5.1 Binciken Kwararru (ijtihād)

5.1 Binciken Kwararru (ijtihād) - Halin Musulunci | Quran Course

Wannan a bayyane yake cikin yadda Annabi ﷺ ya amince da niyyar Mu'azu na yin Ijtihādi, kuma babu wanda ya yi jayayya kan halaccin Ijtihādi. Haka kuma, sahabbai sun yi ijma'i (yarjejeniya) kan batun yanke hukunci bisa ra'ayin da aka samo daga dalilan Shari'a, wato sun amince da amfani da Ijtihādi kan duk wani al'amari da ya faru wanda ba a sami nassi (bayyananne) a kansa ba. Wannan kuwa abin da ya zo mana ta hanyar rahotanni masu yawa (tawatur) wadanda babu shakka a cikinsu. Daga cikin irin wannan rahoto akwai maganar Abu Bakr lokacin da aka tambaye shi game da Kalala. Ya ce: 'Zan yi magana a kai bisa ra'ayina. Idan daidai ne, to daga Allah ne. Idan kuskure ne, to daga gare ni ne da kuma daga Shaiɗan, kuma Allah ba shi da hannu a cikinsa. Kalala ita ce wanda ba shi da 'ya'ya ko iyaye da suka rage.' Maganarsa: 'Zan yi magana a kai bisa ra'ayina' ba ta nufin cewa wannan ra'ayi daga gare shi yake ba. A maimakon haka, yana nufin: zan faɗi bisa abin da na fahimta daga kalmar 'Kalala' a cikin ayar. To, a harshen Larabci, Kalala tana nufin mutane uku: wanda bai bar ɗa ko iyaye ba; ko wanda ba shi da ɗa ko uba daga zuriyarsa; da kuma dangi daga bangaren da ba na ɗa ko uba ba. Don haka, wane daga cikin wadannan ma'anoni ne ya dace da kalmar kalala a cikin ayar? Abu Bakr ya fahimci cewa tana da ɗaya daga cikin wadannan ma'anoni a cikin faɗinsa ta Allah:

This is clear in the Prophet’s  acceptance of Mu’az’s intention to practise Ijtihād and there is no one who disputes the legality of Ijtihād. Furthermore, an ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahabah  took place on the issue of judging by an opinion which has been deduced from the Sharī’ah evidence i.e, they have agreed on the use of Ijtihād on any incident that takes place for which no (clear) text has been found. And this is what has reached us in successive reports (tawatur) in which there is no doubt. One such report is the saying of Abu Bakr  when he was asked about the Kalala. He said: ‘I will speak about it according to my opinion. If it is correct then it is from Allah . If it is a mistake then it is from me and from Shaytan and Allah  has nothing to do with it. Kalala is the one who has no children or parents left.’ His statement: ‘I will speak about it according to my opinion’ does not mean this opinion is from him. Rather it means I will say according to what I understand from the expression ‘Kalala’ in the verse. Kalala in the Arabic language applies to three people; the one who did not leave a child or parent or the one who does not have a son or a father from his descendants and the relatives from other than the direction of the child or father. So which of these meanings would apply to the word kalala in the verse ? Abu Bakr  understood it to have one of those meanings in His  saying:

Kamar yadda ‘Umar ya yi a misalin da ya gabata, ‘Ali ya yi kwatankwacin shan giya da kirkirar ƙarya, domin ya fahimci daga Shari’a cewa abin da ke iya faruwa ana ɗaukarsa ɗaya da abin da ya faru. Wannan kamar yadda Shari’a ta ɗauki barci ɗaya da najasar al’ada (hadathi), kuma aikin saduwa a cikin buƙatar Iddah (lokacin shari’a da mace take jira bayan saki kafin ta yi aure) ɗaya ne da idan mahaifa ta riga ta yi ciki (ta kama ciki). Duk waɗannan misalai ne na Ijtihadi daga Sahabbai da Ijma’in Sahabbai a kan batun Ijtihadi.

