Kitabu (Qur'ani), Sunnah, Ijmaa' ya Masahaba na Qiyas (kulinganisha kwa mfano) ndizo dalili pekee zinazozingatiwa katika sheria za Shari'ah, na haijuzu kuchukua sheria yoyote kutoka kwenye dalili nyingine zisizo hizi.

The Book, the Sunnah, the Ijmaa’ of the Sahabah and the Qiyas (analogy) are the only evidences considered in Shari’ah laws, and it is not permitted to adopt any legislation from other than these evidences.

Ibara hii haimaanishi kwamba Dola itapitisha njia ya Ijtihad; badala yake, inamaanisha kwamba Dola itafuata njia maalum wakati wa kupitisha hukumu za Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa sababu kupitishwa kwa hukumu za Shari'ah kunaweza kuwa wajibu katika baadhi ya kesi, au kuruhusiwa kwa Dola katika kesi nyingine. Iwapo kupitishwa huku kungefanywa kwa njia mbili zinazopingana, kungesababisha mgongano katika misingi ambayo kupitishwa huko kumefanywa. Kwa hiyo, Dola inapaswa kupitisha njia maalum katika kupitisha hukumu za Shari'ah. Sababu tatu zilisababisha kupitishwa kwa njia kama hiyo katika kupitisha hukumu:

This article does not imply that the State will adopt a method of Ijtihad; it rather means that the State will follow a specific method when adopting the Shari’ah rules. This is because the adoption of the Shari’ah rules could either be obligatory in some cases or, in other cases, permitted for the State. If this adoption were to be conducted in two contradictory methods, it would lead to a contradiction in the basics upon which the adoption has been conducted. Therefore, the State ought to adopt a specific method in adopting the Shari’ah rules. Three reasons prompted the adoption of such a method in the adoption of rules:

Kwanza, kanuni ambayo Muislamu anapaswa kuifuata ni kanuni ya Sharia na si kanuni ya kiakili; kwa maneno mengine, ni hukumu ya Allah katika jambo hilo na si hukumu iliyowekwa na mwanadamu. Kwa hiyo, dalili ambayo kanuni hii inatolewa lazima iwe ile ambayo Wahyi umeileta.

Firstly, the rule by which the Muslim should proceed is a Shari’ah rule and not a rational rule; in other words, it is the rule of Allah in the matter and not the rule laid down by man. Therefore, the evidence from which this rule is deduced must be what the Revelation has brought.

Pili, uthibitisho kwamba ushahidi ambao hukumu ya Sharia imetolewa kutokana nao umeteremshwa kwa njia ya Wahyi lazima uwe wa uhakika. Kwa maneno mengine, ni lazima ushahidi ambao hukumu ya Sharia imetolewa kutokana nao uwe ushahidi wa uhakika na wa wazi, si ushahidi wa kutiliwa shaka, kwamba umeteremshwa kwa njia ya Wahyi. Hii ni kwa sababu ni sehemu ya Usul (misingi) na si sehemu ya matawi; kwa hiyo, kuwa jambo lenye uwezekano mkubwa au linalokaribia ukweli hakutoshi, kwa kuwa ni sehemu ya mambo ya 'Aqeedah na si sehemu ya hukumu za Sharia. Hii ni kwa sababu ushahidi unaohitajika kutolea hukumu ni ushahidi uliokuja kwa njia ya Wahyi, si ushahidi wowote tu. Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kuthibitisha kwa uhakika kwamba umeteremshwa kwa njia ya Wahyi, na mchakato wa kuthibitisha kwamba umetoka kwa Wahyi ni jambo la 'Aqeedah, si hukumu ya Sharia. Hivyo, ni lazima kuthibitisha kwa ushahidi wa hakika kwamba ushahidi umetoka kwa Wahyi, kwa sababu mambo ya 'Aqeedah yanaweza kuchukuliwa kwa uhakika kamili pekee.

Secondly, the confirmation that the evidence - from which the rule has been deduced - has been brought by way of Revelation must be conclusive. In other words, it is imperative that the evidence, from which the Shari’ah rule has been deduced, has conclusive and decisive, not indefinite, evidence that it has been brought by way of Revelation. This is because it is part of the Usul (foundations) and not part of the branches; thus, to be most likely or probable is not sufficient since it is part of the 'Aqeedah matters and not part of the Shari’ah rules. This is so because the evidence required to deduce the rule from is evidence which has come by way of Revelation, not just any evidence. Therefore, it is imperative to decisively confirm that it has been brought by way of Revelation and the process of confirming that it has been brought by Revelation is an 'Aqeedah matter not a Shari’ah rule. Therefore, it is imperative to establish that the evidence has come by way of Revelation by definite evidence because matters of 'Aqeedah can only be taken conclusively.

Tatu, jambo la kuhitimisha ni kwamba mwenendo wa mwanadamu katika maisha hufuata dhana zake kuhusu maisha. Ingawa mtazamo kuhusu maisha una 'Aqeedah kama msingi wake, bado umeundwa na mkusanyiko wa dhana, vigezo na imani zilizopo ndani ya Ummah. Si kila moja ya fikra hizi, zinazodhihirishwa katika mkusanyiko huu wa dhana, vigezo na imani, ni sehemu ya mambo ya 'Aqeedah. Badala yake, baadhi yake ni katika mambo ya 'Aqeedah na nyingine ni sehemu ya hukumu za Shari'ah. Kwa kuwa hukumu hutolewa kwa kiwango cha chini kabisa cha shaka, kuna hofu kwamba, iwapo chanzo cha hukumu hizo hakijathibitishwa kwa uhakika kuwa kimeletwa kwa njia ya Wahyi, baadhi ya fikra zisizo za Kiislamu zinaweza kuingia ndani ya Ummah kutokana na kuwepo kwa hukumu za Shari'ah zilizotolewa kutoka msingi ambao Wahyi haukuuleta mwanzoni. Iwapo jambo hilo litaenea na kutumika kwa muda mrefu, litaathiri mtazamo wa Ummah kuhusu maisha na hivyo kuathiri mwenendo wake. Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kuthibitisha kwamba dalili ambazo hukumu zitakazotekelezwa na Dola zinatolewa kutoka kwake ni dalili zilizoletwa na Wahyi.

Thirdly, what is conclusive is that man’s behaviour in life proceeds according to his concepts about life. Although the viewpoint about life has the 'Aqeedah as its basis, it is nevertheless formed of a host of concepts, criteria and convictions which are existent in the Ummah. Not all of these thoughts, which are reflected in this host of concepts, criteria and convictions are part of the matters of 'Aqeedah. Rather, some of them are from the matters of 'Aqeedah and others are part of Shari’ah rules, and since rules are deduced with the least amount of doubt it is ,therefore, feared that if the origin of the rules has not been conclusively confirmed as being brought by way of Revelation, then some of the non-Islamic thoughts may creep into the Ummah due to the presence of Shari’ah rules deduced from a foundation which Revelation has not brought in the first instance. If it is widespread and used over a long period of time it will influence the viewpoint about life held by the Ummah and consequently affects its behaviour. Accordingly, it is imperative to confirm that the evidences, upon which rules to be implemented by the State are deduced, must be those evidences brought by Revelation.

Ni kwa sababu ya sababu hizi tatu kwamba kupitisha mbinu maalum, ambayo kwayo hukumu za Shari'ah zinachukuliwa, ni jambo la lazima. Kuhusu ukweli kwamba dalili zimefungwa kwa dalili hizi nne za jumla zilizotajwa hapo juu pekee, hili linathibitishwa kupitia utafiti. Tumezisoma na kuzichunguza dalili ambazo zimethibitishwa kwa dalili yenye uhakika kuwa zimeletwa kwa njia ya Wahyi, na hatujapata chochote kingine zaidi ya hizi nne kabisa.

It is for these three reasons that the adoption of a specific method, according to which the Shari’ah rules are adopted, is imperative. As for the fact that the evidences are confined exclusively to the four general evidences mentioned above, this is confirmed through study. We have studied and scrutinised the evidences that have been confirmed by a conclusive evidence to have been brought by way of Revelation and we have not found anything other than these four at all.

Kuhusu Qur'ani, ushahidi kwamba imeteremshwa kwa njia ya Wahyi kutoka kwa Allah (swt), kwa maneno na maana yake, ni wa hakika kabisa. Muujiza wa Qur'ani ni ushahidi wa hakika kwamba ni Neno la Allah (swt) kweli na si neno la mwanadamu. Kwa hiyo, imethibitishwa kwa ushahidi wa hakika kwamba Qur'ani ni Neno la Allah (swt). Qur'ani yenyewe, ambayo imethibitishwa kwa hakika kuwa Neno la Allah kwa ushahidi wa muujiza, inasema kwamba ni Wahyi ulioteremshwa juu ya Mtume wa Allah ﷺ; Allah (swt) anasema:

As for the Quran, the evidence about the fact that it has been brought by way of Revelation from Allah (swt) in letter and spirit is conclusive. The miracle of the Quran serves as conclusive evidence that it is indeed the Word of Allah (swt) and not the word of man. Therefore, the conclusive evidence has been established that the Quran is the Word of Allah (swt). The Quran itself, which has been conclusively confirmed as being the Word of Allah by the evidence of the miracle, states that it is Revelation that descended upon the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ; Allah (swt) says:

"Roho Mwaminifu ameishusha; Juu ya moyo wako, [Ee Muhammad] - ili upate kuwa miongoni mwa waonyaji." (TMQ 26:193-4);

“The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down; Upon your heart, [O Muhammad] - that you may be of the warners.” (TMQ 26:193-4);.

"Na Qur'ani hii imefunuliwa kwangu." (TMQ 6:19);

“And this Quran has been revealed to me.” (TMQ 6:19);.

“Sema, “Mimi nakuonyeni tu kwa wahyi.”” (TMQ 21:45);.

“Say, "I only warn you by revelation."” (TMQ 21:45);.

Hatukukiteremshia Qur'ani ili upate taabu (uhuzunike).

“We have not revealed the Quran to you that you may be unsuccessful (become distressed).” (TMQ 20:1);.

“Na hakika wewe (Muhammad ﷺ) unapokewa Qur'ani.” (TMQ 27:6);

“And indeed, [O Muhammad], you receive the Qur'an.” (TMQ 27:6);.

"Hakika Sisi ndio tuliyekuteremshia wewe, [Ee Muhammad], Qur'ani kwa awamu." {Hakika Sisi ndio tuliyekuteremshia wewe, [Ee Muhammad], Qur'ani kwa awamu.} (TMQ 76:23) na

“Indeed, it is We who have sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Qur'an progressively.” (TMQ 76:23) and.

“Tumekuteremshia Qur'ani ya Kiarabu.” (TMQ 42:7). Haya ni ushahidi wa wazi unaothibitisha kwamba Qur'ani imeletwa kwa njia ya Wahyi kutoka kwa Allah (SWT).

“We have revealed to you an Arabic Qur'an.” (TMQ 42:7). These are conclusive evidences establishing the fact that the Quran has been brought by way of Revelation from Allah (swt).

Kuhusu Sunnah, ushahidi wa wazi kwamba ni Wahy (Ufunuo) uliotoka kwa Allah (swt) kimaana, na kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ aliueleza kwa maneno yake mwenyewe, ni ule uliojitokeza wazi katika Aya za Qur'an. Allah (swt) anasema:

As for the Sunnah, the conclusive evidence about the fact that it is Revelation which has come from Allah (swt) in meaning, and that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) expressed it by his own words is what came clearly indicated in the Verses of the Quran. Allah (swt) says:

"Wala hasemi kwa matamanio yake (hawi). Hayo si chochote isipokuwa ni ufunuo unaoteremshwa kwake." (TMQ 53:3-4);

“Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination; It [the Quran] is nothing but revelation sent down to him.” (TMQ 53:3-4);.

"Tumekufunulia wewe, [Ewe Muhammad ﷺ], kama tulivyomfunulia Nuhu na manabii waliomfuata."

“We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the Prophets after him.” (TMQ 4:163);.

“Sifuati isipokuwa yale yanayofunuliwa kwangu kutoka kwa Mola wangu.” {TMQ 6:50}; “Sema,

“I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord.” (TMQ 6:50); “Say,.

"Mimi sifuati ila kile kinachofunuliwa kwangu."" (TMQ 7:203); "Sema,

"I only follow what is revealed to me."” (TMQ 7:203); “Say,.

"Mimi nakuonya tu kwa wahyi." (TMQ 21:45) Na Allah (SWT) anasema.

"I only warn you by revelation."” (TMQ 21:45) And Allah (swt) says.

"Na chochote Mtume ﷺ alichokupa, kichukueni; na alichokukataza, jiepusheni nacho." (TMQ 59:7).

“And whatever the Messenger (pbuh) has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from.” (TMQ 59:7).

Haya ni ushahidi walio wazi unaoonyesha kwamba kila kitu alichokisema Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ katika Sunnah kimekuja kwa njia ya Wahyi; pia ni ushahidi walio wazi unaoonyesha kwamba Allah (SWT) ametuamuru waziwazi katika Qur'ani tufuate yale aliyotuamuru Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ na tujiepushe na yale aliyotukataza. Amri hii ni ya jumla. Kwa hiyo, ushahidi kwamba Sunnah imekuja kwa njia ya Wahyi ni wa uhakika, kwa sababu umethibitishwa na aya ya Qur'ani yenye uhakika, iliyo wazi katika maana yake iliyokusudiwa.

These are clear evidences denoting that whatever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has uttered in terms of the Sunnah has come by way of Revelation; they also serve as clear evidences denoting that Allah (swt) has explicitly ordered us in the Quran to abide by what the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered us and to abstain from what he prohibited for us. This command is general. Hence, the evidence about the fact that the Sunnah has come by way of Revelation is conclusive because it has been established by a conclusive Quranic text that is definite in its intended indication.

Kuhusu Ijmaa' ya Maswahaba, ambayo inachukuliwa kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah, maana yake ni makubaliano ya jumla ya Maswahaba kwamba hukumu fulani ni hukumu ya Shari'ah, au makubaliano yao ya jumla kwamba hukumu inayohusu jambo fulani ni hivi au hivi. Kwa hiyo, iwapo watakubaliana kwa pamoja kuhusu hukumu fulani kuwa ni hukumu ya Shari'ah, Ijmaa' yao (makubaliano ya jumla) itachukuliwa kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah.

As for the Ijma’ of the Companions, which is considered a Shari’ah evidence, it means the general consensus of the Companions that such rule is a Shari’ah rule, or their general consensus that the rule pertaining such and such matter is so and so. Hence, if they unanimously consented about a certain rule as being a Shari’ah rule, their Ijma’ (general consensus) would be considered a Shari’ah evidence.

Ushahidi wa hili unaonekana katika mambo mawili: kwanza, Allah (SWT) aliwasifu katika Qur'ani kupitia maandishi ambayo maana yake ni wazi na ya uhakika. Allah (SWT) amesema:

The evidence for this is reflected in two matters: firstly, Allah (swt) praised them in the Quran through a text that is conclusive and definite in meaning. Allah (swt) said:

"Na waliotangulia kwanza miongoni mwa Muhajirina na Ansari, na wale waliowafuata kwa wema - Mwenyezi Mungu ameridhika nao, nao wameridhika naye, na amewaandalia mabustani yanayopita mito chini yake, wataishi humo milele. Huo ndio ushindi mkubwa."

“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.” (TMQ 9:100).

Sifa hii ambayo Allah (SWT) anawasifu nayo Muhajirina (wahamiaji), Ansari (Wasaidizi) na wale waliowafuata kwa wema, kutokana na uhamiaji wao na msaada wao, ni sifa ya Maswahaba kwa sababu wale wanaosifiwa ni Maswahaba na maana ya aya imejikita kwao peke yao. Sifa hii ni kwa wote wao, na ukweli wa wale ambao Allah (SWT) anawasifu kwa namna hiyo ni wa hakika isiyopingika.

This praise by Allah (swt) of the Muhajirin (emigrants), the Ansar (Helpers) and those who followed them with righteousness, due to their emigration and their support, is a praise of the Companions because those praised are the Companions and the meaning of the verse is confined to them. This praise is for all of them and the truthfulness of those whom Allah (swt) praises in such a way is conclusive.

Jambo la pili ni kwamba sisi tumechukua Dini yetu kutoka kwa Maswahaba hao, kwa kuwa wao ndio waliotupokezia Qur'ani hii hasa iliyoteremshwa kwa bwana wetu Muhammad ﷺ. Kwa hiyo, tukidhania kwamba kasoro inaweza kuingia katika jambo moja kati ya yale waliyokubaliana, maana yake ni kwamba kasoro hiyo inaweza kuingia katika Qur'ani; kwa maneno mengine, kasoro inaweza kuingia katika Dini ambayo tuliichukua kutoka kwao, na hili haliwezekani kwa mtazamo wa Shari'ah. Basi, ingawa kwa mtazamo wa akili si jambo lisilowezekana kwa Maswahaba kukubaliana kwa pamoja juu ya jambo lenye makosa, kwa kuwa wao ni binadamu tu, hata hivyo jambo hilo haliwezi kabisa kuwatokea kwa mtazamo wa Shari'ah, kwa sababu kama lingewezekana, basi ingewezekana kwa makosa kuingia katika Dini. Kwa maneno mengine, ingewezekana kwa makosa kuingia katika ukweli kwamba Qur'ani hii tuliyo nayo leo ndiyo ile ile iliyoteremshwa kwa bwana wetu Muhammad ﷺ, na hili haliwezekani kwa mtazamo wa Shari'ah; hivyo, haiwezekani kwao kukubaliana kwa ujumla juu ya jambo lenye makosa.

The second matter is that we have taken our Deen from those Companions since they are the ones who transmitted to us the very Quran that had descended upon our master Muhammad . Hence, if we assumed that a flaw were to creep into one single matter from among what they had agreed upon, this means that the flaw could creep into the Quran; in other words, the flaw could creep into the Deen which we had taken from them and this is impossible from the angle of Shari’ah. Therefore, although it would not be rationally impossible for the Companions to unanimously agree upon an erroneous matter - for this could happen since they are only human - however, this could not possibly happen to them from the Shari’ah point of view since if this were possible, it would then be possible for error to creep into the Deen. In other words, it would be possible for error to creep into the fact that this Quran that we have today is the very same Quran that descended upon our master Muhammad , and this is impossible from the Shari’ah point of view; thus, it would be impossible for them to generally consent on something erroneous.

Hii ni dalili ya wazi kwamba Ijma' ya Maswahaba ni dalili ya Shari'ah. Zaidi ya hayo, Allah (SWT) anasema:

This serves as a conclusive proof that the Ijma’ of the Companions is a Shari’ah evidence. In addition, Allah (swt) says:

"Hakika Sisi ndio tuliouteremsha Qur'ani, na hakika Sisi ndio tutakaoulinda." (TMQ 15:9). Kwa hiyo, Allah (SWT) ameahidi kuilinda Qur'ani, na yule aliyeipokea na kuipitisha Qur'ani hii ndiye aliyeilinda; hivyo, hili ni ushahidi wa ukweli wa Ijma' yao katika kuipitisha na kuikusanya Qur'ani. Hivyo, ni ushahidi wa usahihi wa makubaliano yao ya jumla, kwa sababu kama ingewezekana makubaliano yao kuwa na kasoro, ingewezekana pia usambazaji wa Qur'ani kuwa na kasoro, na ingewezekana kwake kutolindwa. Basi, kwa kuwa kutolindwa kwa Qur'ani hakuwezekani, kama inavyoonyeshwa na Aya hiyo, basi haiwezekani kwa makosa kuingia katika usambazaji wake, au katika ukusanyaji wake, au katika ulinzi wake. Hivyo, Ijma' ya Maswahaba ni ushahidi wa uhakika.

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (TMQ 15:9). Therefore, Allah (swt) has promised to protect the Quran and he who transmitted this Quran is he who protected it; thus, this serves as evidence about the truthfulness of their Ijma’ in transmitting and compiling the Quran. Hence, it serves as proof about the soundness of their general consensus because if it were possible for their consensus to be flawed, it would be possible for the transmission of the Quran to be flawed and it would be possible for it to be unprotected. Therefore, since the non-protection of the Quran is impossible, as indicated by the Verse, then it is impossible for error to creep into its transmission or its compiling or its protection. Hence, the Ijma’ of the Companions is a conclusive evidence.

