishment and their judgment is the judgment of those to whom the message does not reach. Similarly those to whom the message of Muhammad (saw) does not reach in its correct form, are saved from punishment like the ahl al fatrah, because the āyah applies to them and they are considered as if no messenger was sent to them, because the message did not reach them and the sin of it not reaching them is upon those who were able to take it to them but did not. Therefore, prior to the advent of the Messenger it is not said that the hukm of things is halāl or harām, because they had no hukm; the same with the actions. Rather, until Allah does not send a messenger, man is free to act as he wishes, without being under any hukm, and nothing is upon him from Allah. When a messenger is sent then man is obliged by the ahkām of Allah which the messenger communicates to him, as communicated to him (the messenger) from Allah

Ba za a ce ba asalin al'amura da ayyuka shi ne haramci [tahrim] ba, saboda hujjar cewa tasarruf ne a cikin mulkin Allah Maɗaukakin Sarki ba tare da izininsa ba, don haka an haramta shi, ta hanyar yin qiyas akan halittu, domin ma'anar bayyananniya ta āyah ita ce Allah ba ya azabtarwa har sai ya aiko manzo, don haka ba ya hisabi har sai ya bayyana hukunci. Bugu da ƙari, halitta na iya cutuwa, amma Allah Maɗaukakin Sarki ya fi a amfana ko a cutar da shi.

It should not be said then that the ‘asl [original state] of things and actions is prohibition [tahrim], by the argument that it is free disposal [tasarruf] in the dominion of Allah the Exalted without his permission so it is prohibited, drawing analogy upon the created beings, because the explicit meaning of the āyah is that Allah does not punish until he raises a messenger, so He does not account until he clarifies the hukm. Further the creation is able to be harmed, but Allah the Exalted is above being benefited or harmed.

Likewise, it should not be said that the aṣl (basis) of actions and things is permissibility, on the argument that utilisation which is free from any sign of corruption or harm to the owner is permissible. This should not be said, because the implied meaning (mafhūm) of the āyah is that man is obligated with what the messenger brings; he is punished for contravening it. Thus the aṣl becomes following (ittibā') the messenger and being bound by the aḥkām of his message. The aṣl is not permissibility, which is the absence of being bound. Since the generality of the verses of aḥkām indicates the necessity of referring back to the sharʿ and the necessity of being bound by its aḥkām, the Exalted says:

Similarly it should not be said that the ‘asl of actions and things is permissibility, by the argument that it is utilisation that is free from any sign of corruption or harm to the owner and so it is permissible. This should not be said because the implied meaning [mafhūm] of the āyah is that man is obligated with what the messenger comes with; he is punished for contravening this; thus the ‘asl becomes following [ittibā’] the messenger and being bound by the ahkām of his message; the ‘asl is not permissibility, which is the absence of being bound. Since the generality of the verses of ahkām indicate upon the necessity of referring back to the shar’ and the necessity of being bound by its ahkām; the Exalted says

Utilisation that is free from any sign of corruption or harm to the owner is not a proof of permissibility. It is not evident that adultery with an unmarried female who has no relatives constitutes utilisation that is free from any sign of corruption or harm to the owner, yet it is prohibited. Similarly, lying in jest to make someone laugh is free from any indication of corruption or harm with regard to both the one who lies and the one who is lied to, yet it is prohibited. Therefore, things and actions have a hukm after the coming of the shar’; so the ‘asl is to search in the Shari’ah for the things and actions: has a hukm come for them or not? The ‘asl is not permissibility by assumption, nor should the hukm of permissibility be given by the intellect straight away in the presence of the shar’.

Further utilisation that is free from any sign of corruption or bringing harm to the owner is not a proof for permissibility. It is not evident that adultery with an unmarried female who has no relatives constitutes utilisation that is free from any sign of corruption or harm to the owner, yet it is prohibited. Similarly lying in jest to make someone laugh is free from any indication of corruption or harm with regards to both the one who lies and the one who is lied to, yet it is prohibited. Therefore the things and actions have a hukm after the coming of the shar’; so the ‘asl is to search in the Shari’ah for the things and actions: has a hukm come for them or not? The ‘asl is not permissibility by assumption nor should the hukm of permissibility by given by the intellect straight away in the presence of the shar’.

