Hii ni kwa ajili ya kila Muislamu. Kwa hiyo, watu wenye ushawishi hawana haki ya pekee ya kumteua Khalifah, na hawawezi kuwapuuza Waislamu wengine. Wala watu maalum hawana haki ya pekee. Badala yake, haki hii ni ya Waislamu wote bila ubaguzi; hata wale wanaoitwa fajirs (waovu) na munafiqeen (wanafiki) imejumuishwa, mradi tu ni Waislamu waliokomaa, kwa sababu dalili ya Shari'ah ilikuja kwa njia ya jumla katika jambo hili, na hakuna kilichokuja kuizuia (kuifanya mahsusi kwa watu fulani) isipokuwa kukataliwa kwa kiapo cha utii kutoka kwa vijana ambao bado hawajafikia umri wa kubalehe. Hivyo, dalili hiyo lazima ichukuliwe kwa maana ya jumla.
And this is general for every Muslim. Therefore, the influential people do not possess the exclusive right to appoint the Khalifah and cannot ignore the rest of the Muslims. Nor do specific persons have the exclusive right. Rather, this right is for all the Muslims with no exception, it even includes the fajirs (wicked people) and munafiqeen (hypocrites), provided they are mature Muslims because the Shari’ah text came in a general form in this instance and nothing came to limit it (make it specific to certain people) except the refusal of the pledge from the young who have not yet reached the age of puberty. So the text has to be taken generally.
Hata hivyo, si sharti kwamba Waislamu wote watekeleze haki hii. Ingawa ni wajibu, kwa kuwa bay'ah ni fardh, ni fardh kifaya (wajibu wa kutosheleza) wala si fardh ain (wajibu wa mtu binafsi). Kwa hivyo, Waislamu wakiitekeleza baadhi yao, wajibu huo unawaondokea wengine. Lakini ni lazima Waislamu wote wawezeshwe kutekeleza haki yao ya kumchagua Khalifah, bila kujali kama wanaitumia haki hiyo au la. Kwa maneno mengine, kila Muslim lazima awe na uwezo wa kushiriki katika kumchagua Khalifah. Kwa hiyo suala ni kuwawezesha Waislamu kutekeleza wajibu wa kusimamisha Khilafah ambao Allah (SWT) ameuwekea juu yao, kwa namna ambayo wajibu huo unaondoka mabegani mwao. Suala si ushiriki halisi wa Waislamu wote katika kutekeleza jukumu hili. Hii ni kwa sababu wajibu ambao Allah (SWT) ameuamuru ni kusimamisha Khilafah kwa Waislamu kwa ridhaa yao, na si lazima Waislamu wote wautekeleze. Mambo mawili yanatokana na hili: Moja ni kwamba ridhaa ya Waislamu wote katika kusimamishwa kwa Khilafah inapatikana. Pili, ridhaa ya Waislamu wote kuhusu uteuzi huo haipatikani. Hata hivyo, Waislamu wanawezeshwa (kushiriki katika uteuzi) katika hali zote mbili.
However, it is not a condition that all Muslims practise this right. While it is a duty, because the bay’ah is fard, it is fard kifayah (obligation of sufficiency) and not fard ain (individual obligation). Thus, if some of the Muslims fulfill it, the duty drops from the rest of the Muslims. But all Muslims must be enabled to practice their right in electing the Khalifah, regardless of whether they use their right or not. In other words, every Muslim must be able to participate in selecting the Khalifah. So the issue is to enable the Muslims to carry out the duty of establishing the Khalifah which Allah (swt) prescribed upon them, in such a way that this duty falls (from their shoulders). The issue is not the actual participation of all the Muslims in conducting this duty. This is because the duty which Allah (swt) has prescribed is to establish the Khalifah for the Muslims by their consent, and it is not a requirement for all Muslims to perform it. Two matters result from this: One of them is that the consent of all the Muslims in the establishment of the Khalifah is achieved. Secondly, the consent of all the Muslims about the appointment is not achieved. The Muslims are however enabled (to participate in the appointment) in both cases.
