Dalili inaweza kuwa na 'illah ya Hukmu, au 'illah ikachukuliwa kutoka kwa dalili moja au zaidi nyingine. Ingawa Hukmu imetokana na dalili, hata hivyo maana ya 'illah ndani yake huzingatiwa, bila kushikamana na namna iliyotajwa katika matini iliyokuja kushughulikia tatizo hilo wakati huo. Mfano wake ni kauli ya Allah (SWT),

The Daleel may include an ‘illah for the Hukm, or the ‘illah may be taken from one or more other evidences. Although the Hukm is derived from the daleel, nevertheless the sense of the ‘illah in it is observed, without adhering to the mode mentioned in the text that came to treat the problem at that time. An example is that the saying of Allah (swt),

{Na waandaeni kwa ajili yao kila mnaloweza la nguvu (za kijeshi) na farasi waliofungwa, ili kwa hayo mtie hofu adui wa Allah na adui wenu.} [TMQ Al-Anfal: 60]

“Prepare for them all you can of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby you strike fear in the heart of the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” [TMQ Al-Anfal: 60]

Hukm inahusu utayarishaji wa nguvu za kijeshi. Suala lililoshughulikiwa wakati huo ni kuandaa nguvu hizo kwa njia ya kufunga farasi, na maana ya 'illah (sababu ya hukm) inayotokana na Hukm hii ni kuwatia hofu adui. Kwa hiyo, tunapotoa leo kanuni ya kuandaa nguvu za kijeshi kutoka dalili hii, pia tunaiangalia maana ya 'illah inayotokana na Hukm, na hivyo tunaandaa chochote kinachohitajika ili kumtia hofu adui; bila kujifunga katika njia iliyotajwa katika matini (yaani kufunga farasi), katika kushughulikia tatizo lililopo wakati huo.

The Hukm concerns the preparation of force. The issue addressed at the time is preparing the force (via the tethering of horses), and the meaning of the ‘illah from this Hukm is; to strike fear in the enemy. Therefore, when we derive today the rule of preparation of force from this daleel, we also observe the meaning of the ‘illah from the Hukm, and accordingly we prepare whatever is needed to alarm the enemy; without restricting ourselves to the mode mentioned in the text (i.e. tethering the horses), in treating the problem at hand at the time.

Kwa hiyo, njia hii inapaswa kufuatwa katika kila daleel ambayo Hukm inatokana nayo, kwa sababu lengo ni kutimiza maana ya 'illah iliyokusudiwa kutoka kwenye Hukm. Kwa hivyo, Sharia ya Kiislamu inahitaji kwamba kanuni zinazohusiana na mahusiano ya kijamii (mu'amalat) zijengwe juu ya 'illah yake, na kwamba tuzingatie upande wa kisheria katika maandiko, si umbo ambalo maandiko hayo yalikuja nalo, tunapotoa kanuni kutoka kwenye maandiko hayo.

Therefore this approach should be followed in every daleel from which a Hukm is derived, since the purpose is to fulfil the meaning of ‘illah intended from the Hukm. Accordingly, the Islamic Sharee’ah requires that the rules related to the societal relations (mu’amalat) be based upon their ‘illah and that we observe the legislative aspect in the texts and not the form that they came in when deriving the rules from these texts.

Kama vile maandishi ya Qur’ani na Sunnah ni ushahidi wa Hukm Shar’ai, vivyo hivyo Ijma’a (makubaliano) ya Sahaba (masahaba) na Qiyas (hoja ya kulinganisha kwa kukisia) pia huchukuliwa kuwa ushahidi wa Hukm Shar’ai. Kwa msingi huo, ushahidi wa jumla (adillah ijmaaliyyah) kwa hukumu za shar’ai ni; Qur’ani, Sunnah, Ijma’a ya Masahaba na Qiyas. Kuhusu maoni ya Sahabi katika mambo yanayohusu Ijtihad yake, hayo si daleel, kwa sababu Sahabi ni kama Mujtahid yeyote, na yuko chini ya kukosea. Zaidi ya hayo, Masahaba walitofautiana katika baadhi ya masuala, wakiwa na maoni yanayotofautiana baina yao. Hivyo, kama maoni ya Sahabi yangechukuliwa kuwa daleel, basi ushahidi ungekuwa tofauti na unaopingana. Kwa hiyo, maoni ya Sahabi hayazingatiwi kuwa daleel ya shar’ai, bali inaruhusiwa kuyafuata kama maoni mengine yanayotambulika na madhehebu (madhaahib) nyingine. Hukumu ambazo Masahaba wamekubaliana juu yake si madhehebu kwao, bali ni Ijma’a.