Lakini jambo linalopaswa kuwa wazi kabisa ni kwamba Ijmaa' ya Maswahaba inayobainisha kwamba hukumu fulani ni hukumu ya Shari'ah ni kufichua tu dalili; kwa maneno mengine, kuna dalili ya hukumu hiyo inayotokana ama na kitendo, maneno au kimya cha Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, na kwamba Maswahaba walipokea hukumu hiyo lakini hawakupokea dalili yake. Kwa hiyo, kupokelewa kwao hukumu kunaonyesha kuwepo kwa dalili ya hukumu hiyo. Hivyo, makubaliano yao ya jumla hayamaanishi kwamba maoni yao binafsi yanaafikiana juu ya jambo mahsusi, kwa kuwa maoni yao binafsi si Wahyi, na kila mmoja wao si asiyekosea; hivyo, maoni ya Swahaba hayawezi kuchukuliwa kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa sababu dalili ya Shari'ah lazima ije kwa njia ya Wahyi ili izingatiwe kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah, na maoni ya Maswahaba si ya namna hiyo; kwa hiyo, hayawezi kuchukuliwa kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah, iwe yalikuwa ni maoni waliyokubaliana juu yake au maoni waliyotofautiana juu yake. Kwa sababu hii, Ijmaa' ya Maswahaba haimaanishi kuafikiana kwao juu ya maoni moja pekee, bali inamaanisha makubaliano yao ya jumla kwamba hukumu fulani ni hukumu ya Shari'ah, au kwamba hukumu fulani ni hukumu ya Shari'ah; katika hali hii, si maoni yao bali ni makubaliano ya jumla kwamba hilo limetoka katika Shari'ah; hivyo, Ijmaa' ya Maswahaba ni kufichua tu dalili.

However, what should be made absolutely clear is that the Ijma’ of the Companions stipulating that such and such rule is a Shari’ah rule is simply uncovering an evidence; in other words, there exists for this rule an evidence derived either from the action, words or silence of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) , and that the Companions transmitted the rule but did not transmit the evidence. Hence, their transmission of the rule discloses the fact that there exists an evidence for that rule. Therefore, their general consensus does not mean that their personal opinions are in agreement over a specific matter for their personal opinions are not Revelation and each one of them is not infallible; thus, a companion’s opinion cannot be regarded as a Shari’ah evidence. This is because the Shari’ah evidence must be brought by way of Revelation in order to be considered as Shari’ah evidence, and the Companions’ opinions are not like that; therefore, they cannot be considered as Shari’ah evidence whether these were the opinions upon which they agreed or the opinions over which they disagreed. For this reason, the Ijma’ of the Companions does not mean their agreement upon one single opinion, it rather means their general consensus about the fact that a rule is a Shari’ah rule, or such and such rule is a Shari’ah rule; in this case, it is not their opinion but rather a general consensus that it is from Shari’ah; hence, the Ijma’ of the Companions is simply uncovering an evidence.

Kuhusu Qiyas, nayo pia ni dalili ya Shari'ah. Kilugha linamaanisha kukadiria, na katika istilahi ya Usul ni kufanya mfano wa kulinganisha jambo linalojulikana na jambo lingine linalojulikana, ili kuthibitisha hukumu kwa yote mawili au kuikanusha kwa yote mawili, kutokana na sababu ya pamoja iliyopo kati yao. Hivyo, ni kulinganisha hukumu ya jambo linalojulikana na jambo lingine linalojulikana kwa sababu ya kuunganishwa kwao katika 'Illah (sababu) ya hukumu hiyo. Kwa hiyo, ni kuipeleka hukumu ya asili (mzizi) kwenye tawi, au kwa maneno mengine, ni kuliunganisha tawi na mzizi. Maana ya kubeba jambo linalojulikana juu ya jambo linalojulikana ni kwamba mojawapo ya hayo mawili linashiriki hukumu moja na jingine, hivyo hukumu ya mzizi inathibitishwa kwa tawi, na tawi linashiriki hukumu sawa na mzizi. Hukumu hii ya mzizi inaweza kuwa ni uthibitisho; Al-Bukhari ameipokea kutoka kwa Ibn Abbas.

As for Qiyas, it is also Shari’ah evidence. Linguistically it means estimating and in the Usul terminology it is the making of analogy between a known matter upon another known matter in order to either confirm a rule for both of them or to disclaim it for both of them due to a mutual factor between them. Thus, it is comparing the rule of a known matter to another known matter due to their association in the ‘Illah (the reason) of the rule. Accordingly it is the extending of the root to the branch or in other words, the joining of the branch to the root. The meaning of carrying a known fact upon a known fact means that one of them shares the same rule with the other, so the rule of the root is established for the branch, and the branch shares the same rule as the root. This rule of the root could be a confirmation; Al-Bukhari reported from Ibn Abbas.

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

Mwanamke mmoja kutoka kabila la Juhaina alimjia Mtume ﷺ na kusema, "Mama yangu alikuwa ameweka nadhiri ya kufanya Hija lakini alifariki kabla ya kuitekeleza. Je, naweza kufanya Hija kwa niaba ya mama yangu?" Mtume ﷺ akajibu, "Fanya Hija kwa niaba yake. Kama mama yako angekuwa na deni, je, ungelilipa au hungelilipa? Basi, lipa deni la Allah kwa kuwa Yeye ana haki zaidi ya kulipwa." Hapa Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alilinganisha deni la Allah na deni la binadamu, na akasema kuwa kulitekeleza kungetosha. Katika tukio hili, hukumu ni uthibitisho kwamba kutekeleza deni kungetosha.

“A woman from the tribe of Juhaina came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said, "My mother had vowed to perform Hajj but she died before performing it. May I perform Hajj on my mother's behalf?" The Prophet (pbuh) replied, "Perform Hajj on her behalf. Had there been a debt on your mother, would you have paid it or not? So, pay Allah's debt as He has more right to be paid.'”Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) compared the debt to Allah to the debt of the human and stated that its settlement would suffice. In this instance, the rule is a confirmation that the settlement of the debt would suffice.

Kanuni ya asili inayolinganishwa nayo inaweza pia kuwa kukanusha, kama ilivyo katika kile kilichopokewa kwa mapokezi ya Umar (ra) aliyemuuliza Mtume ﷺ kuhusu busu la mwenye kufunga na kama linavunja funga. Ndipo Mtume ﷺ akauliza,

The rule of the root that is compared with could also be a disaffirmation as is the case in what is reported on the authority of Umar (ra) who asked the Prophet (pbuh) about the kiss of the one who is fasting and whether it breaks the fast. The Prophet (pbuh) then asked,.

. » أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « .

. » أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « .

“Unafikiria nini ikiwa ungesuuza kinywa chako (ukiwa umefunga), je, hilo lingevunja funga yako?” Akajibu, “Hapana.” Hadithi hii imethibitishwa na Al-Hakim na kuthibitishwa na Al-Dhahabi. Hapa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alilinganisha busu la mtu aliyefunga na kusuuza kinywa, kwa kuwa hakuna lolote kati ya hayo linalobatilisha funga. Kwa hiyo, hukumu katika muktadha huu ni kukanusha, yaani kutobatilika kwa funga.

“What do you think if you rinsed your mouth (while you were fasting), would that break your fast?” He replied “No” authenticated by Al-Hakim and confirmed by Al-Dhahabi. Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) compared the kiss of a fasting person to the rinsing out of one’s mouth in that it does not invalidate the fast. Hence, the rule in this context is a disaffirmation, in this case the non-invalidation of the fast.

Maana ya qiyas hii kuwa msingi wa kufanana kati ya mambo mawili ni kwamba 'Illah (sababu ya kisheria) ya asili pia inapatikana katika tawi. Ni kwa msingi wa 'Illah hii ndipo hukumu inapohamishwa, na 'Illah hii ndiyo kitu kinachofanana kati ya kinachofananishwa na kinachofananishwa nacho, yaani kati ya asili na tawi. Mfano wa hili unaonekana pale Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alipoulizwa kuhusu kununua tende kwa tende zilizoiva. Akasema:

The meaning of this analogy being based upon a common factor between the two matters is that the ‘Illah (Shari’ah reason) of the root is also found in the branch. It is on the basis of this ‘Illah that the carrying over takes place and this ‘Illah is the common factor between the compared and the compared with or in other words, between the root and the branch. An example of this is reflected when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was asked about the purchase of dates by ripened dates. He said:

. » أَيَ نْ قُصُ الرُّطَبُ إِذَا يَبِسَ ؟ فَ قَالُوا: نَ عَمْ، فَ قَالَ: فَلاَ، إِذَنْ « .

. » أَيَ نْ قُصُ الرُّطَبُ إِذَا يَبِسَ ؟ فَ قَالُوا: نَ عَمْ، فَ قَالَ: فَلاَ، إِذَنْ « .

“Je, tende (rutab) hupungua ukubwa zinapokauka?” Wakasema: “Ndiyo, hupungua.” Akasema: “Basi katika hali hiyo, hapana (alikataza hivyo).” (Imepokewa na Abu Ya’la kwa maneno haya kutoka kwa Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, na imethibitishwa na Al-Hakim na Ibn Hibban). Hapa, Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ aliuliza kuhusu ‘Illah iliyopo katika fedha za riba, ambayo ni ongezeko, na kama hiyo pia inapatikana katika mauzo ya rutab kwa tende, na alipojua kuwepo kwake, alithibitisha hukumu ya Riba kwa aina hiyo ya mauzo, na hivyo akasema.

“Do the dates (Rutab) diminish in size when they become dry?' They said: (yes) they did. He said: in this case, no (He forbade that).” (reported by Abu Ya’la with these words from Sa’d Bin Abi Waqqas and authenticated by Al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban). Here, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asked about the ‘Illah that exists in the usurious money, which is the increase, and whether it was also found in the sale of Rutab for dates, and when he knew of its presence, he confirmed the rule of Riba (usury) for such as type of sale, and so he (said).

.» فَلاَ، إِذَنْ «.

.» فَلاَ، إِذَنْ «.

"katika kesi hii, hapana". Kwa maneno mengine, ni haramu kubadilishana bidhaa ya aina hiyo kama ilivyo kwa sababu hupungua uzito inapokaushwa; hivyo, Mtume wa Allah ﷺ aliuliza kuhusu kipengele kinachofanana ambacho ni 'Illah ya Shariah ya Riba.

“in this case, no”. In other words, it is forbidden to exchange such commodity as it is because it decreases in weight once it is dried; thus, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asked about the mutual factor which is the Shari’ah ‘Illah of Riba.

Hii ndiyo ufafanuzi wa Qiyas kulingana na Shari'ah. Ufafanuzi huu umepatikana kutoka kwenye riwaya za Mtume wa Allah ﷺ. Ibn Abbas alisimulia:

This is the definition of Qiyas according to the Shari’ah. This definition has been obtained from the narrations of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) . Ibn Abbas narrated:

. فَ قَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّ أُمِّي مَاتَتْ وَعَلَيْ هَ ا جَاءَتِ امْرَأَةٌ إِلَى رَسُولِ « صَوْمُ نَذْرٍ، أَفَأَصُومُ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتِهِ أَكَانَ ي ؤَُدِّي » ذَلِكِ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَتْ: نَ عَمْ، قَالَ: فَصُومِي عَنْ أُمِّكِ .

. فَ قَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّ أُمِّي مَاتَتْ وَعَلَيْ هَ ا جَاءَتِ امْرَأَةٌ إِلَى رَسُولِ « صَوْمُ نَذْرٍ، أَفَأَصُومُ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتِهِ أَكَانَ ي ؤَُدِّي » ذَلِكِ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَتْ: نَ عَمْ، قَالَ: فَصُومِي عَنْ أُمِّكِ .

"Mwanamke mmoja alimwendea Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akasema: Ewe Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, mama yangu amefariki, na anadaiwa funga ya nadhiri; je, nifunge kwa niaba yake? Hapo akasema: Unaonaje, kama mama yako angekufa akiwa na deni, je, lisingelipwa kwa niaba yake? Akasema: Ndiyo. Akasema: Basi, fungia mama yako.” (amepokewa na Muslim). Imesimuliwa na ‘Abd Allah bin Al-Zubair kwamba mtu mmoja alimuuliza Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ:

“A woman came to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and said: Messenger of Allah (pbuh), my mother has died and there is due from her a fast of vow; should I fast on her behalf? Thereupon he said: You see that if your mother had died in debt, would it not have been paid on her behalf? She said: Yes. He said: Then observe fast on behalf of your mother.” (reported by Muslim). It is narrated by ‘Abd Allah Bin Al-Zubair that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) :

جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ خَثْ عَمٍ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَ قَالَ إِنَّ أَبِي « أَدْرَكَهُ الْإِسْلَامُ وَهُوَ شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُ رُكُوبَ الرَّحْلِ وَالْحَجُّ مَكْتُوبٌ عَلَيْهِ أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْهُ قَالَ أَنْتَ أَكْبَ رُ ولَدِهِ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أَبِيكَ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتَهُ عَنْهُ أَكَانَ » ذَلِكَ يُجْزِئُ عَنْهُ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ فَاحْجُجْ عَنْه.

جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ خَثْ عَمٍ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَ قَالَ إِنَّ أَبِي « أَدْرَكَهُ الْإِسْلَامُ وَهُوَ شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُ رُكُوبَ الرَّحْلِ وَالْحَجُّ مَكْتُوبٌ عَلَيْهِ أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْهُ قَالَ أَنْتَ أَكْبَ رُ ولَدِهِ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أَبِيكَ دَيْنٌ فَ قَضَيْتَهُ عَنْهُ أَكَانَ » ذَلِكَ يُجْزِئُ عَنْهُ قَالَ نَ عَمْ قَالَ فَاحْجُجْ عَنْه.

"Ee Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu (ﷺ), baba yangu alikuwa mzee alipoukubali Uislamu, na hawezi kupanda mnyama; je, nifanyie Hijja badala yake?" Akasema: "Unaonaje, kama baba yako angekufa akiwa na deni, je, lisingelipwa kwa niaba yake?" Akasema: "Ndiyo." Akasema: "Basi fanya Hijja kwa niaba ya baba yako" (ameipokea Ahmad kwa mnyororo wa wapokezi uliothibitishwa na Al-Zain, na Al-Darimi ameipokea kwa namna inayofanana).

“O Messenger of Allah (pbuh), my father was an old man when he became Muslim, and could not ride an animal, do I perform Hajj on his behalf?” He said: “You see if your father had died in debt, would it not have been paid on his behalf?” He said: “Yes.” So he said: “Then do perform Hajj on behalf of your father” (reported by Ahmad with a chain authenticated by Al-Zain, and reported similarly by Al-Darimi).

Katika hadithi hizi mbili, Mjumbe wa Allah (ﷺ) aliunganisha deni la Allah (SWT) katika kufunga na katika Hijja na deni la binadamu, na zote mbili ni kuunganisha jambo linalojulikana na jambo jingine linalojulikana, yaani kuhusisha deni kwa Allah na deni kwa binadamu katika kuthibitisha kuwa kulilipa kwa niaba ya mtu kunatosha. Hii ni kwa sababu mambo yote mawili ni madeni; hivyo kitu kinachofanana kati yao ni deni, nalo ndilo 'Illah, na hukumu iliyothibitishwa kwa yote mawili ni kutosha kwa kulipa. Hii ndiyo hakika ya Qiyas kulingana na Shari'ah kutoka katika dalili za Shari'ah. Kwa hiyo, kanuni hii ni hukumu ya Shari'ah inayopaswa kutekelezwa, nayo ni amri ya lazima ya Allah kwa yule anayeitoa hukumu hiyo na kwa yule anayemfuata, iwe ni Muttabi' (Muqallid anayehoji dalili) au 'Ammi (Muqallid asiyehoji dalili). Ni kama hukumu nyingine yoyote ya Shari'ah, inayotokana na dalili ya Shari'ah, kwa kuwa kanuni na misingi ya Shari'ah inayotokana na dalili za Shari'ah ni hukumu za Shari'ah kama hukumu nyingine zote.

In these two narrations, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) linked the debt to Allah (swt) in fasting and in Hajj onto the debt to the human and they are both the linkage of a known matter upon another known matter, i.e. the association of the debt to Allah with the debt to the human in confirming that their settlement on one’s behalf would suffice. This is so because both of these matters are debts; thus the mutual factor between them is the debt and this is the ‘Illah and the rule that has been confirmed for both of them is the sufficing of the settlement. This is the reality of Qiyas according to the Shari’ah from the Shari’ah text. Therefore, this definition is a Shari’ah rule that must be implemented and it is the binding rule of Allah upon the one who deduces it and upon the one who imitates it either as a Muttabi’ (a Muqallid who queries the evidence) or as an ‘Ammi (a Muqallid who did not query the evidence). It is like any other Shari’ah rule, deduced from a Shari’ah evidence, because the Shari’ah definitions and principles deduced from the Shari’ah evidences are Shari’ah rules like all other Shari’ah rules.

Qiyas hii inategemea 'Illah, yani sababu ya pamoja kati ya jambo lililounganishwa linalojulikana na jambo lililounganishwa nalo linalojulikana; yaani, kati ya asili (al-asl) na tawi (al-far'). Hivyo basi, ikiwa 'Illah itapatikana, yaani sababu ya pamoja ikipatikana kati ya kinachofananishwa na kinachofananishwa nacho, basi Qiyas inaweza kufanywa; vinginevyo, Qiyas haifanyiki kabisa. 'Illah hii itachukuliwa kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah ikiwa imetajwa katika maandiko ya Shari'ah au ikiwa inafanana na kile kilichoorodheshwa na maandiko ya Shari'ah, kwa sababu 'Illah ambayo Qiyas imejengwa juu yake imetajwa na Shari'ah.

This Qiyas is based upon the ‘Illah or in other words, upon the common factor between the known linked matter and the known matter it is linked to; that is, between the root and the branch. Hence, if the ‘Illah is found, that is if the mutual factor is found between the compared and the compared with, then Qiyas can be done; otherwise, Qiyas does not take place at all. This ‘Illah would be considered a Shari’ah evidence if it were mentioned in a Shari’ah text or if it were analogous with what is listed by a Shari’ah text because the ‘Illah upon which the Qiyas is based has been mentioned by Shari’ah.

Kwa upande mwingine, ikiwa 'Illah hii isingetajwa katika maandiko ya Shari'ah, na isingekuwa sawa na ile iliyoorodheshwa katika maandiko ya Shari'ah, Qiyas kama hiyo isingechukuliwa kuwa Qiyas sahihi, wala dalili ya Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa sababu sababu inayotegemewa nayo haijatajwa na maandiko ya Shari'ah; hivyo Qiyas kama hiyo isingeweza kutoka katika Shari'ah, na kwa hiyo haiwezi kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah.

By contrast, if this ‘Illah were not mentioned in a Shari’ah text and it were not analogous with that which is listed in a Shari’ah text, such a Qiyas would not be considered a valid Qiyas, nor a Shari’ah evidence. This is because the reason upon which it is based has not been mentioned by a Shari’ah text; thus such Qiyas could not be from Shari’ah and consequently it cannot be a Shari’ah evidence.

Dalili kwamba Qiyas ni dalili ya Shari'ah inadhihirika katika ukweli kwamba nasi ya Shari'ah ambamo 'Illah imetajwa, au inayofanana na kile kilichotajwa katika nasi ya Shari'ah, inaweza kutoka katika Kitabu, Sunnah, au Ijma' ya Maswahaba. Dalili hizi tatu zimethibitishwa kuwa dalili za Shari'ah kwa ushahidi usiotiliwa shaka; hivyo, dalili ya 'Illah ya Shari'ah ni yenye uhakika, na hiyo ndiyo dalili ya Qiyas. Hii ni kwa sababu sababu ya Shari'ah iliyopo katika hukumu inayotajwa na nasi, ambayo ndiyo msingi, ndiyo inayofanya hukumu ya tawi kuwa hukumu ya Shari'ah, na ndiyo inayofanya Qiyas iwezekane, kwani bila hiyo Qiyas isingekuwepo kabisa. Kwa hiyo, dalili yake pia itatumika kuwa dalili ya Qiyas.