Haka kuma ya kamata a ce asalin al'amura shi ne tawaqquf (dakatarwa, rashin yanke hukunci) da rashin hukunci. Domin tawaqquf yana nufin aikin ya tsaya ko hukuncin ya tsaya, kuma wannan ba ya halatta, saboda abin da aka kafa a cikin Alkur'ani da Hadisi game da rashin ilimi shi ne neman sanin hukuncin, ba dakatarwa da rashin hukuncin ba. Mai girma da xaukaka yana cewa:

Similarly it should be said that the ‘asl of things is cessation [tawaqquf] and the absence of the hukm. Since cessation means the action is suspended or the hukm is suspended and this is impermissible, because the established (rule) in the Qur’an and Hadith for the lack of knowledge is inquiring about the hukm and not the cessation and absence of the hukm. The Exalted says

Saboda haka, bayan zuwan Manzo ne hukuncin yake zama na shari'a, kuma babu wani hukunci kafin zuwan shari'a. Don haka hukunci yana dogara ne da zuwan shari'a, wato kasancewar wata hujja ta shari'a ga wata mas'ala guda. Saboda haka babu hukunci da za a ba da shi sai bisa hujja, kamar yadda babu hukunci da za a ba da shi sai bayan zuwan shari'a. Asali, don haka, shi ne neman hukunci a cikin shari'a, wato asali shi ne neman hujjar shari'a ga hukuncin shari'a daga shari'a.

Therefore it is after the advent of a Messenger that it that the hukm becomes for the shar’ and there is no hukm prior to the coming of the shar’, so the hukm depends on the coming of the shar’, that is, on the presence of a shar’i evidence for a single issue. Thus no hukm can be given except on the basis of an evidence, just as no hukm can be given except after the coming of the shar’. The ‘asl, then, is to search for the hukm in the shar’, that is, the ‘asl is to search for the shar’i evidence for a shar’i hukm from the shar’.

Batun daya har yanzu yana nan: shin Shari'ar Musulunci ta ƙunshi hukuncin dukkan al'amuran da suka wuce, da dukkan matsalolin yanzu, da kuma dukkan al'amuran da za su faru nan gaba? Amsar wannan ita ce: babu wani abu da ya faru, babu wata matsala da ta taso, ko wani lamari da ya wakana, face yana da hukunci. Shari'ar Musulunci ta ƙunshi dukkan ayyukan mutum gaba ɗaya. Babu abin da ya faru a baya, ko wani abu a yanzu, ko wani abu mai yiwuwa da zai faru nan gaba, face duk waɗannan suna da hukunci a cikin Shari'a. Allah Maɗaukakin Sarki ya ce:

One issue remains: does the Islamic Shari’ah encompass the rulings of all matters that have passed, all the present problems, as well as all those matters that may occur in the future? The answer to this is that there is no event which occurs, issue which arises, or incident which takes place but that it has a hukm. The Islamic Shari’ah has encompassed all the actions of man entirely. Nothing occurred in the past, nor is there anything in the present or possible thing occurring in the future except that all these have a hukm in the Shari’ah. Allah the Exalted says:

"explaining all things" (al-Nahl: 89); and due to the explicit text that Allah has perfected and completed this deen. Thus if it is claimed that there are some realities which do not have a shar'i hukm, with the meaning that there are some actions from amongst the actions of the servants which the Shari'ah has completely ignored in that it has not given them an evidence or placed an indication drawing the attention of the mukallaf to the intent therein; if this is thought it means that there is a thing which the Book has not explained, and that this deen has not been perfected and completed by Allah the Exalted, because there exists an action whose hukm is not mentioned, so this deen is deficient. This contradicts the text of the Qur'an, thus it is an invalid claim. Hausa translation: "yana bayyana dukkan abubuwa" (An-Nahl: 89); da kuma saboda nassin da ya bayyana cewa Allah ya cika kuma ya kammala wannan addini. Don haka idan aka yi iƙirarin cewa akwai wasu abubuwa da ba su da hukuncin shari'a, ma'ana akwai wasu ayyuka daga cikin ayyukan bayi da Shari'a ta yi watsi da su gaba ɗaya, ta yadda ba ta ba su wata hujja ba ko kuma ba ta sanya wata alama da ke jawo hankalin mukallafi zuwa ga manufar da ke cikinsu ba; idan aka yi tunanin haka, to yana nufin akwai wani abu da Littafi bai bayyana ba, kuma cewa wannan addini bai cika ba kuma Allah Maɗaukakin Sarki bai kammala shi ba, domin akwai wani aiki da ba a ambaci hukuncinsa ba, don haka wannan addini yana da ƙarancin. Wannan yana saɓa wa nassin Alƙur'ani, saboda haka iƙirari ne marar gaskiya.

“explaining all things” (al-Nahl: 89); and due to the explicit text that Allah has perfected and completed this deen. Thus if it is claimed that there are some realities which do not have a shar’i hukm, with the meaning that there are some actions from amongst the actions of the servants which the Shari’ah has completely ignored in that it has not given them an evidence or placed an indication drawing the attention of the mukallaf to the intent therein; if this is thought it means that there is a thing which the Book has not explained, and that this deen has not been perfected and completed by Allah the Exalted, because their exists an action whose hukm is not mentioned, so this deen is deficient. This contradicts the text of the Qur’an, thus it is an invalid claim.

Ko da akwai hadisai guda ɗaya (āhād), waɗanda isnadinsu zuwa ga Manzon Allah (ﷺ) ingantacce ne, kuma suna ɗauke da wannan ma'ana, wato cewa akwai wasu ayyukan bayi waɗanda Shari'a ba ta ba su hukunci ba; ana watsi da ma'anar (dirayah) irin waɗannan hadisai saboda sabawarsu da wata nassi na Alƙur'ani wanda yake qat'i a isnadi (thubūt) da kuma a ma'ana (dalālah), domin ayoyin nan biyu da aka ambata suna qat'i a isnadi da ma'ana, don haka duk wani rahoto guda ɗaya da ya saɓa musu, ana watsi da ma'anarsa. Saboda haka, shin ba ya halatta ta kowace fuska ga Musulmi, bayan ya fahimci waɗannan ayoyi guda biyu masu qat'i, ya ce akwai ko da hakika ɗaya daga cikin ayyukan mutum wanda shari'a ba ta bayyana masa hukuncinsa ba?

Even if there are solitary ahadith, whose narration from the Messenger (saw) is authenticated, which carry this meaning, namely, that there exists some actions of the servants for which the Shari’ah has not given a hukm; the meaning [dirayah] of such ahadith is discarded because of its contradiction to a text of the Qur’an which is definitive [qat’i] in transmission [thubūt] and meaning [dalalah], because the two above-mentioned āyāt are definitive in transmission and meaning, so any solitary report which contradicts them, its meaning is discarded. Therefore is it not permissible, from any perspective, for a Muslim after understanding these two definitive āyāt to say that there exists even one reality from the actions of man that the shar’ has not clarified for it a hukm.