Just as the text of the Qur’an and Sunnah are an evidence for the Hukm Shar’ai, the Ijma’a (consensus) of the Sahabah (companions) and the Qiyas (analogical deduction) are also considered as an evidence for the Hukm Shar’ai. Accordingly, the general evidences (adillah ijmaaliyyah) for the shar’ai rules are; the Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma’a as- Sahaba and Qiyas. As for the opinion of a Sahabi related to matters of his Ijtihad, it is not a daleel, because the Sahabi is like any Mujtahid, and is subject to error. In addition, the Sahabah differed over some issues, holding differing opinions to one another. So if the opinion of the Sahabi was taken as a daleel, then the proofs would be different and contradictory. Consequently, the opinion of the Sahabi is not considered a shar’ai daleel, but rather it is allowed to be followed like the other acknowledged opinions and schools of thought (madhaahib). The rules that are agreed upon by the Sahabah are not a madhhab for them, but rather they are Ijma’a.

Kuhusu Shari'a ya umma zilizotangulia (Shar'a min qablina), haichukuliwi kuwa Shari'a kwetu, wala haichukuliwi kuwa chanzo cha sheria. Ingawa 'aqīdah ya Kiislamu inatuamrisha kuamini manabii na Mitume wote, pamoja na Vitabu vilivyoteremshwa kwao. Maana ya kuviamini ni kuamini utume wao na ujumbe wao, na Vitabu vilivyoteremshwa kwao, si kwamba tuwafuate. Baada ya utume wa Muhammad ﷺ, watu wote wameamrishwa kuacha dini zao na kuingia katika Uislamu, kwani hakuna dini nyingine isipokuwa Uislamu inayokubaliwa. Allah (SWT) amesema,

As for the Shar’a of the earlier nations (Shar’a min qablina), it is neither considered a Shar’a for us, nor is it considered to be a source of legislation. Although the Islamic ‘aqeedah mandates for us to believe in all the prophets and messengers, and in the Books revealed to them. The meaning of the belief in them is belief in their prophethood and their messages and in the Books revealed to them, and does not mean to follow them. After the prophethood of Muhammad (saw) all peoples are ordered to give up their Deen and to embrace Islam, since no Deen other than Islam is accepted. Allah (swt) said,

Hakika, Dini mbele ya Allah ni Uislamu. [TMQ Al-i-Imran:19]

“Lo! The Deen with Allah is Islam.” [TMQ Al-i-Imran:19]

Mwenyezi Mungu (SWT) pia anasema,

Allah (swt) also says,

"Na yeyote atakayetafuta dini nyingine isipokuwa Uislamu, haitakubaliwa kutoka kwake." [TMQ Al-i- Imran:85]

“And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam it will not be accepted from him.” [TMQ Al-i- Imran:85]

Aya hii ni wazi (ṣarīḥ) kwa maana yake. Kutokana na aya hii kanuni ifuatayo imetolewa,

This ayah is explicit (SareeH) in meaning. From this ayah the following principle was derived,

"Sharia ya watu waliotangulia kabla yetu si sharia kwetu." Ushahidi mwingine wa kanuni hii ni kwamba Maswahaba walikuwa na makubaliano (Ijmaa') kwamba Sharia ya Muhammad ﷺ inafuta sharia zote zilizotangulia (sheria za kiungu). Pia Allah (SWT) anasema,

“Shar’a of the people before us is not a Shar’a for us.” Another evidence for this principle is the fact that the SaHaabah had a consensus (Ijmaa’) that the Shari’ah of Muhammad (saw) abrogates all the previous Shari’ah (divine laws). Also Allah (swt) says,

Na tumekuteremshia Kitabu hiki kwa haki, kikithibitisha yale Vitabu vilivyokuwa kabla yake na kuwa mlinzi na shahidi juu yake. [TMQ Al-Maida:48]