Evidence about this Qiyas being a Shari’ah evidence is reflected in the fact that the Shari’ah text in which the ‘Illah is mentioned or analogous with what is mentioned in the Shari’ah text could either come from the Book, the Sunnah or from the Ijma’ of the Companions. These three evidences have been confirmed as being Shari’ah evidences through conclusive proof; thus, the evidence of the Shari’ah ‘Illah is conclusive and that is the evidence of Qiyas. This is so because the Shari’ah reason found in the rule that is mentioned by the text, which acts as the root, is what makes the rule in the branch a Shari’ah rule and it is what makes Qiyas feasible for without it Qiyas would not have existed in the first place. Therefore, its evidence will also serve as evidence for Qiyas.

Qiyas hii ya Shari'ah imeonyeshwa kwetu na Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, naye aliichukulia kuwa ushahidi wa Shari'ah. Maswahaba nao walifuata kwayo na kuikubali kama ushahidi wa Shari'ah walipokuwa wanatoa hukumu za Shari'ah. Imepokewa kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alimwambia Mu'adh na Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari alipokuwa karibu kuwatuma Yemen:

This Shari’ah Qiyas has been demonstrated to us by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and he considered it a Shari’ah evidence. The Companions also proceeded according to it and adopted it as a Shari’ah evidence when they deduced the Shari’ah rules. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said to Mu’ath and Abu Moussa Al-Ash’ari when he was about to dispatch them to Yemen:

. بِمَ تَ قْضِيَانِ ؟ فَ قَالاَ: إِنْ لَمْ نَجِدِ الحُكْمَ فِي الكِتَابِ وَلاَ السُّ نَّةِ قِسْنَا الأَمْرَ « » بِالأَمْرِ، فَمَا كَانَ أَقْ رَبَ إِلَى ال حَ قِّ عَمِلْنَا بِهِ .

. بِمَ تَ قْضِيَانِ ؟ فَ قَالاَ: إِنْ لَمْ نَجِدِ الحُكْمَ فِي الكِتَابِ وَلاَ السُّ نَّةِ قِسْنَا الأَمْرَ « » بِالأَمْرِ، فَمَا كَانَ أَقْ رَبَ إِلَى ال حَ قِّ عَمِلْنَا بِهِ .

"Utahukumu kwa kitu gani?" Wakasema: "Ikiwa hatutapata hukumu katika Kitabu wala katika Sunnah, tutatumia qiyas (kulinganisha) baina ya mambo; lipi (kwa hukumu yetu) lililo karibu zaidi na haki hupitishwa." (Imetajwa na Al-Amidi katika Al-Ahkam na Abu Al-Husain katika Al-Mu'tamad.) Hapa Mu'ath na Abu Moussa wametamka wazi kwamba wangetumia qiyas, na Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ aliidhinisha hilo; kwa hiyo, hii ni dalili kwamba qiyas ni dalili ya Shari'ah.

“What will you judge by?” They said: “If we don’t find the rule in the Book or in the Sunnah, we will make analogy (Qiyas) between things; whichever (according to our judgement) is closer to the right is adopted.” (mentioned by Al-Amidi in Al- Ahkam and Abu Al-Husain in Al-Mu’tamad) Here Mu’ath and Abu Moussa explicitly stated that they would use Qiyas and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) approved this; ,therefore, this serves as proof that Qiyas is a Shari’ah evidence.

Imepokewa kutoka kwa Ibn Abbas kwamba:

It is reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that:

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

. فَ قَالَتْ: إِنَّ أُمِّي نَذَرَتْ أَنْ تَحُجَّ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ جُهَيْ نَةَ جَاءَتْ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ « فَ لَمْ تَحُجَّ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْ هَا؟ قَالَ: ن عََمْ، حُجِّي عَنْ هَا، أَرَأَيْتِ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أُمِّكِ » دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتِ قَاضِيَةً، اقْضُ وا اللَّهَ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ بِالْوَفَاءِ .

"Mwanamke mmoja kutoka kabila la Juhaina alimjia Mtume ﷺ na kusema, "Mama yangu alikuwa ameweka nadhiri ya kufanya Hijja lakini alifariki kabla ya kuifanya. Je, naweza kufanya Hijja kwa niaba ya mama yangu?" Mtume ﷺ akajibu, "Fanya Hijja kwa niaba yake. Kama mama yako angekuwa na deni, je, ungelilipa au usingelilipa? Basi, lipa deni la Allah kwa sababu Yeye ana haki zaidi ya kulipwa." (imepokewa na Al-Bukhari). Hapa Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alitaka kumfundisha mwanamke huyu, hivyo akalinganisha deni la Allah na deni la binadamu katika wajibu wa kulipa deni na kulitosheleza, na hili ndilo hasa Qiyas yenyewe. Imepokewa kwa mamlaka ya Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) aliyemuuliza Mtume ﷺ kuhusu busu la mwenye kufunga na kama linavunja funga. Mtume ﷺ akauliza, .» أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « ."

“A woman from the tribe of Juhaina came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said, "My mother had vowed to perform Hajj but she died before performing it. May I perform Hajj on my mother's behalf?" The Prophet (pbuh) replied, "Perform Hajj on her behalf. Had there been a debt on your mother, would you have paid it or not? So, pay Allah's debt as He has more right to be paid.” (reported by Al-Bukhari). Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) wanted to teach this woman so he joined the debt to Allah to the debt of the human in the obligation of settling the debt and its sufficing, and this is exactly Qiyas itself. It is reported on the authority of Umar Bin Al-Khattab (ra) who asked the Prophet (pbuh) about the kiss of the one who is fasting and whether it breaks the fast. The Prophet (pbuh) then asked, .» أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَمَضْمَضْتَ، أَكَانَ ذَلِكَ ي فُْسِدُ الصَّوْمَ ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا « .

"Unafikiri nini ikiwa ungesuuza kinywa chako (wakati unafunga), je, hilo lingevunja funga yako?" Akajibu "Hapana" (imethibitishwa na Al-Hakim na kuthibitishwa na Al-Dhahabi). Hapa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alikataa hukumu ya kwamba kubusu wakati wa kufunga kunabatilisha funga, kwa kulinganisha na kitendo cha kusuuza kinywa wakati wa kufunga, ambacho hakibatilishi funga, kwa sababu hakuna kati ya vitendo hivyo viwili kinachoingia tumboni. Hivyo ilikuwa ni ufafanuzi wa hukumu kupitia matumizi ya Qiyas.

“What do you think if you rinsed your mouth (while you were fasting), would that break your fast?” He replied “No” (authenticated by Al-Hakim and confirmed by Al-Dhahabi). Here the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) rejected the rule of invalidating the fast for the act of kissing while fasting by comparing it with the act of rinsing out the mouth while fasting, which does not invalidate the fast, because neither of them enters the belly. Thus it was an explanation of the rule through the use of Qiyas.

Katika matini hizi tatu, hukumu haikupewa tu 'Illah, kama ilivyo katika matini nyingi zinazoonyesha Qiyas, bali Qiyas yenyewe pia ilikubaliwa, ilifundishwa na ilielezwa kupitia matini hizo, na hili hutumika kama hoja halali inayothibitisha kuwa Qiyas ni dalili ya Shari'ah.

In these three texts, the rule was not only given an ‘Illah, as in the case in many texts that denote Qiyas, rather, Qiyas itself was also approved, taught and explained through them and this serves as a valid argument stipulating that Qiyas is a Shari’ah evidence.

Kuhusu Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, ndivyo ilivyo. Kuhusu Maswahaba, imepokewa kwamba walitumia Qiyas kama dalili ya Shari'ah katika mambo kadhaa. Mfano mmoja ni ule ulioelezwa na Said Bin Mansur katika Sunan yake, kutoka kwa Al-Qasim Bin Muhammad.

This is as far as the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is concerned. As for the Companions, it is reported that they used Qiyas as Shari’ah evidence in several matters. One example is what has been narrated by Said Bin Mansur in his Sunan from Al-Qasim Bin Muhammad.

."أن رجلا مات وترك جدتيه أم أمه وأم أبيه فأتوا أبا بكر فأعطى أم أمه السدس وترك أم أبيه فقال له رجل من الأنصار: لقد ورثت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ما ورث منها شيئا وتركت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ورث مالها كله فأشرك بينهما في السدس." .

."أن رجلا مات وترك جدتيه أم أمه وأم أبيه فأتوا أبا بكر فأعطى أم أمه السدس وترك أم أبيه فقال له رجل من الأنصار: لقد ورثت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ما ورث منها شيئا وتركت امرأة لو كانت هي الميتة ورث مالها كله فأشرك بينهما في السدس." .

"Mtu mmoja alifariki akiwaacha bibi zake wawili, bibi wa upande wa mama yake na bibi wa upande wa baba yake. Abu Bakr akaja akampa bibi wa upande wa mama sehemu ya sita, akamwacha bibi wa upande wa baba. Ndipo mtu mmoja kutoka kwa Ansari akamwambia: 'Umempa urithi wa maiti mwanamke ambaye, lau angekufa yeye, mtu huyo hangemrithi; na umemwacha mwanamke ambaye mtu huyo angemrithi mali yake yote lau yeye ndiye angekufa.' Basi akagawanya sehemu ya sita kati yao." Tukio hili pia limetajwa na Al-Ghazali katika Al-Mustasfa na Al-Amidi katika Al-Ihkam. Hapa, Masahaba walilinganisha urithi wa walio hai kutoka kwa maiti na urithi wa maiti kutoka kwa walio hai, kwa kudhania kwamba maiti yuko hai na aliye hai amekufa; hivyo, wakahitimisha kwamba sababu ya pamoja, yaani undugu kati ya watu hao wawili, ni ile ile katika pande zote mbili. Abu Bakr alipoisikia Qiyas hii, aliikubali, akaitekeleza, na akarudi nyuma kutoka katika maoni yake mwenyewe.

“A man died and left behind his two grandmothers, his mother’s mother and his father’s mother, and so Abu Bakr came and gave the mother of his mother a sixth and left the mother of his father, and so a man from the Ansar said to him: “You gave the inheritance of a dead man to a woman who if she had died, the same man would not have inherited her; and you excluded the woman whom the man would have inherited all her legacy had she been the one who died”, and so he divided the sixth between them” . This event was also mentioned by Al-Ghazali in Al-Mustasfa and Al-Amidi in Al-Ihkam. Here, the Companions compared the inheritance of the living from the dead with the inheritance of the dead to the living by assuming that the dead was living and the living was dead; thus, concluding that the mutual factor - the kinship between the two persons - is the same in both instances. When Abu Bakr heard this Qiyas, he submitted to it, implemented it and retracted from his own opinion.

Kama hivyo ndivyo ilivyopokewa kwamba Umar (ra) aliandika kwa Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari akisema:

Similar to this is what was reported that Umar (ra) wrote to Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari saying:

. "اعرف الأشباه والأمثال، ثم قس الأمور برأيك" .

. "اعرف الأشباه والأمثال، ثم قس الأمور برأيك" .

“Tambua mfanano, ulinganifu na ulinganisho katika mambo, na fanya kiasi kwa kulinganisha mambo baina yake kwa kutumia hukumu yako” (Jambo hili lilitajwa na Al-Shirazi katika Tabaqat Al-Fuqaha’, na lilipokewa na Al-Bayhaqi katika Al-Ma’rifa Min Kitab Adab Al-Qadi). Umar (ra) alikuwa Amir wa waumini, huku Abu Musa akiwa qadhi katika tukio hili. Vivyo hivyo, Umar (ra) aliambiwa kwamba Samra alichukua divai kutoka kwa wafanyabiashara Wayahudi kama zaka, kisha akaigeuza kuwa siki na kuiuza, hivyo Umar (ra) akasema:

“Realize the likeness, similarity, and comparison in things and make analogy between the matters according to your judgement” (This was mentioned by Al-Shirazi in Tabaqat Al-Fuqaha’ and was narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Ma’rifa Min Kitab Adab Al-Qadi). Umar (ra) was the Amir of the believers while Abu Musa was a judge in this instance. Similarly, it was said to Umar (ra) that Samra had taken wine from Jewish traders as tithe which he then turned into vinegar and sold so Umar (ra) said:

. قال: لَعَنَ اللَّهُ اليهودَ، حُرِّمَتْ "قاتَلَ اللَّهُ سَمُرَة ! أَمَا عَلِمَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عليهِمُ الشُّحومُ فَجَمَلُوها وباعوها وأَكَلُوا ثَمَنَها" .

. قال: لَعَنَ اللَّهُ اليهودَ، حُرِّمَتْ "قاتَلَ اللَّهُ سَمُرَة ! أَمَا عَلِمَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عليهِمُ الشُّحومُ فَجَمَلُوها وباعوها وأَكَلُوا ثَمَنَها" .

"Allah na amwangamize Samura; je, hajui kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: Laana ya Allah iwe juu ya Mayahudi kwamba mafuta yaliharamishwa kwao, lakini wakayayeyusha kisha wakayauza na kula pesa zake." (imepokewa na Muslim). Hapa, Umar (ra) alilinganisha mvinyo na mafuta na akahitimisha kwamba katazo lake linahitaji katazo la kuuzwa kwake. Mfano mwingine ni pale Umar (ra) alipokuwa hana uhakika kuhusu adhabu ya watu saba walioshiriki katika kumuua mtu mmoja, ndipo 'Ali (ra) akamwambia:

“May Allah destroy Samura; does he not know that Allah's Messenger said: Let there be the curse of Allah upon the Jews that fat was declared forbidden for them, but they melted it and then sold it and ate its money.” (reported by Muslim). Here, Umar (ra) compared wine with fat and concluded that its prohibition stipulates the prohibition of its sale. Another example is when Umar (ra) was not sure about the penalty of the seven who took part in the killing of one man so ‘Ali (ra) said to him:

. "يا أمير المؤمنين، أرأيت لو أن نفراً اشتركوا في سرقة، أكنت تقطعهم؟ قال: نعم. قال: فكذلك" .

. "يا أمير المؤمنين، أرأيت لو أن نفراً اشتركوا في سرقة، أكنت تقطعهم؟ قال: نعم. قال: فكذلك" .

“Ee Amiri wa waumini! Je, kama kikundi cha watu wangeshiriki katika wizi, ungewakata mikono yao?” Akasema: “Ndiyo.” Basi ‘Ali akamwambia: “Basi vivyo hivyo” (imetajwa na ‘Abd Al-Razzaq katika Al-Musannaf). Hii ni Qiyas baina ya mauaji na wizi, na haya yote yanaonyesha kwamba Qiyas ni dalili ya Shari’ah inayotolewa kutoka katika Sunnah na Ijma’ ya Maswahaba. Kwa hiyo, kilichothibitishwa kupitia Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ ni Sunnah, na kilichothibitishwa kupitia Maswahaba kinachukuliwa kuwa “Ijma’ Sukuti” (Makubaliano ya Kimya) kwa sababu Maswahaba waliotumia Qiyas walifanya hivyo mbele ya wengine wa Maswahaba na kwa ujuzi wao kamili, wala hakuna hata mmoja wao aliyelikosoa; hivyo, lilikuwa ni makubaliano ya jumla.

“O Amir of the believers! What if a group of people were to take part in a theft, would you cut their hands?” He said: “Yes.” So ‘Ali said to him: “So likewise” (mentioned by ‘Abd Al-Razzaq in Al-Musannaf). This is a Qiyas between the killing and the theft, and all this indicates that Qiyas is Shari’ah evidence deduced from the Sunnah and the Ijma’ of the Companions. Hence, what has been confirmed through the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is the Sunnah and what has been confirmed through the Companions is considered an “Ijma’ Sukuti” (Silent Consensus) because the Companions who utilised Qiyas did so in the presence and the full knowledge of the rest of the Companions, and none of them condemned it; therefore, it was a general consensus.

Hata hivyo, Sunnah na Ijma' ya Maswahaba zote mbili zimepokewa kwa njia ya habari za mtu mmoja mmoja (riwaya za Ahad), hivyo zinachukuliwa kuwa ni dalili isiyo ya uhakika. Kwa hiyo, dalili ya uhakika kwamba Qiyas ni dalili ya Shari'ah inaonekana katika yale tuliyoyataja kuhusu 'Illah kutajwa katika maandiko ya Shari'ah, yaani katika Kitabu na Sunnah au katika Ijma' ya Maswahaba. Dalili hizi tatu zimethibitishwa kuwa ni dalili za Shari'ah kwa dalili ya uhakika. Kwa hiyo, zinatumika kama dalili ya Qiyas kwa sababu ni dalili ya 'Illah.

However, the Sunnah and the Ijma’ of the Companions have both been reported by way of individual report (Ahad narrations), thus they are considered as indefinite evidence. Therefore, the conclusive evidence about the fact that Qiyas is a Shari’ah evidence is reflected in what we mentioned with regard to the Illah being mentioned in the Shari’ah text, that is, in the Book and the Sunnah or in the Ijma’ of the Companions. These three evidences have been confirmed as being Shari’ah evidences by way of conclusive evidence. Therefore, they act as the evidence for Qiyas because they are the evidence for the Illah.

Imethibitishwa kwa uhakika kwamba ushahidi hizi nne, yaani Kitabu, Sunnah, Ijma' ya Maswahaba na Qiyas, zimekuja kwa njia ya Wahyi kutoka kwa Allah (SWT). Mbali na hizi nne, hakuna ushahidi mwingine ambao umethibitishwa kwa ushahidi wa uhakika. Kwamba hazijathibitishwa kwa ushahidi wa uhakika ni dhahiri, kwa sababu wale wanaozitumia kama ushahidi hawadai kwamba uthibitisho wa kuwa ni ushahidi wa Shari'ah ni uthibitisho usiotiliwa shaka. Kwamba hazijathibitishwa kuwa ushahidi wa Shari'ah (wa hakika) ni dhahiri kutokana na kutokubaliana kwa ushahidi wanaouleta – katika kuuzingatia kama dalili za Shari'ah – na suala ambalo wanajaribu kulithibitisha kwa ushahidi huo. Kwa maneno mengine, ni wazi kabisa kwamba kuna makosa ya hoja katika wanachowasilisha kutoka kwenye ushahidi kuhusu wanachodai, kama vile: ijma' ya Waislamu, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah au Al-Istihsaan na mengine yanayofanana nayo katika ushahidi wa Shari'ah.

It has been conclusively established that these four evidences, the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma’ of the Companions and Qiyas have come by way of Revelation from Allah (swt). Apart from these four, no other evidence has been established through conclusive evidence. The fact that they are not established by conclusive evidence is clear since those who use them as evidence do not claim that the proof that they are Shari’ah evidences is a definitive proof. The fact that they are not confirmed as (decisive) Shari’ah evidences is clear from the lack of conformity of the evidences which they bring forward – in their consideration as Shari’ah proofs – upon the issue that they are trying to establish the evidence upon. In other words, it is clearly apparent that there is a mistaken inference in what they present from the evidences upon what they are claiming, such as: the consensus of the Muslims, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah or Al- Istihsaan and similar to them from the Shari’ah evidences.

Basi, wale wanaodai kwamba ijmaa ya Waislamu ni dalili ya Shari'ah wanatoa hitimisho lao kutokana na maneno ya Mtume ﷺ:

So, those who claim that the consensus of the Muslims is a Shari’ah evidence draw their conclusion from the words of the Prophet (pbuh) :

. » لاَ تَجْتَمِعُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ « .

. » لاَ تَجْتَمِعُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ « .

"Umma yangu haitakusanyika juu ya upotovu". Ibn Hajr alitaja hadithi hii kuwa ni Mashhur yenye njia nyingi tofauti, ingawa zote zina mjadala kuzihusu, na kwa vyovyote vile, hii haina dalili kwa kuwa upotovu hapa unamaanisha kuritadi kutoka katika Dini na si makosa, na kwa maana hii imetajwa katika hadithi hiyo.

“My Ummah will not gather upon a misguidance”. Ibn Hajr mentioned the narration as being Mashhur with many different paths, though all of them have debate around them, and in any case, this does not contain a proof since the misguidance here means apostasy from the Deen and not mistakes and with this meaning it was mentioned in the narration:

. لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ أُمَّتِى عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ، فَ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجَمَاعَةِ، فَإِنَّ يَدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى « » الْجَمَاعَةِ .

. لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ أُمَّتِى عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ، فَ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجَمَاعَةِ، فَإِنَّ يَدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى « » الْجَمَاعَةِ .