Kuhusu jambo la kwanza, hakuna sharti lililowekwa kuhusu idadi maalum inayohitajika kumteua Khalifah. Badala yake, idadi yoyote ya Waislamu inaweza kumpa Khalifah bay’ah, na katika bay’ah hii ridhaa ya Waislamu wengine hupatikana kwa kimya chao, au kwa kuendelea kumtii, au kwa jambo lolote linaloashiria ridhaa yao. Kisha Khalifah aliyeteuliwa anakuwa Khalifah wa Waislamu wote. Atakuwa Khalifah kisheria hata kama aliyemteua ni watu watatu tu, kwa sababu ujumuishi (ujumla wa Waislamu) hupatikana kwa kutekeleza uteuzi wa Khalifah. Ridhaa hupatikana kwa kimya chao na kwa utii au jambo kama hilo, kwa sharti kwamba hili linafanyika kwa hiari isiyofungwa na kwa kuwezesha kikamilifu kutolewa kwa maoni kwa wote. Hata hivyo, ikiwa ridhaa ya Waislamu wote haikupatikana, basi uteuzi wa Khalifah hautakamilika isipokuwa ukifanywa na kundi linalowakilisha ridhaa ya wengi wa Waislamu, bila kujali idadi ya kundi hili. Kutokana na hapa, baadhi ya wanazuoni wa sheria walisema kwamba uteuzi wa Khalifah unathibitishwa kwa bay’ah anayopewa na watu wenye ushawishi (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd), kwa sababu wao huwaona watu wenye ushawishi kama kundi linalopata ridhaa ya Waislamu kupitia bay’ah wanayompa mtu yeyote anayetimiza masharti ya mkataba wa Ukhalifah. Kwa hiyo, si bay’ah ya watu wenye ushawishi inayomthibitisha Khalifah, wala bay’ah yao si sharti la uhalali wa uteuzi wa Khalifah. Badala yake, bay’ah ya watu wenye ushawishi ni dalili inayoonyesha kwamba ridhaa ya Waislamu kwa bay’ah hiyo imepatikana, kwa sababu watu wenye ushawishi wanachukuliwa kuwa wawakilishi wa Waislamu. Na kila ushahidi unaoonyesha kwamba ridhaa ya Waislamu kwa kula kiapo cha utii (bay'ah) kwa Khalifah inapatikana, unakamilisha uteuzi wa Khalifah, na uteuzi wa Khalifah kwa bay'ah hii ungekuwa halali.
With regards to the first matter, no condition is set concerning a specific number required to appoint the Khalifah. Rather any number of Muslims can give their bay’ah to the Khalifah and in this bay’ah the consent of the rest of the Muslims is attained by their silence, or by proceeding to obey him, or by anything which implies their consent, then the appointed Khalifah becomes a Khalifah for all the Muslims. He will legally be the Khalifah even if only three people appointed him, because collectivity is achieved by carrying out the appointment of the Khalifah. The consent is achieved by their silence and through obedience or anything similar, on condition that this is accomplished by unfettered choice and in every respect enabling the expression of opinions for all. However, if the consent of all the Muslims was not achieved, then the appointment of the Khalifah would not be accomplished unless it was performed by a group that represents the consent of the majority of the Muslims, regardless of the number in this group. From here some jurists stated that the appointment of the Khalifah is established by the pledge given to him by the people of influence (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd), because they consider the influential people as the group which achieves the consent of the Muslims through the pledge they give to any man who fulfils the contractual conditions of the Khilafah. Therefore, it is not the pledge of the influential people which establishes the Khalifah, nor is their pledge a condition for the legality of the appointment of the Khalifah. Rather the pledge of the influential people is evidence indicating that the consent of the Muslims to the pledge has been achieved, because the influential people are considered as representative of the Muslims. And every evidence which indicates that the consent of the Muslims with the pledge to a Khalifah is fulfilled completes the appointment of the Khalifah, and the appointment of the Khalifah by this bay’ah (pledge) would be legal.
Kwa hiyo, hukumu ya Shari'ah ni kuanzisha Ukhalifa kupitia kikao chochote ambacho uteuzi wa Khalifah unapata ridhaa ya Waislamu kwa dalili yoyote inayothibitisha ridhaa hii. Hali ni hiyo hiyo, iwe dalili hii ni kiapo cha wengi wa watu mashuhuri, wengi wa wawakilishi wa Waislamu, kukubali kimya kwa Waislamu kuhusu kundi lililotoa kiapo, harakati zao za kuonyesha utii kutokana na kiapo, au kwa njia nyingine yoyote kama hiyo, mradi wao wamepewa nafasi kamili ya kutoa maoni yao kwa uhuru. Si hukumu ya Shari'ah kwamba kikao hiki lazima kiwe cha watu mashuhuri pekee, au kwamba wawe wanne au wanne mia au zaidi, au kwamba lazima wawe wakazi wa mji mkuu au wa mikoa. Badala yake, hukumu ya Shari'ah ni kwamba kiapo chao kinatimiza ridhaa ya wengi wa Waislamu kwa dalili yoyote ambayo kwa pamoja inawawezesha kutoa maoni yao kikamilifu kwa uhuru.