Like ‘Umar  in the previous example, ‘Ali  made an analogy between drinking and fabrication of lies because he understood from Shar’a that which is likely to happen is treated the same as that which happens. This is like when the Shar’a treated sleeping the same as ritual impurity, and the act of sexual intercourse in requiring the Iddah (legal period a woman waits after divorce for marriage) the same as if the womb had become engaged (pregnant). All these are examples of Ijtihād by the Sahabah and Ijma’a as-Sahaba on the issue of Ijtihād.

Tatbiqin hukunci a kan al'amuran da suke karkashinsa ba a daukar shi Ijtihadi ba, illa dai fahimtar hukuncin Shari'a. Domin Ijtihadi shi ne fitar da hukunci daga nassi, ko daga lafazinsa (mantooq), ko daga fahimtarsa (mafhoom), ko daga ma'anar da yake nunawa (dalalah).

The application of a hukm on issues which are classified under it is not considered Ijtihād rather but only as the comprehension of the Sharī’ah rule. Since Ijtihād is the inference of a hukm from the text whether from its wording (mantooq), understanding (mafhoom), from its indication (dalalah)

ko daga ‘illar da aka ambata a cikin rubutun. Ko an yi istidlali ne daga hukunci gabaɗaya (hukm kulli) zuwa dalili gabaɗaya (dalīl kulli); misali, istidlali cewa a yi wa ɓarawo hukunci tun da mai shari’a ya sanya yanke hannu a matsayin hadd ga sata. Ko kuma istidlali na iya kasancewa daga hukunci juz’i (hukm juz’i) zuwa dalili juz’i (dalīl juz’i); kamar cire hukuncin hayar aiki tun da Annabi ﷺ

or from the ‘illah which has been mentioned in the text. Whether the inference was an inference of a comprehensive hukm (hukm kulli) from a comprehensive evidence (dalīl kulli); for example, the inference that a punishment should be imposed on the thief since the legislator made the cutting of the hand a hadd punishment for theft. Or the inference could be of a partial hukm (hukm juz’i) from a partial evidence (dalīl juz’i); such as the deduction of the hukm of hiring since the Prophet PBUH