"Ummah yangu haitakusanyika juu ya upotovu (Dalalah), kwa hiyo shikamaneni na kundi (Jama'at); Mkono wa Allah u pamoja na kundi" (amepokewa na Al-Tabarani kwa mnyororo wa wapokezi ambao wote ni waaminifu, kupitia Ibn Umar). Hili ni sahihi kwa kuwa Ummah wa Kiislamu haungeweza kamwe kukubaliana juu ya kuiacha Uislamu. Hata hivyo, wanaweza kukubaliana juu ya kosa, na ushahidi rahisi zaidi wa hilo ni kwamba Ummah wa Kiislamu ulikubaliana juu ya kuacha kazi ya kusimamisha Khalifah kwa kipindi kirefu, na huo ulikuwa ni ukubaliano juu ya kosa.

“My Ummah will not gather upon a misguidance (Dalalah), and so stick to the group (Jama’at); the Hand of Allah is with the group” (reported by Al-Tabarani with a chain whose men are all trustworthy through Ibn Umar). This is correct since the Islamic Ummah would never unite upon apostasy from Islam. However, they could possibly unite upon a mistake and the simplest evidence for that is that the Islamic Ummah united upon leaving behind the work to establish the Khalifah for a long period and that was consensus upon a mistake.

Kwa wale wanaosema kwamba kutafuta maslahi na kuondoa madhara ni 'illah ya Shari'ah kwa hukumu za Shari'ah na wanaotumia qiyas kulingana na hilo, wao wanalitoa hili kutokana na maneno ya Allah (SWT):

With respect to those who say that seeking the benefits and repelling the harms is a Shari’ah Illah for the Shari’ah rules and apply Qiyas accordingly, they infer this by the words of Allah (swt):

"Nasi hatukukutuma wewe [Ee Muhammad], isipokuwa kama rehema kwa walimwengu (wote wa kibinadamu)." (TMQ 21:107). Basi, wao wanazingatia kwamba ukweli wa yeye kuwa rehema ni Shari'ah Illah, na hakuna rehema isipokuwa kwa kupatikana kwa manufaa na kuondolewa kwa madhara, na kwa hiyo, ni Shari'ah Illah kwa ajili ya sheria. Hitimisho hili si sahihi kwa pande mbili; ya kwanza ni kwamba somo lilikuwa kutumwa kwake, yaani, ukweli wa kuwa Mjumbe, na si hukumu za Shari'ah. Tukidhania kwamba nia ya kumtuma kwake ilikuwa ujumbe wake, yaani Shari'ah, somo lingekuwa Shari'ah yote kuanzia masuala ya 'Aqeedah na hukumu kwa pamoja, si hukumu za Shari'ah peke yake. Jambo la pili ni kwamba kutumwa kwake kuwa rehema kwa ulimwengu ni ufafanuzi tu wa Hikma (hekima) iliyo nyuma ya kutumwa kwa Nabii ﷺ; yaani, ni nini kitakachotokea kama matokeo ya kutumwa kwake. Vilevile, maneno ya Allah (SWT):

“And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds ( all mankind).” (TMQ 21:107). So, they consider the fact that he is a mercy as a Shari’ah Illah, and there cannot be mercy except through the attainment of the benefits and the repulsion of harm, and therefore, it is a Shari’ah Illah for the legislation. This inference is incorrect from two angles; the first is that the subject was his being sent, or in other words, the fact he was a Messenger, and not the Shari’ah laws. If we submit that the intention of sending him was his message i.e. the Shari’ah, the subject would be the whole of Shari’ah from the matters of 'Aqeedah and rules collectively and not the Shari’ah rules alone. The second issue is that the fact that sending him as a mercy for the universe is only a clarification for the Hikma (wisdom) behind sending the Prophet (pbuh) ; in other words, what would occur as a consequence of sending him. In the same manner, the words of Allah (swt):

"Na sikuumba majini na binadamu isipokuwa waniabudu." (TMQ 51:56), yaani, matokeo ya kuwaumba ni ibada, kwa hiyo ni Hikma ya kuwaumba na si 'Illah ya kuwaumba. Vivyo hivyo kauli Yake (SWT):

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” (TMQ 51:56), in other words, the result of creating them would be the worship so it is the Hikma of their creation and not the ‘Illah for their creation. Likewise His (swt) words:

“Ili washuhudie manufaa kwa ajili yao wenyewe.” (TMQ 22:28). Aya hii inaeleza hikma ya Hajj, yaani matokeo yanayoweza kupatikana kutokana na Hajj. Maneno yake,

“That they may witness benefits for themselves.” (TMQ 22:28). The verse describes the Hikma from the Hajj, that is, the result that may be gained from the Hajj. His Words,.

“Hakika sala inakataza uchafu na uovu,” (TMQ 29:45) inaeleza Hikma ya sala; yaani, matokeo yanayoweza kupatikana kutokana na sala na kadhalika. Kwa hiyo, aya hii haiko katika muktadha wa kubainisha ʿIllah, kwa kuwa ʿIllah ndiyo kitu ambacho kutokana na kuwepo kwake hukumu inapatikana au, kwa maneno mengine, inawekwa kisheria. Ili kuelewa ʿIllah iliyofichika katika maandishi, ni lazima iwe sifa, na sifa hii lazima ionyeshe ʿIllah iliyofichika, kwa kuwa ni Sabab (sababu/chanzo) ya kuwekwa kwa hukumu, au kwa maneno mengine, kwamba hukumu iliwekwa kwa ajili yake. Katika hali kama hiyo, ni sifa isiyotengana, ambayo haiwezi kukosekana kamwe, kwa kuwa chanzo daima huzaa matokeo, na hivyo, ikiwa ʿIllah ipo, basi matokeo yapo. Maneno…

“ Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing.” (TMQ 29:45), describe the Hikma for the prayer; in other words, the result that may be reached from prayer and so on. So, the verse here is not in the context of specifying an Illah because the Illah is the thing that due to its presence the rule is found or, in other words, is legislated. In order to understand the underlying Illah in the text, it is imperative that it must be an attribute and this attribute must indicate the underlying ‘Illah, in that it is the Sabab (reason/cause) for the legislation or in other words, that the legislation was for its sake, and in such a circumstance it is an inseparable attribute which is never absent, since the cause always results in the effect and ,therefore, if the Illah is found then the effect is found. The words.

“Rehema kwa walimwengu (wanadamu wote)” (TMQ 21:107) na aya zilizotangulia zilizobaki, hata kama zinachukuliwa kama sifa, na ndani ya aya hizo kuna herufi zinazoashiria Illah iliyofichika, muktadha wa maneno hauonyeshi kuwepo kwa Illah, kwa sababu inaweza kuwa haipo, na kwa sababu sheria haikuletwa kwa ajili yake. Kwa hiyo Shari’ah ya Kiislamu inaweza kuwa rehema kwa anayeiamini na anayetenda kwa mujibu wake, kama vile vizazi vya kwanza vya Waislamu, na inaweza kuwa mtihani kwa anayeikataa, kama makafiri. Hivyo, kutumwa kwa Mtume ﷺ ni mtihani kwa makafiri, nao ni miongoni mwa ‘Aalameen. Zaidi ya hayo, ujumbe wa Kiislamu upo leo. Hii ni kwa sababu kutumwa kwake kumefanyika kivitendo, na pamoja na hilo Waislamu wanaouamini ujumbe huo wenyewe leo wako katika dhiki. Kwa hiyo, si kutumwa peke yake, yaani kuwepo kwa Shari’ah peke yake, ndiko kunakokuwa rehema, na kwa sababu hiyo haiwi Illah yake. Kwa msingi huo, kupata manufaa na kuondoa madhara si Illah ya Kishari’ah; kwa hiyo haichukuliwi kuwa msingi wa Qiyas.

“Mercy to the worlds (all mankind)” (TMQ 21:107) and the rest of the previous verses, even if they are considered as attributes and within the verses are the letters that would indicate an underlying Illah, the context of the words does not indicate the existence of an Illah because they could be absent and because the legislation was not for its sake. Accordingly, the Islamic Shari’ah could be a mercy for the one who believes in it and who acts according to it, such as: the first generations of Muslims, and it could be an affliction for whoever disbelieves in it, such as the disbelievers. So, the sending of the Messenger (pbuh) is an affliction upon the disbelievers and they are from the ‘Aalameen. Additionally, the Islamic message is present today. This is since the sending has practically taken place and with that the Muslims who themselves believe in that message are today in hardship. So, it is not the sending alone, that is the existence of the Shari’ah alone, that is a mercy, and for that reason it is not an Illah for it. Based upon that, attaining the benefits and repelling the harms is not a Shari’ah Illah; so, it is not taken as a basis for Qiyas.

Kwa wale wanaosema kwamba akili ni miongoni mwa dalili za Kishari'ah, tunasema kwamba mjadala ni kuhusu hukumu ya Shari'ah, au kile kinachodhaniwa kwa uwezekano mkubwa kuwa hukumu ya Allah (SWT). Hii haipatikani isipokuwa katika kile kilichoteremshwa kwa Wahyi, na Wahyi haukutaja akili. Kwa sababu hiyo, hakuna dalili, iwe ya uhakika au ya dhana, inayopatikana inayoonyesha kwamba akili ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah kwa hukumu za Shari'ah; hivyo haihesabiwi kabisa kuwa miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah.

As for those who say that rationality is from the Islamic evidences, we say that the discussion is about the Shari’ah rule or what is considered, with the most probability, as the rule of Allah. This is not present except in what came by Revelation, and the Revelation did not mention the rationality, and for that reason, there is no evidence whether conclusive or inconclusive to be found that states that rationality is from the Shari’ah evidences for the Shari’ah rules; so it is not considered to be from the Shari’ah evidences at all.

Kwa wale wanaosema kwamba kauli ya Sahaba ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah, wanatoa hoja hii kwa kusema kwamba dalili mbili za Ijma' ya Masahaba ni dalili pia kwa Sahaba mmoja mmoja, kwa kuwa sifa inayotolewa kwao kwa pamoja pia ni sifa kwa kila mmoja wao. Vilevile, kwa kuwa hakuna upungufu wowote katika kuufikisha Dini kwao kwa pamoja, basi hakuna shaka juu ya kufikisha kwa mtu mmoja miongoni mwao. Zaidi ya hayo, maneno ya Mtume ﷺ ,

With respect to those who say that the opinion of the companion is from the Shari’ah evidences, they deduce this by saying that the two evidences for the Ijma’ of the Companions are evidences for the single companion as well, since the praise for them (collectively) is also praise for one of them. In the same manner, since there cannot be shortcomings in their conveyance (of the Deen) collectively, there can be no doubt with respect to the conveyance of one person from amongst them. Additionally, the words of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ,.

.» أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ، بِأَيِّ هُمُ اقْ تَدَيْ تُمُ اهْ تَدَيْ تُمْ « .

.» أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ، بِأَيِّ هُمُ اقْ تَدَيْ تُمُ اهْ تَدَيْ تُمْ « .

“Maswahaba wangu ni kama nyota, yeyote utakayemfuata utakuwa umeongoka,” inaunga mkono hoja kwamba kauli ya sahaba ni dalili. Hitimisho hili si sahihi, kwa sababu sifa ya Mtume ﷺ kwa Masahaba kwa pamoja, si kwa kila mmoja mmoja, ndiyo ushahidi kwamba Ijma' ya Masahaba ni dalili ya Shari'ah. Pia, ukweli kwamba Masahaba hawakuufikisha Qur'ani kila mmoja peke yake ni ushahidi kwamba makubaliano yao ni dalili ya Shari'ah. Dalili ya Shari'ah ni sifa waliyopewa pamoja na makubaliano yao ya pamoja kwamba jambo fulani ni hukumu ya Shari'ah. Hivyo, dalili ni mambo mawili: sifa na makubaliano, na mambo haya mawili hayapatikani kwa sahaba mmoja mmoja. Kwa hiyo, sifa aliyopewa na kufikishwa kwa Qur'ani hazifai kuwa ushahidi kwamba maneno ya yule aliyefikisha Qur'ani kutoka kwa wale ambao Allah (swt) aliwasifu ni dalili za Shari'ah. Kwa sababu, kama vile Allah (swt) alivyowasifu Masahaba, pia aliwasifu wale waliowafuata, na kufikishwa kwa Qur'ani, hata kukifanywa na wale ambao Allah (swt) aliwasifu, hakufanyi maneno ya aliyeifikisha kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah. Kwa sababu hiyo, hoja hii si sahihi. Dalili ya kubatilika kwa hoja hii ni kwamba kile ambacho sahaba mmoja mmoja alikifikisha, na alichokisimulia katika Hadithi, hakichukuliwi kuwa cha hakika, bali ni cha kudhaniwa. Kwa hiyo, “Mzee mwanamume na mwanamke mzee wakizini, basi wapigeni mawe,” hakichukuliwi kuwa aya ya Qur'ani, ingawa kilifikishwa na sahaba, kwa kuwa hakuna Ijma' juu yake. Vivyo hivyo, Hadithi zinazosimuliwa na Masahaba kutoka kwenye riwaya za mtu mmoja mmoja hazichukuliwi kuwa za hakika, bali ni za kudhaniwa.

“My companions are like stars, whoever you follow you follow guidance”, support the opinion of a companion being an evidence. This deduction is incorrect since the praise of the Prophet (pbuh) for the companions collectively not individually is a proof that the Ijma’ of the Companions is a Shari’ah evidence and the fact that the Companions did not convey the Quran individually is a proof that their consensus is a Shari’ah evidence. Rather, the Shari’ah evidence is the praise upon them and the fact that they collectively agree that a rule is the Shari’ah rule. So the evidence is two matters, praise and consensus and these are not found in the individual companion. In which case, the issue of praise and the conveyance of the Quran are not suitable to be proofs that the words of whoever conveyed the Quran from those whom Allah (swt) praised are Shari’ah evidences because in the same manner that Allah (swt) praised the Companions, He (swt) also praised those who followed them, and since the conveyance of the Quran even if by those whom Allah (swt) has praised does not make the words of the one who conveyed it a Shari’ah evidence, and due to that the inference made is invalid. What indicates the invalidity of this inference is that what an individual companion conveyed and what he narrated from the narrations is not considered to be definite – rather it is indefinite. Therefore, “When the old man and the woman commit fornication then have them stoned.” is not considered to be a verse from the Quran even though it was conveyed by a companion since there was no Ijma’ upon it. In the same manner, the narrations that are transmitted by the Companions from the singular reports are not considered definite - rather they are indefinite.

Hii ni tofauti na Ijma' ya Maswahaba, kwa kuwa kile walichokubaliana kwa pamoja kuwa kinatoka katika Qur'ani kinachukuliwa kuwa Qur'ani na ni hakika, na kile walichokubaliana kwa pamoja katika simulizi na kupokelewa kutoka kwao kwa njia ya Mutawaatir (mfululizo wa mapokezi mengi) kinachukuliwa kuwa ni dalili zenye hakika. Kwa hiyo, tofauti ni kubwa kati ya kile Maswahaba walichokubaliana kwa pamoja - ambapo hakuna mgongano, yaani ni hakika, na mwenye kukikataa ni kafiri - na kile ambacho Swahaba mmoja alisimulia, ambacho si cha hakika, na mwenye kukikataa hachukuliwi kuwa kafiri. Kwa hiyo, Ijma' ya Maswahaba ni dalili ya Shari'ah, ilhali maoni ya Swahaba mmoja binafsi hayachukuliwi kuwa miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah. Zaidi ya hayo, tofauti na Ijma' ya Maswahaba ambao hawakubaliani juu ya kosa, Swahaba mmoja binafsi anaweza kukosea na hayuko salama dhidi ya makosa hayo. Maswahaba walikuwa wakitofautiana katika masuala, na kila mmoja wao alichukua maoni tofauti na mwenzake; hivyo, kama maoni ya Swahaba yangekuwa ni hoja, basi hoja za Allah (SWT) zingekuwa zinapingana na kugongana. Kwa hiyo, maoni ya Swahaba hayachukuliwi kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah.

This is different from the Ijma’ of the Companions since what they agreed upon unanimously as being from the Quran is considered to be Quran and to be definite, and what they agreed upon unanimously in terms of narrations and were transmitted from them by Mutawatir (successive multiple chains) are considered to be definite evidences. Accordingly, the difference is vast between what the Companions agreed upon unanimously - where there is no disagreement, meaning it is definite and the one who denies it is a disbeliever - and what the single companion narrated which is indefinite and the one who denies it is not considered to be a disbeliever. Therefore, Ijma’ of the Companions is Shari’ah evidence whereas the opinion of the individual companion is not considered to be from the Shari’ah evidences. In addition to that, contrary to the Ijma’ of the Companions who do not agree upon a mistake, the individual companion can make mistakes and he is not free from them. The Companions used to differ over issues and each of them adopted a different opinion from the other; so, if the opinion of the companion were a proof then the proofs of Allah (swt) would be in disagreement and contradictory. Therefore, the opinion of a companion is not considered to be Shari’ah evidence.

Kuhusu wale wanaosema "Sharia ya waliotangulia kabla yetu ni Sharia kwetu", wanatumia kama ushahidi kauli ifuatayo ya Allah (SWT):

As for those who say “the Shari’ah of those before us is Shari’ah for us”, they use the following words of Allah (swt) as evidence:

"Hakika Sisi tumekufunulia wewe, [Ewe Muhammad], kama tulivyomfunulia Nuhu."

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah.” (TMQ 4:163),.

"Amewawekea kuwa sheria ya dini ile aliyomuusia nayo Nuhu." (TMQ 42:13) na maneno yake (SWT).

“He has ordained for you of religion what He enjoined upon Noah.” (TMQ 42:13) and His (swt) words.

“Kisha Tulikufunulia wewe, [Ee Muhammad], kufuata dini ya Ibrahim (Millat ya Ibrahim).” (TMQ 16:123). Aya hizi zinaonyesha kwamba sisi tunaelekezwa na sheria za Mitume waliotangulia. Zaidi ya hayo, wajibu wenyewe wa Mjumbe ﷺ ni kwamba alikuja kutoa habari kuhusu yale ambayo Allah (SWT) ametulazimisha kuyashikilia. Kwa sababu hiyo, kila herufi katika Qur'ani na kila tendo lililotoka kwa Mtume ﷺ, neno lolote alilolitamka au uthibitisho wowote kutoka kwake lazima lifuatwe, isipokuwa lile lililotajwa kuwa maalum kwake au kwa wengine zaidi yake. Kwa hiyo tumeamrishwa kwa kila kitu kilichotajwa na Qur'ani au kwa simulizi, isipokuwa pale maandiko ya Shari'ah yanapokuja kueleza kwamba hilo ni maalum kwa Masahaba wa Shara'ih zilizotangulia (wingi wa Shari'ah), na tumeamrishwa kwa kila kitu ambacho hakijatajwa kwa namna hiyo, kwa kuwa Allah hakukitaja katika Qur'ani bila sababu, na kwa hiyo ni lazima tuelekezwe nacho.

“Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham (Millat of Ibrahim) .” (TMQ 16:123). These verses indicate that we are addressed by the legislation of the previous Prophets. In addition, the very duty of the Messenger (pbuh) is that he came to inform about what Allah (swt) has obliged us to adhere to. Due to that, every letter in the Quran and every action that emanated from the Prophet (pbuh) , any word that he pronounced or any confirmation from him must be adhered to except what was mentioned as being specific to him or other than him. So we are ordered by everything that is mentioned by the Quran or by narration except when a Shari’ah text comes to explain that it is specific to the Companions of the previous Shara’ih (plural of Shari’ah), and we are ordered by whatever has not mentioned in such a manner since Allah did not mention it in the Quran without reason and, therefore, we must be addressed by it.