To abin da Ibn Majah da Tirmidhi suka riwaito daga Salman al-Farisi cewa ya ce: "An tambayi Manzon Allah (ﷺ) game da man shanu, cuku da gashin dabbobi (fur), sai ya ce: 'Halal shi ne abin da Allah ya halatta a cikin Littafinsa, kuma haram shi ne abin da Allah ya haramta a cikin Littafinsa, kuma abin da ya yi shiru a kansa, an yi muku sassauci da shi [‘afa lakum]'", da kuma abin da al-Bazzar ya riwaito daga Abu Darda' daga Annabi (ﷺ) cewa ya ce: "Abin da Allah ya halatta a cikin Littafinsa halal ne, abin da ya haramta haram ne, kuma abin da ya yi shiru a kansa sassauci ne, don haka ku karɓi sassaucin Allah daga gare shi, domin Allah ba ya mantuwa da komai" – sannan ya karanta: "Kuma Ubangijinka ba ya mantuwa" (Maryam: 64), da kuma abin da al-Baihaqi ya riwaito ta hanyar sanadin Tha'labah daga Annabi (ﷺ) cewa ya ce: "Allah ya wajabta wajibai, don haka kada ku yi sakaci da su, ya kuma kafa iyakoki [hudūd], don haka kada ku ketare su, kuma ya yi shiru game da abubuwa a matsayin rahama a gare ku, ba don mantuwa ba, don haka kada ku tambaya game da su", to daga wata fuskar waɗannan hadisai hadisai ne guda ɗaya (āhād), don haka ba za su iya karya nassi tabbatacce ba. Daga wata fuskar kuma, waɗannan hadisai ba su nuna cewa akwai abubuwan da Shari'a ba ta bayyana ba; suna nuna ne kawai cewa akwai abubuwan da Allah bai haramta ba saboda rahama a gare ku, kuma ya yi shiru game da haramcinsu. Don haka maudūin waɗannan hadisai ba shi ne yin shiru game da shari'anta hukunce-hukunce ga waɗannan abubuwa ba; a maimakon haka, shi ne yin shiru game da haramcinsu. Ma'anar "shiru game da haramcinsa" ba shi ne shari'anta halascin (ibaha) ga kowane abu wanda ba a bayyana shi ba; a maimakon haka, wannan shiru shi ne shirun mai shari'a dangane da haramci, kuma shirunsa game da haramci shi ne (shari'anta) halal, wanda ya haɗa da wajibi, mustahabbi, mubahi da makruhi, kuma wannan yana aiki ne kawai ga abin da ya yi shiru a kansa, ba ga kowane abu wanda ba a bayyana shi ba.

As for what was narrated by Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi from Salman al-Farisi that he said, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) was questioned about ghee, cheese and the fur, so he said, ‘The halāl is that which Allah has made halāl in his Book, and the harām is that which Allah has made harām in his Book, and on that which He remained silent, it has been conceded to you [‘afa lakum]’”, and what was related by al-Bazzar from Abu Darda’ from the Prophet (saw) that he said, “What Allah has made halāl in his Book is halāl, and what he has made harām is harām, and what he has remained silent about is a concession, so accept from Allah His concession for verily Allah does not forget anything – and he recited – ‘And your Lord is not forgetful’ (Maryam: 64)” and what was related by al-Baihaqi from the chain of Tha’labah from the Prophet (saw) that he said, “Allah has obligated the obligations so do not neglect them, and He has set the limits [hudūd] so do not transgress them, and He has remained silent about things as a mercy to you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not ask about them”; then from one perspective these ahādith are solitary reports so they cannot contradict the definitive text. From another perspective, these ahādith do not indicate upon there being things which the Shari’ah has not expounded; they only indicate upon there being things which Allah has not prohibited out of mercy for you and has remained silent about their prohibition. Thus the subject of these ahādīth is not silence on the legislation of rulings for these things; rather it is silence on their prohibition. The meaning of ‘silence on (their) prohibition’ is not the legislating of permissibility [ibaha] for everything which is not expounded; rather this silence is the silence of the legislator with regards to prohibition and His silence on prohibition is (the legislation of) permissibility [halal], included in the scope of which is the obligatory [wajib], the recommended [mandub], the permissible [mubah], and the reprehensible [makruh], and this applies only to that about which he is silent, not to everything which has not be expounded.