Accordingly the Shari’ah rule is to establish the Khalifah by any gathering where appointment of the Khalifah achieves the consent of the Muslims by any indication that proves this consent. It is the same whether this indication is the pledge of the majority of the influential people, the majority of the representatives of the Muslims, the silent acceptance of the Muslims regarding the group that gave the pledge, their hurry to show obedience as a result of the pledge or by any similar means, as long as they were provided with the full facility to freely express their opinions. It is not a Shari’ah rule that this gathering must be only from the influential people or that they are four or four hundred or more, or that they must be the residents of the capital or the regions. Rather the Shari’ah rule is that their pledge fulfils the consent of the majority of Muslims by any indication together enabling them to freely express their opinion fully.
Maana ya "Waislamu wote" hapa ni wale Waislamu wanaoishi katika ardhi inayodhibitiwa na Dola ya Kiislamu, yaani wale ambao ni raia wa Khalifah wa zamani iwapo Khilafah ipo, au wale ambao kupitia kwao uanzishwaji wa Dola ya Kiislamu unatimizwa na Khilafah inaandikwa nayo, endapo Dola ya Kiislamu haijaanzishwa. Hao ndio waliosimama kuiunda (Khilafah) na kuendeleza mfumo wa maisha ya Kiislamu kupitia hiyo. Kwa upande wa Waislamu wengine, ahadi yao na ridhaa yao si sharti la msingi, kwa kuwa wao ni waumini walio nje ya mamlaka ya Kiislamu, au wanaishi katika Dar al-Kufr (nchi ya ukafiri) na hawawezi kujiunga na Dar al-Islam. Kwa hiyo hawana haki katika ahadi ya kuiweka Khilafah, lakini ni lazima watoe ahadi ya utii kwa kuwa kisheria wale wanaoasi mamlaka ya Kiislamu wanachukuliwa kuwa waasi. Kwa wale wanaoishi katika Dar al-Kufr, kuanzishwa kwa mamlaka ya Kiislamu hakufikiwi nao isipokuwa wakiianzisha kwa vitendo au wakiingia katika himaya yake. Kwa hiyo, Waislamu wenye haki katika ahadi ya kuiweka Khilafah, na ambao ridhaa yao inachukuliwa kuwa sharti la kuhakikisha uteuzi halali wa Khalifah, ni wale Waislamu ambao kwa vitendo mamlaka ya Uislamu inaanzishwa kupitia kwao. Si kweli kusema kwamba hili ni utafiti wa kiakili, wala kusema kuwa halina ushahidi wa Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa sababu ni utafiti kuhusu maudhui (manat) ambayo hukumu ya Shari'ah inatumika juu yake, wala si kuhusu sheria yenyewe; hivyo hauhitaji hukumu ya Shari'ah bali unapaswa kufafanua uhalisia wake. Kwa mfano, kula nyama ya mzoga kumeharamishwa kwa hukumu ya Shari'ah. Kuthibitisha ni nini nyama ya mzoga ndiyo maudhui ya sheria, yaani jambo ambalo sheria inahusiana nalo. Basi uteuzi wa Khalifah na Waislamu ni hukumu ya Shari'ah, na kwamba uteuzi huu unapaswa kuwa kwa ridhaa na uchaguzi pia ni hukumu ya Shari'ah. Ni vipengele hivi ambavyo vinahitaji ushahidi wa Shari'ah. Je, ni Waislamu gani ambao kupitia kwao uteuzi unakamilika? Na jambo gani ambalo kwalo ridhaa na uchaguzi hutimizwa? Haya (mambo) huitwa mada ya sheria, yaani mada ambayo sheria ilikuja kuitatua. Utekelezaji wa hukumu ya Shari'ah juu ya mada hiyo ndio utimilifu wa sheria. Kwa hiyo, inahitajika kusoma mada (manat) ambayo hukumu ya Shari'ah ilikuja kuishughulikia kwa kufafanua hali yake halisi.
