Ibara ya 138 - Katiba ya Awali ya Dola ya Khilafah | Quran Course

Ibara ya 138 - Katiba ya Awali ya Dola ya Khilafah | Quran Course

Al-Bukhari ameripoti kwamba Sahl bin Sa'd Al-Sa'idi alisema: "Mimbari ilitengenezwa." Na ilikuwa ikitengenezwa na watu waliokuwa wamiliki binafsi wa kiwanda hicho. Zaidi ya hayo, watu walikuwa wakitengenezewa vitu wakati wa Mtume ﷺ, naye alinyamaza juu ya jambo hilo, hadi baadhi yao walikuwa wakitengeneza silaha. Kwa mfano, Khubab alikuwa akitengeneza panga zamani za Jahiliyya (kipindi cha ujinga kabla ya Uislamu), na aliendelea kufanya hivyo baada ya kusilimu. Hadithi yake imetajwa katika Sira ya Ibn Hisham pamoja na Al-'As bin Wa'il Al-Sahmi, alipomnunulia upanga kutoka kwa Khubab. Khubab alipokuja kwa Al-'As kuthibitisha bei, Al-'As alimtania kwa kusema: "Nitalipa bei yake Peponi." Hili linaonyesha kwamba Uislamu unakubali umiliki binafsi wa viwanda, iwe ni viwanda vya silaha, vya madini, vya useremala au vingine vyovyote. Haijapokelewa kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikataza umiliki wa viwanda, na hakuna dalili yoyote inayosema kwamba viwanda ni mali ya umma, vilevile kama ambavyo hakuna dalili inayosema kwamba viwanda ni mali ya Dola. Kwa hiyo, dalili kwamba viwanda vinaweza kuwa mali binafsi bado ni ya jumla. Hii ndiyo dalili ya sehemu ya kwanza. Kuhusu sehemu ya pili, dalili yake ni kanuni ifuatayo:

“had a pulpit made” as reported by Al-Bukhari from Sahl b. Sa’d Al-Sa’idi, and they were produced by individuals who personally owned the factory. Additionally, people used to have things made for them at the time of the Messenger (pbuh) and he remained quiet over it, to the point that some of them used to make weapons, like Khubab who used to make swords in Jahiliyyah (the era of ignorance before Islam) and continued after he embraced Islam, and his story is mentioned in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham with Al-‘As Bin Wa’il Al-Sahmi when he bought a sword from Khubab. When Khubab came to Al-‘As to confirm the price he joked with him saying: I’ll pay the price for it in Paradise. This indicates that he affirmed individual ownership of factories, irrespective of whether they were weapon, mineral or carpentry factories or anything else. It is not reported that he prohibited the ownership of factories, and there is no text which states that factories are public property, in the same way that there is no text which states that factories belong to the State. Therefore, the evidence that factories can be private property remains general. This is the evidence for the first part. As for the second, its evidence is the rule:

Allah (SWT) amelaani pombe, anayeinywa, anayeitoa, anayeiuza, anayeinunua, anayeikamua, anayekamuliwa kwa ajili yake, anayeibeba, na anayebebewa kwake. Basi, katazo la kukamua pombe si katazo la kukamua kwenyewe, bali ni katazo la kukamua pombe hasa. Kwa hiyo, kukamua si haramu kwa yenyewe, bali ni kukamua ili kutengeneza kileo ambacho ndicho kilicho haramu. Hivyo, kukamua ni haramu kutokana na uharamu wa kileo, na kwa hiyo kinachukua hukumu ya kitu ambacho kinakamuliwa kwa ajili yake. Kwa hiyo katazo linawahusu wanaokamua, yaani mchakato wa kukamua, na linawahusu pia vifaa vinavyotumika kukamulia. Vivyo hivyo, uzalishaji unachukua hukumu ya bidhaa inayozalishwa, na kiwanda kinachukua hukumu ya bidhaa inayotengenezwa na kiwanda hicho. Hii ndiyo dalili kwamba kiwanda kinachukua hukumu ya kile kinachokizalisha; yaani ni dalili ya hukumu hii, kwa kuwa katazo la kiwanda limetokana na katazo la bidhaa inayozalishwa nacho. Hadithi hii si dalili kwamba viwanda ni mali ya umma; bali ni dalili tu kwamba kiwanda kinachukua hukumu ya bidhaa inayozalisha. Hii ndiyo dalili ya sehemu ya pili; yaani hukumu inayotokana na hadithi ndiyo dalili ya sehemu hii.

“Allah (swt) has cursed wine, its drinker, its server, its seller, its buyer, its presser, the one for whom it is pressed, the one who conveys it, and the one to whom it is conveyed.”, and so the prohibition of pressing wine is not a prohibition of pressing itself, but rather it is a prohibition of pressing wine specifically. Therefore, pressing is not forbidden (Haram), but rather it is the pressing to produce alcohol which is forbidden. So pressing is forbidden due to the forbiddance of alcohol, and so it took the rule of the thing that it was being pressed for, and so the prohibition applies to pressing, or in other words, the process of pressing, and so it applies to the instruments used for pressing. Therefore, the production takes the rule of the product that it is producing, and the factory takes the rule of the product that it manufactures, and this is the evidence that the factory takes the rule of what it produces, in other words, it is the evidence for this rule, since the forbiddance of the factory came from the forbiddance of the product that it produces. The narration is not evidence that factories are public property; rather it is only evidence for the factory taking the rule of the product that it produces. This is the evidence for the second part; in other words, the rule deduced from the narration is the evidence for this part.