これは、ウハドの事例と同じ部類に属する意見、すなわち行動の実施につながる意見に関するものです。したがって、行動の実施につながるあらゆる意見においては、多数派の意見が優先されます。例えば、指導者の選出、知事（wali）の罷免、あるいはあるプロジェクトの決定などがこれにあたります。多数派の意見を採用することは必須であり、それは正しいか誤っているかに関わらず拘束力を持ちます。
This is regarding the opinion over the same category as in the case Uhud that is, an opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. So in any opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action, the majority is preferred such as in the election of a leader, or the removal of a governor (wali) or to decide on a project etc. It is incumbent that the majority opinion be adopted and that is binding irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.
世界における意見の実態に関する証拠を適用すると、拘束力を持つ意見、すなわち多数意見が優先される意見が、ウフドの事例と同じ部類に属することが明らかになる。それは、「もしあなた方二人がマシューラ（mashura）について合意したなら……」という彼の言葉に言及されている「al-mashura」に該当する。行動の遂行につながる意見である。それ以外のものは拘束力を持たず、多数派の見解に基づいて行動することは義務ではない。したがって、拘束力を持つ意見、すなわち多数意見が優先される意見は、世界に存在する行動の一種、すなわち実行されるべき行動を論じる意見に限定される。
この適用によって、さらに次のことも明らかになる。シャリーア上の規定や、思考または専門的事項につながる意見については、どちらの場合も多数意見には注意が払われない。シャリーアの規定については、証拠の強さだけが考慮される。また、思考または専門的事項につながる意見、すなわち意見の一種である戦争や戦略に属するものについては、正しい意見だけが注目され、それ以外は顧みられない。
After the application of the evidences on the reality of opinions in the world it becomes clear that the binding opinion i.e, in which the majority is preferred, is of the same category as in the case of Uhud. It falls under the ‘al-mashura’ mentioned in his saying: “If both of you agree on a mashura...” It is the opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. Anything besides that is not binding and it is not obligatory to act upon based on the view of the majority. Thus, the binding opinion that is, in which the majority opinion is preferred, is restricted to one type of the actions that exist in the world which is the opinion that discusses the action which needs to be performed. Due to this application it also becomes clear that for the Sharī’ah rule and the opinion which leads to a thought or a technical matter no attention is given to the majority opinion in both cases. For the Sharī’ah rule, only the strength of the evidence is taken into account. And in the opinion which leads to a thought or technical matter i.e, which is of the type of opinion, war or strategy, only the correct opinion is given attention and nothing else.
したがって、定義とは拘束力のない意見であり、多数意見は従われない。というのも、それは決して「マシューラ（助言・協議）」に該当せず、ウフドの出来事もそれには当てはまらないからである。しかし、定義の問題はまた、思考を示す意見にも属する。なぜなら、定義するためにハукム・シャルʻイー（シャリーアの裁定）を研究することも、定義するために理性を研究することも、あるものの実在を研究してその真の本質、すなわちその実相を理解に至らしめるためのものだからである。それが実在と一致するときには、それが優先される。ゆえに、あるものを定義する際に優先されるのは正しい意見である。この点において、シャリーアの規定は研究されず、多数意見にも重きが置かれない。シャリーアの定義と他のあらゆるものの定義の間に違いはない。したがって、定義が定義される対象のすべての構成要素を例外なく包含し（ジャーミウ）、定義のいかなる構成要素も排除せず、かつ定義の意味に含まれないいかなる要素の包含をも制限するならば、その定義が他の定義よりも優先される。言い換えれば、定義される対象の実在と一致し、その実在の正しい描写を与えるがゆえに、正しい意見が優先されるのである。
Therefore, the definition is an opinion which is not binding i.e; the majority opinion is not followed since in no way does it fall under ‘mashura’, because the incident of Uhud does not apply to it. However, the question of definition also belongs to the opinion which indicates a thought because the study of the hukm shar’i in order to define it and the study of the mind to define it is the study of an actual thing in order to arrive at the understanding of its reality i.e, the understanding of its true nature. Whenever it is in agreement with the reality then that is what is preferred. Therefore, in defining a thing what is preferred is the correct opinion. In this the Sharī’ah rule is not studied and nor is any importance attached to the opinion of the majority. There is no difference between the Sharī’ah definition and the definition of any other thing. So when the definition is inclusive (jami’) of all components of the object being defined without exception or exclusion of any components of the definition and it restricts the inclusion of any component which does not come under the meaning of the definition then this definition is preferred over other definitions, in other words the correct opinion is preferred because it agrees with the reality of the object being defined, and gives the true description of this reality.
