Maana ya neno "canons" katika lugha ya Kiarabu ni misingi ya msingi (usul), huku umoja wake ukiwa ni "canon" (qanun). Ni neno la kigeni ambalo limefanywa la Kiarabu. Katika istilahi ya wageni, canon ni amri inayotangazwa na mtawala ili watu wafuate. Canon pia inajulikana kama "mkusanyiko wa kanuni ambazo mtawala huwalazimisha watu kuzifuata katika mahusiano yao." Canon kimsingi imegawanyika katika makundi mawili. Kwanza, kanuni zinazopanga mahusiano kutoka msingi wake zina aina mbili. Ya kwanza ni canon ya msingi, ambayo ni katiba; ya pili ni canon nyingine zote ambazo si sehemu ya katiba. Kuhusu kundi la pili la canon, hizi ni zile zinazopanga vitendo vya pili ambavyo havina kanuni maalum kwavyo lakini msingi wake una kanuni ya jumla. Au zinapanga njia, yaani mitindo ambayo kwayo vitendo vya msingi, vyenye kanuni ya jumla lakini tawi lake lisilo na kanuni maalum, vinatekelezwa. Au zinapanga vyombo. Hizi huitwa canon za kiutawala au mifumo ya kiutawala au kitu kingine kama hicho. Kwa kuwa usemi wa Mwenye kutunga sheria (Ash-Shaari') ulikuja ukihusu vitendo vya waja na kuwalazimisha kujizuia navyo, kwa hiyo mpangilio wake unatoka kwa Allah (SWT). Shari'ah ya Kiislamu imekuja ikihusu vitendo vyote vya watu na mahusiano yao yote, iwe mahusiano yao na Allah, au mahusiano yao na nafsi zao, au mahusiano yao na wengine. Kwa hiyo hakuna nafasi katika Uislamu kwa watu kutunga canon za kupanga mifumo, kwa kuwa wamezuiwa na Shari'ah. Allah (SWT) amesema:

The meaning of the word “canons” in the Arabic language is fundamentals (usul) with the singular being “canon” (qanun). It is a foreign word which has been arabicised. The canon in the foreigner’s terminology means the command published by the ruler so that the people follow it. The canon is also known as “the collection of rules which the ruler compels people to follow in their relationships.” The canon is essentially of two categories. Firstly, the rules which organise the relationships from their basis are of two types. The first is the basic canon which is the constitution, the second is the rest of the canons which are not (part of) the constitution. As for the second category of canons, they are the ones which organise secondary actions which do not have a rule specific to them but whose basis has a general rule. Or it organises the means i.e. the styles by which the basic actions, which have a general rule but whose branch has no specific rule for it, are performed. Or it organises the tools. They are termed as administrative canons or administrative systems or something similar. Since the speech of the Legislator actions came related to the actions of the slaves and obliging the restriction of oneself to them, therefore their organization comes from Allah (swt). The Islamic Shari’ah came related to all actions of the people and all their relationships, whether their relationship with Allah or their relationship with themselves or their relationship with others. Therefore there is no place in Islam for people to legislate canons to organise the systems as they are restricted by the Shari’ah. Allah (swt) said:

Na:

And:

Na:

And:

Muslim ameeleta kutoka kwa Aisha kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema:

Muslim narrated from Aisha that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Allah (swt) ndiye Anayetunga sheria kwa watu, si mtawala. Yeye huwalazimisha watu na mtawala kuzifuata katika mahusiano yao, kujizuia nazo, na kuwazuia kufuata (kanuni) nyingine yoyote. Kwa hiyo mwanadamu hana nafasi ya kutunga kanuni za kupanga mahusiano ya watu, wala mtawala hana nafasi ya kuwalazimisha watu au kuwapa chaguo la kufuata kanuni na misingi iliyowekwa na wanadamu wanaopanga mahusiano yao. Hata hivyo, kanuni za Shari'ah, ambazo ni kauli ya Mtunga Sheria inayohusu matendo ya waja, zimekuja katika Qur'an na Sunnah, na ndani yake kuna mengi yanayobeba maana (zinazoweza kuwa) tofauti kulingana na lugha ya Kiarabu na Shar'a. Kwa hiyo ni jambo la kawaida na lisiloepukika kwamba watu watatofautiana katika kuelewa maana hizo, na tofauti hii ya kuelewa huleta mgawanyiko na tofauti katika maana zilizokusudiwa. Hivyo basi, ni lazima kuwepo na uelewa uliotengana na tofauti, ili kutokana na hilo kuwepo na maoni yaliyotengana na tofauti katika kanuni moja. Mtume ﷺ alipokuwa katika vita vya Makundi (Al-Ahzab) alisema:

Allah (swt) is the One who legislates laws for the people, not the ruler, and He compels them and the ruler to follow them in their relationships, to restrict themselves by them and to prevent them from following (any) other (rules). Therefore there is no place for the human being to lay down rules to organise people’s relationships, nor any place for the ruler to compel people or give them an option to follow principles and rules laid done by human beings organising their relationships. However the Shari’ah rules, which is the speech of the Legislator related to the actions of the slaves, came in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and there is much with them that carries (potentially) different meanings according to the Arabic language and the Shar’a. So it is natural and inevitable that people differ in understanding them, and that this difference in understanding leads to the limit of separation and differences in the intended meaning(s). Therefore it is inevitable to have separated and different understandings so that due to this, there can be separated and differing opinions in one rule. When the Messenger (saw) said in the battle of the Allies:

Baadhi ya watu walielewa kwamba alikusudia wafanye haraka, kwa hiyo wakaswali Alasiri njiani, ilhali wengine walielewa maana ya sentensi hiyo kama ilivyo (kihalisi), kwa hiyo hawakuswali Alasiri, wakaichelewesha mpaka walipofika Banu Quraydha ndipo wakaiswali. Jambo hilo lilipomfikia Mtume ﷺ, alikubali makundi hayo mawili kila kundi kwa kadiri ya ufahamu wake. Mtume ﷺ alisema:

Some people understood that he meant hurrying and they prayed Asr along the way, while (other) people understood he meant the meaning of the sentence (literally) so they did not pray Asr and delayed it until they reached Banu Quraydha where they then prayed it. When (the matter) reached the Messenger (saw), he consented to the two groups each (according to) their understanding. When the Messenger (saw) said:

Watu walielewa kwamba alikusudia hakuna sala sahihi, kwa hiyo wakasema kwamba kusoma Al-Fatiha ni nguzo ya sala, hivyo kwamba sala ya asiyeisoma inabatilika. Ama watu wengine walielewa kwamba alikusudia sala kamili, kwa hiyo wakasema kwamba kusoma Al-Fatiha si nguzo ya sala; badala yake, nguzo ni kusoma Qur'an, hivyo kwamba mtu asiposoma Al-Fatiha lakini akasoma aya yoyote ya Qur'an, basi sala yake ni sahihi. Vivyo hivyo, walitofautiana kuhusu kauli yake ﷺ:

People understood that he meant no correct (saheeh) prayer so they said that reciting the Fatiha is a pillar of the prayer such that the prayer of the one who does not recite it is invalidated. Whereas other people understood that he meant the complete prayer so they said that reciting the Fatiha is not a pillar of the prayer; rather, reciting the Qur’an is the pillar such that if one doesn’t recite the Fatiha but recites any ayah of the Qur’an then his prayer is correct. Similarly, they differed over his (saw) statement:

Kikundi kimoja kilielewa kwamba ikiwa Muislamu atamuua kafiri, hauawi kwa ajili ya kisasi.

A group understood that if the Muslim killed a disbeliever, he is not killed for it (in retaliation)

lakini anaadhibiwa, kwa mfano, kwa kifungo, kutokana na kauli ya Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ

but is punished, for example, by imprisonment since the Messenger’s (saw) statement

Ni wazi katika kutomuua. Wengine wameelewa kwamba alitofautisha kati ya kafiri muhāribu (kafiri mpiganaji) na kafiri mwenye dhimma (kafiri aliyeahidiwa ulinzi), hivyo Mwislamu anauawa kwa ajili ya kafiri aliyeingia mkataba anapomuua, na vivyo hivyo kafiri aliye chini ya mkataba wa amani (kafiri mu‘āhid) na kafiri aliye chini ya ulinzi (kafiri musta’man), kwa kuwa kauli ya Mtume ﷺ katika hadithi hiyo hiyo ilionyesha hili katika usemi wake:

Is explicit in not killing him. Others understood that he distinguished between the belligerent disbeliever (kaffir harbi) and the pledged disbeliever (kaffir dhimmi) so the Muslim is killed for the covenanted disbeliever if he kills, and likewise the disbeliever under treaty (kaffir mu’ahid) and the protected disbeliever (kaffir must’aman) since the Messenger’s (saw) statement in the same hadith indicated this in his saying:

Maana yake ni kwamba Muislamu hauawi kwa ajili ya kafiri, wala mwenye mkataba (ahli al-dhimma) hauawi kwa ajili ya kafiri. Kwa kuwa mwenye mkataba ni kafiri, inalazimu kwamba neno "kafiri" lina maana ya kafiri muhasimu (harbi), yaani mwenye mkataba aliye kafiri hauawi kwa ajili ya kafiri muhasimu. Kwa hiyo maana ya hadith ni kwamba Muislamu hauawi kwa ajili ya kafiri muhasimu, wala mwenye mkataba haouawi kwa ajili ya kafiri muhasimu; na ufahamu wake ni kwamba Muislamu anauawa kwa ajili ya kafiri asiye muhasimu, na mwenye mkataba anauawa kwa ajili ya kafiri asiye muhasimu. Mwenye mkataba ni kafiri, na kufanana kwake na Muislamu ambaye hauawi kwa ajili ya kafiri kunaonyesha kwamba maana ya neno "kafiri" katika hadith ni kafiri muhasimu, si dhimmi. Hili linaimarishwa na yaliyosimuliwa kwamba Muislamu mmoja alifikishwa kwa Mtume wa Allah (ﷺ) aliyekuwa amemuua Myahudi, naye akamuua. Kwa tofauti hii ya ufahamu, kuna tofauti ya hukumu. Jambo hilo hilo linatumika kwa aya nyingi na hadith nyingi. Tofauti za maoni katika hukumu moja inamlazimu Muislamu kuchukua maoni mmoja miongoni mwao, kwa kuwa zote ni hukumu za Shari'ah, na hukumu ya Allah kuhusu mtu mmoja haiwezi kuwa zaidi ya moja. Kwa hiyo ni lazima kubainisha hukumu moja miongoni mwao ili kuichukua, na kwa hiyo Muislamu kuchukua hukumu za Shari'ah ni jambo la lazima, wala hakuna kukwepa hilo kwa namna yoyote anapotekeleza kitendo. Wajibu tu wa kutenda kwa hukumu moja, iwe ni wajibu, sunna, haramu, makruhu au mubah, unamlazimu kuchukua hukumu maalum. Kwa hiyo ni wajibu kwa kila Muislamu kuchukua hukumu hiyo, awe ni mujtahid au mfuasi (muqallid), awe Khalifa au si Khalifa. Anapochukua hukumu maalum, hukumu hiyo ya Shari'ah inakuwa hukumu ya Allah juu yake, na inamlazimu kutenda kwa kufuata hiyo peke yake, kuwafundisha watu na kulingania Uislamu kwa msingi wake. Maana ya Mwislamu kukubali hukumu fulani ni kuitendea kazi, kuwafundisha wengine na kuwaita kwake anapowaita kwenye hukumu na mawazo ya Uislamu. Mwislamu anapokubali hukumu maalum, hukumu hiyo yenyewe inakuwa hukumu ya Allah juu yake, na haijuzu kwake kuiacha isipokuwa katika visa vitatu: Kwanza, ikiwa udhaifu wa dalili unakuwa wazi kwake na kunajitokeza dalili yenye nguvu zaidi kuliko dalili yake inayohusishwa naye, kwamba hukumu ya Allah ni ile inayoonyeshwa na dalili yenye nguvu zaidi. Katika hali hii, ni wajibu kwake kuacha alichokikubali na kukubali maoni mapya kwa kuwa yamekuwa hukumu ya Allah juu yake. Pili: Ikiwa anaanza kufikiri kwamba maoni mapya yamekubaliwa na mtu mwenye elimu zaidi kuliko yeye katika kutoa hukumu, na mwenye usahihi zaidi katika kutoa hukumu, au mwenye elimu pana zaidi kuhusu Shari'a. Katika hali hii, inajuzu kwake kuacha alichokikubali na kukubali kingine kwa sababu ya yale yaliyothibitika kuhusu Masahaba maarufu walioacha maoni yao na kukubali maoni ya wengine. Abu Bakr (ra) alikubali maoni ya Ali (ra) na kuacha maoni yake, na Umar (ra) alikubali maoni ya Ali (ra) na kuacha maoni yake mwenyewe. Tatu: Ikiwa lengo ni kuunganisha msimamo wa Waislamu juu ya maoni moja. Katika hali hii, inajuzu kwa Mwislamu kuacha maoni aliyoyakubali na kukubali maoni anayotaka kuunganisha msimamo wa Waislamu juu yake, kwa sababu ya yale yaliyothibitika kuhusu Uthman ambaye alikubali kuchukua kiapo cha utii kutoka kwa watu juu ya Kitabu cha Allah na Sunna ya Mtume Wake na maoni ya Masheikh wawili baada yake, Abu Bakr na Umar. Masahaba walikubaliana naye kufanya alichofanya, ambacho ni kuacha alichokikubali na kukubali alichokikubali Abu Bakr (ra) na Umar (ra). Katika hali hizi, Muislamu huacha alichokichukua na kuchukua kitu kingine; isipokuwa hali hizi, hairuhusiwi kukiacha kwa namna yoyote, kwa kuwa Shari'ah iliwahutubia kila mtu mmoja mmoja, na ni wajibu wa kila Muislamu kuchukua kile alichokifikia kwa ijtihadi au kwa kufuata (taqlid). Mara akishakichukua, anawajibika kukifuata, isipokuwa katika hali zilizotengwa na dalili ya Shari'ah.

Na

And

Na

And

Yaani, kati yake na watu ni utii kwa Dola, na kati yake na Allah (swt) ni kwamba kile Imam anachokikubali kinakuwa hukumu ya Allah juu yake kwa upande wa matendo. Hata hivyo, utii wa watu kwa amri ya Imam, wajibu wao wa kutenda kulingana na kile alichokikubali katika hukumu, na kutotenda kwa kufuata maoni yao wenyewe na yale waliyoyakubali, hauzingatiwi kuwa ni kukubali kile Imam alichokikubali. Ni badala yake utii kwa amri yake (ya Khalifah) na kutekeleza alichokikubali kwa upande wa matendo, si kukubali alichokikubali. Kwa hiyo inaruhusiwa kwa Muislamu yeyote kufundisha kile alichokikubali katika hukumu na kuwalingania, anapowaalika kwenye Uislamu, hata kama yanatofautiana na kile Imam amekikubali. Hii ni kwa sababu Ijma' ya Maswahaba ipo juu ya wajibu wa kutenda kulingana na kile Khalifah amekikubali, si kufundisha au da'wah; ni mahsusi kwa matendo. Hivyo tunaona kwamba Abu Bakr (ra) alikuwa akigawa mali kwa Waislamu sawa kwa sawa bila kuangalia nani aliingia Uislamu mapema au la, ilhali Umar (ra) alikuwa na maoni tofauti, ambayo ni kuzingatia mtu na utangulizi wake (katika kuingia) Uislamu na mtu mwingine na uchelewaji wake. Alijadiliana na Abu Bakr (ra) juu ya hili, lakini alitii alichokikubali Abu Bakr (ra) na akaendelea kukubali maoni yake. Alipoteuliwa kuwa Khalifah, alibatilisha kutenda kwa maoni ya Abu Bakr (ra) na kutenda kwa maoni yake. Kwa hiyo kuna tofauti kati ya Muislamu kukubali maoni na utii wake kwa alichokikubali Khalifah. Utii kwa kile Khalifah amekikubali unawajibisha kutenda kwa hicho tu, si kukilingania wala kukifundisha. Kwa upande wa kukubali maoni, ni kwa ajili ya kukifundisha, kukilingania na kutenda kwa hicho. Kwa hiyo inaruhusiwa kuwepo kwa makundi ya kisiasa, yaani vyama ambavyo vinafuata maoni tofauti na yale aliyoyapitisha Khalifah, lakini vyote hivyo, kama Waislamu wengine, vinalazimika kwa upande wa matendo kutenda kulingana na kile alichokipitisha Khalifah na si kingine chochote.