Al-Tabari ya ruwaito a cikin tafsirinsa daga Ubayd ibn Umayr, cewa, "Allah Maɗaukaki ya halatta, kuma ya haramta (abubuwa da ayyuka). Saboda haka, duk abin da Ya halatta, ka ɗauke shi halal, kuma duk abin da Ya haramta, ka nisanci shi. Ya kuma bar wasu abubuwa daga cikinsu waɗanda bai halatta ba, bai kuma haramta ba (a bayyane); wannan sassauci ne (afwu) daga Allah, wanda Ya yi sassauci a kansa." Annabi ﷺ ya ƙi yawan tambaya game da abin da ba a saukar da hukunci a kansa ba, bisa asalin sassauci [al-bara'ah al-asliyya], domin hakan yana komawa zuwa wannan ma'anar. Ma'anarsa ita ce ayyukan da suka shafi hakan an yi musu sassauci. Kuma ya ce ﷺ, "Mafi munin Musulmi a cikin Musulmai shi ne wanda ya yi tambaya game da abin da ba a haramta a kansu ba, sai ya zama an haramta a kansu saboda tambayarsa," wanda Muslim ya ruwaito; kuma ya ce ﷺ, "Ku bar ni da abin da na bar muku. Lalle waɗanda ke gabanku sun halaka ne kawai saboda yawan tambayarsu da saɓanin da suka yi da annabawansu; abin da na hana ku, ku nisance shi, kuma abin da na umarce ku da shi, ku aikata gwargwadon iyawarku daga cikinsa," wanda Ahmad ya ruwaito. Haka nan, Muslim da Ahmad sun ruwaito daga Abu Hurairah cewa ya ce, "Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi mana jawabi yana cewa, 'Ya mutane, Allah ya wajabta muku aikin Hajji, don haka ku yi Hajji.' Sai wani mutum ya ce, 'Duk shekara ya Manzon Allah?' Manzon ya yi shiru har mutumin ya tambaya sau uku. Sai Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce, 'Da na ce eh, da ya zama wajibi, kuma da ba za ku iya ba (ku cika shi).' Sa'an nan ya ce, 'Ku bar ni da abin da na bar muku.'" Don haka duk wannan yana nuna cewa manufar faɗinsa, "kuma Ya yi shiru game da abubuwa" ita ce Bai haramta su ba, kuma hakan yayi kama da faɗinsa a wani hadisi, "ku bar ni da abin da na bar muku." Wannan ma'ana tana samun goyon baya daga wani riwayar daban ta wannan hadisi guda, "kuma Ya yafe muku abubuwa", wato, ya bar su bai hana su ba. Saboda haka ma'anar maganarsa, "kuma Ya yi shiru game da abubuwa", ko maganarsa, "kuma abin da Ya yi shiru a kansa, yafaffe ne", ba shi ne hukuncin wasu ayyukan bayi bai bayyana ba, a'a, ma'anarsa ita ce wasu abubuwa ba a hana su ba a matsayin rahama a gare ku; kuma abin da ba a hana ba daga takamaiman abubuwa yana cikin hukuncin shiru, don haka ba a haramta shi ba; hukuncinsa shi ne halal. Don haka al'amarin yana da alaƙa da shiru na Mai Shari'a game da haramta abubuwa. Ba shi da alaƙa da rashin bayyana hukunce-hukuncen abubuwa ba.

Al-Tabari narrates in his tafsir from Ubayd ibn Umayr, “Allah the exalted has permitted and prohibited (things and actions), so whatever He has permitted take it as permitted, and whatever he has prohibited refrain from it, and He has left from that some things which He has not permitted or prohibited (expressly); that is a concession (afwu) from Allah which He has conceded.” The Prophet (saw) disliked excessive questioning regarding that about which no hukm had been revealed, on the basis of the original concession [al-bara’ah al-asliyya] since it returns to this meaning. Its meaning is that the related actions are conceded. And he (saw) said, “The worst of the Muslims amongst the Muslims is the one who asks about a thing which is not prohibited on them and consequently becomes prohibited upon them due to his questioning,” related by Muslim; and he said, “Leave me with what I have left you. Verily those before you perished only on account of their excessive questioning and their disagreements with their prophets; what I have prohibited you from stay away from it, and what I have ordered you, do as much of it as you are able,” narrated by Ahmad. Further, Muslim and Ahmad related from Abu Hurayra that he said, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) addressed us saying, ‘O people, Allah has obligated the pilgrimage on you, so make the pilgrimage’, so a man asked ‘Every year O Messenger of Allah?’ He (the Messenger) remained silent until the man asked three times, so the Messenger of Allah (saw) replied, “If I said yes, it would be obligated, and you would not be able (to fulfill it)’ then he said, ‘Leave me with what I have left you.’ So all of this indicates that the intent of his saying, “and He was silent on things” is that He did not prohibit them, and it is similar to his saying, in another hadith, “leave me with what I have left you”. This (meaning) is supported by another narration of this same hadith, “and He conceded you things”, that is, he left them and did not prohibit them. Therefore the meaning of his saying, “and He was silent on things” or his saying, “and that about which He was silent, is conceded” is not that the hukm of some actions of the servants has not been expounded, rather their meaning is that (some) things have not been prohibited as a mercy to you; and that which is not prohibited of specific things comes under the hukm of silence, so it is not prohibited; its hukm is that it is halal. Thus the matter is connected to the silence of the Legislator about the prohibition of things. It is not connected to the absence of the expounding the rulings of things.