Dalili ne na sashe don hukunci na sashe. Don haka wannan hujja ta cewa hukuncin gaba ɗaya daga dalili na gaba ɗaya, da kuma hujja ta cewa hukuncin sashe daga dalili na sashe, duk ana ɗaukar su Ijtihadi, domin shi ne karɓar hukunci daga dalili, ko hukuncin ya kasance na gaba ɗaya wanda aka ciro daga dalili na gaba ɗaya, ko kuma ya kasance na musamman wanda aka ciro daga dalili na musamman. Duk wannan yana nufin kashe ƙoƙari wajen fahimtar hukunci daga dalili. Amma aiwatar da hukunci a kan sababbin al'amura waɗanda suke cikin ma'anarsa, ko kuma suna ƙarƙashinsa a matsayin ɗaya daga cikin abubuwan da ya ƙunsa, ba a ɗaukarsa Ijtihadi. Misali, Allah ya haramta mushe. Idan aka kashe saniya ta hanyar bugun kanta har ta mutu, ba a cin namanta, domin ta mutu a matsayin mushe, kuma ba a yanka ta bisa ka'ida ba, kuma naman mushe haram ne. Hukuncin naman gwangwani da aka yi daga saniyar da ba a yanka ta bisa ka'ida ba, cin sa da sayar da shi haram ne a Shari'a. Wannan hukunci ba a ciro shi ta hanyar ijtihadi ba; a maimakon haka yana ƙarƙashin kalmar 'mushe'. Haka nan, dabbobin da Druze suke yankawa ba a cinsu, domin ba Musulmi ko wani daga Ahlul Kitab ne ya yanka su ba. Don haka wannan hukunci, watau haramcin cin dabbar da Druze suka yanka, ba a ciro shi ba. A maimakon haka an aiwatar da hukuncin da ya riga ya kasance sananne a kansa, wato haramcin cin dabbobin da kafiran da ba su cikin Ahlul Kitab suka yanka. Misali, halascin mace ta zama memba a majalisar shawara (majlis al-Shura) hukunci ne na Shari'a. Wannan hukunci ba a ciro shi ba; a maimakon haka an aiwatar da hukuncin wakala (wakilci) a kansa. Zama memba a majalisar shawara wakilci ne na ra'ayi. Ana halatta mace ta wakilta wasu su gabatar da ra'ayoyi, kuma tana iya wakiltar wasu a ra'ayinsu. Misali, ba a ba da Zakka ga kowa sai wanda yake talaka, kuma talaucinsa an tabbatar da shi ta hanyar alamomi na zato waɗanda aka gabatar da hujja a kansu don a yi la'akari da su bisa doka. Ba a yanke hukunci ba sai da maganar adali ('adl), kuma amincinsa ('adala) an san shi ba tare da shakka ba (ko kaɗan). Haka kuma, wanda yake neman sanin alkibla (shugabanci na salla) har sai an san alkiblar bayan bincike, da sauran misalan irin wannan. Dukkan waɗannan al'amura ba a kai ga su ta hanyar Ijtihadi ba, wanda shi ne fitar da hukunce-hukunce daga hujjojin Shari'a, sai dai ta hanyar amfani da hukunce-hukunce a kan al'amura na zahiri (juz'iyyat), ko ta hanyar fahimtar al'amura na zahiri da amfani da hukunce-hukuncen a kansu. Wannan aiki yana shiga cikin fagen shari'a (qadā') kuma ba ya shiga cikin Ijtihadi. Ba a ɗaukar wannan aiki a matsayin Ijtihadi domin ba ya tabbatar da wani takamaiman hukuncin Shari'a, sai dai yana amfani da hukuncin Shari'a a kan wani lamari da aka riga aka yanke hukunci a kansa kuma aka fahimta, idan wani lamari irinsa ya faru, sai a yi amfani da hukuncin a kansa kamar yadda aka yi a farko, don haka ba a ɗaukarsa Ijtihadi ba. Hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a suna buƙatar aiwatarwa bayan fahimtar su daga hujja, ba Ijtihadi ba, wanda ya saba wa nassosin Shari'a waɗanda ke buƙatar Ijtihadi domin karɓar hukuncin Shari'a. Saboda haka,

It is a partial evidence for a partial hukm. So this inference of a comprehensive hukm from a comprehensive evidence and the inference of a partial hukm from a partial evidence, all of this is considered Ijtihād because it is the adoption of a hukm from a dalīl whether the hukm was general which was extracted from a general evidence or the hukm was specific which was extracted from a specific evidence. All of it constitutes exerting one’s outmost in understanding the hukm from the evidence. As for the application of the hukm on new issues which fall within its meaning or is classified under it being one of its constituents, this is not regarded as Ijtihād. For example, Allah  has forbidden carrion. When a cow is killed by striking a blow to its head until it dies, its meat is not eaten because it has died as carrion and it was not lawfully slaughtered and the flesh of carrion is harām. And the hukm of tinned meat, which comes from the cow which has not been slaughtered lawfully, eating and selling it is harām in the Sharī’ah. This hukm has not been deduced; rather it is classified under the word ‘carrion’. For example, the animals slaughtered by the Druze are not eaten because it has not been slaughtered by Muslim or someone from the people of the book. So this hukm, i.e, the prohibition of eating the slaughtered animal of the Druze, has not been deduced. Rather a hukm which is already known has been applied on it, which is the prohibition of eating the animals slaughtered by the disbelievers who are not from the people of the Book. For instance, the permissibility of a woman being a member of the majlis al-Shura is a Sharī’ah rule. This hukm has not been deduced; rather the hukm of Wikala (representation) has been applied to it. The membership of the majlis al-shura is the representation of an opinion. It is allowed for the woman to delegate others to put forward opinions and she can represent others in their opinion. For example, Zakat is not given to anyone other than the one who is poor and his poverty is ascertained by speculative indications for which evidence has been furnished for its lawful consideration. Judgement is not passed without the statement of a just person (‘adl) and his trustworthiness (‘adala) is known by (the least amount of) doubt. And similarly, someone making inquiries to find out the qibla (direction of prayer) until the qibla is known after the investigation and others such examples. All these matters are not arrived at by way of Ijtihād which is the inference of rules from the Sharī’ah evidences but by way of applying the rules on the detailed issues (juz’iyyat) or by understanding the detailed issues and applying the rulings on them. This practise falls under the scope of the judiciary (qadā’) and does not come under Ijtihād. This practise is not considered Ijtihād because it does not determine a specific Sharī’ah rule but only applies a Sharī’ah rule on an incident which has already been decided and understood, when another incident of a similar type happens, the rule is applied on it similar to the initial incident and so it is not considered Ijtihād. The Sharī’ah rules require application after understanding them from the evidence and not Ijtihād, which is contrary to the Sharī’ah texts which require Ijtihād in order to adopt the hukm Shari’. Therefore,