Hoja hii si sahihi. Kuhusu aya, maana ya aya ya kwanza ni kwamba wahyi unateremshwa kwake kwa namna ile ile iliyoteremshwa kwa Manabii wengine, na lengo la aya ya pili ni kwamba msingi wa Tawhidi (imani ya Upweke wa Allah (SWT)) uliwekwa kuwa sheria, na huo ndio aliokuwa ameamrishwa nao Nuhu. Maana iliyokusudiwa ya aya ya tatu ni kufuata msingi wa Tawhidi, kwa kuwa neno "Millat" lina maana ya: msingi wa Tawhidi. Aya zote za aina hii ziko hivyo hivyo, kama vile kauli Yake (SWT):

This inference is incorrect. With respect to the verses, the intention of the first verse is that revelation is sent to him in the same way it was sent to other Prophets, and the purpose of the second verse is that the basis of Tawheed (belief in Oneness of Allah(swt)) was legislated and that was what Nuh was ordained with. The intended meaning of the third verse is to follow the root of Tawheed since the word “Millat” means: the root of Tawheed. All the verses from this type are in this manner, such as His (swt) words:

“Basi fuata uongofu wao, pia uwe mfano kutoka kwao.” (TMQ 6:90) na aya nyinginezo. Kuhusu maneno Yake (SWT).

“So from their guidance take an example.” (TMQ 6:90) and other verses. As for His (swt) words.

"Hakika Sisi tuliteremsha Taurati, ndani yake mna mwongozo na nuru. Manabii waliojisalimisha (kwa Mwenyezi Mungu) walihukumu kwayo." (TMQ 5:44), Allah (swt) kwa haya alimaanisha Manabii wa Kabila la Israili na si Muhammad ﷺ, na Waislamu wana Nabii mmoja tu. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa kutoka kwa Abu Hurayrah kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema:

“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The Prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it.” (TMQ 5:44), Allah (swt) by this meant the Prophets of the Tribe of Israel and not Muhammad , and the Muslims only have one Prophet. As for what is narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

. » الأَنْ بِيَاءُ إِخْوَةٌ مِنْ عَلاَّتٍ، وَأُمَّهَاتُ هُمْ شَتَّى، وَدِينُ هُمْ وَاحِدٌ «.

. » الأَنْ بِيَاءُ إِخْوَةٌ مِنْ عَلاَّتٍ، وَأُمَّهَاتُ هُمْ شَتَّى، وَدِينُ هُمْ وَاحِدٌ «.

"Manabii ni ndugu katika imani, wenye mama tofauti. Hata hivyo, dini yao (Deen) ni moja." (imepokewa na Muslim). Maana ya "dini yao ni moja" ni Tawheed, ambayo ndiyo msingi ambao hakuna aliyetofautiana nao. Haimaanishi kwamba yale yaliyoteremshwa katika Deen ni moja kwa wote, kwa sababu tunafahamu kinyume chake kutoka kwa maneno Yake (SWT):

“Prophets are brothers in faith, having different mothers. Their religion (Deen) is, however, one .” (reported by Muslim), the meaning of “their Deen is one” is the Tawheed which is the basis that none differed upon. It does not mean what was sent from the Deen is one with all of them since we understand the opposite from His (swt) words:

"Kwa kila mmoja wenu tumemwekea sheria na njia iliyo wazi." (TMQ 5:48). Kutokana na hili, inadhihirika kuwa dalili hizi hazifai kutolewa hoja kutoka kwake, na kuzitumia kuthibitisha kwamba Shari'ah iliyokuja kabla yetu ni Shari'ah kwetu sisi ni hoja isiyo sahihi.

“To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way.” (TMQ 5:48). From this, it becomes clear that these evidences are not suitable to be inferred from, and the inference from them to prove that the Shari’ah from before us is a Shari’ah for us is incorrect.

Kwa upande mwingine, kuna dalili zinazokataza kwa uwazi kufuata Shari'ah ya waliotangulia, iwe imekuja katika Qur'an, Sunnah, au isiwepo katika zote mbili. Allah (SWT) amesema:

On the other hand, there are evidences that decisively forbid the following of the Shari’ah of those before us whether it came in the Quran, the Sunnah or not in both. Allah (swt) said:

“Na yeyote anayetaka dini nyingine isiyo Uislamu, haitakubaliwa kutoka kwake kamwe.” (TMQ 3:85) na Allah (SWT) amesema:

“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him.” (TMQ 3:85) and Allah (swt) said:

"Hakika dini mbele ya Allah ni Uislamu." (TMQ 3:19). Kwa hiyo, pale ambapo kuna maandiko ya Shari'ah yanayosema kwa uhakika kwamba kukubali dini yoyote nyingine isipokuwa dini ya Uislamu hakukubaliwi kabisa, basi itawezekanaje kuwaomba Waislamu wafuate dini hiyo? Allah (swt) anasema:

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is.” (TMQ 3:19). So, when there is a Shari’ah text stating that for anyone to embrace any Deen other than the Deen of Islam is conclusively not accepted, then how can it be requested from the Muslims to follow it? Allah (swt) says:

“Nasi tumekuteremshia wewe, [Ewe Muhammad], Kitabu kwa haki, kikithibitisha yaliyotangulia humo katika Maandiko, na kuwa ni kipimo juu yake (mlinzi juu yake).” (TMQ 5:48). Ubora wa Qur'ani juu ya Vitabu vilivyotangulia haumaanishi kwamba ilikuwa uthibitisho wao, kwani imetajwa katika aya hiyo hiyo.

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it (guardian over it).” (TMQ 5:48), the supremacy of the Quran over the previous Books does not mean that it was a confirmation for them since it is said in the same verse.

“Kuthibitisha” na hivyo ina maana kwamba ni kufuta (naskh) hukumu zao. Pia, kuna Ijma' kwamba Sharia ya Uislamu ni kufuta kwa Sharia zote zilizotangulia. Zaidi ya hayo, Allah (SWT) anasema:

“Confirming” and so it rather means that it is an abrogation of them. Also, there is an Ijma’ that the Shari’ah of Islam is an abrogation for all the previous Shara’ih. More than that, Allah (swt) says:

Au mlikuwepo mashahidi pale mauti ilipomkaribia Yaakobo, alipowaambia wanawe, "Mtaabudu nini baada yangu?" Wakasema, "Tutamwabudu Mungu wako na Mungu wa baba zako, Ibrahimu na Ismaili na Isaka, Mungu mmoja. Nasi ni Waislamu [wanaojisalimisha] kwake."; Hilo lilikuwa taifa lililopita. Litapata [matokeo] ya yale liliyoyachuma, nanyi mtapata yale mliyoyachuma. Wala hamtaulizwa kuhusu yale yaliyokuwa wakiyafanya. (TMQ 2:133-4). Basi, Allah (SWT) anatujulisha kwamba Yeye hatatuuliza kuhusu yale aliyoyafanya Mitume hao, na tusipoulizwa kuhusu matendo yao, basi hatutaulizwa kuhusu Shari'a yao, kwa kuwa kuifikisha na kuifanyia kazi ni miongoni mwa matendo yao. Tusichowajibikia, hatuamrishwi nacho, na hakitulazimu. Zaidi ya hayo, imepokewa kutoka kwa Jabir kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema:

“Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, "What will you worship after me?" They said, "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac - one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."; That was a nation which has passed on. It will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (TMQ 2:133-4). So, Allah (swt) informs us that He will not ask us about what those Prophets did, and if we are not accounted about their actions, then we will not be accounted about their Shari’ah since conveying it and working according to it is from their actions. What we are not accountable for, we are not commanded with it and it is unnecessary for us. Additionally, it is narrated from Jaber that the Prophet (pbuh) said:

. أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ ي عُْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَ بْلِي: كَانَ كُلُّ نَبِيٍّ ي بُْ عَثُ إِلَى قَ وْمِهِ خَاصَّةً « » وَبُعِثْتُ إِلَى كُلِّ أَحْمَرَ وَأَسْوَدَ .

. أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ ي عُْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَ بْلِي: كَانَ كُلُّ نَبِيٍّ ي بُْ عَثُ إِلَى قَ وْمِهِ خَاصَّةً « » وَبُعِثْتُ إِلَى كُلِّ أَحْمَرَ وَأَسْوَدَ .

"Nimepewa mambo matano ambayo hayakupewa mtu yeyote kabla yangu (nayo ni haya): Kila Nabii alitumwa kwa watu wake peke yao, ilhali mimi nimetumwa kwa watu wote, wekundu na weusi (wanadamu wote)." ﷺ (Imepokewa na Muslim) na kutoka kwa Abu Hurayrah kwamba Nabii ﷺ alisema.

“I have been conferred upon five (things) which were not granted to anyone before me (and these are): Every Prophet (pbuh) was sent particularly to his own people, whereas I have been sent to all the red and the black (all mankind).” (Reported by Muslim) and from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (pbuh) said.

.» فُضِّلْتُ عَلَى الأَنْبِيَاءِ بِسِتٍّ « .

.» فُضِّلْتُ عَلَى الأَنْبِيَاءِ بِسِتٍّ « .

"Nimepewa heshima juu ya Manabii kwa mambo sita" (imepokewa na Muslim), kisha akayataja, na miongoni mwao ni kwamba...

“I have been honored over the Prophets with six (things)” (reported by Muslim), and then he mentioned them and amongst them was.

.» وَأُرْسِلْتُ إِلَى الْخَلْقِ كَافَّة « .

.» وَأُرْسِلْتُ إِلَى الْخَلْقِ كَافَّة « .

"Na nimetumwa kwa watu wote wa ulimwengu." Hivyo basi, Mtume ﷺ ameeleza kwamba kila Nabii aliyekuja kabla ya Mtume wetu ﷺ alitumwa kwa watu wake peke yao; hakutumwa kwa wengine isipokuwa watu wake, na hawakuwajibika kufuata Shari'ah ya Nabii mwingine isipokuwa ya Nabii wao. Kwa hiyo, imethibitika kwamba hakuna Mitume yoyote iliyotumwa kwetu, na hivyo Shari'ah yao haiwezi kuwa Shari'ah kwetu. Hili linaungwa mkono na yale yaliyotajwa waziwazi katika aya za Qur'ani.

“And I have been sent to all mankind”. Hence, the Prophet (pbuh) has narrated that every Prophet (pbuh) before our Prophet (pbuh) was only sent specifically to their people; so, he was not sent to other than his people and they were not obliged by the Shari’ah of a Prophet (pbuh) other than their own. Therefore, it is confirmed that no one from the Prophets were sent to us and so their Shari’ah cannot be a Shari’ah for us. This is supported by what is mentioned clearly in verses from the Quran.

Na kwa Thamudi (tulituma) ndugu yao Saleh.

“And to Thamud [We sent] their brother Salih.”,.

Na kwa 'Aad [Tulimtuma] ndugu yao

“And to 'Aad [We sent] their brother”,.

Na kwa Madyan [Tulimtuma] ndugu yao .” (TMQ 11:50, 61, 84).

“And to Madyan [We sent] their brother .” (TMQ 11:50, 61, 84).

Kutokana na yote haya, ni wazi kwamba Shara'i za wale waliotutangulia si Shari'ah kwetu, kwa sababu tatu. Ya kwanza ni kwamba dalili zinazotumika kama ushahidi zinaonyesha tu msingi wa Tawhid, na hazionyeshi kwamba Shara'i zote za Manabii ni moja. Ya pili ni kwamba maandiko ya Shari'ah yanayotaja katazo la kufuata Shari'ah yoyote isipokuwa Shari'ah ya Uislamu. Ya tatu ni kwamba kila Nabii (amani iwe juu yake) alitumwa kwa watu wake mahsusi, nasi si katika watu wake, kwa hiyo yeye si Mtume kwetu. Hatuhutubiwi kwa Shari'ah yake, wala hatufungwi nayo. Kwa hiyo, Shari'ah ya wale waliotutangulia haihesabiwi miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah.

From all this, it is clear that the Shara’ih of those who came before us is not Shari’ah for us for three reasons: the first of them being that the proofs used as evidence only indicate the basis of Tawhid and do not indicate that all of the Shara’ih of the Prophets is one. Secondly, the Shari’ah texts which mention the prohibition of following any Shari’ah other than the Shari’ah of Islam, and thirdly every Prophet (pbuh) was sent to his people specifically and we are not from his people so he is not a Messenger for us. We are, therefore, not addressed by his Shari’ah and are not bound by it. In that case, the Shari’ah of those before us is not considered from the Shari’ah evidences.

Kuhusu matumizi yao ya aya kama ushahidi, hata hivyo, kwa upande wa hitimisho lao kwamba Mjumbe (pbuh) alikuja kufikisha kutoka kwa Allah kila kitu ambacho ni lazima kufuatwa, hili ni sahihi kwa kadiri ya alichotujulisha kwamba ni lazima tufuate kutoka kwa Allah, ambayo ni Shari'ah aliyokuja nayo ﷺ. Lakini hitimisho lao si sahihi kwa kile ambacho hakutuamuru kufuata. Kwa hiyo, Mtume ﷺ alitufikishia kutoka kwa Allah (swt) kuhusu hali za waliotutangulia kutoka mataifa ya kale, lakini alitutajia hayo kwa ajili ya mfano na mawaidha, si kwa sababu sisi tulazimike kufuata Shari'ah yao. Hivyo, visa vya Manabii, pamoja na mambo yao na mambo ya mataifa yao, vimesimuliwa kwetu, na hali zao pamoja na kanuni walizokuwa wakizifuata zimefafanuliwa kwetu. Zaidi ya hayo, yote hayo yalikuwa kwa ajili ya mfano na mawaidha tu, wala si kwa ajili ya kulazimika kufuata Shari'ah yao.

This is with regards to their use of the verses as proof. However, with respect to their inference that the Messenger (pbuh) came to convey from Allah everything that must be adhered to, this is correct as to what he informed us that we must adhere to from Allah which is the Shari’ah that he came with. However, it is not correct (their inference) with respect to what he did not order us to adhere to. So, the Prophet (pbuh) conveyed to us from Allah (swt) about the circumstances of those before us from the previous nations, but he informed us of that for the sake of example and admonition and not for us to be bound by their Shari’ah. So, the stories of the Prophets, as well as their affairs and the affairs of their nations, were narrated to us and their circumstances and what rules they used to follow were made clear to us. In addition, all of that was only for the sake of example and admonition and nothing else and it was not in order to be bound by their Shari’ah.

Kuhusu hadithi na habari (Akhbaar), ni dhahiri kwamba zilikuja kwa ajili ya mawaidha na mafunzo, na hili halihitaji dalili yoyote. Na kuhusu hali za umma zilizopita na yale waliyokuwa wakifuata katika masuala ya sheria, hayo yametajwa kwa njia ya kuwasimulia habari zao, wala hayakutajwa kwa mtazamo wa kuwa sisi tunalazimika kuyafuata. Ni kama hadithi zilizokuja kueleza hali za Manabii waliotangulia na umma zilizotangulia.

With respect to the stories and to the news (Akhbaar), it is apparent that they came for admonition and lessons and this does not need any proof, and as for the conditions of the nations and what they used to follow in terms of rules, this was mentioned in way of reports about them and they were not mentioned from the perspective of being bound by them. They are like stories that came to explain the circumstances of the previous Prophets and the previous nations.

Zaidi ya haya, baadhi ya kanuni hizi zinapingana katika maelezo yake na Shari'ah ya Kiislamu; kwa hiyo, kama tungeelekezwa nazo, tungekuwa tumeelekezwa kwa Shara'i mbili tofauti, na hili haliwezekani. Kama mfano kutoka katika sheria ya Sulayman, Allah (SWT) alisema:

Above and beyond this, several of these rules contradict the Islamic Shari’ah in their details; therefore, if we were addressed by them, we would have been addressed by two different Shara’ih and this is not possible. As an illustration from the legislation of Sulayman, Allah (swt) said:

“Akakagua ndege na kusema, ‘Mbona simwoni hudhud? Au yuko miongoni mwa waliopotea? Hakika nitamwadhibu adhabu kali, au nitamchinja, isipokuwa aniletee hoja iliyo wazi.’” (TMQ 27:20-1) Na hakuna tofauti miongoni mwa Waislamu kuhusu katazo la kumwadhibu ndege, hata kama alikuwa mwasi; bali hakuna tofauti hata kuhusu ubatili wa kumwadhibu mnyama yeyote, na yapo maandiko ya Shari'ah yaliyokuja kuhusu jambo hili. Mtume ﷺ alisema:

“And he took attendance of the birds and said, "Why do I not see the hoopoe - or is he among the absent?; I will surely punish him with a severe punishment or slaughter him unless he brings me clear authorization."” (TMQ 27:20-1) and there is no difference amongst the Muslims regarding the prohibition of the punishment of the bird and even if it was disobedient; rather, there is no difference even regarding the invalidity of punishing any animal and there are Shari’ah texts that came regarding this. The Prophet (pbuh) (saw) said:

.» الْعَجْمَاءُ جَرْحُهَا جُ بَارٌ «.

.» الْعَجْمَاءُ جَرْحُهَا جُ بَارٌ «.

"Majeraha yanayosababishwa na mnyama ni bila dhima" (imekubaliwa kupitia Abu Hurayrah); imetajwa katika kamusi ya Al-Muheet: "Al-Jubaar ni kama wingu lililoharibu mwoga, na Al-Jubaar ni hasara na batili". Kwa hiyo, uharibifu unaosababishwa na mifugo, pamoja na ndege, hauna fidia (yaani, mmiliki hana dhima). Kuhusu Shari'ah ya Musa, Allah (SWT) anasema:

“The injuries caused by the beast are without liability” (agreed upon through Abu Hurayrah); it is mentioned in Al-Muheet dictionary: “The Jubaar is like the cloud which destroyed the cowardly, and Jubaar is loss and invalid”. Therefore, the damage caused by livestock, as well as the bird, is not indemnified (i.e. the owner is not liable). With respect to the Shari’ah of Musa, Allah (swt) says:

"Na kwa wale waliokuwa Mayahudi Tuliwakataza kila mnyama mwenye kwato zisizopasuka; na katika ng'ombe na kondoo Tuliwakataza mafuta yao, isipokuwa yale yaliyo migongoni mwao au matumbo au yale yaliyochanganyika na mfupa." (TMQ 6:146), na katika Shari'ah ya Uislamu yote hayo yamehalalishwa kwa Waislamu kwa neno lake (SWT):

“And to those who are Jews We prohibited every animal of uncloven hoof; and of the cattle and the sheep We prohibited to them their fat, except what adheres to their backs or the entrails or what is joined with bone.” (TMQ 6:146), and in the Shari’ah of Islam all of that has been made permitted for the Muslims by His (swt) word:

"Na chakula chenu ni halali kwao." (TMQ 5:5), na mafuta haya ni katika chakula chetu, kwa hivyo ni halali kwao. Maneno ya Umm Maryam katika Qur'ani,

“And your food is lawful for them.” (TMQ 5:5), and this fat is from our food so it is permitted for them. The words of Umm Maryam in the Quran,.

“[Taja, ee Muhammad ﷺ], wakati mke wa 'Imran alipoyasema, {Mola wangu, hakika nimekuwekea nadhiri yale yaliyomo tumboni mwangu, yawe kwa utumishi wako}” (TMQ 3:35), ni sehemu ya Shari'ah ya watu wa wakati wa Zakariyyah, na hili si jambo linaloruhusiwa katika Uislamu kwa asili. Maneno …

“[Mention, O Muhammad], when the wife of 'Imran said, "My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service].” (TMQ 3:35), are part of the Shari’ah of the people at the time of Zakariyyah and this is not permitted in Islam in origin. The words,.

"Chakula chote kilikuwa halali kwa Wana wa Israili isipokuwa kile ambacho Israili alikijiharamishia mwenyewe." (TMQ 3:93), ni sehemu ya Shari'ah ya Ya'qub, na katika Uislamu hairuhusiwi kujiharamishia mwenyewe kile ambacho Allah (SWT) amekihalalisha. Anasema (SWT):

“All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had made unlawful to himself.” (TMQ 3:93), are part of the Shari’ah of Ya’qub and in Islam it is not permitted to prohibit oneself from what Allah (swt) allowed; He (swt) says:

“Ee Nabii, kwa nini unajikataza yale ambayo Allah amekuhalalishia.” (TMQ 66:1). Sharia ya Watu wa Kitabu wakati wa masahaba wa Pango inajumuisha,

“O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you.” (TMQ 66:1). The Shari’ah of the People of the Book at the time of the companions of the Cave includes,.

“Wale waliokuwa wameshinda walisema: “Hakika tutajenga msikiti juu yao.””. (TMQ 18:21), na hili ni haramu katika Uislamu; Mtume ﷺ alisema.

“The ones who won said “we shall build a place of worship over them”.” (TMQ 18:21), and this is prohibited in Islam; the Prophet (pbuh) said.