Wannan yana daga mahangar ma'anar hadisin. Amma dangane da matsayin hadisin game da hukuncin Shari'a, to ayyukan mukallafai (waɗanda ake hukunta su da alhakin shari'a) dangane da kasancewarsu masu alhakin shari'a, ko dai suna ƙarƙashin khitab al-taklif gaba ɗaya – wato umarni (iqtida') ko zaɓi (takhyir) – ko kuma ba sa ƙarƙashinsa. Idan suna ƙarƙashinsa, to dole ne a sami hukunci a cikin Shari'a dominsa, domin yana cikin khitab al-taklif. Idan ba sa ƙarƙashinsa, to wannan yana nufin cewa wasu daga cikin mukallafai suna waje da hukuncin khitab al-taklif, koda a wani lokaci ko a wani hali ɗaya, kuma wannan ba shi da inganci daga tushensa. Domin idan muka ɗauka cewa shi mukallafi ne, to ba zai iya kasancewa a waje da khitab al-taklif ba; idan kuma muka ɗauka cewa ba mukallafi ba ne, to wannan zato ba shi da inganci da kansa. Wannan saboda alhakin shari'a yana da faɗi ne saboda faɗin khitab al-taklif, don haka yana shafar dukkan hali da lokuta. Saboda haka ba zai yiwu ma'anar faɗin Annabi (saw) "kuma ya yi shiru game da wasu abubuwa" ta zama cewa bai bayyana hukuncinsu ba, domin wannan ma'ana tana nuna kasancewar wani mutum wanda a wani hali ko lokaci ba shi da alhakin shari'a. Don haka ma'anar kawai ita ce ya yi shiru game da haramcin wasu abubuwa.

This is from the perspective of the meaning of the hadith. As for the perspective of the position of the hadith as far as the hukm of the Shariah is concerned then the actions of the legally responsible (mukallafeen) with respect to their being legally responsible are either collectively under the address of legal responsibility (khitab al-takleef) – namely the command (iqtida’) or the option (takhyīr) – or is not under this. If it is then there must be a hukm for it in the Shari’ah, as it comes under the address of legal responsibility. If it is not, this necessitates that some of the legally responsible are outside the hukm of the address of legal responsibility, even if at one time or under one situation, and this is invalid from its basis, because if we assume him to be legally responsible then he cannot be outside the address of legal responsibility, and if we assume him to not be legally responsible then this assumption is invalid in and of itself. This is because the legal responsibility is general because of the generality of the address of legal responsibility, so it includes all situations and times. Therefore it cannot be that the meaning of his (saw) saying, “and He was silent about some things” be that He did not expound their ruling, because this meaning implies the existence of an individual who in a given state or time is not legally responsible. Hence the meaning can only be that He remained silent about the prohibition of some things.

Don haka hadisin bai nuna cewa akwai wani aikin mutum da Shari'a ba ta yi bayaninsa ba, saboda haka amfani da shi a matsayin hujja ga wannan batu ba daidai ba ne. Saboda haka ka'idar shari'a, "Asalin hukuncin ayyukan mutum shi ne ya zama yana ɗaure da hukuncin Allah," ta tabbata. Don haka bai halatta ga Musulmi ya aikata wani aiki sai bayan ya san hukuncin Allah game da wannan aiki, daga umarnin Mai Shari'a. Halascin abu (ibaha) hukunci ne daga cikin hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a, kuma yana bukatar hujja. Rashin bayanin wani abu daga wahayi ba hujja ba ce ga halascinsa; a maimakon haka, alama ce da ke nuna kasawar Shari'a. Hujjar halascin wani abu ita ce Mai Shari'a ya shar'anta zaɓi a cikinsa.