Nassoshin Shari'ah na Musulunci sun wajabta wa Musulmi yin Ijtihadi. Wannan saboda nassoshin Shari'ah ba su zo ta hanya ta dalla-dalla ba, sai dai sun zo ta hanyar mujmal, wanda ya dace da dukkan al'amuran da suka shafi dan Adam. Fahimtar su da kuma fitar da hukuncin Allah daga cikinsu yana bukatar a yi kokari don karbo hukmin Shar'i ga kowane al'amari. Ko da nassoshin da suka zo ta hanya mai cikakken bayani, suna magana kan cikakkun bayanai, a zahiri suna da hukunci gaba daya ('amm) da kuma mujmal. Misali, ayoyin gado sun zo ta hanya mai bayani kuma suna magana kan cikakkun bayanai, duk da haka dangane da hukunce-hukuncen bangarori suna bukatar fahimta da fitar da hukunci a masaloli da dama kamar masalar kalala da masalolin hijabi (hajab). Dukkan Mujtahidai suna ra'ayin cewa da namiji ko mace, 'ya'ya suna da fifiko a gado a kan 'yan'uwan mamaci, domin kalmar 'walad' (yaro) tana nufin yara na jinsi biyu. Ibn 'Abbas yana ra'ayin cewa 'ya mace ba ta da wannan matsayin, domin kalmar 'Walad' tana nufin namiji kawai. Wannan yana nuna cewa ko da nassoshin da suke magana kan al'amura dalla-dalla sun zo ne a matsayin mujmal, kuma fahimta da fitar da hukunci daga gare su yana bukatar Ijtihadi. Duk da haka, wadannan nassoshi masu bayanin cikakkun bayanai suna bukatar a yi amfani da su ga al'amura da ke faruwa sabo. Wannan amfani kuwa ba shi ne abin da ake nufi da Ijtihadi ba. Abin da ake nufi shi ne fitar da hukunci daga mujmalinsu, ko da suna magana kan cikakkun bayanai, domin suna da hukunci gaba daya ('amm) da kuma mujmal, kuma su nassoshin shari'a ne. Halin nassoshin shari'a shi ne su zama gaba daya da kuma mujmal, ko da sun yi bayanin cikakkun bayanai. Nassoshin Shari'ah, ko daga Alkur'ani ko daga Sunnah, su ne: mafi kyawun nassoshin shari'a ga fagen tunani, mafi fadin fage na samar da hukunci gaba daya, kuma mafi dacewar kasa don noma ka'idoji na gaba daya. Kuma su kaɗai ne suka dace a zama nassoshin doka ga dukkan al'ummomi da ƙasashe. Dangane da kasancewarsu nassoshi mafi kyau ga fagen tunani, wannan yana bayyana ne daga yadda suke ƙunshe da dukkan nau'ikan alaƙoyi. Domin alaƙoyi iri-iri ne, ko alaƙar tsakanin mutane ɗaya-ɗaya ko alaƙar tsakanin ƙasa da 'yan ƙasa ko alaƙar tsakanin ƙasashe, al'ummomi da ƙabilu. Duk yadda waɗannan alaƙoyi suka zama sababbi kuma masu yawa, tunani yana iya fitar da hukunce-hukunce a kansu daga waɗannan nassoshin Shari'a. Saboda haka su ne mafi kyawun nassoshi ga fagen tunani daga cikin dukkan nassoshin doka. Dangane da kasancewarsu da mafi kyawun fadin ma'ana wajen samar da janar-janar hukunci, hakan a bayyane yake daga jimlolinsu, kalmominsu, salon tsara maganganunsu wajen ƙunshe da ma'anar zahiri (mantuq), ma'anar fahimta (mafhum), ma'ana mai nuni (dalāla) da hujja (ta'lil), da kuma ƙiyasi ga 'illar da ke sa ɗaukar hukunci ga kowane aiki ya yiwu, ya dore kuma ya shafi komai. Wannan yana tabbatar da cewa suna iya ƙunshe kowane abu, cikakku kuma gabaɗaya. Dangane da kasancewarsu mafi kyawun tushe don noma ƙa'idodi gabaɗaya, hakan yana bayyana ne daga yawan ma'anoni gabaɗaya da waɗannan nassoshi suka ƙunsa, da kuma yanayin waɗannan ma'anoni. Wannan saboda Alƙur'ani da hadisi sun zo da tsararrun layuka na gabaɗaya, har ma idan suna magana kan cikakkun bayanai. Yanayin waɗannan layuka shi ne cewa suna ba Littafi da Sunna ma'anoni gabaɗaya da ƙarƙashinsu ake iya rarraba al'amura gabaɗaya da na musamman. Daga nan ne yawan ma'anoni gabaɗaya ke fitowa. Haka kuma, waɗannan ma'anoni gabaɗaya sun ƙunshi al'amura na gaske da za a iya gani, ba al'amura na zato ba waɗanda aka kai ga su ta hanyar ra'ayi ko hankali kawai. A lokaci guda kuma suna nan don warware matsalolin mutum, ba don mutane na musamman kawai ba; wato don bayyana hukuncin ayyukan ɗan Adam, komai irin sha'awar ɗabi'a da ta tura su zuwa wannan aiki. Saboda haka ne suke iya dacewa da ma'anoni daban-daban da hukunce-hukunce masu yawa. Don haka, nassoshin Shari'ah su ne mafi arziki wajen samar da ka'idoji na gaba ɗaya (qawā'id 'Aammah).