“And unto you have We revealed the Book with the truth, confirming whatever Book was before it and controlling over it.” [TMQ Al-Maida:48]

yaani kuwa na udhibiti na utawala juu yake. Ubora wa Qur’ani juu ya Vitabu vilivyotangulia unamaanisha kufutwa kwa Shariah zilizotangulia, yaani Qur’ani inathibitisha na kufuta Shariah zilizotangulia. Imepokewa kwamba Mtume ﷺ alipomwona ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab akisoma kutoka kwenye karatasi ya Tawrati, alikasirika sana na akasema,

i.e. to have control and supremacy over it. The supremacy of the Qur’an over the previous Books means the abrogation of the previous Sharee’ahs i.e. the Qur’an confirms and abrogates the previous Sharee’ahs. It was narrated that when the Messenger (saw) saw ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab reading from a leaf of the Torah, he (saw) got angry and said,

"Je, sikukuletea (jambo hili) safi na lisilo na uchafu? Na kwa Allah, kama ndugu yangu Musa angekuwa hapa sasa, asingekuwa na chaguo ila kunifuata."

“Didn’t I bring it pure and clean, and By Allah, had my brother Musa been present now he would have no choice but to follow me.”.

Mambo mengi ya ibada za Hija kama vile Tawaf kuzunguka Kaaba, kuigusa na kuibusu Jiwe Jeusi, na kukimbia kati ya Safa na Marwah yalikuwa yakifanywa pia wakati wa ujahilia. Hata hivyo, tunapoyafanya kama ibada, hatuyafanyi kwa kuyachukulia kuwa ni ibada za Shari'ah iliyopita. Badala yake tunayafanya kama sehemu ya Shari'ah ya Kiislamu, kwa kuwa Uislamu uliyaleta kama Hukmu mpya za Sharia, wala si kama sehemu ya Shari'ah iliyotangulia. Vivyo hivyo, hatufanyi wala hatufuati kabisa yale ambayo Dini zilizotangulia ziliyaagiza; bali tunafuata tu yale ambayo Uislamu ulituletea. Wayahudi na Wakristo wanaelekezwa kwa Shari'ah ya Kiislamu na wanaamriwa kuacha yao, kwa sababu Uislamu umeifuta Shari'ah yao. Ikiwa hii ndiyo wajibu kwa wafuasi wa Shari'ah ya Kiyahudi, nao ni Wayahudi, na kwa Wakristo, basi vipi Mwislamu aamriwe kuchukua Shari'ah zilizotangulia kuwa Shari'ah yake? Kuhusu kauli ya Allah (SWT),

Many of the rituals of Hajj such as Tawaf around the Ka’abah, touching and kissing the black stone and running between Safa and Marwah were practised at the time of jahiliyyah. However when we perform them as ‘ibadat, we don’t practise them considering them as rituals of a previous Shari’ah. Rather we perform them as part of the Islamic Shari’ah, since Islam brought them as new AHkam Sharai’ah, and not as part of a previous Shari’ah. Similarly, we do not at all perform nor abide by what previous Deens prescribed, rather we only follow what Islam brought us. The Christians and the Jews are addressed with the Islamic Shari’ah and ordered to leave theirs, because Islam abrogated it. If this is the obligation on the followers of the Jewish Shari’ah and they are Jews and the Christians, then how can a Muslim be ordered to take the previous Sharee’ahs as his Sharee’ah? With regards to the saying of Allah (swt),

"Tulikufunulia kama tulivyomfunulia Nuhu." [TMQ An-Nisaa:163]

“We revealed to you as we revealed to Noah.” [TMQ An-Nisaa:163]

Hii ina maana kwamba Yeye (SWT) alimfunulia Muhammad ﷺ kwa namna ile ile alivyowafunulia manabii wengine.

What is meant by this is that He (swt) revealed to Muhammad (saw) the same way as He revealed to the other prophets. And,

"Amekuwekea sheria ya Dini aliyomuusia nayo Nuhu." [Tmq Ash-Shura:13]

“He has ordained for you that Deen which He commanded unto Noah.” [Tmq Ash-Shura:13]

Hii ina maana kwamba Yeye ndiye aliyeweka msingi wa tawHeed, ambao aliuweka kwa Nuhu. Katika Aya,

This means that He ordained the origin of tawHeed, which He ordained for Noah. In the Ayah,

"Kisha Sisi tukakufunulia: Fuata dini ya Ibrahim." [TMQ An-Nahl:123]

“Then we revealed to you to follow the faith (mellah) of Ibrahim.” [TMQ An-Nahl:123]