What is meant by all Muslims is those Muslims who live in lands controlled by the Islamic State i.e. those who are subjects of the former Khalifah if the Khilafah exists, or those by whom the Islamic State’s establishment is accomplished and the Khilafah is contracted, in case the Islamic State was not established. They are the ones who stood to create it (the Khilafah) resume the Islamic way of life through it. As for the rest of the Muslims, their pledge and consent are not an essential condition, because they are believers outside the Islamic authority or they live in Dar al-Kufr (land of kufr) and they cannot join Dar al-Islam. So they have no right in the contracting pledge, but they must give the pledge of obedience because legally those who rebel from the Islamic authority are treated as rebels. As for those who live in Dar al-Kufr, the establishment of the Islamic authority is not achieved by them unless they establish it in reality or they enter into its domain. Therefore, the Muslims who have the right in the contracting pledge and their consent is considered a condition to ensure the legal appointment of the Khalifah are those Muslims by whom the authority of Islam is established in reality. It is not true to say that this is a rational study, or to say it has no Shari’ah evidence. This is because it is a study about the subject (manat) upon which the Shari’ah rule applies and not on the law itself, therefore it does not need a Shari’ah rule but rather must explain its reality. For example, the eating of dead meat is prohibited by the Shari’ah rule. Verification of what is the dead meat is the subject of the law i.e. the subject with which the law is related. So appointing of the Khalifah by Muslims is the Shari’ah rule, and that this appointment should be by consent and choice is also the Shari’ah rule. It is these provisions which need the Shari’ah evidence. As for who are the Muslims by whom the appointment is completed? And what is the matter by which the consent and choice are fulfilled? These (matters) are referred to as the subject of the law i.e. the subject which the law came to solve. The application of the Shari’ah rule upon the subject is the achievement of the law. Therefore, it is needed to study the subject (manat) which the Shari’ah rule came to treat by explaining its reality.
Si sahihi kusema kwamba maudhui (manat) ya hukumu ni sababu (‘illah) ya hukumu, hivyo ingehitaji lazima dalili ya Shari’ah, kwa sababu maudhui ya hukumu ni tofauti na sababu ya hukumu. Kuna tofauti kubwa kati ya ‘illah na manat. ‘Illah ni kichocheo cha hukumu, yaani jambo linaloonyesha nia (lengo) ya Mwenye kutunga Shari’ah (Ash-Shari’, ambaye ni Allah) kwa hukumu hii, na hili lazima liwe na dalili ya Shari’ah ili ieleweke kuwa ni lengo la Mwenye kutunga Shari’ah (Allah). Ama maudhui (manat) ya hukumu ni jambo ambalo hukumu ilikuja kwa ajili yake, yaani swali ambalo hukumu inatumika juu yake, si dalili yake wala ‘illah yake. Maana ya kusema kwamba ni maudhui ambayo kwayo hukumu inafikiwa ni kwamba ni jambo ambalo hukumu inalitegemea au kulining'inia, yaani hukumu ilikuja kulitatua. Haimaanishi kwamba hukumu ilikuja kwa sababu yake hadi ikaitwa ‘illah ya hukumu. Kwa hiyo manat ya hukumu ni kile kilicho nje ya upande wa kinachopokelewa kwa usimulizi (ghayr an-naqliyya) wa hukumu ya Shari’ah. Uthibitisho wake ni tofauti na uthibitisho wa ‘illah. Uthibitisho wa ‘illah hutegemea kuelewa maandiko yaliyokuja na sababu, na hii ni kuelewa kile kinachopokelewa kwa usimulizi, wala si manat. Manat ni kitu kingine tofauti na kinachopokelewa kwa usimulizi; maana yake ni uhalisia ambao hukumu ya Shari’ah inapaswa kutumika juu yake.