I.e. between him and the people is the obedience to the State, and between him and Allah (swt) is that what the Imam adopts becomes the rule of Allah upon him in respect of action. However, the obedience of the people to the Imam’s command, the obligation upon them to act according to what he adopted in the rules, and not acting upon their opinions and what they adopted is not considered an adoption of what the Imam adopted. It is rather obedience to his (the Khalifah’s) command and executing what he adopted in terms of action not the adoption of what he adopted. Therefore it is permitted for any Muslim to teach what he adopted of the rules and to call to them when he invites to Islam even if they differed from the Imam’s adoption. This is because the Ijma’a of the Sahabah is upon the obligation to act according to the Khalifah’s adoption not teaching or invitation (da’wah); it is specific to action. Thus we find that whereas Abu Bakr (ra) would divide wealth between Muslims equally without looking into who embraced Islam early or not, Umar (ra) had a different opinion which is (considering) a man and his precedence (in embracing) Islam and another man and his lateness. He debated Abu Bakr (ra) in this, but he obeyed what Abu Bakr (ra) adopted and remained adopting his opinion. When he was appointed Khalifah, he invalidated acting upon Abu Bakr’s (ra) opinion and acted upon his opinion. Therefore there is a distinction between the Muslim adopting the opinion and his obedience to what the Khalifah adopted. Obedience to the Khalifah’s adoption obliges acting upon it only and not calling towards it or teaching it. As for adopting the opinion, it is (for) teaching it, calling to it and acting upon it. Therefore it is allowed for there to exist political groups i.e. parties which adopt opinions different from those adopted by the Khalifah, but they are all like the rest of the Muslims, obliged in respect of action to act according to what the Khalifah adopted and nothing else.

Kwa hiyo haijuzu kwa Imam kuhalalisha yaliyo halali (halal) kuwa haramu (haram) au kuharamisha yaliyo haramu kuwa halali, wala kufuta hukumu au kuzuia kutekeleza hukumu, kwa kuwa hilo ni haramu kwa Khalifah kama lilivyo haramu kwa kila Muislamu. Wala haifai kusema kwamba maslahi ya Waislamu yanahitaji kukataza jambo fulani, kwa kuwa Allah ameibainisha maslahi ya Waislamu kwa kanuni maalum; kama Khalifah atakuja na kuona maslahi nje ya kanuni hizi, basi atakuwa amezifuta, jambo ambalo halijuzu kamwe. Vilevile haiwezi kusemwa kwamba jukumu la kusimamia mambo ya Waislamu limempa ruhusa ya kuwaongoza kulingana na ijtihad yake, kwa kuwa Allah amemruhusu kusimamia mambo ya Waislamu kwa Kitabu na Sunnah, yaani hukumu za Shari'ah, na amemruhusu kufanya ijtihad ndani ya mipaka yake. Yeye hufanya ijtihad katika mambo ya pili (furu') ambayo hayana maandiko ya wazi, lakini misingi yake (usul) imekuja kwa maandiko ya wazi ya jumla; anafanya ijtihad ili kuchagua kile anachokiona kinafaa zaidi na chenye manufaa zaidi. Kuhusu lile ambalo Allah (swt) ameliwekea hukumu yake, hakuna nafasi ya ijtihad ya Khalifah katika jambo hilo; bali analazimika kutekeleza hukumu za Shari'ah jinsi zilivyo, bila badiliko wala mabadiliko. Ndiyo, anaweza kuona kitendo fulani ni halali lakini kinapelekea katika haramu ambayo Shari'ah imeikataza, kama vile kuona kwamba kubadilishana kitabu fulani bila shaka kutapelekea kuharibu dini ya watu, au bila shaka kutaeneza uchafu miongoni mwa watu, hivyo anakizuia. Anaweza kuona kitendo fulani ni halali lakini bila shaka kitapelekea madhara ambayo Shari'ah imekuja kulazimisha kuondolewa kwake, kama vile kuona kwamba kuweka bidhaa mbele ya maduka kutazuia watu wanaopita barabarani, au kuwasumbua wapitanjia; katika hali hii anakizuia kile kilicho halali na kumwadhibu anayekifanya. Hata hivyo, hii si kuharamisha halali, bali ni kutekeleza hukumu ya Shari'ah aliyoitoa kutoka katika kanuni ya Shari'ah:

Therefore it is not permitted for the Imam to make the allowed (halal) forbidden (haram) or make the forbidden allowed, nor to abolish a rule or prevent acting upon a rule since this is haram for the Khalifah as it is haram for every Muslim. Nor should one say that the benefit of the Muslims requires forbidding such and such since Allah has specified the Muslims’ benefit by specific rules; if the Khalifah comes and views the benefit in other than these (rules), then he would have abrogated them which is never permitted. Thus one cannot say that taking care of the Muslims’ affairs has allowed him to direct them according to his ijtihad because Allah has allowed him to take care of the Muslims’ affairs by the Book and Sunnah i.e. the Shari’ah rules and allowed him to (perform) ijtihad within their limits. He does ijtihad in the secondary actions which have no explicit text but whose origins (usul) came with an explicit text which is general; he does ijtihad to choose what he sees as more suitable and beneficial. As for what came with the rule of Allah (swt) upon it, there is no place for the Khalifah’s ijtihad in this affair; rather he is obliged to execute the Shari’ah rules as they are without any substitution or change. Yes, he can view an action as allowed but it leads to a haram which the Shar’a forbade such as viewing that the exchange of a specific book would inevitably lead to corruption of the people in their deen or would inevitably lead to spreading debauchery among the people so he prevents it. He can see an action as allowed but it would inevitably lead to a harm which the Shar’a came obliging its removal such as seeing that placing goods before the stores would prevent people passing by the road in the road or annoy by passers so in this case he prevents the allowed and punish whoever does it. However this is not forbidding the halal but rather executing a Shari’ah rule he deduced from the shari’ah principle:

Na kanuni

And the principle

Au mtu mwingine ndiye aliyeitoa hukumu hiyo, naye Khalifah akaikubali na kuitekeleza. Katika hali hii, ni wajibu kwake kufanya hivyo kwa kuwa ni hukumu ya Shari'ah ambayo ni lazima itekelezwe. Hivyo basi, atakuwa amekataza haramu wala si kile kinachoruhusiwa. Vilevile, iwapo kuna jambo au hukumu ambayo inaweza kutekelezwa kupitia vitendo vingi vya pili, na ambayo asili yake ni dalili za jumla, basi katika hali hii vitendo vyote ambavyo kwavyo inawezekana kutekeleza hukumu au jambo hilo ni miongoni mwa vitendo vinavyoruhusiwa. Mfano wa hili ni Khalifah kufahamu maoni ya watu, au maoni yao kuhusu nani awawakilishe katika Majlis Ash-Shura, jambo linalofanana na kile kinachojulikana kama kanuni ya uchaguzi. Vitendo hivi vyote vya pili ni miongoni mwa vitendo vinavyoruhusiwa, hivyo inaruhusiwa kwa Khalifah kuamuru kwa mojawapo yao kwa kuyachagua kati ya mengine, ambapo kumtii ni wajibu. Katika hali hii, hatakuwa amewalazimisha watu kitendo kinachoruhusiwa au kukizuia kitendo kingine kinachoruhusiwa, bali atakuwa amekubali hukumu na kukubali njia ya kutekeleza hukumu. Hapa, kumtii katika hukumu aliyoikubali na kitendo kinachoifuata ni wajibu, kwa kuwa kinafuata hukumu hiyo, na mfuasi huchukua hukumu ya anayefuatwa. Mfano wa haya ni kanuni zote za kiutawala na kiutendaji, kwani zinamlazimisha mtu kutekeleza kitendo kinachoruhusiwa, kama vile inavyolazimisha kufuata hukumu iliyokubaliwa na Khalifah. Kuilazimisha huko kunahitaji kuacha kila kingine isipokuwa hicho, yaani kukizuia. Ni kama vile kukubali hukumu, wala haitokani na hukumu za Shari'ah. Hakuwa amewalazimisha kitendo kinachoruhusiwa wala kuzuia kitendo kingine kinachoruhusiwa, bali alitenda yale ambayo Shari'ah imemruhusu kufanya katika kukubali hukumu na yale yatakayoongoza katika kuzitekeleza. Katika hali hizi tatu: kuzuia yanayopelekea haramu, au kuzuia yanayopelekea madhara, au kulazimisha mtindo mahsusi miongoni mwa mingi, Khalifah hajaacha hukumu za Shari'ah wala uwezo wake wa kuchukua maamuzi, na kuna dalili kwa kila moja yao. Hakuna chochote hapa kinachohalalisha na kumruhusu Khalifah kubadilisha hukumu yoyote ya Shari'ah kwa kisingizio cha maslahi; bali lazima azingatie kikamilifu hukumu zote za Shari'ah katika kila jambo.