The texts of the Islamic Sharī’ah require the Muslims to perform Ijtihād. This is because the Sharī’ah texts have not come in a detailed manner but have come in ambivalent form (mujmal), applicable to all incidents involving the human kind. Understanding them and deducing the hukm of Allah  from them requires the expending of effort to adopt the hukm Shar’i for each incident. Even the texts which have come in an elaborate manner and deal with details, they are in fact general (‘amm) and ambivalent (mujmal). For example, the verses of inheritance have come in an elucidatory manner and deal with minute details, despite that in terms of the partial rules they still require comprehension and deduction in many issues such as the issue of kalala and issues of disinheritance (hajab). All the Mujtahideen take the view that the male or female child take precedence in inheritance over the brothers of deceased because the word ‘walad’ (child) refers to children of both sexes. Ibn 'Abbas holds the view that the girl does not have such role because the word 'Walad' refers to a male only. This shows that even the texts which treat various issues in detail have come as ambivalent (mujmal), and that understanding and deducing a hukm from them requires Ijtihād. However, these texts which deal with details require application to newly occurring incidents. This application however is not what is meant by Ijtihād. What is intended is the inference of a hukm from its ambivalent/equivocal (mujmaliha) even if they deal with details, they are general (‘amm) and ambivalent/equivocal (mujmal) and they are the legislative texts. It is the nature of legislative texts to be general and ambivalent/equivocal (mujmal) even if they dwelve on details. The Sharī’ah texts, whether they are from the Qur’ān or from the Sunnah are ; the best legislative texts for the field of thought, the widest of scope for generalisation, and the most fertile ground to cultivate general principles. And they alone are suitable as legislative texts for all peoples and nations. As for being the best texts for the field of thought that is observable from the way in which they encompass all types of relationships. This is because relationships of all types, whether relationships between individuals or relationships between the state and citizens or relationships between states, peoples and nations. However new and multifarious these relationships may be, the thought is able to deduce rulings for them from those Sharī’ah texts, Therefore they are the best texts for the field of thought from all the legislative texts. As for it having the best scope for generalisation, that is clear from its sentences, words, style of formulating (expressions) in terms of its encompassment of the wording (mantuq), understanding (mafhum), meaning (dalāla) and justification (ta’leel) and analogy to the ‘illah which makes the inference for every action feasible, permanent and inclusive. This insures that it is able to encompass everything, being complete and general. As for it being the the most fertile ground to cultivate general principles, that is apparent from the abundance of general meanings which these texts contain and from the nature of the general meanings. That is because the Qur’ān and the hadīth have come along broad lines even when touching on details. The nature of these broad lines is that they give the Kitab and Sunnah general meanings under which general and specific issues can be classified. And it is from this the abundance of general meanings come. In addition, these general meanings contain real and perceptible issues and not hypothetical issues that have been arrived at theoretically or logically. And at the same time they are there to solve the problems of man and not only for specific individuals that is, to clarify the ruling for the action of human beings, whatever be the instinctual manifestation that may have pushed them to this action. That is why they are applicable to diverse meanings and many rulings. Thus, the Sharī’ah texts are the most fertile ground for producing the general principles (qawaid ‘Aammah).

Wannan shi ne gaskiyar nassosin Shari'a daga mahangar shari'antawa. Haka kuma, idan mun hada da gaskiyar cewa wadannan nassoshi sun zo ne ga bil'adama bisa matsayinsu na mutane, kuma cewa su doka ce ga dukkan al'ummai da jama'a, to a bayyane yake cewa kasancewar Mujtahidai wajibi ne; domin fahimtar wadannan nassoshi ta fuskar shari'a, da aiwatar da su a dukkan zamani, da kuma samo hukuncin Shari'a ga kowace lamari.

This is the reality of the Sharī’ah texts from the legislative viewpoint. Also when we include the fact that these texts have come for human kind in their capacity as human beings and that they are a legislation for all nations and peoples, it becomes clear that the presence of Mujtahiddin is essential; to understand these texts legislatively and apply them in all ages and to derive the Sharī’ah rule for each incident.

Sababbin abubuwa suna faruwa kowace rana, kuma ba su ƙidayuwa. Dole ne mujtahid ya fitar da hukuncin Allah game da kowane abin da ya faru, in ba haka ba abubuwan za su kasance ba tare da sanin hukuncin Allah game da su ba, kuma hakan ba a yarda da shi ba.

New events take place every day and they are innumerable. The mujtahid must deduce the ruling of Allah  for each event that takes place otherwise the events will remain as they are without knowledge of the ruling of Allah  with regards to them, and this is not allowed.

Ijtihadi fard ne na kifaya (fard ‘ala al-kifaya) a kan Musulmai. Idan wasu suka yi shi, sauran sun tsira daga zunubi. Idan babu wanda ya yi shi, to dukkan Musulmai za su yi zunubi a lokacin da babu mujtahidai. Saboda haka, ba a halatta ko kadan zamani ya zama babu mujtahidi ba, domin fahimtar addini da ijtihadi fard ne na kifaya, wanda idan kowa ya yarda ya bar shi, to zai yi zunubi. Ko da an halatta zamani ya zama babu wanda zai yi shi, to mutanen wancan zamanin za su zama sun amince da batanci, wato barin karɓar hukunce-hukuncen Allah, kuma wannan ba a halatta ba. Balle ma hanyar sanin hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a ita kaɗai ce ta ijtihadi. Idan zamani ya zama babu mujtahidin da mutane za su dogara da shi wajen samun ilimin hukunce-hukunce, hakan zai kai ga dakatar da Shari'a da goge hukunce-hukunce, kuma wannan ba a halatta ba.

Ijtihād is a fard of sufficiency (fard ‘ala al-kifaya) on the Muslims. If some undertake it then the rest are absolved from the sin. If no one performs it then all of the Muslims are sinful in the period when there are no mujtahids. Therefore, it is absolutely not allowed for any age to be devoid of a mujtahid because understanding the deen and Ijtihād is a fard of sufficiency, where if everybody agrees to leave it they will be sinful. Even if it was allowed for an age to be devoid of someone who will undertake it, then the people of that time will have to agree on misguidance, that is, on the abandonment of adopting the rules of Allah  and this is not allowed. Not to mention the fact that the method of knowing the Sharī’ah rules is only via Ijtihād. If an age is devoid of a mujtahid on whom people could rely to gain knowledge of the rules, it will lead to the suspension of the Sharī’ah and wiping out of the rules, and this is not allowed.

Mujtahid yana yin iyakar ƙoƙarinsa wajen fitar da hukunci. Idan ijtihadinsa ya yi daidai, to yana da lada biyu, kuma idan ya yi kuskure, zai sami lada ɗaya. Ya ce:

The mujtahid exerts his utmost to derive the rule. If he is correct in his Ijtihād then he has two rewards and if he makes a mistake he will have one. He  said

Sahabah sun yi ijma'i (matsaya ɗaya) cewa an ɗauke zunubi daga Mujtahidai a cikin dokokin Shari'a dangane da al'amuran fiqhi na hasashe (masu cin ra'ayi). Amma game da al'amuran tabbatattu, kamar wajabcin ibada, haramcin zina da kisan kai, babu ijtihadi ko saɓani a kansu. Shi ya sa Sahabbai suka sabanta a kan al'amuran hasashe, ba a kan al'amuran tabbatattu ba.

The Sahabah formed an ijma’ (consensus) that the sin is taken off from the Mujtahiddin in the Sharī’ah rules in terms of the speculative fiqhi (jurisprudential) issues. As for the definite issues such as the obligation of the worships, prohibition of fornication and murder there is no Ijtihād or dispute with respect to them. That is why the Sahabah  disagreed on the speculative issues and not on the definite issues.

Mujtahidin a masa’loli na zato (ijtihadi) yana daidai da abin da ya kai ga ta hanyar ijtihadinsa, koda yake yana iya yin kuskure a ra’ayinsa. Duk da haka, kasancewar yana daidai ba yana nufin ya kai ga gaskiyar manufa ba, domin wannan ba ya dacewa da hakikanin hukuncin zato, tun da Manzon Allah ﷺ ya kira shi mukhti’ (mai kuskure). Abin da ake nufi da cewa mujtahidi yana daidai shi ne ta fuskar da ba ta kore kuskure ba, ba ta fuskar kai ga gaskiyar manufa (isaba) wadda ita ce akasin kuskure. Saboda haka, kiran wanda ya yi kuskure a ijtihadi da musib (mai daidai) yana nufin cewa nassi yana ba mujtahidi lada koda ya yi kuskure, ba yana nufin cewa bai yi kuskure ba. Don haka, kowane mujtahidi yana daidai bisa abin da yake ganin daidai ne, wanda hakan ba ya kore kuskure. Daidaito a nan yana cikin ma’anar samun daidai, ba cikin ma’anar kai ga gaskiyar manufa ba.

The mujtahid in the speculative issues is correct in what he has arrived at by his Ijtihād even if he is liable to make a mistake in his opinion. However, being correct does not mean that he has hit the true target because this does not agree with the reality of a speculative rule since the Messenger  called him a mukhti’ (one who has made a mistake). Rather what is meant by saying that the mujtahid is right is in terms that do not rule out a mistake and not in terms of hitting the true target (isaba) which is the opposite of mistake. So describing someone who makes a mistake in Ijtihād as right (musib) is in the meaning that the text rewards the mujtahid even when he makes a mistake and not in the sense that he did not make a mistake. Therefore, every mujtahid is right according to what he thinks is right which does not rule out mistake. It is in terms of getting it right and not in terms of hitting the true target.