Hukumu Zinazotegemea Al-Istishaab - Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh | Quran Course

Hukumu Zinazotegemea Al-Istishaab - Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh | Quran Course

Inajulikana kwamba msingi (Asl) kuhusu dhimma ya mtu (wajibu na dhamana ya mtu) ni kutokuwa na deni wala haki ya mtu yeyote juu yake, isipokuwa pale ushahidi (Daleel) unapothibitishwa juu ya hilo.

It is known that the Asl (origin) in respect to the Dhimmah of the Insaan (liability/responsibility of the person) is its non-preoccupation in relation to the right of anybody unless a Daleel is established over it.

Mfano:

Example:

Ikiwa mtu anadai kwamba ana deni analostahili kupewa na mtu fulani, na mtu huyo anakanusha deni hilo, basi itafuata Istishaab ya Al-Baraa'ah Al-Asliyah (kutokuwa na hatia kwa asili), yaani kuachiliwa kwa dhimma yake (wajibu wake) kutoka kwenye deni hilo. Hii ni isipokuwa ikiwa mdai atathibitisha kuwepo kwa deni hilo kwa njia ya Bayyinah (ushahidi wa kushuhudia). Na ikiwa yule anayedaiwa ataombwa kuapa kiapo (Hilf) lakini akakataa, hukumu haitatolewa dhidi yake kwa sababu ya kukataa kwake. Hiyo ni kwa sababu asili ya jambo ni kutokuwa na wajibu, na Yameen (kuapa kiapo) ni kwa mdai tu; na akishafanya hivyo, ndipo yule anayeshtakiwa au anayedaiwa hukumu hutolewa dhidi yake (yaani hukumu hutolewa dhidi yake).

If a person claims that he has a debt owed to him from somebody and that person denies the debt, then it would follow the Istishaab of Al-Baraa’ah Al-Asliyah (original innocence) which is the freeing of his Dhimmah (liability) from the debt. This is unless the claimant proves the existence of the debt by way of a Bayyinah (testimonial evidence). And if the one who has the claim made against him is requested to swear an oath (Hilf) but refuses, judgment is not passed against him because of his refusal. That is because the origin or original position is being free of liability and the Yameen (swearing of an oath) is only upon the claimant and then if he does that the one being accused or who has a claim against him is judged against (i.e. the verdict is passed against him).

Sawa, nitumie maandishi unayotaka nitafsiri kwenda Kiswahili.

Another example:

Ikiwa mshirika anadai kwamba hajapata faida kutokana na biashara iliyofanywa, basi kauli yake inakubaliwa, kwa sababu faida ni jambo jipya lililoongezeka juu ya hali ya awali ya kutokuwepo kwake, isipokuwa ikiwa kuna Bayyinah (ushahidi) unaothibitisha kupatikana kwa faida.

If the partner claims that he has not received profit from the trade that has been conducted, he is believed in his speech because the profit is a newly added matter upon the original non-existence unless a Bayyinah (evidence) is brought confirming the gaining of profit.

Ikiwa ijmaa' imefanyika juu ya hukm ya suala fulani, kisha sifa (kipengele cha kuelezea) iliyomo katika suala hilo ikabadilika, je, hukm ya suala hilo inabaki vilevile? Wanachuoni wametofautiana kuhusu jambo hilo.

If Ijmaa’ occurs upon a Hukm of a particular Mas’alah (issue) and that Siffah (descriptive element/attribute) that is in the issue changes, then does the Hukm of the issue remain as it is? They (the ‘Ulamaa) have differed in respect to that.

Mfano:

Example:

Hukmu ya mtu aliyetayammamu kwa sababu ya kukosekana kwa maji, kisha akagundua maji wakati wa swala yake ni ipi? Na afanye nini kuhusu kuikamilisha Swalah yake au kutoikamilisha?

What is the Hukm if the one who has made Tayammum due to the absence of water discovered water during his prayer? And how should he act in respect to completing his Salaah or not completing it?

A – Abu Haneefah anaona kwamba Swalah yake inabatilika pale anapoona maji, na kwake ni lazima atawadhe na kuirejea Swalah yake. Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy, Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabari, Ibn As-Sabaagh na Mafaqihi wengine pia wamekubaliana na maoni haya. B – Ama Ash-Shaafi'iy, yeye anaona kwamba Swalah yake ni Swahihi (sahihi) na kuona maji wakati wa Swalah hakuna athari wala madhara yoyote kwenye Swalah yake. Maoni haya pia yaliungwa mkono na Dawood Azh-Zhaahiriy, Al-Aamadiy na Ibn ul-Haajib, miongoni mwa wengine.

A – Abu Haneefah views that his Salaah is invalidated upon the sighting of the water and Wudoo’ is necessary for him and to resume his Salaah. Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy, Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabari, Ibn As-Sabaagh and other Fuqahaa’ also agreed with this opinion. B – As for Ash-Shaafi’iy then he viewed that his Salaah is Saheeh (valid) and the sighting of the water during his prayer has no impact or effect upon his Salaah. This opinion was also upheld by Dawood Azh-Zhaahiriy, Al-Aamadiy and Ibn ul-Haajib amongst others.

At-Tarjeeh (Kuchagua kwa uzito wa dalili):

At-Tarjeeh (outweighing):

- Ubatili wa Tayammum pale maji yanapokuwepo kwa yule aliyefanya Tayammum kwa sababu ya kukosekana kwa maji umethibitishwa kwa maandiko na si kwa Ijmaa'. - Yule aliyefanya Tayammum anapoingia katika Swalah akiendelea na hali ya kukosekana kwa maji (Istishaab), basi anaanza Swalah yake akiwa ametimiza masharti ya usahihi wake kikamilifu, na hatoki katika Swalah yake isipokuwa kwa kitu kinachobatilisha. Kuona maji hakuvunji wala hakubatilishi Swalah, na Swalah ni tendo moja endelevu linaloanza kwa Takbeera ya Ihraam na kumalizika kwa Salaam. Kwa hiyo, Swalah yake inamhesabikia mradi alikuwa ametimiza masharti ya usahihi wake.

- The invalidity of At-Tayammum when water is present of the one who has made Tayammum due to the absence of water is established by the text and not by Ijmaa’. - When the one who made Tayammum entered into the state of the Salaah he was continuing upon (Istishaab) the case of the absence of the water and so he began his Salaah having met the conditions of its validity in full (completely) and he does not exit from his Salaah apart from by that which invalidates it. Seeing water does not break or invalidate the prayer and the prayer is one continuous action beginning with the Takbeer Al-Ihraam and ending with Salaam. Therefore, his performance of the Salaah counts for him as long as he had fulfilled the conditions for its validity.