. إِنَّ أُولَئِكَ إِذَا كَانَ فِيهِمُ الرَّجُلُ الصَّالِحُ فَمَاتَ بَ نَ وْا عَلَى قَ بْرِهِ مَسْجِدًا وَصَوَّرُوا « » فِيهِ تِلْكَ الصُّوَرَ، فَأُولَئِكَ شِرَارُ الْخَلْقِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ي وَْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ .

. إِنَّ أُولَئِكَ إِذَا كَانَ فِيهِمُ الرَّجُلُ الصَّالِحُ فَمَاتَ بَ نَ وْا عَلَى قَ بْرِهِ مَسْجِدًا وَصَوَّرُوا « » فِيهِ تِلْكَ الصُّوَرَ، فَأُولَئِكَ شِرَارُ الْخَلْقِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ي وَْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ .

"Wakati mtu mwema miongoni mwao (miongoni mwa makundi ya kidini) anapokufa, hujenga mahali pa ibada juu ya kaburi lake, kisha kulipamba kwa picha kama hizo. Hao ndio watakaokuwa viumbe waovu kabisa siku ya Hukumu mbele ya Allah." (Imekubaliwa). Ni sehemu ya Shari'ah ya Musa ni maneno haya.

“When a pious person amongst them (among the religious groups) dies they build a place of worship on his grave, and then decorate it with such pictures. They would be the worst of creatures on the Day of judgment in the sight of Allah.” (agreed upon). Part of the Shari’ah of Musa are the words.

“Na tuliwaandikia humo kwamba roho kwa roho, jicho kwa jicho, pua kwa pua, sikio kwa sikio, jino kwa jino, na kwa majeraha kuna kisasi cha haki. Lakini atakayesamehe kwa njia ya sadaka, basi huo ni upatanisho kwake. Na asiyehukumu kwa yale aliyoteremsha Allah, basi hao ndio madhalimu.” (TMQ 5:45), ilhali sisi hatuchukui kutoka humu kwa sababu hatujaamriwa nayo, na ni wengine kabla yetu walioamriwa nayo. Uislamu umetuwajibisha tu kulipiza kisasi katika haya yote na katika mambo mengine kwa kauli yake (SWT):

“And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (TMQ 5:45), while we do not take from this because we are not ordered with it and only other than us were ordered by it. Islam only obligated us with retaliation from all of these and in other issues by His (swt) words:

"Basi yeyote aliyewashambulia ninyi, nanyi washambulieni kwa namna ile ile aliyowashambulia ninyi." (TMQ 2: 194), Kauli yake (swt),

“So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (TMQ 2: 194), His (swt) saying,.

"Na mkiadhibu, enyi Waumini, adhibuni kwa kipimo sawa na kile mlichodhulumiwa nacho." (TMQ 16:126) na maneno Yake (swt).

“And if you punish, O believers, punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.” (TMQ 16:126) and His (swt) words.

"Na malipizi ya uovu ni uovu mfano wake." (TMQ 42:40). Zaidi ya hayo, maneno Yake (SWT).

“And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it.” (TMQ 42:40). In addition, His (swt) words.

"Na kwa majeraha ni kisasi cha kisheria." (TMQ 5:45) yanapingana na Qisas (kisasi) katika Uislamu, kwa sababu Qisas katika Uislamu ni fidia, na hakuna chochote katika Taurati kinachohusu kukubali fidia. Badala yake, fidia ipo tu katika sheria ya Kiislamu, na fidia hiyo ni diyah (fidia ya damu). Hivyo, fidia ya damu kwa kile kisichofikia kiwango cha kuua huitwa fidia. Vilevile, sheria nyingi za Qisas katika visa vinavyosimuliwa kuhusu Manabii waliotangulia na umma zao, vinavyoeleza hali zao na kile walichokuwa wakifuata katika sheria, zinapingana na sheria za Uislamu; sasa vipi sisi tunaweza kuelekezwa kwa hizo?

“And for wounds is legal retribution.” (TMQ 5:45) conflicts with Qisas (recompense) in Islam since the Qisas in Islam is the fine, and there is nothing in the Torah about accepting the fine. Rather, the fine is only in Islamic law and the fine is the blood money; so, the blood money for what falls short of life is called the fine. Likewise, many rules about Qisaas in the stories that have been narrated about the previous Prophets and nations, explaining their circumstance and what they used to follow from laws, contradict the laws of Islam; so how can we be addressed by them?

Haiwezekani kusemwa kuwa sheria hizi zimefutwa na Sharia ya Kiislamu, kwa kuwa zimesimuliwa bila kizuizi, na sheria zilizotufikia hazikuja kama kufuta sheria zilizotangulia. Badala yake zimekuja kama Sharia kwa ajili yetu, na hakuna uhusiano wowote kati ya sheria hizi. Kwa hiyo, suala la kufutwa (naskh) halipo, na wito kuhusu jambo hilo ni dai lisilo na msingi, kwa kuwa kufutwa ni kuondolewa kwa hukumu iliyofahamika kutoka kwenye maandiko ya Sharia iliyotangulia kwa maandiko ya baadaye, kama vile maneno ya Mtume ﷺ:

It cannot be said that these laws have been abrogated by the Islamic Shari’ah since they were narrated without restriction and the laws which have come to us did not come as abrogation for laws before us. Rather they came as a Shari’ah for us and there is no relationship between these laws. Accordingly, the issue of abrogation is not found and the call regarding it is a claim that has no backing since abrogation is the nullification of the rule which is understood from a previous Shari’ah text by a subsequent one, such as the words of the Messenger (pbuh) :

.» نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ، فَ زُورُوهَا « .

.» نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ، فَ زُورُوهَا « .

"Nilikukatazeni kuzuru makaburi, lakini sasa mnaweza kuyazuru." (imepokewa na Muslim kupitia Buraydah), na riwaya ya Al-Rabi' katika Musnad yake kupitia Ibn Abbas.

“I forbade you to visit graves, but you may now visit them.” (reported by Muslim through Buraydah), and the report of Al-Rabi’ in his Musnad through Ibn Abbas,.

.» كُنْتُ نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ القُبُورِ، أَلاَ فَ زُورُوهَا « .

.» كُنْتُ نَ هَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ القُبُورِ، أَلاَ فَ زُورُوهَا « .

“(Hapo awali) nilikukataza kuzuru makaburi, lakini sasa yazuruni.”; kwa hiyo, kubatilishwa na kuinuliwa kwa hukumu ya awali kwa maandiko ya Shari‘ah yanayofuata ni naskh (kufuta hukumu). Basi, ili naskh itokee, ni lazima kuwepo hukumu iliyofutwa iliyoteremshwa kabla ya hukumu inayofuta, na kuwepo dalili katika maandiko yanayofuta kwamba ni kufuta kwa hukumu hiyo mahsusi; na kitu kingine chochote hakihesabiwi kuwa naskh. Tofauti tu kati ya hukumu mbili au mgongano baina yake hauifanyi moja kuwa naskh ya nyingine; bali ni lazima kuwepo dalili katika maandiko yanayofuta inayoonyesha kwamba ni naskh ya hukumu fulani mahsusi. Kwa msingi huo, hukumu hizi zilizosimuliwa kutoka Shara'i' zilizotangulia hazifutwi na hukumu za Uislamu zinazotofautiana nazo au kupingana nazo, kwa kuwa hakuna kinachoonyesha hivyo. Zaidi ya hayo, hakuna uhusiano wowote kati yake na hukumu za Uislamu katika sheria; kwa hiyo, zinafutwa kwa kufutwa kwa Shari'ah zilizotangulia na Shari'ah ya Uislamu, na si kwa sheria mahsusi za umma huo zilizokuja kuzifuta. Kwa hili, imedhihirika wazi kwamba kudhani kuwa sisi tunahusika na yale aliyokuja nayo Mtume (rehma na amani zimshukie) na tumefungwa nayo ni hoja batili, kwa kuwa sisi tunahusika na yale yaliyotufikia kutoka kwake katika sheria ya Uislamu na tumefungwa nayo, na hatuhusiki na yale aliyotusimulia katika hadithi za Manabii waliotangulia na habari zao, wala hatuhusiki na yale aliyotufafanulia kuhusu hali za mataifa yaliyotangulia na sheria walizokuwa wakizifuata. Kwa msingi huo, imedhihirika wazi kwamba sheria za waliotutangulia si sheria kwetu, na ubatili wa kuziona kuwa miongoni mwa dalili za Kiislamu nao pia umedhihirika.

“(In the past) I forbade you from visiting graves, but visit them now.”; therefore, the nullification and raising of the previous rule by a subsequent Shari’ah text is abrogation. Therefore, for abrogation to take place there must be an abrogated rule that was revealed before the abrogating rule, and for an indication to be present in the abrogating text that it is an abrogation for that rule, and anything other than this is not considered to be abrogation. The mere difference between two rules or contradiction between them does not make one of them an abrogation for the other; rather, there must be an indication in the abrogating text which indicates that it is an abrogation for a specific rule. Accordingly, these rules, narrated from the previous Shara’ih, are not abrogated by the rules of Islam which differs with them or contradicts them since there is nothing which indicates that. Furthermore, there is no relationship between them and the rules of Islam in legislation; so, they are abrogated by the abrogation of the previous Shara’ih by the Shari’ah of Islam and not by laws specific to them that came to abrogate them. With this, it is clear that the inference that we are addressed by what the Messenger (pbuh) came with and are restricted by it as being an invalid inference since we are addressed by what came to us with him from the legislation of Islam and restricted by that, and we are not addressed by what he related to us from the stories of the previous Prophets and their narrations, and neither are we addressed by what he explained to us from the circumstances of the previous nations and what laws they used to follow. Accordingly, it has become apparent with clarity that the legislation of those before us is not legislation for us and the invalidity of considering it being from the Islamic evidences is also apparent.

Hata hivyo, ikiwa itapatikana andiko jingine la Shari'ah lenye hukumu kutoka katika Shari'ah ya waliotangulia, ambalo linaonyesha kwamba sisi tunaelekezwa nalo, basi, katika hali hiyo, hukumu hii itakuwa imepatikana katika Kitabu au katika Sunnah, na pamoja nayo itapatikana andiko la Shari'ah linaloonyesha kwamba tunaelekezwa nalo katika Shari'ah yetu, na kuna kauli ya Mwenye kutoa Shari'ah (SWT) kwetu iliyopo humo inayoonyesha kwamba ni kwa ajili yetu. Hivyo itakuwa wajibu kulitekeleza basi. Hata hivyo, hii haitakuwa kwa sababu ilikuwa Shari'ah ya waliotangulia, bali ni kwa sababu ya kuelekezwa kulikopo katika hukumu hiyo hiyo ambayo ni kwa ajili yetu; yaani, kwa sababu Allah (SWT) ametuelekeza nayo, na Mtume ﷺ ametufahamisha kwamba ilikuwa katika Shari'ah aliyokuja nayo, yaani hukumu za Uislamu.

However, if another Shari’ah text is found with the laws from the Shari’ah of those before us which indicates that we are addressed by them, then, in that case, this rule would become found in the Book or in the Sunnah, and alongside it a Shari’ah text would be found that indicates that we are addressed by it in our Shari’ah and the address of the Legislator (swt) for us existed there which indicates that it is for us and so it would be obligatory to take action upon it then. However, this would not be because it was a Shari’ah of those before us but because of the address found in the same rule that is for us; in other words, because Allah (swt) addressed us by it and the Messenger (pbuh) informed us that it was from the Shari’ah which he had come with, i.e. the laws of Islam.

Inakuwa wazi kwa yule anayefuata sheria zilizokuja katika Kitabu, Sunnah na Shariah zilizotangulia, kwamba maandishi yanayokuja yakionyesha kwamba sisi ndio tunaelekezwa nayo, na kwamba yanatoka katika Shariah yetu, yanaweza kuja katika hali tatu:

It becomes apparent to the one who follows the laws that have come in the Book, the Sunnah and the previous Shara’ih that the text that comes indicating that we are addressed by it, that it is from our Shari’ah, could come in three circumstances:

Kwanza, pale aya ya kanuni inapoanza kwa kutuelekezea sisi moja kwa moja, kama aya inayohusu Kanz (mali iliyohifadhiwa), Allah (SWT) anasema:

Firstly, when the verse which the rule came with begins by directing the address towards us such as the verse regarding Kanz (hoarded wealth), Allah (swt) says:

“Enyi mlioamini, hakika wengi wa maulamaa na watawa hula mali za watu kwa dhuluma na huwazuia na njia ya Allah. Na wale wanaokusanya dhahabu na fedha wala hawazitoi katika njia ya Allah, basi wape habari njema ya adhabu chungu.” (TMQ 9:34). Allah (SWT) amewasemesha sisi kwa aya hii; kwa hiyo, kila kilichotajwa ndani yake ni Shari’ah kwetu. Kwa msingi huo, Kanz imekatazwa katika Shari’ah yetu, ingawa sehemu ya aya iliyokataza hilo ilikuwa ikieleza hali ya makasisi na watawa.

“O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah - give them tidings of a painful punishment.” (TMQ 9:34). Allah (swt) has addressed us with this verse; so, whatever it mentioned is a Shari’ah for us. Accordingly, Kanz is prohibited in our Shari’ah even though part of the verse that prohibited it was explaining the circumstances of the rabbis and monks.

Pili, pale ambapo aya iliyokuja na hukumu imekuja na neno linaloonyesha ujumla, kama vile aya zinazotaja kuhukumu kwa kisichokuwa alichoteremsha Allah. Allah (SWT) anasema.

Secondly, when the verse which came with the rule has come with a word which indicates generality, such as the verses which mention ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. Allah (swt) says.

"Na yeyote asiyehukumu kwa yale aliyoteremsha Mwenyezi Mungu - basi hao ndio makafiri." (TMQ 5:44). Kwa hiyo, neno "yeyote" linaonyesha ujumla, na hii ina maana kwamba linatujumuisha sisi na hivyo sisi ndio tunaolengwa nalo. Vilevile, Allah (swt) anasema:

“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (TMQ 5:44). So, the word “whoever” indicates generality and this means that it encompasses us and thus we are addressed by it. Similarly, Allah (swt) says:

"Na yeyote asiyehukumu kwa yale aliyoteremsha Mwenyezi Mungu, basi hao ndio madhalimu." (TMQ 5:45), na kwa namna hiyo hiyo.

“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (TMQ 5:45), and in the same way.

"Na yeyote asiyehukumu kwa yale aliyoyateremsha Allah, basi hao ndio wanaovuka mipaka."

“And whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.” (TMQ 5:49).

Tatu, ikiwa aya inaishia kwa kitu kinachoelekeza umakini wetu kwenye hukumu zilizomo ndani yake, kama aya ya Qisas ambapo Qarun alitajwa; Allah (SWT) anasema:

Thirdly, if the verse ends with something that draws our attention to the laws which are within it, such as the verse of Qisas where Qarun was mentioned; Allah (swt) says:

Hakika Qaarun alikuwa miongoni mwa watu wa Musa, lakini aliwadhulumu. Nasi tulimpa hazina ambazo funguo zake zingewalemea kundi la watu wenye nguvu. (SWT) akasema:

“Indeed, Qarun was from the people of Moses, but he tyrannized them. And We gave him of treasures whose keys would burden a band of strong men.” until His (swt) words:

“Ole, jinsi makafiri wasivyofanikiwa!” (TMQ 28:76-82). Aya hii inafuatiwa moja kwa moja na maneno yake (SWT):

“Oh, how the disbelievers do not succeed!” (TMQ 28:76-82). This verse is followed directly afterwards by His (swt) words:

“Nyumba hiyo ya Akhera tunawapa wale wasiotaka ukuu katika ardhi wala ufisadi. Na mwisho mwema ni wa wacha Mungu. Atakayekuja (Siku ya Hukumu) na tendo jema atapata bora kuliko hilo.” (TMQ 28:83), na hivyo aya zikawa ni ujumbe kwa Mtume ﷺ na kwa Waumini. Hili linaelekeza umakini kwenye sheria zilizokuja (ndani yake) pale inaposemwa:

“That home of the Hereafter We assign to those who do not desire exaltedness upon the earth or corruption. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous; Whoever comes [on the Day of Judgement] with a good deed will have better than it.” (TMQ 28:83), and so the verses became an address to the Messenger (pbuh) and to the believers. This draws attention to the laws which came (within them) when it is said:

"Wale wasiotamani kujikweza duniani".

“Those who do not desire exaltedness upon the earth”.

Na hizi zilikuwa kanuni kuhusu Qaaruun aliyetaka utukufu katika ardhi, lakini kuna kinachoonyesha kwamba sisi pia tunaelekezwa kwa sheria hizi.

and these were rules regarding Qaroon who wanted grandeur in the land but there is what indicates that we are addressed by these laws.

Katika hali hizi tatu, sheria zilizomo katika aya za watu waliotangulia zitachukuliwa kuwa sheria kutoka katika Shari'ah ya Kiislamu, kwa sababu kuna kitu kinachoonyesha kwamba sisi tunasemeshwa nazo, na tunazikubali kwa sifa yake kama sheria kutoka katika Shari'ah ya Kiislamu, na si kwa sifa ya kuwa ni sehemu ya Shari'ah ya wale waliokuja kabla yetu, kwa kuwa Shari'ah ya wale waliotangulia si Shari'ah kwetu.

In these three circumstances, laws of the verses of previous people will be considered as laws from the Islamic Shari’ah since there is something that indicates that we are addressed by them and we adopt them in their characteristic as laws from the Islamic Shari’ah and not from the characteristic that they were from a Shari’ah of those before us since the Shari’ah of those who came before us is not a Shari’ah for us.

Kuhusu wale wanaosema kwamba Istihsaan (matumizi ya busara katika uamuzi wa kisheria) ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah, hawawezi kuleta dalili moja wala hata dalili zisizo na maelezo maalum kutoka katika Shari'ah inayounga mkono madai yao. Istihsaan inaweza kufafanuliwa na wale wanaoichukulia kama dalili ya Shari'ah kwamba: ni dalili inayomjia Mujtahid pale anaposhindwa kuidhihirisha kutokana na ukosefu wa msaada wa kuielezea. Pia inafafanuliwa kuwa ni kuacha upande mmoja miongoni mwa pande za Ijtihad bila kuukamilisha kwa maneno, kwa ajili ya upande mwingine ulio imara zaidi kuliko huo, ambao ungekuwa kama jambo lisilotarajiwa linalotokea juu ya lile la kwanza. Vilevile, inafafanuliwa kwamba katika suala fulani ni kuachana na hukumu inayofanana nalo na kuihamishia hukumu nyingine, kutokana na upande wenye nguvu zaidi unaolazimu hatua hiyo. Zaidi ya hayo, inafafanuliwa kuwa ni kulitenganisha suala na mengine yanayofanana nalo.

With regards to those who say that Istihsaan (application of discretion in a legal decision) is from the Shari’ah evidences, they are not able to come with single or even indefinite evidence from the Shari’ah that supports their claim. Istihsaan can be explained by those who take it as a Shari’ah evidence that: it is evidence which occurs to the Mujtahid when he or she is unable to make it apparent due to the lack of help to express it. It is also explained that it is to leave an aspect from amongst the aspects of Ijtihad without the completeness of the words for another aspect which is stronger than it and which would be like an unexpected factor on the first. In the same manner, it is explained that it is in an issue to abandon the rule comparable to it to another rule due to a stronger aspect that necessitates this move. Additionally, it is explained that it is to cut off an issue from comparable ones.

