Matukio mawili yalitokea wakati wa Maswahaba: La kwanza ni fitna ya vita kuhusu ‘Uthman, na la pili ni mijadala iliyofanyika kati ya ‘Ulamā. Hili lilisababisha tofauti kuhusu aina za dalili za Sharī’ah, jambo lililopelekea kuibuka kwa makundi mapya ya kisiasa, ambayo nayo yalipelekea kuwepo kwa madhehebu mbalimbali ya kifiqhi. Hiyo ni kwa sababu baada ya ‘Uthman kuuawa, bay’a (kiapo cha utii) ya Khilafah ilitolewa kwa ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ambaye Mu’awiyya ibn Abu Sufyan alipingana naye, na vita vilizuka kati ya pande hizo mbili, vikamalizika kwa hukumu ya wasuluhishi wawili. Hili lilisababisha kuundwa kwa makundi mapya ya kisiasa ambayo hayakuwepo kabla. Makundi haya yalikuja kuwa na maoni mapya. Maoni hayo yalianza kwa mtazamo wa kisiasa kuhusu Khalifah na Khilafah, kisha yakajumuisha sehemu kubwa ya hukumu nyingine za kisheria. Kundi la Waislamu lilijitokeza, likimchukia ‘Uthman kwa sera zake wakati wa Khilafah yake, likichukizwa na kukubali kwa ‘Ali kuhukumiwa (tahkeem), na likiwa na hasira kwa Mu’awiyyah kwa kuchukua Khilafah kwa nguvu. Hivyo wakaasi dhidi yao wote. Mtazamo wao ulikuwa kwamba Waislamu wampe bay’a Khalifah wa Waislamu kwa hiari yao kabisa bila shuruti wala nguvu. Na kwamba yeyote anayestahiki Khilafah, basi anastahili kuwa Khalifah. Waislamu wampe bay’a, na Khilafah itamfungia kwa bay’a hiyo mradi tu awe mwanamume, Muislamu na mwadilifu, hata kama alikuwa mtumwa Mhabeshi, na kwamba utii kwa Khalifah hauwi wajibu isipokuwa iwapo jambo lake liko ndani ya mipaka ya Qur’ān na Sunnah. Watu hawa hawakuchukua hukumu zilizopokewa katika hadīth zilizosimuliwa na ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Mu’awiyya, wala hadīth iliyosimuliwa na Sahabi aliyeunga mkono mmoja wao. Walikataa hadīth zao zote, maoni yao na fatwa zao za kisheria, na walipendelea yale yaliyosimuliwa na wale waliowakubali. Walizingatia tu maoni yao wenyewe na maulamaa wao wenyewe, bila kujali wengine. Walikuwa na fiqh yao wenyewe, nao wanaitwa Khawarij. Kundi jingine miongoni mwa Waislamu lilijitokeza, lililompenda ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib na kuwapenda wazao wake. Walishikilia kwamba yeye na wazao wake walikuwa na haki kubwa zaidi ya Ukhalifa kuliko mtu mwingine yeyote, na waliamini kwamba yeye ndiye wasi (mdhamini wa wasia) ambaye Mtume ﷺ alimwachia Ukhalifa baada yake. Walikataa hadithi nyingi zilizopokewa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ na wengi wa Masahaba. Hawakutegemea maoni ya Masahaba wala fatwa zao. Walitegemea tu hadithi zilizopokewa na maimamu wao na ahli al-bayt wa Mtume ﷺ, na walitegemea hukumu za kisheria zinazotokana nao. Walikuwa na fiqh yao wenyewe, nao ni Shi’a. Kwa upande wa wengi wa Waislamu, hawakuyafuata maoni ya makundi yaliyotajwa hapo juu. Waliona kwamba kiapo cha utii kinapaswa kutolewa kwa Khalifa kutoka Quraysh, ikiwa mtu wa namna hiyo atapatikana. Pia waliwaheshimu, wakawapenda na kuwa waaminifu kwa Masahaba wote bila ubaguzi wowote. Walitafsiri tofauti zilizokuwepo baina yao kuwa ni ijtihad katika hukumu za Sharī’ah zenye kudhaniwa, ambazo hazihusiani na imani (imān) wala kufuru (kufr). Walitumia kama ushahidi kila hadithi sahihi iliyopokewa na Sahaba yoyote, bila ubaguzi baina ya Masahaba. Kwani kwao Masahaba wote walikuwa waaminifu, na walikubali fatwa zote na maoni yote ya Masahaba. Kwa sababu hii, hukumu zao hazikulingana na hukumu za makundi mengine ya kisiasa katika mambo kadhaa, kutokana na tofauti zao katika hukumu, mbinu ya istinbāṭ (kutoa hukumu kwa njia ya kuchambua dalili) na aina za dalili.