これはシューラーのフクム（判断）がイスラームにおいて明確であり、クルアーンとハディースの文言から明らかで、アッラーの使徒ﷺの行いの中で精緻に描写されている、ということです。しかしながら、正確な理解を得るという目的のため、人は、思考に至る見解と行動に至る見解との違いについて、見解の実態を論じる際に混乱することがあります。また、バドルの出来事とウフドの出来事の違いについての問題も、世界に広まる見解に証拠を適用する際に混乱を招くことがあります。見解の実態を論じる際には、行動へ導く見解と思考へ導く見解の間に違いはない、結局すべては行動に帰着する、と言われることもあるでしょう。では、この違いはどこから生じるのでしょうか。この問いへの答えは、両者の間には微妙な違いがある、ということです。思考へ導く見解に関しては、行動を考慮せずに、主題のみが論じられます。したがって、議論の領域は行動ではなく主題です。議論から意図されるのは、行動を考慮せずに研究される主題について一つの思考に到達することであり、その思考が行動の面でどのような帰結をもたらすかは問いません。例えば、リッダ（背教）戦争へのムスリムの出陣は、アブー・バクルによって、彼の統治下の一派がシャリーアの施行に反旗を翻したという領域で論じられました。ウマルは、それが強大で国家に挑戦している一派との戦いであり、国家がそれと戦えないかもしれない、という領域で論じました。こうしてアブー・バクルは言いました。「アッラーにかけて！彼らがアッラーの使徒ﷺに渡していたラクダの綱一本でも私に差し控えるなら、私は彼らと戦う！」 ‘Umar, when the matter became clear to him, had no choice but to withdraw from his previous opinion and follow the correct opinion, which was the opinion of Abu Bakr, because in reality the issue was that a faction under the Islamic rule had rebelled. The issue was not that a large faction was challenging the state. The real discussion is not about going out to war or not going out, as was the case at Uhud; rather, it is about whether the Bedouins' refusal to pay Zakah after the death of the Messenger ﷺ and their challenge to the state constitutes rebellion against the rule of the Sharī‘ah, or a challenge to the state by a large faction. This is the actual discussion. Therefore, it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to a thought, for which reference is only made to the correct opinion. The correct opinion is that a faction under the rule of the Islamic state had rebelled against the implementation of the Sharī‘ah rules. For example, Mu‘awiyya's request for the arbitration (tahkeem) of the Qur'ān between him and sayyidina ‘Ali by raising aloft the mushafs: was that a true arbitration of the Qur'ān, or was it a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali? ‘Ali saw it as a ploy, and many people with him viewed it as an arbitration of the Qur'ān. So, this subject should be studied in order to arrive at the true significance of raising the mushafs (scripts), which constitutes an opinion that leads to a thought. So the correct opinion is referred to, which is that it was a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali. For example, does the increase in the number of rulers weaken a state or strengthen it? In other words, as the number of rulers decreases, does the state become stronger, or whenever their number decreases does the state become weaker, and whenever their number increases does the state become stronger? In other words, does the cabinet in the democratic system become stronger whenever its members decrease and weaken whenever its members increase, or is it the opposite? イスラム国家において、カリフの補佐官（ムアウィヌーン）の数が減ると国家は強くなり、数が増えると弱くなるのか、それとも逆なのか。この問題は真実の実態に到達するために検討されるものである。したがって、それは思考へと導く見解であり、この主題においては正しい見解が認められる。すなわち、統治者の数が増えるほど国家は弱くなり、その数が減るほど国家は強くなるというものである。
This is the hukm of shura in Islam and it is clear from the texts of the Qur’ān and hadīth and it has been elaborately described in the actions of the Messenger of Allah . However, for the purpose of gaining a precise understanding someone may become confused when discussing the reality of opinions about the difference between an opinion through which a thought is reached and the opinion through which one arrives at an action. The question of the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud in applying the evidences on the opinions prevalent in the world may also become confused. It might be said when discussing the reality of opinions that there is no difference between the opinion which leads to an action and the opinion which leads to a thought, in the end all of them revert back to an action. So from where does this difference arise? The answer to this question is that there is a subtle difference between them. With respect to the opinion which leads to a thought, only the subject matter is discussed without considering the action. So the area of discussion is the subject and not the action. What is intended from the discussion is to arrive at a thought over a subject which is studied without considering the action irrespective of whatever this thought may entail in terms of actions. For example, the Muslims going forth in the apostasy (ridda) wars was discussed by Abu