Thus the hadith does not indicate upon there being any action of man not expounded by the Shari’ah, so using it as evidence for this point is incorrect. Consequently the legal maxim, “The original rule [asl] for the actions of man is being bound by the hukm of Allah” is confirmed. So it is not permissible for a Muslim to perform an action except after knowing the hukm of Allah about that action, from the address of the Legislator. Permissibility [ibaha] is a hukm from the ahkam of the Shari’ah, necessarily requiring an evidence. The absence of exposition by the revelation is not an evidence for permissibility; rather it is an indication (suggesting) the deficiency of the Shari’ah. The evidence for the permissibility of a thing is that the Legislator legislate (the ruling of) an option in it.

Wannan yana game da ayyuka. Dangane da abubuwan da ke da alaƙa da ayyuka, asali a game da su shi ne halalci matuƙar babu nassin hani. Saboda haka asalin hukuncin kowane abu shi ne halalci; ba a haramta shi ba sai dai idan akwai dalili na shari'a da ke hana shi. Wannan saboda nassosin shari'a sun bayyana dukkan abubuwa a matsayin halal, kuma waɗannan nassoshi sun zo a matsayin gama-gari, suna ƙunshe da dukkan abubuwa; Mai girma da ɗaukaka yana cewa,

This is with regards to actions. As for the things, which are related to the actions, the ‘asl with regards to them is permissibility so long as no text of prohibition is present. Therefore the original rule of a thing is permissibility; it is not prohibited except if there is a shar’i evidence for its prohibition. This is because the shar’i texts have declared all the things to be permissible, and these texts have come as general, covering all things; the Exalted says,

Bai kamata a ce abu yana rabuwa da aikin bawa ba, don haka hukuncinsa yana fitowa daga hukuncin aikin, kuma yana ɗaukar hukuncin aikin. Ba a kamata a ce haka ba, domin abubuwa, duk da cewa suna da alaƙa tilas da ayyuka, kuma dalilinsu yana fitowa daga bayanin hukuncin aikin, sun bambanta da ayyukan. Dalilin aikin bawa, idan aka haɗa shi da wani abu, yana bayyana game da abin hukunce-hukunce guda biyu kawai, ko dai halatta ko haramta. Ba a cewa game da hukuncin abu cewa wajibi ne ko mustahabbi ba. Don haka hukuncin abubuwa ya takaita ga halatta ko haramta, kuma ta wannan fuska abu ya bambanta da aikin bawa, don haka ba ya ɗaukar hukuncin aikin kawai, ko da yake hukuncinsa yana zuwa ne a cikin bayanin hukuncin aikin.

It should not be said that the thing is inseparable from the action of the servant, so its hukm comes from the hukm of the action, and it takes the hukm of the action. This should not be said because the things, notwithstanding that they are necessarily connected to the actions and that their evidence comes from the exposition of the hukm of the action, are different from the actions. The evidence of the action of the servant, when connected to a thing clarifies with respect to the thing two rulings alone, either permissibility or prohibition. It is not said about the hukm of a thing that it is obligatory or recommended. Thus the ruling of the things is confined to permissibility or prohibition, and in this respect the thing is different to the action of the servant, so it does not just take the hukm of the action, even if its hukm comes in the clarification of the hukm of the action.