Two events took place during the time of the Sahabah: The first is the civil war (fitna) regarding ‘Uthman and the second are the debates which took place between the ‘‘Ulamā. This resulted in disagreements over the types of Sharī’ah evidences which led to the presence of new political groups which in turn led to the presence of various juristical schools of thought. That is because after ‘Uthman  was murdered and the bay’a (pledge) of the Khilafah was given to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib with whom Mu’awiyya ibn Abu Sufyan disputed and war broke out between the two factions and ended with the judgement of the two arbitrators. This resulted in the formation of new political groups which had not existed before. These groups came to have new opinions. The opinion began politically concerning the Khalifah and the Khilafah. Then it included most of the remaining ahkām. A group of Muslims arose who loathed ‘Uthman for his policies during his Khilafah and they resented Ali’s acceptance of arbitration (tahkeem) and they were angry over Mu’awiyyah for seizing the Khilafah by force. So they rebelled against all of them. Their view was that Muslims should give pledge to the Khalifah of the Muslims purely according to their choice without coercion or force. And that whoever qualifies for the Khilafah he is eligible to be the Khalifah. Muslims should give bay’a to him and the Khilafah will be contracted to him by the pledge as long as he is a man, Muslim and just even if he was a Ethiopian slave, and that obedience to the Khalifah is not obliged except if his matter was within the limits of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. These people did not take rulings reported in hadīth narrated by ‘Uthman, Ali, Mu’awiyya or if a hadīth was narrated by a Sahabi who supported any one of them. They rejected all of their ahadīth, opinions and legal verdicts and they outweighed what was narrated by those they approved of. They only considered their opinions and their own scholars to the exclusion of others. They had their own fiqh and they are called the Khawarij. Another group from the Muslim arose which adored ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib  and loved his descendants. They took the view that he and his descendants had greater right to the Khilafah over anyone else and they believed he was the wasi (trustee) to whom the Messenger  bequeathed the Khilafah after him. They rejected many ahadīth narrated about the Messenger  by the majority of the Sahabah. They did not depend on the views of the Sahabah and their legal verdicts. They only relied on the ahadīth narrated by their imams and the family of the Prophet  and relied on the legal verdicts originating from them. They had their own fiqh and they are the Shi’a. As for the majority of the Muslims they did not adopt the opinions adopted by the aforementioned groups. They took the view that the pledge should be given to a Khalifah from Quraysh if such a person was found, and they conveyed without a single exception, great respect, affection and loyalty to all the Sahabah. And they interpreted the disputes between them as being Ijtihād in speculative Sharī’ah rules which were not linked to belief (imān) or disbelief (kufr). They would use as proof every authentic hadīth narrated by a Sahābi without any discrimination between the Sahabah. Since for them all of the Sahabah were trustworthy and they accepted all the fatwas and opinions of the Sahabah. Due to this their ahkām did not accord with the ahkām of the other political groups in a number of topics due to their disagreement regarding ruling, method of istinbat (inference of rules) and in the types of evidences.

Kutokana na hili inadhihirika kwamba wakati fitna (vita vya ndani) ilipotokea, ilizaa hali ya kifiqhi na kisiasa iliyosababisha mivutano ambayo iliathiri historia. Hata hivyo, mvutano huo haukuhusu Sharī‘ah yenyewe bali uelewa wa Sharī‘ah. Ndiyo maana watu wote waliokhitilafiana walikuwa Waislamu, ingawa khitilafu yao ilipita matawi (furū‘) na hukumu za kivitendo ikafikia misingi, dalili na mbinu ya kutoa hukumu.

From this it becomes clear that when the civil war (fitna) happened it created a jurisprudential and political condition which led to disagreements which had an impact on history. However the disagreement was not over the Sharī’ah but concerning the understanding of the Sharī’ah. That is why all of the people who disagreed were Muslims even though their disagreement exceeded the furu’ and rules to the foundations, evidences and the method of inference.

Kuhusu mijadala iliyotokea baina ya Maulamaa, ilipelekea kutofautiana kwa kifiqhi lakini haikupelekea kutofautiana kisiasa, kwa sababu kutofautiana hakukuwa juu ya Khalifah, Khilafah wala mfumo wa utawala. Ilikuwa juu ya hukumu na namna ya kuzitoa. Msingi wa hilo ni kwamba mijadala na kutofautiana kulitokea baina ya baadhi ya mujtahidina, jambo lililopelekea kutofautiana juu ya mbinu ya kutoa hukumu (istinbat). Huko Madina, mijadala ya kiIslamu kuhusu utoaji wa hukumu ilitokea baina ya Rabi'a ibn Abi 'Abd al-Rahman na Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, jambo lililopelekea fuqaha wengi wa Madina kujitenga na vikao vya Rabi'a hadi wakampa jina la 'Rabi'at ar-ra'i'. Jambo kama hilo pia lilitokea Kufa baina ya Ibrahim al-Nakha'i na al-Sha'bi. Kutokana na mijadala hii, mitazamo kadhaa ilijitokeza kuhusu mbinu ya kutoa hukumu, hadi mujtahidina wakawa na mbinu tofauti katika Ijtihad. Katikati ya karne ya pili Hijria mbinu hizi tofauti za Ijtihad zilidhihirika, pamoja na kutofautiana kuhusu hizo, na maoni mbalimbali yakaundwa. Tabi'in walikuwa karibu na kundi la Maulamaa na mujtahidina, hivyo wakafuata mbinu zao. Hata hivyo, kwa wale waliokuja baada yao wigo wa kutofautiana ukawa mpana zaidi. Sababu za kutofautiana kwao hazikuishia kwenye kuelewa matini, bali zilienea hadi sababu zinazohusiana na dalili za Shari'ah na maana za kilugha. Ndivyo kutofautiana kwao kulivyotokea katika furu' (matawi ya fiqh) na usul (misingi ya fiqh). Wakaunda makundi, kila kundi likawa na madhehebu yake (mazhab). Kwa sababu hiyo madhehebu yakaundwa. Madhehebu yalikuwa mengi, zaidi ya manne, matano, sita na zaidi. Kutofautiana kwa mujtahidina kuhusu mbinu ya Ijtihad kunatokana na kutofautiana kwao kuhusu mambo matatu: Kwanza, vyanzo ambavyo hukumu za Shari'ah hutolewa. Pili, mtazamo wa maandishi ya Sharī'ah; na tatu, kutofautiana kuhusu baadhi ya maana za kiisimu zinazotumika katika kuelewa maandishi hayo.