Hii ina maana ya kufuata msingi wa tawḥīd, kwa kuwa ‘mellah’ ina maana ya msingi wa tawḥīd. Ufahamu wa aya hizi zote na zinazofanana nazo ni kwamba Mtume ﷺ si mzushi miongoni mwa mitume (wa Allah), bali alitumwa kama wao, na kwamba msingi wa tawḥīd ni Dini ambayo ni ya pamoja kwa manabii wote na mitume wote. Kila mtume alitumwa na Dini maalum; Allah (SWT) anasema,

This means to follow the origin of tawHid, because ‘mellah’ means the origin of tawHeed. The understanding of all these verses and the like is that the Messenger (saw) is not an innovator among the messengers (of Allah), rather he was sent (as a messenger) like them and that the origin of tawHeed is the Deen common to all prophets and messengers. Every messenger had been sent with a specific Deen; Allah (swt) says,

"Kwa kila mmoja wetu tumemweka Sharia na njia iliyo wazi." [TMQ Al-Maidah:48]

“For each we have appointed a Sharee’ah and an open way.” [TMQ Al-Maidah:48]

Kwa hiyo, Shari'a ya umma zilizotangulia si Shari'a kwetu, wala haichukuliwi kuwa miongoni mwa vyanzo vya sheria ambavyo hukumu hutolewa kutokana nazo.

Accordingly the Shar’a of previous nations is neither a Shar’a for us and nor is it considered one of the legislative sources from which the rules are derived.

Kutoa hukumu za kisheria (Ahkam) hufanywa na mujtahidi, kwa sababu kujua hukmu ya Allah katika jambo mahsusi hakuwezi kufikiwa isipokuwa kwa Ijtihad. Ni lazima kuwepo na Ijtihad. Wanazuoni wa Usul wamesema kuwa Ijtihad ni fardhi ya kifaya (wajibu wa pamoja) kwa Waislamu, na kwamba hakuna kizazi kinachopaswa kukosa mujtahidi. Ikiwa Waislamu wote watakubaliana kuacha Ijtihad, watakuwa wenye dhambi, kwa sababu njia pekee ya kugundua hukmu za kimungu ni Ijtihad. Ikiwa kizazi chochote kingekosa mujtahidi mwenye uwezo wa kutoa Ahkam, hilo lingesababisha kuachwa kwa Shari'ah na kupotea kwa hukmu za kishari'ah, jambo ambalo limekatazwa waziwazi. Hata hivyo, Ijtihad ina masharti yaliyofafanuliwa na wanazuoni wa Usul. Inahitaji elimu pana, ufahamu sahihi wa matini, ujuzi wa kutosha wa isimu ya Kiarabu, pamoja na elimu ya mambo ya Shari'ah na ufahamu wa dalili zake (adillah).

Deriving AHkam is performed by mujtahids, because knowing the Hukm of Allah on a specific issue cannot be reached except by Ijtihad. There must be Ijtihad. The scholars of usool have stated that Ijtihad is a fard kifayah (collective obligation) on Muslims and that no generation should be without a mujtahid. If all Muslims agree to leave Ijtihad they would be sinful, this is because the only way of finding out the divine rules is by Ijtihad. If any generation was without a mujtahid who is able to derive AHkam, this would result in the abandoning of Shari’ah and lead to the elimination of the shar’ai rules, a matter which is expressly forbidden. Nevertheless, Ijtihad has conditions which have been elaborated by the scholars of usool. It requires broad knowledge, a correct understanding of the texts and a satisfactory knowledge of Arabic linguistics and it needs knowledge of the Shar’ai matters and an understanding of their evidences (adillah).

Kutoa hukumu za kisheria bila utafiti makini na uchunguzi wa kina hakuitwi istinbati (kuchota hukumu). Vivyo hivyo, kuwepo tu kwa maslahi fulani katika hukumu fulani, kisha kupotosha maana ya maandiko na kuyafasiri vibaya ili kupata hukumu hiyo, hakuitwi ijtihadi; bali ni kudhalilisha dini ya Allah (SWT), na mtu anayefanya hivyo anastahili adhabu ya Allah (SWT).

Extracting AHkam without careful study and without careful examination is not called Istinbat (deriving rules). Likewise, the mere presence of a benefit in a certain Hukm followed by misconstruing the texts and misinterpreting them to derive that rule is not called Ijtihad, it is rather an insult to the Deen of Allah (swt), and whoever commits that deserves the punishment of Allah (swt).