Bakr as being in the sphere that a faction under his rule had rebelled against the implementation of the laws of the Sharī’ah. ‘Umar discussed it in the sphere that it constitutes fighting a faction which is strong and is challenging the state and the state may not be able to fight them. Thus, Abu Bakr said: “By Allah! If they withhold from me the cord of a camel which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah I will fight them!” When the issue became clear to him ‘Umar had no choice but to retract from his previous opinion and follow the correct opinion, which was the opinion of Abu Bakr because in reality the issue was that a faction under the Islamic rule had rebelled. The issue was not that a large faction was challenging the state. The real discussion is not about going out to war or not going out as was the case in Uhud rather it is about whether the bedouin’s refusal to pay Zakah after the death of the Messenger and their challenge to state constitutes rebellion against the Sharī’ah rule or a challenge to the state by a large faction. This is the actual discussion. Therefore, it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to a thought, for which reference is only made to the correct opinion. The correct opinion is that a faction under the rule of the Islamic state had rebelled against the implementation of the Sharī’ah rules. For example, Mu’awiyya’s request for the arbitration (tahkeem) of the Qur’ān between him and sayyidina ‘Ali by raising aloft the mushafs, was that a true arbitration of the Qur’ān or was it a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali ? ‘Ali saw it as a ploy and many people with him viewed it as an arbitration of the Qur’ān. So, this subject should be studied in order to arrive at the true significance of raising the mushafs (scripts) which constitutes an opinion that leads to a thought, So the correct opinion is referred to which is that it was a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali. For example, does the increase in the number of rulers weaken a state or strengthen it? In other words, as the number of rulers decreases, does the state become stronger or whenever their numbers decreases does the state become weaker and whenever their number increases does the state become stronger? In other words, does the cabinet in the democratic system become stronger whenever its members decrease and weaken whenever its members increase or is it the opposite? Does the state in the Islamic system become stronger whenever the number of the Khalifah’s assistants (mu’awwinin) decrease and weaken whenever their numbers increase, or is it the opposite? This issue is studied in order to arrive at the true reality. So it is an opinion which leads to a thought and in this subject the correct opinion is accredited which is that whenever the number of rulers increases the state becomes weaker and whenever their number decreases the state becomes stronger.
これらは、ある思考へと導く意見の三つの例である。ここから明らかなように、議論の対象となるのは「主題」であり、「行為」ではない。主題についての議論は行為を確実にするものではあるが、議論の焦点は行為そのものにはなく、明確になったときに行為の遂行または不遂行を伴う、あるいは議論された思考によって要請される仕方で行為を遂行することになる、ある思考にある。したがって、議論の目的は主題についての意見、すなわち一つの思考に到達することにある。思考に到達した後、研究の後に得られた思考に照らして、行為の主題について決定がなされる。研究される意見は直接に行為へと導くものではなく、思考へと導くにすぎない。到達した思考は行為の遂行を伴うこともあれば、伴わないこともある。したがって、それは思考へと導く意見である。
一方、行為へと導く意見では、その行為が依拠する主題を考慮して行為の遂行が議論される。したがって、議論の対象は主題ではなく行為の遂行である。議論の目的は、行為を遂行するかしないか、あるいは特定の仕方で行為を遂行するかを決定することであり、主題を論じることではない。例えば、カリフを選出してバイア（忠誠の誓約）を与えようとするとき、カリフ制の主題、それが義務（ファルド）か推奨（マンドゥーブ）か、あるいは（共和国の）大統領を選ぶべきかカリフを選ぶべきか、ということは議論されない。議論されるべきは、「某を選出してバイアを与えるべきか、それとも別の人物を選出してバイアを与えるべきか」である。国家による融資の取得という行為が議論されるとき、その融資が許されるかどうかを論じるべきではなく、議論されるべきは「融資を受けるべきか否か」である。 そして新しい道路の建設が議論されるとき、その議論は、別の道路がその代わりとなっているために、この道路を開通させることが許されるかどうかであってはならない。議論されるべきは、道路を開通させるべきかどうかであり、行為そのものが、それに着手するかどうかの観点から論じられる。この行為に伴う事柄は議論されない。事柄についての議論とは、思考へと導く意見であるが、事柄そのものが議論の対象なのではなく、議論の対象となる事柄は、行為に着手するかどうかである。そうであれば、それは行為へと導く意見についての議論とみなされる。したがって意見は、行為に着手するために提示されることになる。例えば、アブー・バクルが自身の後継のハリーファに誰がなるべきかについてムスリムたちと協議したとき、それはハリーファの選出についての議論であった。すなわち、あの人かこの人のどちらが選ばれるべきか、ということである。確かに、その議論はハリーファ制という問題についてではなかった。それは行為へと導く意見についての議論であった。また例えば、ムアーウィヤとサイイドナ・アリーとの間の仲裁の合意が確定したとき、アリーの側の調停者を選ぶことについて議論が行われた。アリーはアブドゥッラー・イブン・アッバースを選んだが、彼の側にいたほとんどの人々はアブー・ムーサー・アル＝アシュアリーを選んだ。この議論は誰が調停者となるべきかについてであり、仲裁を受け入れるという問題についてではなかった。したがって、それは行為へと導く意見についての議論であった。さらに例えば、ムスリムの民衆が、国家がイスラームのメッセージを担うために必要な要素を満たすべく、あらゆる種類の機械や装置を製造する重工業を興すべきだという見解をとる一方で、彼らの統治者が、農夫の生活を向上させるためにダムを建設し農業を奨励すべきだという見解をとるならば、この議論は、重工業を進めるか、それともダムの建設に着手するかについてのものである。 議論の争点は、国家がメッセージ(イスラーム)を伝えるべきかどうかではない。議論すべきは、行動へとつながる意見についてである。