As for the debates which took place between the ‘Ulamā it led to juristic disagreements but did not lead to political disagreements because the disagreement was not over the Khalifah, the Khilafah or the ruling system. It was over the rules and their deduction. The basis of that was that debates and disagreements took place between the certain mujtahidin which led to a disagreement over the method of inference (istinbat). In Madina Islamic discussions concerning the deduction of rules took place between Rabi’a ibn Abi ‘Abd al-Rahman and Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri which led many fuqaha (jurists) of Madina to withdraw from Rabi’a’s sessions until they came to give him the title of ‘Rabi’at ar-ra’i’. A similar thing also happened in Kufa between Ibrahim al Nakha’i and al-Sha’bi. From these debates a number of opinions came to be formed about the method of deducing rules until the Mujtahidin came to have different methodologies in Ijtihād. In the middle of the 2nd century A.H these different methods of Ijtihād became apparent and so did the disagreements concerning them and various views were formed. The Tabi’in used to be close to a group of ‘Ulamā and mujtahidin so they came to follow their method. Though, for those who came after them the scope of the disagreement became wider. The reasons for their disagreement did not stop at the understanding of the texts but extended to reasons linked to Sharī’ah evidences and linguistic meanings. It was in this manner that their disagreements took place in the furu’ (branches of fiqh) and usul (principles of jurisprudence). They came to form factions, each faction had its own school (mazhab). Owing to this the mazhabs were formed. The schools were many, more than four, five, six and more. The disagreement of the mujtahidin over the method of Ijtihād is attributable to their disagreement around three issues: First, the sources from which the Sharī’ah rules are deduced. Second, the perception of the Sharī’ah text and third, disagreement over certain linguistic meanings which are applied in understanding the text.

Kwanza, hilo linatokana na mambo manne.

As for the first it is attributable to four issues:

1. Njia ya kuthibitisha Sunnah na kigezo ambacho kwacho hadithi moja inapewa upendeleo juu ya nyingine. Hii ni kwa sababu kuthibitisha Sunnah kunadhania kazi ya kuthibitisha usimulizi wake na namna ya kusimuliwa kwake. Wanazuoni wa ijtihadi walitofautiana juu ya njia ya kuthibitisha. Baadhi yao waliweka mbele Sunnah ya mutawatir (iliyopokewa na wengi mfululizo) na mashhur kuwa ni hoja, na wakapa uzito kuliko chochote kilichosimuliwa na waaminifu miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa fiqhi. Hii ina maana kwamba walimpa hadithi ya mashhur hukmu (hadhi) sawa na ya mutawatir, na wakaitumia kubainisha ‘aamm (ya jumla) katika Qur’ani. Walikuwepo pia waliopa upendeleo kile ambacho watu wa Madina walikubaliana kwacho kwa pamoja, na wakaacha hadithi za pekee (khabar al ahad) zinazopingana nacho. Na walikuwepo waliotoa kama ushahidi kile ambacho wasimulizi wema (‘udul) na waaminifu (thiqat) walisimulia, iwe walikuwa wanazuoni wa fiqhi au hawakuwa, iwe walikuwa katika ukoo wa Mtume ﷺ au hawakuwa, na iwe inakubaliana na watu wa Madina au inapingana nao. Miongoni mwao kulikuwa na wanaoona kwamba wasimulizi wa hadithi hawapaswi kuzingatiwa isipokuwa wakiwa miongoni mwa maimamu wao. Walikuwa na njia maalum katika kusimulia hadithi, katika kuizingatia na kuitumia, na walikuwa na wasimulizi maalum waliowategemea lakini hawakuwategemea wengine. Baadhi ya wanazuoni wa ijtihadi walitofautiana kuhusu hadithi ya mursal, ambayo ni ile ambayo Tabi‘i anaisimulia moja kwa moja kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ huku akiacha kutaja Sahaba. Miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa ijtihadi walikuwepo wanaotumia hadithi ya mursal kama ushahidi, na walikuwepo wasiotumia.

1. The method of authenticating the Sunnah and the criterion by which one narration is preferred over another and that is because the authentication of the Sunnah assumes the task of authenticating its narration and the manner of narration. The mujtahidin differed on the method of authentication. Some of them advanced the mutawatir (concurrent) and mashhur Sunnah as proof and outweighed whatever was narrated by the trustworthy amongst the fuqaha. This meant that they gave the mashhur hadīth the same hukm (value) of the mutawatir and they used it to specify the ‘aamm (general) in the Qur’ān. There were those who gave preponderance to what the people of Madina were unanimously agreed upon and disregarded the isolated ahadīth (khabar al ahad) which went against it and there were those who advanced as evidence what upright (‘udul) and trustworthy (thiqat) transmitters narrated whether they were from the fuqaha or not whether they were from the family of the Prophet  or not and whether it agreed with the people of Madina or went against it. Amongst them there were those who took the view that hadīth transmitters are not to be considered except if they are from their imams. They had a specific method in transmitting the hadīth in its consideration and use and they had specific transmitters on which they relied but did not rely on others. Some mujtahidin differed with regards to the mursal hadīth which is what a Tabi’i narrates directly from the Prophet  while omitting the Sahabah. Amongst the mujtahidin there were those who would use the mursal hadīth as proof and there were those who did not.

Kutokubaliana huku kuhusu mbinu ya kuthibitisha Sunnah kulipelekea baadhi yao kutumia Sunnah kama ushahidi ambao wengine hawakuutumia, na baadhi yao kutoa upendeleo kwa Sunnah ambayo ilikuwa na nafasi ndogo ya upendeleo kuliko zingine, na jambo hili likapelekea mgogoro huo kufikia katika namna Sunnah inavyochukuliwa kama dalili ya Sharī‘ah. Hivyo, kutokubaliana katika dalili za Sharī‘ah kukatokea.

So this disagreement regarding the method of authenticating the Sunnah led to some of them using a Sunnah as proof which the others did not use and some of them gave preference to a Sunnah which was of lesser preference to others and this took the disagreement to the manner in which the Sunnah is taken as a Sharī’ah evidence. So the disagreement in the Sharī’ah evidences took place.

2. Tofauti kuhusu hukumu za kisheria za Maswahaba na tathmini yake. Wanazuoni wa ijtihadi na maimamu walitofautiana kuhusu hukumu za kifiqhi zilizotolewa na Maswahaba mmoja mmoja. Kundi moja lilichukua fatwa yoyote kati ya hizi bila kujifunga na moja maalum, lakini pia halikuzikataa zote. Kundi jingine lilichukulia kuwa hizi ni hukumu za kifiqhi za watu wasio maasumu, hivyo mwanazuoni ana haki ya kuchukua fatwa yoyote au kutoa hukumu inayopingana na zote. Walizichukulia kama hukumu za Sharīʿah zilizotolewa kwa ijtihadi, wala si kama ushahidi wa Sharīʿah. Kundi jingine lilichukulia kuwa baadhi ya Maswahaba ni maasumu (ma‘sūm), na kauli yake inachukuliwa kuwa ushahidi wa Sharīʿah. Hivyo, kauli zao ni kauli za Mtume ﷺ, vitendo vyao ni vitendo vya Mtume ﷺ, na kibali chao ni kibali cha Mtume ﷺ. Kwa upande wa Maswahaba wengine, si maasumu, hivyo kauli zao hazichukuliwi kabisa, si kama ushahidi wa Sharīʿah wala kama hukumu ya Sharīʿah. Pia kuna waliosema kwamba haipaswi kuchukua elimu kutoka kwa baadhi ya Maswahaba kwa sababu ya kushiriki kwao katika fitina ya vita vya ndani, na kwamba inafaa kuchukua kutoka kwa wale ambao hawakushiriki. Kwa sababu hiyo, upande mwingine wa tofauti hii uliibuka kuhusu ushahidi.

2. Disagreement regarding the legal verdicts of Sahabah and their evaluation. The mujtahidin and the imams differed with regards to the jurisprudential legal verdicts which came from individual Sahabis. There were those who took any one of these fatwas and did not restrict themselves to any particular one but did not turn away from all of them either and there were those who took the view that they constituted as individual jurisprudential legal verdicts ensuing from people who are not infallible, so the scholar has the right to take any one of the fatwas or give legal verdicts which go against all of them. They viewed them as Sharī’ah rules which have been deduced and not as Sharī’ah evidences and there were those who took the view that certain Sahabah were infallible (ma’sum) and his view is to be takes as a Sharī’ah evidence. So his sayings constitute the sayings of the Prophet  and his actions constitute the actions of the Prophet  and his consent constitutes the consent of the Prophet . As for other Sahabah they are not infallible (ma’sum) so their views are not to be taken at all, neither in the capacity of a Sharī’ah evidence nor in the capacity of a Sharī’ah rule. Also, there were those who took the view that one should not take from certain Sahabah because of their participation in the civil war (fitna) and those who did not participate, one can take from them. Consequently, another facet of this difference of opinion arose about evidences.

3. Kutokubaliana kuhusu Qiyas (kukisia kwa kulinganisha). Baadhi ya mujtahidina walikataa kutumia Qiyas kama dalili, na wakakanusha hadhi yake kuwa dalili ya Sharī‘ah. Miongoni mwao walikuwepo waliopendekeza qiyas kama hoja na kuiona kuwa dalili ya Sharī‘ah baada ya Qur’ān, Sunnah na ijma‘ (makubaliano ya wanazuoni). Hata hivyo, ingawa walikubaliana kwamba ni hoja, walitofautiana kuhusu kipi kinastahili kuwa ‘illah (sababu ya kisheria) ya hukmu, na qiyas inategemea nini hasa. Kutokana na hilo, kukatokea tofauti ya maoni inayohusu dalili hizi.

3. Disagreement in Qiyas (analogical deduction). Some mujtahiddin rejected the use of Qiyas as evidence and they disclaimed its status as a Sharī’ah evidence. Among them there were those who advanced qiyas as a proof and considered it a Sharī’ah evidence after the Qur’ān, Sunnah and ijma’ (consensus). However, despite their agreement that it constitutes a proof they disagreed as to what qualifies as an ‘illah (legal cause) for the hukm and on what qiyas is based. As a result the difference of opinion surrounding evidences arose.

4. Kutofautiana kuhusu ijma' (makubaliano). Waislamu walikubaliana kwamba ijma' ni hoja. Baadhi yao waliona ijma' ya Maswahaba kuwa ni hoja, na baadhi yao waliona ijma' ya watu wa nyumbani mwa Mtume ﷺ kuwa ni hoja. Baadhi waliona ijma' ya ahl halli wal 'aqd (watu mashuhuri na viongozi wakuu) kuwa ni hoja, na baadhi waliona ijma' ya Waislamu wote kuwa ni hoja. Kulikuwa na wale waliouona ijma' kuwa ni hoja kwa sababu inadhihirisha makubaliano juu ya maoni fulani; kwa hiyo, wakikubaliana juu ya jambo na kutoa msimamo, hilo linahesabiwa kuwa ijma' inayotumika kama dalili. Na kulikuwa na wale waliouona ijma' inayotambulika kuwa ni hoja si kwa sababu inadhihirisha makubaliano juu ya maoni, bali kwa sababu inadhihirisha dalili. Kwa hiyo Maswahaba, watu wa nyumbani mwa Mtume ﷺ, na watu wa Madina walikuwa na urafiki na Mtume ﷺ, walimwona, na wao ni waaminifu ('udul). Wanapokuwa na hukmu ya Shari'ah lakini wasitaje dalili yake, maoni yao yanachukuliwa kama kuonyesha kwamba hukmu hiyo ilitolewa na Mtume ﷺ, au kwamba aliitendea kazi, au kwamba alinyamaza juu yake. Hivyo, waliripoti hukmu lakini hawakuripoti dalili yake kwa sababu ilikuwa inajulikana sana miongoni mwao. Basi maana ya ijma' kuwa hoja kwao ni kwamba inadhihirisha dalili. Ndiyo maana makubaliano yao, kukumbushana kwao, na kisha kutoa maoni yao, hayahesabiwi kuwa ijma'. Badala yake, ijma' ni kwamba watoe maoni bila kufikia makubaliano juu yake. Kwa hiyo, tofauti nyingine ya maoni ikaibuka kuhusu dalili.

4. Disagreement over ijma’ (consensus). The Muslims agreed on the consideration that ijma’ is a proof. Some of them viewed the ijma’ of the Sahabah as a proof and some of them saw the ijma’ of the Prophet’s family as proof. Some saw the ijma’ of the ahl halli wal ‘aqd (the influential and leading figures) as proof and some saw the ijma’ of the Muslims as proof. There were those who viewed ijma’ as a proof because it constituted an agreement on an opinion, therefore, if they agreed on a matter and advanced a view then it is considered an ijma’ which is used as an evidence. And there were those who viewed the recognised ijma’ as a proof not because it constitutes an agreement on an opinion but because it reveals an evidence. So the Sahabah, family of the Prophet  and the people of Madina had companionship with the Messenger  and saw him and they are trustworthy (‘udul). When they hold a Sharī’ah opinion but do not cite its evidence, their opinion is considered as disclosing the opinion as having been stated by the Messenger  or he acted upon it or was silent about it. Thus, they reported a hukm but did not report its evidence due to it being widely known amongst them. Therefore, the meaning of ijma’ constituting a proof for them is that it reveals an evidence.That is why their agreement and reminding each other and then giving their opinion is not considered an ijma’. Rather the ijma’; is that they should give an opinion without reaching an agreement on it. Therefore another difference of opinion came regarding the evidences.

Masuala haya manne yameongeza pengo la kutofautiana baina ya wanachuoni wa ijtihadi. Hayazingatiwi kuwa ni tofauti za kuelewa maandiko kama ilivyokuwa wakati wa Maswahaba na Tabi'īn, bali yamepita hapo na kuwa tofauti katika mbinu ya kuelewa. Kwa maneno mengine, si tofauti kuhusu hukumu zenyewe, bali imevuka hapo na kuwa tofauti katika mbinu ya kupata hukumu. Ndiyo maana tunawaona baadhi ya wanachuoni wa ijtihadi wakiona kuwa dalili za Sharī'ah ni Qur'ān, Sunnah, kauli ya Imam 'Ali, ijmā' ya ahlul-bayt wa Mtume ﷺ, na akili. Wengine walionelea kuwa dalili za Sharī'ah ni Qur'ān, Sunnah, ijmā', qiyās, istiḥsān (kupendelea hukumu kwa maslahi), fatwa ya Maswahaba (madhhab al-ṣaḥābī) na Sharī'ah za watu waliotangulia (sharī' man qablanā). Wengine walikuwa na maoni kuwa dalili ni Qur'ān, Sunnah na ijmā', na walikuwepo waliosema kuwa dalili ni Qur'ān, Sunnah, ijmā', qiyās, al-maṣāliḥ al-mursalah (masilahi ya umma) na kadhalika. Ndiyo sababu walitofautiana kuhusu dalili za Sharī'ah. Hili likapelekea tofauti katika mbinu za ijtihadi.

These four issues have widened the rift of disagreement between the mujtahidin. They are not considered as disagreements over the understanding of the text as was the case in the time of the Sahabah and Tabi’een but it passed that and became a disagreement over the method of comprehension. In other words, it is not considered as a disagreement over the rules but it surpassed that and became a disagreement over the method of deducing rules. That is why we find some mujtahidin taking the view that the Sharī’ah evidences are the Qur’ān, Sunnah, saying of Imam ‘Ali , ijma’ of the family of the Prophet  and the mind. Some of them took the view that the Sharī’ah evidences are the Qur’ān, Sunnah, ijma’, qiyas, istihsan (juristic preference), the fatwa of the Sahābi (mazhab al-sahābi) and the Sharī’ah of the people of before (shari’ min qablina). Some of them were of the opinion that the evidences were the Qur’ān, Sunnah and ijma’ and there were those who held that the evidences were the Qur’ān, Sunnah, ijma’, qiyas, al-masalih al mursala (considerations of public interest) etc... That is why they disagreed about the Sharī’ah evidences. This led to the differences in the methodology of Ijtihād.

Suala la pili, ambalo tofauti katika mbinu ya Ijtihād zinahusishwa nalo, ni namna matini ya Sharī’ah inavyotazamwa. Baadhi ya mujtahidin walijizuia kwa kuelewa maneno yaliyotajwa katika matini ya Sharī’ah, wakasimama kwenye mipaka ya maana zilizoonyeshwa na wakajizuia kwa maana hizo. Hawa wameitwa Ahl al-Hadīth.

As for the second issue to which the differences in the method of Ijtihād are attributed, it is how the Sharī’ah text is viewed. Some of the mujtahidin restricted themselves to the understanding of the expression mentioned in the Sharī’ah text and they stopped at the limits of the meanings they indicated and confined themselves to these meanings. They have been called the Ahl al-hadīth.

Baadhi yao walisoma maana yenye busara ambayo usemi huo unaashiria, mbali na maana ya dhahiri; hawa waliitwa Ahl ar-Ra’i. Ni kutokana na hapa ndipo wengi walisema kwamba mujtahidina wamegawanyika katika makundi mawili: Ahl al-hadīth na Ahl al-ra’i. Mgawanyo huu hauna maana kwamba Ahl al-ra’i katika sheria zao hawarejei hadīth, na kwamba Ahl al-hadīth katika sheria zao hawarejei ra’i (maoni). Bali wote wanachukua hadīth na ra’i (maoni), kwa sababu wote wanakubaliana kwamba hadīth ni dalili ya Sharī'ah, na kwamba Ijtihādi kwa kutumia ra’i katika kuelewa upande wa kiakili wa maandiko ni dalili ya Sharī'ah. Kinachodhihirika kwa yeyote anayechunguza jambo hili ni kwamba mada si wafuasi wa hadīth au ra’i wenyewe. Bali suala ni dalili ambazo dalili za Sharī'ah zinategemea. Hiyo ni kwa sababu Waislamu walitegemea Kitabu cha Allah na Sunnah ya Mtume wake ﷺ; kama hawakukuta jambo hilo likiwa limeelezwa waziwazi, walitumia maoni yao wenyewe katika kulitoa hukumu kutoka humo. Basi hukumu ambayo imeelezwa waziwazi kama

Some of them study the reasoned meaning that the expression connotates apart from the apparent meaning, they were called as Ahl ar-Ra’i. It is from here that many have said that the mujtahidin are divided into two groups: Ahl al-hadīth and Ahl al-ra’i. This division does not mean that the Ahl al-ra’i in their legislation do not refer to the hadīth and that the Ahl al-hadīth in their legislation do not refer to ra’i (opinion). Rather, all of them take hadīth and ra’i (opinion) because all of them agree that hadīth is a Sharī’ah proof and that Ijtihād using ra’i in understanding the intelligible aspect of the text is a Sharī’ah proof. What becomes apparent to anyone who scrutinises this is that the subject is not the proponents of hadīth or ra’i themselves. Rather, the issue is the evidence on which the Sharī’ah evidence depends. That is because the Muslims relied on the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger , if they did not find that clearly stated they used their own opinion in deducing that from them. So the rule which is clearly stated like:

ushahidi wake unachukuliwa kuwa Kitabu cha Allah, pamoja na chochote kilichoelezwa wazi katika hadith kama:

its evidence is considered the Book of Allah  and anything clearly stated in the hadīth such as:

Ushahidi wake ni hadīth. Kuhusu kingine chochote kisicho hicho, kama katazo la kukodisha mali kwa sababu ya adhana ya swala ya Ijumaa, au ardhi iliyoshindwa kuwa chini ya udhibiti wa bayt al-mal (hazina) na matumizi yake kwa watu wote, n.k., huchukuliwa kuwa ni maoni (ra’y), hata kama yamejengwa juu ya Qur’ān na Sunnah. Hivyo, wamekiita maoni kila kitu ambacho hakikuwa na nasi wazi, hata kama walikifanyia kazi kwa kanuni ya jumla (hukm kulliy), au kilichotolewa kwa hitimisho kutoka katika Qur’ān na Sunnah. Ukweli ni kwamba maoni haya yanayofanyiwa kazi kwa kanuni ya jumla, au kwa kanuni ya msingi, au yaliyotolewa kwa kuelewa maandiko yaliyotajwa katika Qur’ān na Sunnah, hayaitwi maoni bali ni hukm shar’i (hukumu ya Sharīʿah), kwa kuwa ni kauli inayotegemea ushahidi, na kwa hiyo ni kufuata ushahidi.

its evidence is considered the hadīth. As for anything other than this, like the prohibition of leasing property due to the azan of Jum’a prayer or such as the conquered land coming under the control of the bayt al-mal (treasury) and its use by all the people etc, it is considered an opinion (ra’i) even if it is based on the Qur’ān and Sunnah. So they called everything that did not have a clear text an opinion (ra’i) even if they acted upon it due to a comprehensive rule (hukm kulliy) or it was deduced from the Qur’ān and Sunnah. The truth is that this ra’i which is acted upon via a comprehensive rule (hukm kulliy) or general principle or it has been deduced from an understanding of the text mentioned in the Qur’ān and Sunnah it is not called an opinion but rather it is a Sharī’ah rule (hukm shar’i) since it is a statement based on an evidence, it constitutes adherence to the evidence.

Msingi wa kugawanya wanazuoni wa ijtihadi katika Ahl al-hadīth na Ahl al-ra’i unatokana na ukweli kwamba baadhi ya mafaqihi walichunguza misingi ambayo istinbat (kutoa hukumu kwa njia ya kuchambua dalili) ilijengwa juu yake. Ikawa wazi kwao kwamba maana za hukumu za Sharī’ah zinaeleweka, na kwamba zilishushwa ili kutatua matatizo ya watu, kupata kwao maslahi (masalih) na kuwaepusha na madhara (mafasid) yanayowakabili. Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kuelewa maandiko kwa upana iwezekanavyo, yakijumuisha kila kitu kinachodokezwa na usemi huo. Kwa msingi huu, walifikia kuelewa na kupima dalili moja kuliko nyingine, na kutoa hitimisho kwa masuala yasiyokuwa na maandiko (yaliyo wazi). Baadhi ya mafaqihi walielekeza umakini wao katika kuhifadhi hadithi za pekee (khabar al-ahad) na fatwa za Maswahaba. Katika istinbat zao walichukua njia ya kuelewa hadithi hizi za pekee na simulizi kuhusu Maswahaba ndani ya mipaka ya maneno yake, na kuzitumia kwenye matukio yaliyotokea. Matokeo yake, mvutano ulizuka kuhusu kuzichukulia dalili za maandiko kama ushahidi wa Sharī’ah, na kuhusu kuzingatia au kutozingatia ‘illah (sababu ya kisheria).

The basis of dividing the mujtahidin into Ahl al-hadīth and Ahl al-ra’i stems from the fact that some fuqaha scrutinised the foundations on which the inference (istinbat) had been built. It became clear to them that the meanings of the Sharī’ah rules are comprehensible and they were revealed to solve the problems of people and to obtain benefits (masalih) for them and avert harms (mafasid) that come in their way. Therefore, it is essential to understand the texts as widely as possible, encompassing everything indicated by the expression, on this basis they came to understand and outweigh one text over another and make deductions for issues that did not have a (clear) text. Certain fuqaha devoted their attention to the preservation of the isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad) and the fatwas of the Sahabah. In their inferences they they took the path of understanding these isolated ahadīth and reports about the Sahabah within the limits of its texts and they applied them on events that occurred. As a consequence disagreement arose concerning the consideration of texts as Sharī’ah evidences and whether to consider the ‘illah (legal cause) or not.

"Umma yangu itagawanyika katika makundi kama sabini, na lile kubwa zaidi litakuwa ni la watu wanaopima dini kwa kutumia maoni yao wenyewe, wakikataza yale ambayo Allah amehalalisha na kuhalalisha yale ambayo Allah amekataza." [Recorded by Al-Bazzar and Tabarani in his Al-Kabeer]

“My Ummah will become divided into some seventy sects, the greatest will be the test of the people who make analogy to the deen with their own opinions, with it forbidding what Allah has permitted and permitting what Allah has forbidden” [Recorded by Al-Bazzar and Tabarani in his Al-Kabeer]

Ahadīth hizi zinakemea waziwazi matumizi ya ra'i. Hata hivyo, ra'i hiyo si ile ile inayotumiwa na wanazuoni wa ra'i kama Wahanafi. Badala yake, ra'i inayolaaniwa ni ile ya kuzungumzia Sharī'ah bila mamlaka yoyote. Kuhusu ra'i inayotegemea msingi wa Sharī'ah, ahadīth na riwaya kuhusu Maswahaba (athar) zinaonyesha kuwa ni kanuni ya Sharī'ah na inatokana na ra'i inayokubalika. Mtume ﷺ aliruhusu qadhi atumie Ijtihād yake mwenyewe na akamjulisha kuwa atapata thawabu: ikiwa atakosea katika kutumia maoni yake, atapata thawabu moja, ikiwa lengo lake lilikuwa kupata elimu ya ukweli na kuufuata. Mtume ﷺ aliwaamuru Maswahaba siku ya vita vya Ahzab (makundi washirika) waswali swalah ya alasiri (‘asr) katika Banī Qurayẓah. Baadhi yao walitumia Ijtihād yao na wakaswali njiani; walisema kwamba agizo hilo halitaji kuchelewesha, bali alichomaanisha ni kwenda haraka, hivyo wakazingatia maana. Wengine walitumia Ijtihād yao na wakachelewesha swalah hadi walipofika Banī Qurayẓah, wakaswali ‘asr usiku, hivyo wakazingatia maneno ya agizo. Mtume ﷺ aliwakubali makundi yote mawili, kila moja kwa kufuata maoni yake. Mu‘adh alisimulia: “Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alipomtuma kwenda Yemen alimwambia:

These ahadīth are explicit in their censure of the use of ra’i. However, the ra’i is not the same ra’i employed by the scholars of ra’i like the Hanafis. Rather the blameworthy ra’i is that of speaking about the Sharī’ah without any authority. As for the ra’i which is premised on a Sharī’ah basis, the ahadīth and reports about the Sahabah (athar) indicate that it is a Sharī’ah rule and based on an objectionable ra’i. The Prophet  has permitted the judge to exercise his own Ijtihād and informed him of reward, despite if he makes a mistake in exercising his own opinion, one reward, if his aim was to gain knowledge of the truth and follow it. The Prophet  ordered the Sahabah on the day of the (battle of) Ahzab (the confederates) to pray the mid-day (‘asr) prayer in Bani Qurayza. Some exercised their own Ijtihād and prayed on the way, they said it does not mention any delay rather what he  meant was to advance quickly, thus they took into consideration the meaning. The others exercised their Ijtihād and delayed the prayer until Bani Qurayza. They prayed the ‘asr prayer at night, thus they took into consideration the wording. The Messenger  accepted both groups, each one on its own opinion. Mu’az narrated ‘that when the Messenger of Allah  sent him to Yemen he said:

Huu ndio ra'i ambayo mafaqihi na mujtahidina waliotetea ra'i walifuata katika kutenda kwa mujibu wa Sunnah. Ni ra'i inayotegemea maandiko. Wao pia ni Ahl al-hadīth, hata kama waliitwa Ahl al-ra'i. Hata Hanafi, ambao wamejulikana sana kama Ahl al-ra'i, wanakubaliana kwamba maoni ya Abu Hanifah ni kwamba hadīth zisizo Sahih, yaani hadīth hasan, zina haki zaidi ya kufuatwa kuliko qiyas au ra'i. Kwa hiyo alitanguliza hadīth ya qahqaha (kicheko kikubwa), ingawa ni hasan, juu ya qiyas na ra'i. Pia alizuia kukatwa mkono wa mwizi kwa wizi wenye thamani chini ya dirham kumi, lakini hadīth hiyo haikufikia kiwango cha Sahih, bali ni hasan. Hii inaonyesha kwamba kwao ra'i ni ufahamu wa maandiko, na ra'i inayotegemea maandiko. Walipa qiyas daraja la chini kuliko hadīth hasan, sembuse hadīth ambayo ni Sahih. Hii inaonyesha kwamba kinachokusudiwa kwa ra'i ni ufahamu wa maandiko na ra'i inayotegemea maandiko. Kwa hiyo Ahl al-ra'i pia ni Ahl al-hadīth.

So this is the ra’i on which the fuqaha and the mujtahidin who advocated ra’i proceeded on acting upon the Sunnah. It is the ra’i which is based on the text. They are also the Ahl al-hadīth even if they were called the Ahl al-ra’i. Even the Hanafis who have become famous as Ahl al-ra’i agree that the opinion of Abu Hanifah is that the hadīth other than the Sahih, i.e, the hadith hasan is more entitled to be followed than qiyas or ra’i. So he gave precedence to the hadīth of qahqaha (loud laughter), even though it is hasan, over qiyas and ra’i. And he prevented the cutting of the hand of a thief for a theft whose value is less than ten dirhams but the hadīth did not reach the level of Sahih rather it is hasan which indicates that ra’i for them is an understanding of the text. They gave qiyas a rank lower than the hasan hadīth let alone the hadīth which is Sahih. This indicates that what is intended by ra’i is the understanding of the text and the ra’i which is based on the text. So the Ahl al-ra’i are Ahl al-hadīth as well.

Sababu ya tatu iliyopelekea kutofautiana katika mbinu ya kuchota hukumu inahusu maana fulani za kilugha zinazotumika katika kuelewa matini. Kutofautiana kwa mujtahidina kulitokana na mitindo ya lugha ya Kiarabu na yale inayoyaashiria. Wapo waliokuwa na mtazamo kwamba matini ni dalili ya kuthibitisha hukumu kutokana na maneno yake (mantuq), na kuthibitisha kinyume cha hukumu hiyo kutokana na maana ya kinyume (mafhum al-mukhalif). Wapo waliouona ‘aam (jumla) isiyobainishwa kuwa ni yenye uhakika (qat'i) katika kushughulikia sehemu zake zote, na wapo waliouona kuwa ni wenye dhana (zanni). Wapo waliouona amri ya jumla kuwa sawa na wajibu, wala hawakuacha msimamo huo isipokuwa pale palipokuwa na qarina (dalili ya kinyume). Hivyo amri inalazimisha kitendo. Na baadhi yao walikuwa wakichukulia kwamba amri ni ombi tu la kutenda kitendo. Ni qarina (dalili) inayobainisha kama ni wajibu au si wajibu. Matokeo yake, kutofautiana kulizuka kuhusu kuelewa matini, na hilo likapelekea kutofautiana katika mbinu ya Ijtihād.