Istihsaan imegawanyika katika aina mbili; ya kwanza ni Istihsaan ya Qiyasi, na ya pili ni Istihsaan ya dharura. Istihsaan ya Qiyasi ni kuacha hukumu ya Qiyasi dhahiri inayojitokeza kwa ajili ya hukumu nyingine kupitia Qiyasi mwingine ulio laini zaidi na uliofichika, lakini ni dalili yenye nguvu zaidi, yenye mtazamo wa kuridhisha zaidi na istinbati sahihi zaidi. Mfano wa hili ni: mtu akinunua gari kutoka kwa watu wawili katika mkataba mmoja kwa mkopo kutoka kwao. Kisha, mmoja wa wadai hao wawili akapewa sehemu ya deni hili. Hata hivyo, hana haki ya kulichukua mahsusi; bali mshirika wake katika deni ana haki ya kudai sehemu yake ya malipo, kwa kuwa yeye (mdai wa kwanza) ameliweka mikononi mwake kutoka katika bei ya jumla ya mauzo ya mkataba mmoja. Zaidi ya hayo, kuchukua kwa yeyote kati ya washirika hao wawili kutoka katika bei ya jumla ya mauzo kati yao ni kuchukua kwa washirika wote wawili; yaani, ni kuchukua kwa ajili ya ushirika, wala si kwa mmoja wao kuchukua mahsusi. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa kilichochukuliwa kitaharibika wakati kiko mikononi mwa aliyekipokea kabla mshirika wa pili hajachukua sehemu yake kutoka humo, basi kwa mujibu wa Qiyasi punguzo lingekuwa likitolewa kutoka jumla ya kiasi cha wote wawili, yaani, kutoka jumla ya ushirika. Hata hivyo, kwa Istihsaan hasara itahesabiwa kuwa inatolewa tu kwa yule aliyepokea, wala hasara hiyo haitahesabiwa dhidi ya mshirika wa pili kwa mujibu wa Istihsaan, kwa kuwa asili yake si kwamba haligawanyiki na ushirika wa aliyepokea; bali anaweza kuacha kile kilichopokelewa na mchukuaji na kujiunga na mdaiwa kwa yeye mwenyewe mahsusi. Mifano mingine hufuata kwa namna hii hii. Hii ndiyo Istihsaan ya Qiyasi.

Istihsaan is divided into two categories; the first is Istihsaan Qiyasi and the second is Istihsaan of necessity. Istihsaan Qiyasi is to abandon the rule of an apparent Qiyas that comes to fore for a different rule by another Qiyas which is more subtle and hidden, but is a stronger proof, with a more satisfying viewpoint and a more correct derivation. An example of this is: if a person bought a car from two people in one agreement as a loan from them. Then, one of the two creditors was given part of this debt. However, he didn’t have the right to take it specifically; rather, his partner in the debt has a right to claim his part of the receipt since he (the first creditor) has appropriated it from the combined sale price in the single sale. Moreover, the appropriation of either of the two partners from the price of the combined sale between them is the appropriation of both the partners, in other words, it is an appropriation for the partnership and it is not for either of them to take specifically. So, if whatever was taken is destroyed while it is in the possession of the one who received it before the second partner took his share from it, then the deduction from the Qiyas is that it would be taken away from the total sum of the two, or in other words, from the total sum of the partnership. However, in Istihsaan the loss would be considered to be taken only from the one who had received it and the loss would not be counted against the second partner according to Istihsaan since in origin he is not inseparable from the partnership of the one who received it; rather, he is able to leave what is received by the appropriator and become attached to the debtor by himself specifically. The other examples follow in the same manner. This is Istihsaan Qiyasi.

Kuhusu Istihsaan ya dharura, ni kile kinachopingana na kanuni ya Qiyas kwa kuzingatia dharura iliyo lazima au manufaa yanayohitajika ili kutimiza haja au kuzuia uzito. Hili hutokea pale ambapo kanuni inayotokana na Qiyas inaleta uzito au tatizo katika baadhi ya masuala, hivyo inaachwa wakati huo kwa ajili ya kanuni nyingine itakayoondoa uzito na kuzuia tatizo. Mfano wa hili ni mfanyakazi, kwani kumiliki kwake kwa kile alichoajiriwa kukifanyia kunachukuliwa kuwa ni Amanat (amana); hivyo hakuna dhamana ya kulipa iwapo kitaharibika kikiwa mikononi mwake mradi tu hakuwa mzembe. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa mtu amemwajiri mtu afanye kazi nyumbani kwake ya kushona nguo za mtu mwingine kwa mwezi mmoja, huyo anachukuliwa kuwa mfanyakazi binafsi. Kisha, nguo zikiharibika zikiwa mikononi mwa mfanyakazi huyo bila yeye kufanya uvunjaji wowote, hakuna malipo ya dhamana kwa kuwa alikishika kama amana. Vilevile, ikiwa mtu amemwajiri mtu afanye kazi dukani kwake ya kushona nguo za watu wengine, na yeye alikuwa akishona nguo za watu wote, basi huyo ni mfanyakazi wa jumla. Hivyo, nguo zikiharibika zikiwa mikononi mwa mfanyakazi huyu bila yeye kufanya uvunjaji wowote, hakuna dhamana kwa kuwa alizishika kama amana kwa namna hiyo hiyo. Hata hivyo, kwa mujibu wa Istihsaan, mfanyakazi binafsi hana dhamana, ilhali mfanyakazi wa jumla anayo, ili asikubali kazi nyingi kuliko awezavyo kufanya, kwani anaweza kuharibu mali za watu.

As for Istihsaan of necessity, it is what contradicts the rule of Qiyas by taking into account an incumbent necessity or a required benefit in order to fulfil the need or prevent the hardship. This occurs when the rule from the Qiyas leads to a hardship or a problem in some issues and so it is abandoned at that time by Istihsaan for another rule which would remove the hardship and repel the problem. This is like the example of the employee since his possession with respect to what he is employed upon is considered to be an Amanat (trust); so there is no liability (to be paid) if it is damaged while it is with him as long as he was not negligent. Therefore, if someone employed a person to work in his house to sew clothes for someone else for one month, he is considered a private employee. Then, if the clothes were damaged while they are in the employee’s possession without any transgression from him, there is no payment of liability because he possessed it as a trust. Additionally, if someone employed someone to work in his shop to sew clothes for others and he used to sew clothes for all the people, then he is a general employee. So, if the clothes are destroyed while they are in this employee’s possession without any transgression from him then there is no liability since he held them as a trust in the same manner. However, according to Istihsaan, there is no liability upon the private employee while there is for the general employee so that he (the general employee) would not accept more work than he is able to do since he might destroy the peoples’ wealth.

Muhtasari wa Istihsaan na ushahidi wake ni huu. Ni wazi kwamba hizi si ushahidi; bali ni marekebisho ya kiakili tu, ambayo hayatokani na Kitabu wala Sunnah. Hazifikii hata kiwango cha kuchukuliwa kuwa ushahidi wa dhana (ushahidi usio wa uhakika), achilia mbali ushahidi wa hakika unaothibitisha kwamba Istihsaan ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa upande mmoja; na kwa upande mwingine, kila kinachotokana na marekebisho ya kiakili ni batili.

This is the summary of Istihsaan and its evidences. It is apparent that they are not evidences; rather, they are simply rational amendments that are neither from the Book nor from the Sunnah. They do not even reach the level of being considered indefinite proofs let alone conclusive proofs that Istihsaan is from the Shari’ah evidences. This is from one angle and from another angle; whatever comes about from rational amendment is void.

Kuhusu maelezo ya Istihsaan, yote hayo si sahihi. Kuhusu maelezo ya kwanza, kwamba ushahidi hujisikia akilini mwa Mujtahid na yeye hajui ni nini, hairuhusiwi kuchukulia kitu kuwa ushahidi maadamu bado hakijulikani, kwa kuwa kukosa uwezo wa kukifafanua na kukidhihirisha kunathibitisha kwamba kitu hicho si wazi kwa Mujtahid na kwamba yeye hana ujuzi nacho; kwa hiyo si sahihi kukihesabu miongoni mwa ushahidi wa Shari'ah. Kuhusu maelezo mengine, maana zake zote ni moja, yaani kuacha suala linalofanana na suala lililopo kwa ajili ya msimamo mwingine wenye nguvu zaidi; kwa maneno mengine, kuacha Qiyas kwa ajili ya ushahidi wenye nguvu zaidi. Ikiwa maelezo haya yanamaanisha kwa "ushahidi wenye nguvu zaidi" maandiko kutoka Kitabu au Sunnah, basi huu si Istihsaan; ni kuipa nguvu zaidi nassi, hivyo ni kupata hukumu kutoka kwenye nassi, ambayo ni kupata hukumu kwa Kitabu au Sunnah na si kwa Istihsaan. Ikiwa "ushahidi wenye nguvu zaidi" ni akili kwa yale inayoyaona kuwa maslahi, na hii ndiyo maana inayokusudiwa, basi hili ni batili, kwa kuwa Qiyas imejengwa juu ya 'Illah ya Shari'ah ambayo imebainishwa na nassi, nayo ni kauli ya Mwenye kutoa sheria (swt) kwetu. Akili na maslahi si nassi za Shari'ah, wala si 'Illah nyingine yenye nguvu kuliko nassi; bali hakuna uhusiano kati ya akili na maslahi na nassi ya Shari'ah (yaani kile kilichoteremka kama Wahyi). Kwa sababu hiyo, kuacha Qiyas kwa namna hii ni batili.

With respect to the explanations of Istihsaan, all of them are invalid. As for the first explanation that the evidence is sensed in the mind of the Mujtahid and that he or she does not know what it is, it is not permitted to consider something an evidence as long as it remains unknown since the lack of ability to make it clear and apparent proves that it is not clear to the Mujtahid and that he or she lacks knowledge of it; so, it is not correct to be from amongst the Shari’ah evidences. As for the other explanations, all of their meanings are the same, i.e. to abandon similar issues to the issue at hand for another stronger view, in other words, to abandon Qiyas for stronger evidence. If these explanations intend by the “stronger evidence”, a text from the Book or the Sunnah, then this is not Istihsaan; it is rather preference of the text, so it is deducing from the text which would be deduction by the Book or the Sunnah and not deduction by Istihsaan. If the “stronger evidence” is the mind by what it considers as benefit and this is the intended meaning, then this is invalid since Qiyas is built upon the Shari’ah ‘Illah which is determined by the text and it is the address of the Legislator (swt) to us. The mind and the benefit are not Shari’ah texts and nor are they another ‘Illah stronger than the text; rather, there is no relationship between the mind and benefit with the Shari’ah text (i.e. what came as Revelation). For that reason, this abandonment is invalid.

Kuhusu maelezo haya: uainishaji wa Istihsaan, batili ya Istihsaan Qiyasi imedhihirika kutokana na batili ya maelezo ya pili, ambayo yalikuwa ni kuacha masuala yanayofanana na suala hilo. Pia, dai lao kwamba ni Qiyas iliyofichika ni batili kwa sababu halina uhusiano wowote na Qiyas; badala yake, ni hoja tu inayotegemea maslahi (kufanya maslahi kuwa ‘Illah). Kuhusu mfano wa bei ya mauzo ya pamoja yaliyofanyika katika mkataba mmoja, si sahihi kutofautiana katika hukumu ya kwamba hasara ya mali ambayo mmoja wa washirika wawili alijichukulia ni hasara ya mali ya ushirika. Kwa sababu kile ambacho mmoja wa washirika wawili alijichukulia kutoka katika mali ni sehemu ya kile kilichochukuliwa na ushirika. Kwani mali, iwe ni gari lililouzwa au bei yake, ni mali ya ushirika na si mali ya mmoja wa washirika; kwa hiyo hasara yake ni hasara ya mali ya kampuni, kama vile kujichukulia kwake ni kujichukulia kwa mali ya kampuni. Basi, kuacha jambo hili kwa sababu ya maslahi hakuna nafasi yake, nako kunapingana na Shari’ah.

This is regarding the explanations. As for the categorisation of Istihsaan, the invalidity of Istihsaan Qiyasi has become clear from the invalidity of the second explanation, which was to abandon the similar issues to the issue. Also, their consideration that it is a hidden Qiyas is invalid because it has no relationship with Qiyas; rather, it is simply reasoning by benefit (making the benefit an ‘Illah). Regarding the example of the price of a combined sale which was sold in one agreement, it is not correct to differ in the rule, the loss of the wealth which one of the two partners appropriated, that it is a loss from the wealth of the partnership, for what one of the two partners appropriated from the wealth is from the appropriation of the partnership. Because the wealth, irrespective of whether it was the sold car or its price, is the wealth of the partnership and not the wealth of one of the partners; so its loss is the loss of the wealth of the company just like its appropriation is an appropriation of the wealth of the company. So, this beneficial (Maslahi) abandonment has no place and it contradicts the Shari’ah.

Kuhusu Istihsaan ya dharura, ubatili wake uko wazi kwa kuwa hukumu yake hutolewa kwa akili na kwa kile akili inachokiona kuwa na manufaa; si dalili ya Shari'ah, na 'Illah iliyochukuliwa inapewa kipaumbele zaidi kuliko dalili ya Shari'ah (yaani, ufahamu wa dalili ya Shari'ah). Yote haya ni batili bila haja ya majadiliano yoyote. Kisha, kumfanya mfanyakazi wa pamoja awajibike na mfanyakazi binafsi asiwajibike ni kupendelea jambo bila ushahidi ili lipewe kipaumbele, na hilo linapingana na dalili ya Shari'ah. Al-Bayhaqi ameipokea katika Sunan Al-Kubra kutoka kwa 'Amr bin Shu'ayb, kutoka kwa baba yake, kutoka kwa babu yake, kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema:

As for the Istihsaan of necessity, its invalidity is clear in that it is ruled by the mind and what the mind perceives as benefit; it is not a Shari’ah text and the adopted reason (‘Illah) is preferred to the Shari’ah text (that is, the comprehension of Shari’ah text). All of this is invalid without any necessary discusssion. Then, to make the shared employee liable and the private employee not liable is to prefer something without evidence to make it preferred and it contradicts with the Shari’ah text. It was reported by Al-Bayhaqi in Sunan Al-Kubra from ‘Amr B. Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger (pbuh) said:

.» ثُمَّ لاَ ضَمَانَ عَلَى مُؤْتَمَنٍ « .

.» ثُمَّ لاَ ضَمَانَ عَلَى مُؤْتَمَنٍ « .

“basi hakuna dhima juu ya yule anayechukua amana”. Vivyo hivyo, kupitia Al-Qasim bin Abdul Rahman, kwamba 'Ali na Ibn Mas'ud walisema: “hakuna dhima juu ya yule anayechukua amana”, na katika Sunan yake Al-Bayhaqi anasimulia kutoka kwa Jaber kwamba Abu Bakr alihukumu kwamba amana iliyowekwa katika mfuko, ambao uliungua na hivyo kuharibika, haikupaswa kupata fidia yoyote badala yake; hivyo, hakuna dhima juu ya mtu yeyote aliyepewa amana kabisa, kwa kuwa usemi wa hadithi “hakuna” ni ukanushaji wa jinsi nzima.

“then there is no liability upon the one who takes a trust”. Similarly, through Al-Qasim Bin Abdul Rahman that ‘Ali and Ibn Mas’ud said: “there is no liability upon the one who takes a trust”, and in his Sunan Al-Bayhaqi reports from Jaber that Abu Bakr ruled that a deposit which had been kept in a bag, which was burnt and so was destroyed, was not to receive any liability in exchange; so, there is no liability upon anyone given a trust at all since the expression of the narration “no” is a negation of the genus.

. "لا ضَمانَ " .

. "لا ضَمانَ " .

“hakuna dhima/uwajibikaji” ambayo inaonyesha ujumla, na hivyo inajumuisha kila mtu aliyeshikilia amana, iwe alikuwa mfanyakazi wa binafsi au mfanyakazi wa jumla.

“no liability/responsibility” which indicates generality, and so it encompasses every one holding a trust whether they were a private employee or a general employee.

Kwa sababu hii, inadhihirika kwamba Istihsaan si miongoni mwa dalili za Shariah, na si sahihi kuichukulia kuwa miongoni mwa dalili hizo, kwa kuwa hakuna ushahidi wowote, wa uhakika au wa dhana, iwe kutoka Qur'an, kutoka Sunnah, au kutoka Ijma' ya Maswahaba unaoonyesha kwamba ni miongoni mwa dalili. Zaidi ya hayo, inatumia akili kama dalili, jambo linalofanya iwe batili, na baadhi ya mifano yake inapingana na maandiko ya Shariah.

By this it is apparent that Istihsaan is not from the Shari’ah evidences, and it is not correct to consider it from the Shari’ah evidences since there is no proof at all, definite or indefinite, whether from the Quran, from the Sunnah or from the Ijma’ of the Companions that indicates that it is from the evidences. This is besides the fact that it is using the mind as evidence which makes it invalid and that some of its examples contradicts Shari’ah texts.

Kuhusu wale wanaosema kwamba Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah zinatokana na dalili za Shari’ah, vivyo hivyo nao pia hawawezi kuleta ushahidi wowote kwa hilo; hata hivyo, wao wanaona kwamba sababu za Shari’ah nzima ni kupata maslahi na kuondoa madhara. Vilevile, wanaona kwamba sababu ya kila hukumu mahsusi ya Shari’ah ni kupata maslahi au kuondoa madhara. Hata hivyo, baadhi yao wanaweka sharti kwamba jambo kuwa ni maslahi lazima liwe limetajwa katika maandishi ya Shari’ah, au kwamba limetajwa kuwa ni aina fulani ya maslahi; lakini wengine hawaweki sharti hili. Badala yake, wao wanaiona Maslahah kuwa dalili ya Shari’ah hata pale ambapo hakuna kutajwa kwa kuzingatiwa kwake wala aina yake katika maandishi ya Shari’ah. Hii ni kwa sababu inaingia chini ya Masalih za jumla ambazo kwazo maslahi hutafutwa na madhara huepukwa.

As for those who say that Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah are from the Shari’ah evidences, in the same manner they are also unable to bring any proof for it; however, they consider the reasons behind the whole of the Shari’ah to be the obtaining of interests and the repulsion of harms. In the same way, they consider the reason behind each specific Shari’ah rule to be the obtaining of the interest or the repulsion of the harm. However, some of them make it a condition that the consideration that something is itself a benefit needs to be found mentioned in a text from the Shari’ah or mentioned that it is a type of interest but some of them do not make this a condition; rather, they consider the Maslahah (benefit) a Shari’ah evidence even if there is no mentioning of the consideration of it or its type in a Shari’ah text. This is because it comes under the general Masalih by which the benefits are sought and the harms are avoided.

Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah inaweza kufafanuliwa kuwa: kila maslahi ambayo hakuna maandiko yaliyosimuliwa katika Shari'ah kuihusu yenyewe au aina yake. Maana ya Mursalah ni kwamba haijatajwa katika dalili. Wamesema kwamba ikiwa maslahi yenyewe yametajwa katika maandiko mahsusi, kama vile kufundisha, kusoma na kuandika, au ikiwa yanatokana na maandiko ya jumla yaliyotaja aina yake yanayothibitisha kuzingatiwa kwake, kama vile kuamrisha kila aina ya wema na kukataza vitendo vyote vya uovu, basi katika hali hizi mbili haihesabiwi kuwa katika Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah. Badala yake, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah hutokana na dalili, yaani, hakuna dalili iliyopatikana juu yake; bali hutolewa kutokana na ujumla wa Shari'ah iliyotumwa ili kupata maslahi na kuondoa madhara. Hata hivyo, kuna tofauti inayofanywa kati ya maslahi ya Shari'ah na yale yasiyo halali, kwani maslahi ya Shari'ah ni yale yanayokubaliana na malengo (Maqasid) ya Shari'ah, na maslahi yasiyo halali ni yale yanayopingana na malengo ya Shari'ah. Basi, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah zinazohesabiwa kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah ni zile zinazokubaliana na malengo ya Shari'ah, na zile zinazopingana na malengo ya Shari'ah hazihesabiwi kuwa katika Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah; kwa hiyo, si dalili ya Shari'ah. Kwa hivyo, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah ni zile ambazo maandiko ya Shari'ah yanaonyesha kuzingatiwa kwake kwa njia ya jumla, na kwa msingi wake hujengwa hukumu mahsusi za Shari'ah pale ambapo hakuna andiko la Shari'ah kuhusu tukio hilo wala kitu chochote kinachofanana nalo, na katika hali hiyo maslahi huwa ndiyo dalili ya Shari'ah.