Or someone else deduced it and he (the Khalifah) adopted and executed it. In this case it is obliged upon him to do this as it is a Shari’ah rule which is obligatory to be executed. So he would have prevented haram and not what is allowed. Similarly, if there is a matter or a rule which can potentially be performed via numerous secondary actions for whose origin came general evidence, then in this case all the actions through which it is possible to perform the rule or matter are of the permissible actions. This is like the Khalifah reaching the knowledge of the people’s opinion, or their opinion concerning who should represent them in the Majlis Ash-Shura which is similar to what is known as the electoral canon. All these secondary actions are from the permissible actions, so it is permitted for the Khalifah to command with one of them in exception among the others, wherein obeying him is obligatory. In this case he would not have obliged a permissible action or prevented another permissible action, but would have adopted a rule and adopted a means by which to execute a rule. At this point, obeying him is obliged in the rule he adopted and the action leading to it since it follows the rule and the follower takes the rule of the followed. Similar to this are all the organizational and administrative canons as they are compelling a permissible action as it is compelling what follows a rule adopted by the Khalifah and compelling it requires leaving anything other than it i.e. preventing it. It is just like adopting rules and it does not come from the Shari’ah rules. He would not have obliged a permissible action or prohibited another permissible action, but rather he did of what the Shari’ah allowed him in adopting rules and what would lead to performing them. In these three situations: Preventing what leads to haram, or (preventing) what leads to harm, or compelling specific styles among many, the Khalifah has not left the Shari’ah rules or his competency from adoption and there is an evidence for each one of them. There is nothing here to legitimise and permit the Khalifah to change any Shari’ah rule under the pretext of benefit; rather he must completely restrict (himself) to all the Shari’ah rules in everything.

Inaonekana kutokana na mfano huu kwamba Mtume (saw) alikataza jambo lililoruhusiwa, hivyo akakataza jambo lililoruhusiwa, ilhali uhalisia wa tukio si hivyo. Bali uhalisia wake ni kwamba Mtume alikataza jambo mahsusi miongoni mwa mambo yaliyoruhusiwa, si kanuni iliyoruhusiwa wala jambo lililoruhusiwa. Jambo hili mahsusi lingepelekea kwa lazima kwenye madhara ambayo kuna maandiko yaliyokuja kuharamisha kutokea kwake. Mtume (saw) alijua kwamba kunywa maji ya kisima hiki kungesababisha madhara yenye hakika, hivyo basi alichofanya Mtume ﷺ hakikuwa kukataza kitendo kilichoruhusiwa, bali kilikuwa ni kukataza kitu kitakachopelekea madhara yaliyoharamishwa na Shar'a, nayo ni madhara yatakayompata jeshi. Vivyo hivyo, katazo lake kwa mtu yeyote kutoka peke yake isipokuwa awe na mwenzi, ni katazo la kitendo mahsusi miongoni mwa mambo yaliyoruhusiwa, kitendo mahsusi ambacho kingepelekea kwa hakika madhara yaliyoharamishwa na Shar'a. Dalili ya hili ni kwamba watu ambao Mtume ﷺ aliwaamuru walifanya walichoamrishwa isipokuwa watu wawili kutoka Banu Sa'ida. Mmoja alitoka kwenda kujisaidia na mwingine alitoka kutafuta ngamia wake. Yule aliyetoka kwenda kujisaidia alianguka pale alipokuwa, na yule aliyekwenda kutafuta ngamia wake, upepo ulimbeba na kumtupa kwenye milima miwili ya Tayyi. Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alipopewa habari hii alisema:

It appears from this example that the Messenger (saw) prohibited the use of an allowed thing so he forbade an allowed thing, whereas the reality of the incident is not like this. Rather, its reality is that the Messenger prohibited a specific thing of the allowed things not an allowed rule or an allowed thing. This specific thing would inevitably lead to a harm for which a text came forbidding its occurrence. The Messenger (saw) knew that drinking water from this well would result in a definite harm such that what the Messenger (saw) did was not forbidding an allowed action but rather forbidding what would lead to a harm forbidden by Shar’a which is harm befalling the army. Similarly his prohibition of anyone going out alone except that he have a companion is the prohibition of a specific action of the allowed matters, a specific action which would definitely lead to a harm that is forbidden by the Shar’a. The evidence for this is that those people whom the Messenger (saw) commanded did what they were commanded except two men from Banu Sa’ida. One went out to relieve himself and the other went out searching for his camel. As for the one who went out to relieve himself he collapsed in his place and the one who went to find his camel, the wind carried him and cast him on the two mountains of Tayyi. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) was informed about this he said:

Kisha Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alimwombea du’a yule aliyeanguka, naye akapona; kuhusu yule aliyeanguka kati ya milima miwili ya Tayyi, baadaye watu wa Tayyi walimrudisha kwa Nabii ﷺ huko Madina. Ushahidi mwingine wa hili ni kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alipopita karibu na Al-Hijr, alifunika uso wake kwa nguo yake, akachochea ngamia wake na kusema:

Then the Messenger of Allah made du’a for the one who had collapsed and and he was cured; as for the one who fell between the two Mountains of Tayyi, he was later brought back to the prophet (saw) in Madinah by the people of Tayyi. Another evidence for this is that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed by Al-Hijr, he covered his face with his cloth and spurred his camel and said:

Hapa ni lazima tuzingatie tofauti kati ya kukataza kitendo maalum miongoni mwa vitendo vinavyoruhusiwa, au kukataza kitu maalum miongoni mwa vitu vinavyoruhusiwa, na kukataza kitendo kinachoruhusiwa au kukataza kitu kinachoruhusiwa. Kukataza kitu kinachoruhusiwa ni pale ambapo kitendo kimeruhusiwa na Shari'a, kisha mtawala anakuja na kukikataza kwa madai kwamba kuna madhara ndani yake; kama vile kuagiza bidhaa kutoka nje kumeruhusiwa na Shari'a, lakini mtawala anaona kwamba kuruhusu uagizaji kunasababisha madhara kwa viwanda vya ndani, kisha anakataza. Hii ni kukataza kitendo kinachoruhusiwa, jambo ambalo haliruhusiwi kamwe kwa mtawala, kwa kuwa Shari'a ilijua, ilipokiruhusu, kwamba kingekuwa na manufaa au madhara, na ikakipa hukumu ya kuruhusiwa. Kukikataza hakuruhusiwi kwa kuwa hii ni kufuta hukumu ya Shari'a ambayo haibatiliki katika hali yoyote. Kuhusu kukataza kitu maalum miongoni mwa vitu vinavyoruhusiwa, hii ni pale inapomjia mtawala kwamba mojawapo ya mambo yanayoruhusiwa lingeleta madhara ambayo Shari'a ilikuja kuyakataza, hivyo mtawala anaona ni sahihi kukataza jambo hili ili kuondoa madhara hayo. Kwa mfano, mtawala anaona kwamba kuagiza sukari kunasababisha kufungwa na kufilisika kwa viwanda vya sukari ndani ya nchi, hivyo nchi inategemea makafiri katika kuagiza sukari. Katika hali hii, inaruhusiwa kwa mtawala kuzuia uagizaji wa sukari ili kuzuia madhara kwa Ummah wote, ambayo ni kutegemea kwake makafiri kwa moja ya mahitaji yake, na upungufu wa kutosheleza. Katika kesi hii, inaruhusiwa kuzuia jambo hili lililoruhusiwa, na si kukataza kitu kinachoruhusiwa; bali kitu kinachoruhusiwa, yaani uagizaji, kinabaki kuruhusiwa. Ni kukataza jambo linaloruhusiwa, ambalo ni uagizaji wa sukari. Hii ni kama Mtume ﷺ alivyokataza kunywa maji kutoka kisima fulani ambacho alijua kulikuwa na madhara ndani yake. Katazo lake halikukataza jambo linaloruhusiwa, yaani... Hakukataza maji, bali alikataza jambo maalum miongoni mwa mambo yaliyoruhusiwa, nalo ni kunywa kutoka kisima hiki. Kwa hiyo, kukataza jambo maalum miongoni mwa vitendo vilivyoruhusiwa kunaruhusiwa, ilhali kukataza kitu kilichoruhusiwa hakuruhusiwi kamwe.

Here we must note the distinction between forbidding a specific action of the allowed actions or forbidding a specific thing of the allowed things, and forbidding an allowed action or forbidding an allowed thing. Forbidding an allowed thing is where the action has been allowed by the Shar’a, then the ruler comes and forbids it on the pretext that there is a harm existing in it; such as importing goods from outside has been allowed by Shar’a but the ruler views that allowing importing causes harm to (internal) factories and forbids it. This is forbidding an allowed action which is never allowed for the ruler since the Shar’a knew, when it allowed it, that it would be beneficial or harmful and gave it the rule of permissibility. Forbidding it is not allowed as this would be abrogating the Shar’a rule which is void in all circumstances. As for forbidding a specific thing among the allowed things, this is when it occurs to him that one of the allowed matters would lead to a harm which the Shar’a came to forbid so the ruler considers it correct to forbid this matter to lift the harm. For instance, the ruler considers that importing sugar leads to closing and the bankruptcy of sugar factories within the country making it dependent upon the kuffar in importing sugar. At this point, it is allowed for the ruler to prevent importation of sugar to prevent the harm to the whole Ummah which is her dependency upon the kuffar for one of its necessities and it's the lack of sufficiency. In this case, it is allowed to prevent this allowed matter and it is not forbidding an allowed thing; rather, the allowed thing i.e. importing remains allowed. It is rather the forbidding of an allowed matter which is importing sugar. This is like the Messenger (saw) forbidding the drinking of water from a specific well in which he knew there was harm. His forbidding did not forbid an allowed matter i.e. he did not forbid water, but rather he forbade a specific matter of the allowed matter which is drinking from this well. Accordingly, forbidding a specific thing of the allowed actions is permitted whereas forbidding an allowed thing is never permitted.

Na yeye (ﷺ) alimzuia kuchanganyika na watu. Hii si kukataza kitu kilichoruhusiwa, bali ni kukataza kitendo kinachoweza kusababisha madhara. Kwa sababu hii, imekuja katika hadithi nyingine iliyosimuliwa na Ahmad kupitia Tareeq bin Hurayra:

And he (saw) prevented him from mixing with the people. This is not forbidding the allowed, rather it is forbidding an action which would lead to harm. Due to this, it has come in another hadith narrated by Ahmad via Tareeq bin Hurayra:

Kwa njia hii inakuwa wazi kwa mfuatiliaji kwamba kinachotumika kama dalili katika jambo hili kutoka katika hadithi ya Mtume ﷺ ni kwamba hakuna katazo la jambo lililoruhusiwa ndani yake. Badala yake, ni katazo la jambo maalum miongoni mwa mambo yaliyoruhusiwa, na jambo hilo maalum linapelekea madhara ambayo Shari'ah ilikuja kuyakataza. Kwa hiyo hii ni sheria na dalili kwamba Imamu anaweza kuzuia mambo maalum miongoni mwa mambo yaliyoruhusiwa, na vitendo maalum miongoni mwa vitendo vilivyoruhusiwa, ikiwa vinapelekea madhara ambayo Shari'ah ilikuja kuyazuia. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa kuhusu Maswahaba kuhusiana na matukio fulani, ni wazi kwa yeyote anayewafuata kwamba walikuwa wakikataza kitendo kilichoruhusiwa ambacho kinapelekea haramu au kinapelekea madhara ambayo Shari'ah ilikuja kuyazuia. Baadhi yao pia walilazimisha kitendo kilichoruhusiwa (mubah) kufanywa ili kutekeleza hukumu ya Shari'ah au jambo ambalo Shari'ah iliamuru baadhi na kukataza wengine, kama vile kupitisha mitindo fulani. Hili linaruhusiwa kwa Imamu, kwa mfano: kuandikwa kwa daftari za watu (diwan) na Umar (ra), na kuwalazimisha watu kufuata msahafu mmoja na kuchoma misahafu yote (mingine) na Uthman. Katika aina hii pia ni Umar (ra) kuwalazimisha Maswahaba kuacha kuzungumzia hadithi pale ilipowashughulisha kutoka katika Qur'an, na kumzuia Maswahaba mashuhuri kuondoka Madina kwenda katika nchi zilizotekwa ili watu wasivutwe nazo na wasivutwe na dunia. Sawa na haya ni yale ambayo magavana, watawala na Makhalifa walifanya walipowalazimisha wanaokanda unga kuweka vilemba vyao juu ya paji la uso ili jasho lao lisidondoke kwenye unga, na kuweka kipande cha kitambaa juu ya pua ili lisiingie chochote kutoka humo ndani ya unga, na kunyoa makwapa yao ili lisiingie chochote kutoka humo ndani ya unga, na mambo mengine kama hayo yaliyokuja katika vitabu vya Fiqh. Yote haya yanaingia ndani ya kanuni ya kishari'ah.

In this way it becomes clear to the one following what is used as evidence in this matter from the Messenger’s (saw) hadith that there is no forbidding of an allowed (matter) in them. Rather it is forbidding a specific thing of the allowed thing, and this specific thing leads to a harm which the Shar’a came forbidding it. Therefore this is legislation and evidence that the Imam can prevent specific things from the allowed things, and specific actions of the allowed actions, this is if it leads to harm which the Shar’a came to prevent. As for what is narrated about the Sahabah regarding (certain) incidents, it is clear to anyone who follows them that they are forbidding an allowed (action) which leads to haram or leads to a harm which the Shar’a came to prevent, and some of them are compelling an allowed (mubah) action (in order) to perform a Shari’ah rule or a matter the Shar’a commanded some and prevented others such as the adoption in styles. This is allowed for the Imam, for eg; the compilation of the registers (diwan) by Umar (ra), and obliging one mushaf and burning all (other) mushafs by Uthman. Of this type is Umar (ra) obliging the Sahabah to stop (discussing the) hadith when this preoccupied them from the Qur’an, and his preventing the prominent Sahabah from leaving Madinah to the conquered lands so that the people are not enchanted by them and they are not enchanted by the world. Similar to this is what the governors, rulers and Khulafaa did in compelling those who knead dough to placing their turbans on their forehead so that their sweat does not fall in his dough, and to place a piece of cloth upon their nose so that nothing from it falls into the dough and shave their armpits so that nothing from it falls into the dough, and other similar things which came in the Fiqh books. All of them fall within the shari’ah principle

Na kanuni ya sharia

And the shari’ah principle

Hakuna chochote hapa kinachoonyesha kuwa inaruhusiwa kwa Khalifah kukataza jambo lenye ruhusa (mubah) au kuhalalisha jambo lililokatazwa (haram) kwa kisingizio cha kusimamia maslahi ya umma. Kwa hiyo, kanuni (qawanin) zinazoeleweka kwa mtazamo wa kigeni, yaani kwamba ni amri za mtawala zinazotolewa bila kizuizi, si lazima kutiiwa mradi amri ya Khalifah haihusiani na kuchukua hukumu ya Shari'ah na kuilazimisha. Kanuni ni zile ambazo Khalifah ameichukua kutoka hukumu za Shari'ah. Hata hivyo, Khalifah anaweza kuamuru kile alichoona kuwa ni misingi ya kutekeleza hukumu za Shari'ah, au vitendo au mambo ambayo Shari'ah imeyataka, kama vile kanuni au mifumo ya kiutawala. Hii inachukuliwa kuwa ni kuchukua mitindo inayofuata hukumu zilizochukuliwa, na kanuni hizi ni za lazima kutiiwa kwa kuwa Khalifah amezichukua, na kwa sababu zimo ndani ya kauli ya Mwenye Utukufu:

There is nothing here which indicates that it is allowed for the Khalifah to forbid a mubah or allow a haram under the pretext of taking care of the affairs. Therefore the canons according to the foreign understanding i.e. that they are the ruler’s commands in an unrestricted (manner) are not obligatory to be obeyed as long as the Khalifah’s command is not in adopting a Shari’ah rule and obliging this rule. The canons are what the Khalifah adopted from the Shari’ah rules. However, the Khalifah may command what he considered of the principles to perform the Shari’ah rules or the actions or matters requested by the Shar’a such as the administrative canons or systems. This is considered adoption of styles which follows the adopted rules and these canons are obligatory to be obeyed as the Khalifah adopted them and because they are within the statement of the Glorified:

Kwa kuwa utiifu ulikuja kwa ujumla, ukijumuisha kila kitu ambacho Shariah haikuja kukikataza.

Since the obedience came in general covering everything the Shar’a did not come to prevent.