Ni kweli kwamba mlango wa Ijtihad uko wazi, lakini uko wazi kwa wanazuoni (ulema), si kwa wajinga. Mujtahid wamegawanyika aina tatu: mujtahid mutlaq na mujtahid madhab; hawa wawili wana masharti maalum. Kuhusu aina ya tatu, ni mujtahid anayefanya Ijtihad juu ya suala moja (mujtahid masa’alah). Mujtahid kama huyu anapaswa kuwa na uwezo wa kuelewa maandishi na kuchunguza suala hilo, dalili yake, na dalili ya wanazuoni wengine kuhusu suala hilo. Aina hii ya Ijtihad ni ya lazima kwa kila Muslim anayehitaji kujua hukmu za Allah, kwa kuwa Shar’a imekusudia kwamba Waislamu wapate wenyewe hukmu kutokana na dalili, yaani kuwa mujtahid katika masuala ya Dini yanayowahusu.

It is true that the door of Ijtihad is open but it is open for the scholars (ulema) not for the ignorant. mujtahids are of three types; mujtahid mutlaq and mujtahid madhab, these two have specific prerequisites. As for the third type it is the mujtahid who performs Ijtihad on one issue (mujtahid masa’alah). Such a mujtahid should be capable of understanding the text and to pursue the issue, its daleel and the daleel of other mujtahids concerning the issue. This type of Ijtihad is necessary for every Muslim who needs to know the AHkam of Allah, since Shar’a has originally ordained that Muslims derive by themselves the Hukm from the evidence, i.e. to be a mujtahid in the issues of the Deen necessary to them.

Hata hivyo, baada ya kuandikwa kwa madhehebu za mujtahidina na kanuni za Ijtihadi zilipopatikana na hukumu (Ahkam) kutolewa, wazo la Ijtihadi lilidhoofika miongoni mwa watu binafsi, na idadi ya mujtahidina ikapungua. Taqlidi ikaenea miongoni mwa Waislamu, na Ijtihadi miongoni mwao ikawa jambo lisilo la kawaida, hadi dhana ya taqlidi ikatawala kiasi kwamba baadhi ya watu wakaanza kutoa wito wa kufunga mlango wa Ijtihadi, na kuzungumzia taqlidi kama jambo la lazima. Kwa hiyo, sehemu kubwa sana ya Waislamu, kama si wote, wakawa ni wafuasi wa taqlidi (muqallidina).

However, after recording the madhabs of the mujtahids and the principles of Ijtihad and the AHkam were derived, the notion of Ijtihad became weak amongst individuals and the number of mujtahids decreased. Taqleed became prevalent amongst the Muslims and Ijtihad amongst them became unusual until the concept of taqleed prevailed to such an extent that some people started to call for closing the door of Ijtihad and to speak of taqleed as obligatory. Accordingly the overwhelming majority of Muslims, if not all of them, became muqallideen (followers).

Muqallid ni wa aina mbili; muttabi'a (mfuasi) na 'aammi (mtu wa kawaida). Tofauti kati ya muttabi'a na 'aammi ni kwamba muttabi'a huchukua hukumu iliyotolewa na mujtahid baada ya kuwa na uhakika na dalili ambayo mujtahid aliitegemea, na hafuati hukumu hiyo isipokuwa anapokuwa anajua dalili yake. 'Aammi ni yule anayemfuata mujtahid katika hukumu ya kishari'a bila kutafuta dalili. Muttabi'a ana daraja bora kuliko 'aammi, na wengi wa vizazi vya mwanzo walikuwa muttabi'a, kwa sababu walijishughulisha sana na kujifunza dalili. Zama za kudorora zilipofika na ikawa ngumu kwa watu kuwafuata mujtahidina, walianza kuwafuata wanachuoni na mujtahidina katika hukumu zinazowahusu bila kutafuta dalili. Kilichochochea hali hii ni kimya na kukubali kwa maulamaa kwamba mtu anaweza kuwa 'aammi hata kama ni mtu aliyesoma. Maulamaa walinyamaza kuhusu hili kwa sababu taqlidi inaruhusiwa, iwe muqallid ni muttabi'a au 'aammi. Hata hivyo, Muislamu kimsingi anapaswa kuweza kuzitoa hukumu za Sharia kutoka kwenye dalili zake, ingawa anaruhusiwa kuiga; hivyo anaruhusiwa kuwa muttabi'a, yaani anajua hukumu na anajua dalili yake na kuwa na uhakika nayo. Hili humfanya Muislamu astahili kufanya ijtihadi, hata katika suala moja, jambo ambalo ni la lazima kwetu katika zama zetu hizi. Hata hivyo, kutoa fatwa si kuchukuliwa kuwa ijtihadi katika suala, kwa sababu hakiangukii katika kundi la ijtihadi. Ni miongoni mwa aina mbaya zaidi za maandishi katika fiqhi. Hii ni kwa sababu baada ya zama za mujtahidina, wanafunzi wao na wanafunzi wa wanafunzi wao waliwafuata, na hawa wakageukia kufafanua maoni ya madhehebu, kuweka misingi yake na kuimarisha maoni yake. Zama hizo zilichukuliwa kuwa ndizo zama za dhahabu za fiqhi, ambamo vitabu vikuu vya marejeo ya fiqhi katika madhehebu mbalimbali viliandikwa. Vitabu hivi vinachukuliwa kuwa uti wa mgongo wa masuala ya fiqhi. Zama hizi ziliendelea hadi karne ya saba Miladia, baada ya hapo kukafuatia kudorora kwa fiqh. Katika zama hizi ndipo zilipoanza kazi za ufafanuzi na pembezoni (hashiya), nyingi zikikosa ubunifu, na Istinbat (kuchota hukumu) pamoja na Ijtihad hata katika suala moja tu. Kisha ikaja zama ambayo kudorora kulikuwa zaidi, ambapo ulamaa walifuata njia ya kuorodhesha masuala na hukumu bila kutaja pande zake mbalimbali na maelezo yake. Wakayaita masuala haya fatawa. Si sahihi kufanya fatawa hizi kuwa marejeo katika fiqh, na pia si sahihi kuzichukulia kuwa marejeo ya Ahkam Sharee'ah, kwa kuwa hazifuati mbinu ya Ijtihad katika kuchota hukumu.

The muqallid is of two types; muttabi’a (follower) and ‘aammi (layman). The difference between the muttabi’a and the ‘aammi is that the muttabi’a takes the rule derived by a mujtahid after they are convinced of the daleel which the mujtahid depended upon, and they do not follow it unless they are aware of the daleel. The ‘aammi is the one who follows the mujtahid in the shar’ai rule without looking for the daleel. The muttabi’a has a better level than the ‘aammi and most of the earlier generations were the muttabi’a, for they were greatly concerned with learning the daleel. When the age of decline came and it became difficult for the people to follow the mujtahids, they began to follow the scholars and mujtahids in the rules concerning them without seeking the daleel. What encouraged this situation was the silence and consent of the ulema that a person could be ‘ammi even if he was an educated person. The ulema were silent about this because taqleed is permissible, whether the muqallid is a muttabi’a or ‘ammi. However, the Muslim should originally be able to take the AHkam from its daleel, although they are allowed to imitate thus they are allowed to be muttabi’a, i.e. they know the rule and knows its daleel and becomes convinced of it. This makes the Muslim qualified for Ijtihad, even in a single issue, a matter which is necessary for us in our current age. However, issuing a fatwa is not considered Ijtihad in an issue, because it does not belong to the category of Ijtihad. It is of the worst type of writings in fiqh. This is because after the age of the mujtahids, their students and the students of their students followed and these turned to elaborating on the opinions of the madhab, laying down its foundations and consolidating its opinions. That age was considered to be the golden age of fiqh in which the master references of fiqh books in the various madhabs were written. These books are considered the backbone of the issues of fiqh. This era continued until the seventh century C.E., after which the decline of fiqh followed. In these ages commenting and footnotes began, most lacking originality, Istinbat (deduction of rules) and Ijtihad even on just a single issue. Then came an age in which the decline was deeper, where the ulema followed the way of listing the issues and the rules without making reference to their different aspects and details. They called these issues fatawa. It is incorrect to make these fatawa as a reference in fiqh and it is incorrect to take them as a reference for the AHkam Sharee’ah as well, because they do not follow the method of Ijtihad in deriving the rules.