Al-Masalih Al- Mursalah may be defined as: every interest which has no text narrated in the Shari’ah with respect to it or its type. So, the meaning of Mursalah is that it is not mentioned in evidence. They said that if the Maslahah was itself mentioned in a specific text, such as teaching, reading and writing, or was from a general text which mentioned its type which confirmed its consideration, such as the enjoining of every type of good and the forbiddance of all the acts of evil, then in these two situations it is not considered to be from Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah. Rather, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah is forwarded from the evidence, in other words, there is no evidence found upon it; instead, it is derived from the generality of the Shari’ah being sent to gain the interests and repel the harms. However, there is a difference made between the Shari’ah interests and those which are not legitimate since the Shari’ah interests are those that agree with the intentions (Maqasid) of the Shari’ah, and the interests that are illegitimate are those which contradict the intentions of the Shari’ah. So, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah that are considered to be a Shari’ah evidence are those which agree with the intentions of the Shari’ah, and those which contradict with the intentions of the Shari’ah are not considered to be from Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah; consequently, it is not a Shari’ah evidence. Hence, Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah are those that the Shari’ah texts indicate its consideration in a general manner, and accordingly, specific Shari’ah rules are built upon its basis when there is no Shari’ah text regarding the event or anything which is comparable to it, in which case the interest would be the Shari’ah proof.

Hii ni muhtasari wa Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, na ni batili kwa pande mbili.

This is the summary of Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah and it is invalid from two angles:

Kwanza: matini za Shariah kutoka Qur'an na Sunnah zinahusiana na vitendo maalum vya mwabudu; hivyo, ni ushahidi wa Shariah kwa hukumu ya Shariah katika kitendo hicho, na hazihusiani na maslahi, wala hakuna ushahidi uliokuja kuhusu maslahi. Allah (SWT) alipo sema:

Firstly: the Shari’ah texts from the Quran and the Sunnah are connected to specific actions of the worshipper; so, they are the Shari’ah evidence for the rule of the Shari’ah in that action, and they are not connected with the interests and no evidence came for the interest. When Allah (saw) said:

"Na ikiwa mko safarini na hamkupata mwandishi, basi rehani iliyochukuliwa [inatosha]." (TMQ 2:283), na Alipokuwa amesema (swt):

“And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a security deposit [should be] taken.” (TMQ 2:283), and when He (swt) said:

"Enyi mlioamini, mnapokopeana deni kwa muda uliowekwa, liandikeni." (TMQ 2:282), na pale Alipposema:

“O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down.” (TMQ 2:282), and when He said:

“Na washuhudisheni mnapouziana.” (TMQ 2:282). Yeye (swt) alikuwa anaeleza tu kanuni za rehani, kuandika madeni na kushuhudia mauzo. Yeye (swt) hakufanya wazi, si kwa maneno wala kwa dalili, kama hili lilikuwa riba au la, na maandishi hayafikishi kama kanuni hii ilikuwa riba au la, si kwa karibu wala mbali, wala kwa upande wowote kati ya pande zake mbalimbali. Basi, ni kutoka upande gani inasemwa kwamba riba hizi zimedokezwa na Shari’ah ili riba hii izingatiwe na kisha ichukuliwe kuwa dalili ya Shari’ah?

“And take witnesses when you conclude a contract.” (TMQ 2:282), He (swt) was explaining only the rules of mortgaging, writing down debts and witnessing the sale. He (swt) did not make it evident whether this was an interest or not, neither by expression nor by indication, and the text does not convey whether this rule was an interest or not, neither from close nor far or by any aspect from its various angles. So, from what angle is it said that these interests are indicated by the Shari’ah in order for this interest to be considered and subsequently to be considered as Shari’ah evidence?

Zaidi ya hayo, Shari'ah Illal (wingi wa Illah) zilikuja kwa namna ileile na matini za Shari'ah; zikihusishwa na vitendo vya mwabudu na kuwa ushahidi juu ya dalili ya hukumu ya Shari'ah katika kitendo hicho, na hazikuja kueleza maslahi wala dalili ya maslahi hayo. Hivyo, pale Allah (SWT) anaposema:

Additionally, the Shari’ah Illal (plural of Illah) came in the same manner as the Shari’ah texts; connected to the actions of the worshipper and as evidence upon the indication of the Shari’ah rule in that action, and did not come to explain the interest nor the indication of the interest. So, when Allah (swt) says:

"Ili lisiwe mzunguko wa kudumu miongoni mwa matajiri kati yenu." (TMQ 59:7),

“So that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you.” (TMQ 59:7),.

“Ili wasiwe na dhiki yoyote kwa waumini kuhusu wake wa watoto wao wa kuasili.” (TMQ 33:37) na pale Yeye (SWT) anaposema:

“In order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons.” (TMQ 33:37) and when He (swt) says:

“Na wale ambao nyoyo zao zinatakiwa kutulizwa.” (TMQ 9:60). Yeye (swt) anafafanua tu ‘Illah ya kugawa mali kwa maskini badala ya matajiri, ili kuzuia mali kuzunguka miongoni mwa matajiri; na anafafanua kwamba ‘Illah ya kumuoza Mjumbe ﷺ kwa Zaynab ni maelezo ya kuruhusiwa kwa mtu kumwoa mke wa mwanawe wa kulea. Pia anafafanua kwamba ‘Illah ya kutoa (mali) ili kuvuta nyoyo ni haja ya Dola kuziunganisha nyoyo pamoja. Kwa hiyo, Yeye (swt) hakueleza kwamba hii ni manufaa; badala yake, maelezo yalikuwa kwamba jambo maalum ndilo ‘Illah ya hukumu maalum, bila kuzingatia maslahi au kutokuwepo kwake, na bila kuzingatia chochote kabisa. Basi, kutoka upande gani inaweza kusemwa kwamba Shari‘ah inaonyesha sababu hizi, kiasi kwamba maslahi yaweze kuzingatiwa kuwa ushahidi wa Shari‘ah? Iwapo matini za Shari‘ah hazikuonyesha kwamba Shari‘ah imekuja kwa ajili ya maslahi, wala katika dalili zake juu ya hukumu, wala katika dalili zake juu ya ‘Illah ya hukumu, basi haiwezekani kusemwa kwamba matini zinaonyesha maslahi maalum au aina zake, kwani hakuna chochote kabisa kilichokuja kuhusu hilo katika matini za Shari‘ah. Kwa hiyo, ubatili wa dai kwamba matini za Shari‘ah zimekuja kama ushahidi wa maslahi maalum au aina zake umedhihirika, na kwa hoja zenye nguvu zaidi, maslahi ambayo hayakutajwa na matini ya Shari‘ah inayoonyesha kwamba ni miongoni mwa ushahidi wa Shari‘ah pia hayazingatiwi.

“And those whose hearts are to be conciliated.” (TMQ 9:60), He (swt) is only clarifying the ‘Illah distributing the wealth amongst the poor rather than the rich in order to prevent the circulation of the wealth amongst the rich, and clarifying that the ‘Illah of marrying the Messenger (pbuh) to Zaynab is to be an explanation of the permissibility for someone to marry his adopted son’s wife, and clarifying that the Illah for giving (money) in order to attract the hearts is the need for the State to bind the hearts together. So, He (swt) did not explain that this was benefit; rather, the explanation was that a specific issue was the Illah of a specific rule without any regard given to the interest or its absence and absolutely without any consideration to it. So, from what angle then, can it be said that the Shari’ah indicates these reasons such that the interests can be considered Shari’ah evidence? If the Shari’ah texts did not indicate that the Shari’ah came for the interest, neither in its indications upon the rule nor in its indications for the Illah of the rule, then it is not possible for it to be said that the texts indicate specific interests or by their type since nothing at all came regarding this in the Shari’ah texts. Accordingly, the invalidity of the claim that the Shari’ah texts came as a proof for specific interests or by their type has become clear, and from greater reasoning, the interests that were not mentioned by a text from the Shari’ah that indicates that they are from the Shari’ah evidences are also not considered.

Pili, wameweka sharti kwa Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah kwamba ili ziwe Mursalah, lazima pasiwepo na simulizi lolote la maandiko katika Shari'ah linaloonyesha kuwa zinazingatiwa, iwe kwa jina mahususi au kwa aina yake. Kwa hiyo sharti lao ni kwamba pasiwepo na dalili mahususi kutoka katika Shari'ah kwa ajili yake, na badala yake inafahamika kutokana na malengo ya Shari'ah. Hili peke yake linatosha kuifanya kuwa batili kwa mtazamo wa Shari'ah, kwa sababu kukosekana kwa dalili inayoonyesha jambo hilo kunatosha kulikataa, kwa kuwa hukumu inayotafutwa ni hukumu ya Shari'ah na si hukumu itokanayo na akili. Hivyo, ili jambo lichukuliwe kuwa ni sehemu ya Shari'ah, ni lazima kuwepo dalili inayoonyesha kuwa limo katika yale aliyokuja nayo Wahyi, yaani Kitabu na Sunnah. Basi sharti la kutokuwepo kwa maandiko ya Shari'ah yanayolionyesha linatosha kulikataa kuwa ni sehemu ya Shari'ah.

Secondly, they made a condition for Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah that for them to be Mursalah, there must be no narration of a text in the Shari’ah that indicates that they are considered, neither specifically nor by their type, and so their stipulation is that there should not be a specific proof for it from the Shari’ah and it is rather understood from the intentions of the Shari’ah. This alone is enough to make it void in the view of the Shari’ah because the lack of a proof which indicates it is enough to reject it since the rule sought is the rule of the Shari’ah and not the rule from the mind. Therefore, in order to consider it as being from the Shari’ah, it is imperative that there is a proof which indicates that it is found in what came with the Revelation, i.e. the Book and the Sunnah. So, the stipulation that there is no text from the Shari’ah that indicates it is sufficient to reject it as being from the Shari’ah.

Kuhusu Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah kueleweka kutokana na malengo ya Shari'ah, malengo ya Shari'ah si maandishi ya Shari'ah yanayoweza kueleweka kiasi kwamba kile kinachoeleweka kutoka kwayo kiweze kuchukuliwa kama ushahidi, hivyo hakuna thamani ya kile kinachoeleweka kutoka kwayo kwa kuzitumia kama ushahidi wa hukumu za Shari'ah. Zaidi ya hayo, je, malengo ya Shari'ah ni nini hasa? Ikiwa yanayokusudiwa ni kile maandishi yanachoashiria, kama vile makatazo ya zina, wizi, mauaji, pombe na kuacha Uislamu, basi hilo si lengo la Shari'ah; bali ni hukumu inayohusu vitendo vya mwabudu, na hakuna kuangalia zaidi ya ashirio la maandishi. Kwa hiyo, hakuna nafasi ya kuchukulia kwamba hukumu hiyo iliyoeleweka kutoka kwenye maandishi ni ushahidi wa Shari'ah; bali ni kanuni ya Shari'ah. Kwa hoja nzito zaidi, hakuna uzito unaopewa kwa kile akili inachokidhania kuwa lengo la Shari'ah kutoka kwenye ushahidi wa Shari'ah. Basi, vipi mtu atachukulia kile kinachofikiriwa kwa mawazo matupu kuwa lengo la Shari'ah kuwa ni ushahidi wa Shari'ah?! Kwa msingi huu, uhalali wa kile kinachoeleweka kutoka kwenye malengo ya Shari'ah umebatilika kabisa na kwa ukamilifu.

With respect to Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah being understood from the intentions of the Shari’ah, the intentions of the Shari’ah are not a Shari’ah text which can be understood such that what is understood from them can be considered a proof, and so there is no value in what is understood from them as far as using them as evidence for Shari’ah law. Furthermore, what is meant by the intentions of the Shari’ah? If what is intended by it is what the texts indicate, such as the prohibitions of fornication, stealing, murder, alcohol and apostasy from Islam, then this is not an intention of the Shari’ah; rather, it is the law for the actions of the worshipper and there is no looking beyond the indication of the text. So, there is no place to consider that this law which was understood from the text is Shari’ah evidence; rather, it is a Shari’ah rule. By greater reasoning, there is no account given to what the mind imagines from that law as being the purpose of the Shari’ah to be from the Shari’ah evidences. So, how would you consider that which is conceived from the mere imagination as a purpose of the Shari’ah to be a Shari’ah evidence?!! Based upon this, the validity of what is understood from the intentions of the Shari’ah is completely and utterly void.

Kuhusu kile kinachokusudiwa na kile kinachofahamika kutoka katika hekima yote ya Shari'ah, yaani hekima iliyo nyuma ya kutumwa kwa Mtume ﷺ na ukweli kwamba alikuwa rehema kwa viumbe vyote, basi hii ni Hikma na si Illah, na Hikma inaweza kupatikana au isipatikane. Kwa hiyo, haichukuliwi kuwa msingi unaotumika kama ushahidi kutokana na uwezekano wa kutokuwepo kwake; hivyo, kwa hoja yenye nguvu zaidi, kile kinachofahamika kutoka katika Hikma hakiwezi kuchukuliwa kuwa msingi unaotumika kwa ushahidi.

As for what is intended by what is understood from all the wisdom (Hikma) of the Shari’ah, i.e. the wisdom behind sending the Messenger (pbuh) and the fact that he was a mercy for all creation, then this is a Hikma not an Illah, and the Hikma may or may not be attained. Accordingly, it is not taken as a basis used as evidence due to the possibility of its absence; therefore, by greater reasoning, what is understood from the Hikma cannot be taken as a basis that is used for evidence.

Kwa sababu hiyo, itakuwa si sahihi kudhani kwamba kile kinachofahamika kuwa ni maqaasid za Shari'ah ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah. Pia, kwa mtazamo huu, dhana kwamba kile kinachofahamika kuwa ni lengo la Shari'ah kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah ni batili kabisa. Kwa hiyo, ubatili wa dhana kwamba Al-Masaalih Al-Mursalah ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah umedhihirika.

Due to this, it would be incorrect to consider that what is understood from what is known as the intentions of the Shari’ah as being from the Shari’ah evidences. It is also the case from this angle that the notion that what is understood to be from the purpose of the Shari’ah to be Shari’ah evidence is completely void. Accordingly, the invalidity of the notion that Al-Masalih Al- Mursalah is from the Shari’ah evidences has become clear.

Hii ni kutoka upande wa sababu zilizowafanya waone kwamba Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah ni dalili ya Shari'ah. Kwa upande wa dalili ya Shari'ah kwamba ni miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah, hakuna dalili yoyote ya Shari'ah kabisa kwa hilo, iwe kutoka Kitabu au Sunnah; wala dalili yenye uhakika wala isiyo na uhakika. Kwa sababu hiyo, si sahihi kuichukulia Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah kuwa miongoni mwa dalili za Shari'ah.

This is from the angle of the causes that made them consider that Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah is Shari’ah evidence. As for the angle of the Shari’ah proof that they are from the Shari’ah evidences, there is absolutely no Shari’ah proof for that at all whether from the Book or the Sunnah; neither a conclusive proof nor an indefinite one. For this reason, it is incorrect to consider Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah as being from the Shari’ah evidences.

Kutokana na haya yote, inadhihirika kwamba ushahidi ambao Wahyu ulioteremshwa kutoka kwa Allah (SWT) umekuja nao, ambao umethibitishwa kwa dalili ya uhakika, ni ushahidi wa aina nne tu na hakuna mwingine, nao ni: Kitabu, Sunnah, Ijmaa' ya Maswahaba, na Qiyas ambayo 'Illah yake imetokana na Shari'ah. Ushahidi mwingine zaidi ya hizi dalili nne hauna dalili ya uhakika inayoonyesha kuwa ni ushahidi. Kwa hiyo, imekuwa wazi kwamba dalili za Shari'ah ni hizi nne peke yake.

From all of this, it becomes clear that the evidence that the Revelation came with from Allah (swt), which are confirmed with definite proof, are the four evidences and nothing else, and they are: the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma’ of the Companions and Qiyas whose Illah is from the Shari’ah, and other than these four evidences have no definite proof that indicates them. Accordingly, it has become apparent that the Shari’ah evidences are only these four alone.

Hata hivyo, inapaswa kuwa wazi kwamba kanuni zinazotokana na ushahidi mwingine zaidi ya hizi nne, miongoni mwa kanuni ambazo Imam aliziona kuwa ni kanuni za Shari'ah, ni kanuni za Shari'ah machoni pa wale wanaozitetea na wale wanaozipinga, kwa sababu kuna ushahidi usio wazi unaoonyesha kwamba zimechukuliwa kuwa ni ushahidi. Hivyo, mtu anayeona kwamba makubaliano ya jumla ya Ummah ni ushahidi wa Shari'ah, na kisha akaendelea kutoa kanuni kutokana nayo, kanuni hiyo itakuwa kanuni ya Shari'ah machoni pake na kanuni ya Shari'ah ya lazima kwake, naye atakatazwa kuchukua kanuni nyingine badala yake. Kanuni hiyo hiyo pia inakuwa kanuni ya Shari'ah machoni pa wale wanaoipinga, lakini haiwi kanuni ya Shari'ah ya lazima kwao. Jambo hilo hilo linatumika kwa 'Shari'ah ya waliotangulia kabla yetu ni Shari'ah kwetu', Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, Istihsaan na akili.

However, it should be clear that the rules deduced from evidences other than these four, from amongst the rules that an Imam considered as Shari’ah rules, are Shari’ah rules in the eyes of those who advocate them and those who oppose them because there exists a vague evidence denoting that they are considered as evidences. Hence, the one who considers the general consensus of the Ummah as being a Shari’ah evidence and who then goes on to deduce from this a rule; consequently, this rule would become a Shari’ah rule in his or her eyes and a binding Shari’ah rule upon him or her, and he or she would be forbidden from taking another rule instead. The same rule also becomes a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of those who oppose it but it does not become a binding Shari’ah rule upon them. The same applies to 'the Shari’ah of those before us is a Shari’ah for us', Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, Istihsaan and rationality.

Kwa hiyo, kila hukumu inayotokana na mojawapo ya dalili hizi huchukuliwa kuwa hukumu ya Shari'ah machoni pa wale wanaoamini kwamba kile hukumu hiyo imetokana nacho ni sehemu ya dalili za Shari'ah, na pia machoni pa wale wanaoipinga. Hata hivyo, ni hukumu ya Shari'ah yenye kumlazimu yule aliyeitoa kwa ufahamu wake pekee, na si yenye kumlazimu yule mwenye ufahamu tofauti. Hii ni kama hukumu zinazotokana na maandiko, kwa sababu tofauti ya kuelewa maandiko haifanyi hukumu iliyotolewa kuwa hukumu ya Shari'ah machoni pa aliyeitoa, na batili machoni pa yule aliyempinga katika ufahamu huu. Badala yake, ni hukumu ya Shari'ah kutoka mtazamo wa Waislamu wote, mradi tu inawezekana kufikia ufahamu huo kutoka kwenye maandiko; kwa maneno mengine, mradi tu dalili yenye shubha (Shubhat Daleel) ipo. Lakini haichukuliwi kuwa hukumu yenye kuwalazimu Waislamu wote, bali inawalazimu tu aliyeitoa na aliyemfuata, wala haimlazimu aliyeipinga. Pamoja na hayo, katika hali zote ni hukumu ya Shari'ah. Vilevile, hukumu inayotokana na dalili ni sawa kabisa na hukumu inayotokana na maandiko; huchukuliwa kuwa hukumu ya Shari'ah machoni pa Waislamu wote, iwe kwa wale waliolichukulia kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah au kwa wale ambao hawakulichukulia hivyo, mradi tu dalili yenye shubha ipo, kama ilivyo kwa dalili zilizotangulia ambazo tulikanusha kuwa ni dalili za Shari'ah.

Hence, every rule deduced from any of these evidences is considered a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of those who advocate that what the rule has been deduced from is part of the Shari’ah evidences and in the eyes of those who oppose it as well. However, it is only a binding Shari’ah rule upon the one who deduces it and not binding upon the one who holds a different understanding. This is like the rules deduced from the texts since the difference in understanding the text does not make the deduced rule a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of the one who deduced it and illegitimate in the eyes of the one that opposed him or her in this understanding. Rather, it is a Shari’ah rule from the viewpoint of all the Muslims as long as the possibility of reaching such understanding from the text is possible; in other words, as long as the doubted evidence (Shubhat Daleel) exists. However, it is not considered a binding rule upon all the Muslims but only binding upon the one who has deduced it and the one who has emulated it, and not binding upon the one who has opposed it. Nonetheless, in any case it is a Shari’ah rule. Likewise, the rule deduced from an evidence is exactly like the rule deduced from the text; it is considered a Shari’ah rule in the eyes of all the Muslims whether for those who considered it a Shari’ah evidence or for those who did not consider it a Shari’ah evidence, provided the doubted evidence is existent, such as in the case of the previous evidences which we refuted their consideration as the Shari’ah evidences.