It is incorrect to say that the subject (manat) of the law is the ‘illah (reason) of the law so it would necessarily need Shari’ah evidence because the subject of the law is different than the reason of the law. There is a great difference between ‘illah and manat. The ‘illah is the incentive for the law i.e. the thing which indicates the intention (aim) of the Lawgiver (Ash-Shari’ i.e. Allah) for this law, and this must have a Shari’ah evidence so as to understand that it is the aim of the Lawgiver (Allah). Whereas the subject (manat) of the law is the subject for which the law came i.e. the question upon which the law applies, not its evidence or its ‘illah. What is meant by its being the subject with which the law is arrived at is that it is the subject with which the law suspends or hangs i.e. the law was brought to solve it. It does not mean that the law came because of it so as to be called the ‘illah of the law. So the manat of the law is that which is other than the conveyed (ghayr an-naqliyya) aspect of the Shari’ah rule. Its verification is different from the verification of the ‘illah. The verification of the ‘illah turns upon the comprehension of the text which came with a reason, and this is an understanding of what is conveyed and it is not the manat. The manat is other than than what is conveyed; its meaning is the reality upon which the Shari’ah rule is to be applied.
Ukisema kwamba pombe ni haramu, hukumu ya Shari'ah ni katazo la pombe. Kuthibitisha kwamba kinywaji fulani ni pombe au si pombe, ili kukihukumu kuwa haramu au si haramu, ni uthibitishaji wa manat. Hivyo ni lazima kuchunguza kama kinywaji ni pombe au la, ndipo kiweze kutamkwa kuwa ni haramu. Kuchunguza uhalisia wa pombe ni uthibitishaji wa manat. Na ukisema kwamba maji yanayoruhusiwa kutumika kwa wudhuu ni maji mutlaq (yasiyo na kizuizi), basi hukumu ya Shari'ah ni kwamba maji mutlaq ndiyo yanayoruhusiwa kwa wudhuu. Hivyo kuthibitisha kwamba maji ni mutlaq au yamezuiliwa, ili kuyahukumu kuwa yanaruhusiwa kwa wudhuu, ni uthibitishaji wa manat. Kwa hiyo ni lazima kuchunguza maji ili kubaini kama ni huru au yamezuiliwa. Uchunguzi huu wa uhalisia wa maji ni uthibitishaji wa manat. Na ukisema kwamba mtu aliyetoa hadath (kutoa kitu kupitia nyuma au mbele) lazima atawadhe kwa ajili ya sala, basi kuthibitisha kwamba mtu ni muhdath au si muhdath ni uthibitishaji wa manat, na kadhalika.
Ash-Shatibi alisema katika "Al-Muwafaqat": "Mada hizi na zinazofanana nazo, ambazo zinahitaji kubainisha manat, lazima zichukue dalili juu yake kulingana na uhalisia kuhusiana na kila tukio." Na alisema: "Ijtihadi inaweza kuhusishwa na uthibitishaji wa manat, na hii haihitaji ujuzi wa malengo ya Mwenye Shari'ah (Mwenyezi Mungu), wala haihitaji ujuzi wa lugha ya Kiarabu, kwa sababu lengo la ijtihadi hii ni kujua jambo kama lilivyo. Hivyo inahitaji elimu ambayo bila hiyo jambo hilo lisingeweza kutambulika kulingana na lengo la kulijua. Kwa hiyo mujtahidi lazima awe mwenye elimu na mujtahidi kutokana na upande huo anaouzingatia ili kuitumia hukumu ya Shari'ah kulingana na inavyohitajika." Uchunguzi wa 'illah hurejea kwenye kuelewa matini iliyokuja na sababu. Na hii ni ufahamu wa mambo yaliyofikishwa, na si manat; bali manat ni kitu kingine tofauti na mambo yaliyofikishwa. Ni uhalisia ambao hukumu ya Shari'ah inatumika juu yake. Ukisema kwamba pombe ni haramu, uthibitisho wa kama kimiminika fulani ni pombe au la ni uthibitisho wa manat. Na ukisema kwamba maji mutlaq (yasiyo na mchanganyiko) ndiyo maji ambayo kwayo wudhu unaweza kufanywa, basi uthibitisho wa kama maji hayo ni mutlaq au la ni uthibitisho wa manat. Na ukisema kwamba mwenye hadath lazima atawadhe, basi uthibitisho wa kama mtu huyo ana hadath au la ni uthibitisho wa manat. Hivyo basi, uthibitisho wa manat ni uchunguzi wa jambo ambalo ndilo lengo la hukumu ya kisheria. Kwa hiyo, si sharti kwamba anayethibitisha manat awe mujtahid au Muislamu, bali inatosha kwamba awe na ujuzi katika jambo hilo. Kadhalika, uchunguzi wa ni akina nani Waislamu ambao bay'ah yao ni dalili ya kukubali au kuridhia, ni uchunguzi kuhusu uthibitisho wa manat.