Haijuzu kurejelea vitabu vya marejeo vilivyoandikwa kwa mtindo wa kuweka sheria katika vitabu vya sheria za Kimagharibi kama chanzo cha hukumu za Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa sababu vitabu hivyo ni aina ya kuiga sheria za Kimagharibi, na uwekaji huo wa sheria katika vifungu unapunguza fiqh. Vitabu hivyo vinatawaliwa na kuchukua masuala ya fiqh bila dalili yoyote au kwa dalili dhaifu. Pia vinatawaliwa na wazo la kujirekebisha kulingana na zama na tafsiri potofu ili kuendana na mtazamo wa Kimagharibi katika kutatua matatizo. Mbali na hayo, vitabu hivyo havina upande wa kutunga sheria na havina Ijtihad. Kwa hiyo havifai kutumika wala kuwa marejeo. Kuwepo kwake kumekuwa janga kwa fiqh na kwa utungaji wa sheria, kwa kuwa kulikuwa ni jaribio la kuiga lililodhoofisha mtazamo wa watu juu ya fiqh ya Kiislamu. Hili linatokea licha ya wingi mkubwa wa fiqh ya Kiislamu na ukweli kwamba ni fiqh tajiri kuliko zote za mataifa. Fiqh hii ni ya lazima kwa mahakimu na watawala, lakini kuiweka katika mfumo unaoiga muundo wa kanuni kumeipunguzia thamani na kuidhalilisha, na kuwafanya mahakimu, pale wanapojifungia katika maarifa ya kanuni hizo, kukosa ujuzi wa fiqh. Zaidi ya hayo, vitabu hivi havina lugha ifaayo ya kisheria, kwa kuwa ni mkusanyiko wa matini za fiqh za baadhi ya wanazuoni zilizowekwa kwa mpangilio wa namba. Hakuna juhudi zilizofanywa kutoa kanuni za jumla ambazo zingeweza kuchukuliwa kama msingi wa vifungu ambamo masuala mbalimbali yangeingia. Badala yake, masuala wenyewe yalipangwa kama vifungu tofauti, na hili halipatani na muundo wa kanuni. Hata pale baadhi ya vifungu vilipokuja katika mfumo wa kanuni, havikuelezwa kwa ukamilifu. Badala yake, vilikuwa si zaidi ya ufafanuzi kutoka vitabu vya fiqh, na karibu vifungu vyote vilifuata mtindo huu. Kwa hiyo, si halali kuzitumia kanuni hizo kama marejeo, kwa sababu ya mtindo wake wenye makosa, taarifa zake za juu juu, na kutengana kwake na kanuni zinazotambulika za Sharia ambazo zinatokana na dalili za kina (adillah tafSeeliyyah).

It is not permitted to refer to reference works written along the lines of the codification of western law books as a reference for Sharee’ah rules. This is because these books are a form of imitation of Western laws and such codification reduces the fiqh and is dominated by taking fiqh issues without any daleel or with a weak daleel. It is also dominated by the notion of adapting to the age and twisted interpretations to comply with the Western viewpoint in solving the problems. This is in addition to the lack of the legislative aspect and the absence of Ijtihad in these books. So they are not suitable for application or as a reference. Their existence was a disaster for fiqh and legislation because it was an attempt at imitation that weakened the people’s perception of Islamic fiqh. This is in spite of the vast amount of Islamic fiqh and it being the richest jurisprudence of all nations. This fiqh is indispensable for the judges and rulers, but codifying it in a form which imitates the canonical format has reduced and disgraced it and made the judges, when they confined themselves to the knowledge of these canons, ignorant in fiqh. In addition, these books lack the appropriate legal wording, because they are a host of jurisprudence texts of some jurists that have been introduced under numerical listing. No attempt has been made to generate general principles that could then themselves be taken as the subject of the articles under which different issues would fall. Instead the issues themselves were arranged as separate articles and this is incompatible with the canonical format. Even when some of the articles came in the form of principles they were not stated in a comprehensive manner. Rather they were no more than definitions from the fiqh books and almost all articles followed this style. Consequently, it is not permissible to take those canons as a reference, because of their erroneous style, superficial information, and remoteness from the recognised Sharee’ah rules which are based on the detailed evidences (adillah tafSeeliyyah).

Ili kuandaa katiba na kanuni zinazoweza kueleweka na kufuatwa na majaji na watawala, mbinu ifuatayo ya kutunga sheria inapaswa kufuatwa:

In order to put together a constitution and cannons that can be comprehended and followed by the judges and rulers, the following method in legislation should be followed:

1. Matatizo ya kibinadamu yanapaswa kuchunguzwa, hivyo katiba ya jumla huandikwa ikishughulikia matatizo hayo kwa njia ya kanuni kuu za jumla au kanuni kamili za Shari'ah. Kanuni hizi na kaida hizi lazima zitokane na fiqh ya Kiislamu, kwa sharti kwamba zichukuliwe kutoka kwa mmoja wa mujtahidina, huku dalili yake ikitajwa na mtu akiwa ameridhika nayo, au zitokane na Qur'ani, Sunnah, Ijma' ya Maswahaba au Qiyas, lakini tu kupitia Ijtihadi sahihi, hata kama ni Ijtihadi katika suala moja. Katika utangulizi wa kila ibara, lazima itajwe madhhab ambayo ibara hiyo imechukuliwa kutoka kwake pamoja na dalili yake, au dalili ambayo ibara hiyo imetolewa kutoka kwake. Wala hali mbaya ya Waislamu, wala hali ya mataifa mengine, wala mifumo isiyo ya Kiislamu, havipaswi kuzingatiwa wakati wa kuandika katiba ya namna hii.

1. Human problems have to be studied, so a general constitution is written addressing them in the form of general comprehensive principles or comprehensive Shar’ai rules. These principles and rules have to be derived from Islamic fiqh, on condition that they are either taken from one of the mujtahids, mentioning their daleel and being convinced of them or from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma’a as-Sahaba or Qiyas, but only through a correct Ijtihad, even if it is Ijtihad on a single issue. In the introduction for each article, the madhab from which it is taken together with its daleel, or the daleel from which it was deduced, must be mentioned. Neither the influence of the bad situation of the Muslims nor the situation of the other nations or the non-Islamic systems should be taken into consideration when putting down such a constitution.

2. Hukumu za Sharia (Ahkam Shara'iah) zinapaswa kuandikwa kama rasimu ya kanuni kwa ajili ya kanuni ya adhabu (‘Uqubaat), haki (Huquq) na ushahidi wa kithibitisho (Bayyinaat). Hili lifanyike kulingana na vigezo vilivyotajwa hapo juu, liwe sambamba na katiba, kwa kurejelea madhehebu na dalili, kwa sharti kwamba muundo wake wa kisheria uwe wa kanuni za jumla, ili utumike kama marejeo kwa majaji na watawala.

2. AHkam Shara’iah should be put down as draft canons for the penal code (‘uqubaat), rights (Huqooq) and testimonial proofs (bayyinaat). This should be according to the aforementioned criteria, be compatible with the constitution, with reference to the madhab and the daleel on the condition that its legal composition is with general principles so to serve as a reference for the judges and the rulers.

3. Maandiko ya Shari'ah, fiqh ya Kiislamu na usul al-fiqh ndiyo yanapaswa kuwa msingi wa marejeo wakati wa kutafsiri katiba na sheria na majaji na watawala, ili kurahisisha njia za kuelewa kwa kina. Hakimu hairuhusiwi kutoa hukumu zinazopingana na yale ambayo dola imeyapitisha kwa sababu,

3. The Shar’ai texts, the Islamic fiqh and usool-ul-fiqh should be the reference point when interpreting the constitution and the laws by the judges and rulers, in order to facilitate the means of deep understanding. The judge is not permitted to issue verdicts contradictory to what the state has adopted because,

“Amri ya Imamu inapaswa kutekelezwa waziwazi na kwa siri.” Katika hali ambapo Dola haijapitisha kanuni, hakimu atatoa hukumu kwa kuzingatia Hukmu ya Shari‘a anayoiona kuwa inafaa kwa kesi hiyo, iwe ni maoni ya mmoja wa wanamujtahidi au maoni aliyoyapata kwa ijtihadi yake mwenyewe.

“The decree of the Imam is to be executed overtly and covertly.” In cases where the State has not adopted rules, the judge will issue the verdict based on the Hukm Shar’ai he views as applicable to the case, whether this opinion is of one from the mujtahids or an opinion derived by his own Ijtihad.

4. Wakati wa kuchambua hukumu na kuzichukua, ni lazima kuelewa uhalisia (wa jambo husika na kulifahamu kikamilifu), na kuelewa kile kinachohitajika kulishughulikia uhalisia huo kutoka katika dalili za Shari'ah; kwa maneno mengine, kuelewa hukmu ya Allah (SWT) juu ya jambo hilo, kisha kutumia hukmu hiyo juu ya uhalisia. Yaani, kufikia Hukmu Shar'i kwa kuelewa na kulifahamu kikamilifu uhalisia wa jambo husika.

4. When deriving the rules and adopting them, it is necessary to understand the reality (of the issue and comprehend it) and to understand what is necessary to treat the reality from the Shar’ai evidence; in other words to understand the rule of Allah (swt) on this issue and then to apply the rule on the reality. That is, to arrive at the Hukm Shar’ai by understanding and fully comprehending the reality of the issue.