Daga wata fuskar kuma, ƙa'idar gabaɗaya ta dalilin halalci da ƙayyadadden abu a cikin dalilin haramci sun sa halalci ya zama gabaɗaya ga dukkan abubuwa, kuma haramci ya zama ƙayyadadde ga abubuwan da aka hana su kaɗai a fili. Wannan ma yana sa hukuncin abu ya bambanta, dangane da asalin hukunci da hukuncin da aka siffanta shi da shi, zuwa hukuncin aiki. Asalin hukuncin abubuwa shi ne halalci muddin babu dalilin haramci, kuma asalin hukuncin ayyuka shi ne a ɗaura su da hukuncin shari'a. Haka kuma, abubuwa ba a siffanta su sai da halalci ko haramci, ba kamar ayyuka ba, waɗanda game da su kiran Mai shari'a (Ash-Shaari') yana da nau'i biyu: takleef da wad'. Na farko yana da nau'i biyar: wajibi, mustahabbi, haramun, makaruhi, da mubahi. Na biyu kuma yana da nau'i biyar: sanadi, sharaɗi, mai hana, ingantacce, wanda bai inganta ba, wanda babu shi, da asali da sassauci. Jimlar abin da aka tattauna a sama ita ce, bayan zuwan Manzonmu Muhammad ﷺ zuwa ga dukkan mutane, ba a halatta a ce akwai wani aiki ko abu da ba shi da hukunci ba. Haka kuma babu hukuncin wani abu ko aiki ba tare da dalili daga wahayi ba, domin hukunci kiran Mai shari'a ne. Haka kuma ba halal ba ne a ce duk abin da wahayi bai yi bayanin hukuncinsa ba, halal ne, domin mubahi kansa hukunci ne na shari'a, kasancewar kiran Mai shari'a ne na ba da zaɓi da ya shafi ayyukan bayi. Da'awar cewa akwai abubuwan da Mai shari'a bai bayyana hukuncinsu ba tana nufin akwai abubuwan da Alƙur'ani bai bayyana ba, kuma cewa Shari'ah ba ta cika ba. Wannan kuskure ne, domin yana saɓa wa nassi tabbatacce, a cikin isnadi da ma'ana, na Alƙur'ani.

From another perspective the generality of the evidence of permissibility and the specification of the specific thing in the evidence of prohibition makes the permissibility general for all things and prohibition specific to alone those expressly prohibited. This too makes the hukm of the thing different, with respect to the original rule and the hukm with which it is described, to the hukm of the action. The original rule of things is permissibility as long as there is no evidence of prohibition, and the original rule for actions is being bound by the legal hukm. Further, things are not described except by permissibility or prohibition, contrary to the actions, with respect to which the address of the legislator is of two types: takleef and wad’. The former is of five types: the obligatory, the recommended, the prohibited, the reprehensible and the permissible. The latter is also of five types: the cause, the condition, the preventative factor, the valid, invalid and void, and the original rule and concession. The sum (of the above discussion) is that it is not permitted, after the advent of our Master Muhammad (saw) to all of mankind, to say that there is an action or thing which has no hukm. Nor is there any hukm of a thing or action without an evidence from the revelation, because a hukm is the address of the Legislator. Nor it is permissible to say that all that which the revelation has not expounded a hukm for is permissible, because the permissible is a legal hukm itself, as it is the address of the Legislator of conferring choice related to the actions of servants. The claim that there are things whose hukm has not been clarified by the Legislator means that there are things which the Qur’an has not clarified and that the Shari’ah is deficient. This is incorrect as it contradicts the definitive text, in transmission and meaning, of the Qur’an.

Saboda haka babu wani aiki da mutum zai iya yi, ko wani abu da ya shafi aikin mutum, face yana da hukunci a cikin Shari'a, kuma babu wani hukunci sai bayan kasancewar wata hujja daga kalmar Mai Shari'a (Ash-Shaari') da ke nuna wannan takamaiman hukuncin, domin babu wani hukunci kafin zuwan wahayi. Saboda haka babu hukunci kafin zuwan Manzon Allah ﷺ, kuma babu hukunci bayan zuwansa ﷺ sai da hujja daga wahayin da ya zo da shi wacce ke nuna wannan hukuncin.

Thus there is no action possible of being done by man, nor a thing connected to the action of man except that it has a hukm in the Shari’ah, and there is no hukm except after the presence of an evidence from the address of the Legislator indicating upon this specific hukm, because there is no hukm before the coming of the revelation. Thus there is no hukm before the coming of the Messenger, and there is no hukm after his coming except with an evidence from the revelation he came with indicating upon that hukm