If you say alcohol is haram, the Shari’ah rule is the prohibition of alcohol. Verifying that a certain drink is alcohol or not, so as to judge it as haram or not is a verification of the manat. So it is necessary to study whether the drink is alcohol or not in order to state that it is haram. The investigation of the reality of the alcohol is a verification of the manat. And if you said that the water allowed to use for wudhu is the unrestricted (mutlaq) water then the Shari’ah rule is that the mutlaq water is the one which is allowed for wudhu. So the verification that the water is unrestricted or restricted in order to judge upon it as allowed for wudhu, is a verification of the manat. Therefore, it is necessary to study the water to determine if it is free or restricted. This study of the reality of the water is the verification of the manat. And if you said the person who made hadath (discharged something from back or front) has to make wudhu for the prayer, then the verification that the person is muhdath or not muhdath is a verification of the manat, and so on. Shatebi said in “Al-Muwafaqat”: “These subjects and their like which require defining the manat must take the evidence about it in conformity to the reality in relation to every incident.” And he said: “Ijtihad could be connected with the verification of the manat, and this does not require knowledge of the aims of the Lawgiver (Allah) nor does it require knowledge of the Arabic language, because the aim of this ijtihad is knowing the subject as it is. Thus it requires knowledge without which this subject could not be recognised according to the aim of knowing it. Therefore the mujtahid has to be knowledgeable and mujtahid from this aspect which he considers in order to apply the Shari’ah rule to conform to what is required.” The investigation of the ‘illah returns to understanding the text which came with a reason. And this is an understanding of the conveyed matters and it is not the manat, rather the manat is other than the conveyed matters. It is meant to be the reality upon which the Shari’ah rule applies. If you say that alcohol is haram, the verification of whether a liquid is alcohol or not is the verification of the manat. And if you say the unrestricted (mutlaq) water is that with which wudhu can be performed, then the verification that the water is unrestricted or not is the verification of the manat. And if you said that the muhdath has to make wudhu, then the verification that the person is muhdath or not is the verification of the manat. Thus the verification of the manat is the investigation of the thing that is the subject of the law. Accordingly, it is not a condition that the one who verifies the manat be a mujtahid or a Muslim, but it is enough that he or she be knowledgeable in the matter. So the study of who are the Muslims whose bay’ah is evidence of the acceptance or consent is a study about the verification of the manat.
Kuhusu swali la kwanza hili. Kwa upande wa suala la pili, kuhusu kinachofanyika siku hizi katika kufanya uchaguzi kwa kura ya siri, kutumia masanduku ya kupigia kura, kugawa kura na mengineyo; yote haya ni mbinu za kufanya uteuzi kwa ridhaa. Kwa hiyo, haya hayaingii chini ya hukumu ya Shari'ah wala katika swali la manaat ya hukumu ya Shari'ah ambalo ndilo jambo ambalo hukumu ya Shari'ah ilikuja kulitatua. Hii ni kwa sababu jambo hili halihusiani na vitendo vya waja wala na somo ambalo hukumu ya Shari'ah inatumika. Badala yake ni njia za vitendo vya binadamu ambavyo hukumu ya Shari'ah ilikuja kuvihusu, yaani kitendo ambacho kauli ya Mwekaji Sheria (Allah (swt)) inahusiana nacho; ambacho katika hali hii ni kuanzisha Ukhalifa kwa ridhaa, mradi kuna wepesi kamili wa kuwezesha kutoa maoni. Kwa hiyo, mbinu hizi na njia hizi si sehemu ya kile ambacho hukumu za Shari'ah zinalengwa, na zinachukuliwa kama mambo ambayo maandiko ya jumla yameruhusu. Hakuna dalili maalum ya kuzikataza, kwa hiyo ni mubaah. Waislamu wana haki ya kuchagua mbinu hizi au nyingine. Mbinu yoyote inayosababisha kuwawezesha Waislamu kutekeleza faradhi ya kumteua Khalifah kwa ridhaa na uchaguzi, basi Waislamu wanaruhusiwa kuitumia isipokuwa kukiwa na dalili ya Shari'ah inayoikataza.