These are three examples of the opinion which leads to a thought. It is clear from these that the area of discussion is the subject and not the action even though the discussion in the subject would ensure actions yet the discussion is not focussed on the action but on a thought which upon becoming clear entails the undertaking or non-undertaking of an action or undertaking an action in a manner which is necessitated by the thought which has been discussed. So the discussion is for the purpose of arriving at an opinion in a subject i.e, to a thought. Once a thought is reached a decision will be made on the subject of the action in light of the thought arrived at after the study. The opinion which is being studied will not lead directly to an action rather it will only lead to a thought. The thought which is reached may entail the undertaking of an action or it may not. Consequently, it is an opinion which leads to a thought. As for the opinion which leads to an action, the undertaking of an action is discussed considering the subject upon which this action depends, so the area of discussion is the undertaking of an action and not the subject. The purpose of discussion is to determine whether or not to undertake an action or to undertake an action in a specific manner, the purpose is not to discuss a subject, For example when it is intended to elect a Khalifah and give Bay’a to him the subject of Khilafah is not discussed, Whether it is obligatory (fard) or preferred (mandub) and nor is the discussion; should we elect a president (of a republic) or a Khalifah? What should be discussed is: should so-and-so be elected and given Bay’a or should a different person be elected and given Bay’a? When the state’s action of taking a loan is discussed, the discussion should not be on the issue of whether or not it is allowed to take the loan rather what should be discussed is: whether the loan is to be taken or not ?. And when the building of a new road is discussed, the discussions should not be whether or not it is allowed to open this road due to the presence of another road taking its place but what is discussed is whether the road should be opened or not, the action itself is discussed in terms of whether or not to undertake it. The subject which is entailed by this action is not discussed. The discussion of a subject is an opinion which leads to a thought but the subject is not the area of discussion rather the subject under the area of discussion is whether to undertake an action. Then it will be considered a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. So the opinion will be put forward in order to undertake an action. For example, when Abu Bakr consulted the Muslims with regards to who will be Khalifah after him, it was a discussion about the election of a Khalifah i.e, should so-and-so or so-and-so person be elected. Definitely, the discussion was not about the issue of Khilafah. It was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example when the agreement of arbitration between Mu’awiyya and sayyidina ‘Ali was finalised, a discussion took place about selecting a mediator on the side of ‘Ali . ‘Ali chose ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas but most of the people with him chose Abu Musa al-Ash’ari. This discussion was about who will be the mediator and not about the issue of accepting arbitration. So it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example, if the Muslim populace take the view that they should establish heavy industry to manufacture all types of machinery and equipment in order to fulfil the elements necessary for the state to carry the Message (of Islam) but their rulers take the view that they should establish dams and encourage agriculture in order to improve the livelihood of the farmer, this discussion is about whether to pursue heavy industry or to undertake the construction of dams. The discussion should not be whether the state should carry the Message (of Islam) or not. So the discussion is about an opinion which leads to an action.
これらは行為へとつながる見解の三つの例であり、議論の対象が主題ではなく行為であることは明らかである。これらの行為は、ある事柄に依拠している場合でも、その議論はそれらの事柄に焦点があるのではなく、行為を実行することに焦点がある。したがって、議論は見解についてではなく、行為についてである。
These are three examples of the opinion which leads to an action, and it is clear that the area of discussion is the action and not the subject. These actions even if they depend on certain issues, their discussion however is not focused on these issues rather on the undertaking of the action Therefore, the discussion is about the action and not about the opinion.
このことから、この議論と上記の例から明らかなように、思考につながる意見と行動につながる意見との間には違いがあり、その違いは微妙であるため、熟考と精査を必要とする。これらはすべて、思考につながる意見と行動につながる意見との違いに関して生じうる混乱に関連するものである。バドルの出来事とウフドの出来事の違いに関して生じうる混乱については、バドルの出来事とウフドの出来事には違いがないと主張されるかもしれない。両者ともに戦いに赴く出来事であり、両者の間に違いがないのなら、なぜバドルの出来事は思考につながる意見とみなされ、ウフドの出来事は行動につながる意見とみなされるべきなのか。これに対する答えは、両者の出来事には明確な区別があり、バドルの出来事の実態はウフドのそれとは異なるということである。ウフドでの問題は、「出撃すべきか、それともマディーナに留まるべきか」であった。それは熱意と慎重さに関わることであり、戦争における（戦略的な）布陣についての議論ではなかった。だからこそ、預言者ﷺがウフド山において戦略的な位置に軍を配置するために来られたとき、ご自身で軍を組織する任を引き受けられたのである。彼は弓兵たちを後方に待機させ、攻撃しないよう命じられた（完全な物語はアル・ブハーリーに記されている）。この行動について、彼は人々の意見を求められなかった。一方、バドルの実態では、問題は純粋に軍を戦略的な位置に配置することの問題であった。したがって、この行動については、神の使徒ﷺは正しい意見を採用された。これは一つの観点からのものである。別の観点からは、このことの証拠は、神の使徒ﷺの行動だけでなく、その行為と言葉の両方にもある。すなわち、神の使徒ﷺの言葉は、
From this discussion and the above examples, it is clear that there is a difference between the opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action even though this subtle difference requires reflection and scrutiny. All this is in relation to the confusion that can occur with respect to the difference between an opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action. As for the confusion that may occur with regards to the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud; it might be claimed that there is no difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud. Why should the incident of Badr be considered as an opinion which leads to a thought and the incident of Uhud be considered as an opinion which leads to an action when both involve going into battle and there is no difference between them? The answer to this is that there is a clear distinction between the two incidents since the reality of the incident of Badr is different to that of Uhud. The issue in Uhud was: Should they go out or remain in Madina? It was to do with zeal and cautiousness, the discussion was not about a (strategic) position in war. This is why we find the Prophet , when he came to organise the army in a strategic position on the mountain of Uhud, he assumed the task of organising them himself. He made the marksmen wait in the rear and ordered them not to attack (the complete story is available in AlBukhari), for this action he did not refer to the opinion of the people. As for the reality of Badr the issue was purely the question of arranging the army in a strategic position. So for this action the Messenger of Allah referred to the correct opinion. This is from one perspective. From another perspective the evidence for this is not just the action of the Messenger but it is his action and his saying as well. So the Messenger’s saying,