This is in regard to the first question. As for the second issue, regarding what occurs nowadays in conducting elections by secret ballot, using polling boxes, distributing votes and the like; all these are styles to perform the selection by consent. Therefore, they do not enter under the Shari’ah rule nor the question of manat of the Shari’ah rule which is the subject that the Shari’ah rule came to solve. This is because this matter is not concerned with the actions of the slaves nor the subject upon which the Shari’ah rule applies. Rather they are the means of the human actions to which the Shari’ah rule came i.e. the action which the speech of the Law-giver (Allah (swt)) is related to; which in this instance, is the establishment of the Khalifah by consent, provided there is complete facilitation to enable the expression of opinion. Therefore, these styles and means are not part of what the Shari’ah rules are sought for, and they are treated as matters which the general text has permitted. There is no special evidence to forbid them, so they are mubah. The Muslims have the right to select these or other styles. Any style which leads to enabling the Muslims to carry out the fard of appointing the Khalifah by consent and choice, then the Muslims are allowed to use it unless there came Shari’ah evidence which prohibits it.
Si sahihi kusema kwamba mtindo huu ni kitendo cha kibinadamu ambacho hakipaswi kufanywa isipokuwa kwa mujibu wa hukumu ya Shari'ah, na kwamba kinahitaji dalili inayoonyesha hukumu yake. Si sahihi kusema hivyo kwa sababu kitendo cha kibinadamu ambacho lazima kifanywe kwa mujibu wa hukumu ya Shari'ah, na ambacho lazima kiwe na dalili inayoonyesha hukumu yake, ni kitendo kinachochukuliwa kuwa asili (asl) au tawi (far') la asili ambalo dalili yake kwa asili hiyo si ya jumla bali ni maalum (khaas). Mfano wa hili ni swala, ambayo dalili yake inahusu tu kuiweka kuwa ya lazima, na haijumuishi kila kitendo kilichomo ndani yake. Kwa hiyo, lazima kuwe na dalili kwa kila kitendo kilichomo ndani yake. Lakini kitendo ambacho ni tawi la kitendo ambacho dalili ya jumla inatumika kwa asili yake, dalili hiyo ya jumla inatumika kwa matawi yake yote. Kukataza kitendo ambacho ni tawi kunahitaji dalili ya kukikataza, na kukiondoa kutoka hukumu ya asili yake, na hivyo kukipa hukumu mpya. Hili ni sawa kwa mitindo yote. Katika suala la uchaguzi, kitendo cha asili ni kumteua Khalifah kwa ridhaa na uchaguzi. Kuhusu vitendo vinavyotokana na hapo, kama vile kupiga kura, kutumia masanduku ya kupigia kura, kutenganisha kura na mengineyo, vyote vinaingia chini ya hukumu ya asili na havihitaji dalili nyingine. Kuondoa chochote kati ya hivyo kutoka hukumu ya asili, yaani kukikataza, ni jambo linalohitaji dalili. Hali hii ni sawa kwa mitindo yote ambayo ni vitendo vya kibinadamu. Kuhusu njia ambazo ni zana, kama sanduku ambalo karatasi za kura huwekwa, hizi huchukua hukumu ya vitu na si hukumu ya vitendo ambavyo kanuni ya Shari'ah inatumika kwake.
It is incorrect to say that this style is a human act and should not be conducted except according to the Shari’ah rule, with an evidence to indicate its rule. It is incorrect to say so because the human action which must be conducted according to the Shari’ah rule and which must have an evidence that indicates its law, is the action which is considered as an origin (asl) or a branch (far’) of an origin whose evidence for the origin is not general but rather specific (khaas). An example for this is the prayer, whose evidence is only related to establishing it and it does not include every action included in the prayer. Therefore there must be an evidence for every action in it. However the action which is a branch for an action wherein general evidence applies to its origin, that general evidence applies upon all its branches. The prohibition of an action which is a branch requires an evidence to prohibit it, and remove it from the rule of its origin and thus give it a new rule. This is the same for all the styles. In the question of elections, the original action is the appointment of the Khalifah by consent and choice. As for the actions which branch out from that such as polling, using polling boxes, separating of votes and the like, they all enter under the rule of the origin and do not require another evidence. To exclude any of them from the rule of the origin, i.e. to prohibit it, is a matter which requires an evidence. This is the case for all the styles which are human actions. Concerning the means which are tools like the box in which the voting papers are put, these take the rule of things and not the rule for actions upon which applies the Shari’ah principle:
