Azimia (uamuzi wa msingi) ni sifa ya kile kilichowekwa kuwa sheria ya jumla, na waja wanalazimika kukifuata. Na rukhsa (wepesi) ni kile kilichowekwa kuwa sheria ya kupunguza uamuzi wa msingi kwa sababu ya udhuru, bila kuwalazimisha waja kulitenda, huku hukumu ya uamuzi wa msingi ikibaki. Kwa mfano, saumu ni azimia, na kufungua saumu kwa mgonjwa ni rukhsa. Kuosha kiungo katika wudhuu ni azimia, na kupangusa kiungo kilichojeruhiwa au kuvunjika ni rukhsa. Kusali ukiwa umesimama ni azimia, na kukaa wakati wa swala kwa sababu ya udhaifu ni rukhsa, na mfano wa hayo. Kwa hiyo azimia ni kile kilichowekwa kwa ujumla, hakiko maalum kwa baadhi ya mukallafeen bila wengine, na hakitoi nafasi ya kuchagua kati ya kukitenda au kitu kingine, bali kinalazimu kutendwa peke yake. Na rukhsa ni kile kilichowekwa kwa sababu ya udhuru usio wa kawaida, hivyo hukumu yake inazingatiwa muda wote udhuru upo, na haizingatiwi udhuru ukitoweka, na ni maalum hasa kwa mukallafeen wenye udhuru huo. Kwa msingi huo, hukumu inayotoka kuwa ubaguzi kutoka kwenye maandishi ya jumla si rukhsa, bali ni azimia. Vilevile hukumu iliyo maalum kwa hali fulani si rukhsa, bali ni azimia, kwa sababu hizo ni hali na si udhuru. Mfano wa hilo ni kwamba eda ya mwanamke ambaye mume wake amefariki ni miezi minne na siku kumi, na eda ya mwanamke mjamzito ambaye mume wake amefariki ni mpaka ajifungue mtoto wake. Hukumu hii ni ubaguzi kutoka kwenye hukumu ya jumla, kwa hiyo si rukhsa. Pia, biashara, ikiwa masharti yake yametimia na haikatazwi, ni sahihi; na ikiwa biashara imefanyika kwa bei ya kupindukia mno (al-ghobn al-faahish), hata kama masharti yake yote yametimia na haikatazwi, basi ni batili. Mnunuzi ana chaguo kuhusu hilo (la kulirudisha), lakini hilo si rukhsa. Kuuza kitu ambacho hakijapokelewa ni batili, na kuuza mnyama ambaye hajapokelewa ni sahihi, na hilo si rukhsa. Kwa mujibu wa hayo, mauzo ya salam (kutoa bei mapema na bidhaa kucheleweshwa), ariya (miti ya mitende anayopewa mhitaji ambaye hawezi kungoja hadi iive, hivyo anaruhusiwa kuiuza kwa tende), musaaqaat (mtu anamruhusu mfanyakazi kumwagilia miti na kuihudumia kwa sehemu inayojulikana ya matunda), na mfano wa mikataba hiyo, ni azeemah na si rukhsa. Hivyo basi, yote yaliyoruhusiwa ni maamuzi ya msingi na si punguzo. Na maana ya kuwalazimisha waja kutenda kwa mujibu wake ni kwa mujibu wa hukumu, iwe ni wajibu au mandub, mubah, haramu au makruh. Je, unaona kwamba kula maytah (nyama ya mzoga, isiyochinjwa) ni haramu, lakini kwa mwenye kulazimishwa inaruhusiwa, hivyo ni rukhsa? Kwa hiyo kinachozingatiwa ni tendo kwa mujibu wa hukumu, si tendo lenyewe. Na kuhusu kauli ya Mtume ﷺ kuhusu ariya: "Aliruhusu uuzaji wa ariya kama rukhsa," iliyopokelewa na Maalik, maana yake ni maana ya kilugha ya neno arkhasa, nayo ni kwamba amewafanyia wepesi. Na kwa mfano wa hayo, mikataba yote ambayo Allah Mtukufu amewafanyia watu wepesi ni maamuzi ya msingi, kwa sababu si ubaguzi wa kanuni iliyoharamishwa awali kwa sababu fulani, hivyo ubaguzi wake hupotea sababu inapotoweka. Lakini kanuni hizi zimewekwa kama wepesi kwa waja, na uwekaji wake ni wa jumla na wa kudumu. Na kuna tofauti katika hali ya mtu ambaye hawezi kusimama katika swala, au anaweza kusimama kwa shida hivyo anaswali akiwa ameketi, ingawa anakiuka mojawapo ya nguzo za swala; haimlazimu kusimama, na hiyo ni ruhusa (rukhsa). Na katika hali ya mtu anayeuza tende mbichi zilizokadiriwa kwa tende zilizokaushwa za mtende kwa kadiri ya zilizokadiriwa, hii si ruhusa, kwa sababu si ruhusa kwa sababu ya udhuru, bali ni hali ambayo inaruhusiwa kuuza kitu kibichi kwa kikavu, ingawa ni kitu cha pekee, lakini hakikuwekwa sheria kwa sababu ya udhuru ili kuchukuliwa kuwa ni ruhusa, bali kiliwekwa sheria kama wepesi kwa watu. Kwa hivyo ni miongoni mwa wepesi wa Sharia na si kwa sababu ya udhuru, hivyo si rukhsa. Ni lazima rukhsa ionyeshwe kwa dalili ya kisheria ili ichukuliwe kuwa ruhusa ya kisheria. Ni hukumu ambayo Allah Ta'ala ameiweka kwa sababu ya udhuru, hivyo udhuru ndio sababu ya kuichukulia hukumu kuwa ya kisheria. Hata hivyo, rukhsa huchukuliwa kuwa miongoni mwa sababu za kisheria, na ni miongoni mwa hukumu zinazotegemea hali, na ni khitabu cha Mwekaji Sheria kinachohusiana na vitendo vya waja kwa mujibu wa hali, na kwa kuwa ni khitabu cha Mwekaji Sheria, ni lazima kiwe na dalili ya kisheria. Upofu, kilema na ugonjwa ni udhuru wa kukaa (kutokwenda) jihadi. Allah Ta'ala amesema: {Hakuna dhambi kwa kipofu, wala dhambi kwa kilema, wala dhambi kwa mgonjwa (asipoenda vitani)…} Surat Al-Fath, 17. Na safari ni udhuru wa kuvunja saumu ya Ramadhani. Allah Ta'ala amesema: {Lakini mmoja wenu akiwa mgonjwa, au yuko safarini, basi (alipe) idadi ya siku nyingine…} Surat Al-Baqarah, 185. Na kusahau, kukosea na kulazimishwa ni udhuru unaoondoa dhambi ya mtu aliyeingia katika jambo lililokatazwa. Mjumbe wa Allah (SAW) alisema: hakika Allah amemwondolea umma wangu lawama kwa kosa, kusahau, na lile ambalo wamelazimishwa kulifanya" imepokewa na Ibn Maajah. Na kutojua kuhusu kile kinachoweza kupuuzwa kwa baadhi ya watu ni udhuru, kwa sababu Rasuli wa Allah (SAW) alimsikia Mu'awiyah Ibn Al-Hakam akisema tashmeet (kumwambia "Allah akurehemu") kwa mtu aliyepiga chafya wakati wa swala. Basi walipomaliza swala, Mjumbe (SAW) alimfundisha kwamba kuzungumza katika swala kunaibatilisha, kwa kumwambia kama ilivyopokewa na Muslim: "hakika hakuna chochote katika maneno ya watu kinachoruhusiwa katika swala hii, ni tasbihi tu, kumtukuza na kumsifu Allah, na kusoma Qur'an". Wala hakumwamuru kurudia swala. Basi haya ni udhuru uliokuja katika dalili za Shari'ah, hivyo yanachukuliwa kuwa udhuru. Na chochote kilichokuja katika adillah (dalili) kama udhuru mahsusi kwa hukumu mahsusi, kitachukuliwa kuwa udhuru, na chochote ambacho hakijakuja katika dalili hakina thamani, wala hakitachukuliwa kuwa udhuru wa kishari'ah kabisa. Udhuru hizi zinachukuliwa kwa zenyewe, si kwa sababu ya 'illah (sababu) ndani yake, yaani dalili za kishari'ah zilizoonyesha kuwa ni udhuru hazikuweka sababu (ta'leel) ya kuzichukulia kuwa udhuru, bali ziliziacha bila sababu. Kwa hiyo hatutengenezi 'ilal (sababu) kwa ajili yake, kwa sababu Shari'ah haikuweka sababu kwa ajili yake, na ilifanya kila udhuru wake kuwa udhuru wa hukumu ambayo ulikuja kwa ajili yake, si kwa hukumu nyingine. Hivyo ni udhuru mahsusi kwa hukumu ambayo ulikuja kwa ajili yake, si udhuru wa jumla kwa kila hukumu. Kwa hiyo upofu ni udhuru wa kuacha jihadi, si udhuru wa kuacha swala. Zaidi ya hayo, sababu hizi za kisheria: ugonjwa, kuwa mwenye kilema, safari, kusahau, kulazimishwa na kosa; ingawa ni sifa, ni aina ya sifa ambayo haionyeshi kuwa inaweza kutumika kama sababu ya kuweka hukumu (ta'leel), wala haitoi dalili ya kufanya hoja ya kisababu. Kwa hiyo, hatupimi sababu nyingine kwazo, wala hatutafuti kisababu cha kuweka hukumu kwazo, yaani sababu ya kuizingatia kama 'illah ili kutumia kanuni ya 'illah juu yake. Hivyo, hatusemi kwamba safari ni 'illah kwa sababu ya ugumu wake, bali safari yenyewe ndiyo 'illah kwa sababu Allah Ta'ala ameifanya kuwa 'illah, si kwa sababu ya ugumu wake; yaani ni 'illah isiyotosha. Kwa hiyo, msafiri anaruhusiwa kufupisha swala kwa umbali wa kufupisha (qasr), hata kama anasafiri kwa ndege, na hafupishi kwa umbali usiofikia umbali wa kufupisha hata kama anasafiri jangwani wakati wa joto kali, kwa sababu ugumu si sababu iliyoruhusu kufupisha, bali sababu iliyofanya ruhusa (rukhsa) ya kufupisha swala ni safari, kwani ni safari bila kujali ugumu. Na ndivyo ilivyo kwa sababu zote ambazo kwazo rukhsa hutolewa kwa maandiko ya kishari'ah. Hii ni kuhusu uhalisia, kwamba rukhsa na 'azima ni kutoka mitazamo ya shari'ah. Kuhusu kutenda kwa mujibu wa rukhsa au 'azima (msimamo thabiti): hakika kutenda kwa mojawapo ya hizo ni mubaah, hivyo mtu anaweza kutenda kwa mujibu wa rukhsa au kwa mujibu wa 'azima, kwa sababu hili linaonyeshwa katika maandiko ya rukhsa. Allah Ta'ala amesema: "Basi atakayelazimishwa na njaa, bila ya kuwa na mwelekeo wa dhambi, basi hakika Allah ni Mwingi wa kusamehe, Mwenye kurehemu" (Suratul Ma'idah 3), na amesema: "Lakini mtu akilazimishwa kwa dharura, bila ya kukusudia uasi wala kuvuka mipaka, basi hana dhambi." Kwa kuwa Allah ni Mwingi wa kusamehe, Mwenye rehema) Aya ya 173 ya Surat Al-Baqarah. Hivyo Yeye Mtukufu ameonyesha rukhsa kwa kuondoa dhambi ya kula, na hii ni ibaha (kuruhusiwa), na kusamehe dhambi ya kitendo chake, nalo ni ibaha. Yeye Mtukufu amesema: {Na mnaposafiri katika ardhi, si dhambi kwenu kupunguza sala zenu, endapo mnaogopa kwamba makafiri watawashambulia; hakika makafiri ni maadui wa wazi kwenu}, Aya ya 101 ya Surat Al-Nisaa’. Na kuondoa lawama kunamaanisha ibaha. Allah Mtukufu amesema: {…lakini mwenye kuwa mgonjwa, au yuko safarini, basi (alipe) idadi ya siku nyingine…}, Aya ya 185 ya Surat Al-Baqarah. Hii ni ibaha. Basi ushahidi wa rukhsa wenyewe unatoa ibaha ya kutenda kwa mujibu wa rukhsa, si wajibu wala nadb (kupendekezwa). Pia Muslim amesimulia kwa mamlaka ya Hamzah Ibn Amrou kwamba alisema: “Ewe Mtume wa Allah, nina nguvu za kufunga nikiwa safarini, je, ni dhambi ninayoifanya?” Mtume wa Allah ﷺ akasema: “Ni rukhsa kutoka kwa Allah Mtukufu; atakayeichukua, amefanya vizuri. Na anayependa kufunga, hakuna dhambi juu yake.” Na kwa mamlaka ya Abu Sa’ied, alisema: “Tulisafiri pamoja na Mtume wa Allah ﷺ, aliyefunga akafunga, na aliyevunja funga akavunja, wala hakuna miongoni mwao aliyemlaumu mwenzake,” amesimulia Muslim. Maandiko haya yanaonyesha wazi kwamba rukhsa na azeemah ni mubaah (pale uchaguzi unapotolewa), hivyo mtu yuko huru kuchagua mojawapo kati yake apendavyo.

The determination (al-azeemah) is (a quality of) what was legislated of rules as a general legislation, and the servants are obliged by it. And the concession (al-rokhsah) is what was legislated of rules to lighten the determination because of an excuse, without obliging the servants to act upon it, with the remaining of the determination rule. As an example, the sawm is azeemah (determination) and the fitr (fast breaking) for the sick person is rokhsah (concession). Washing the organ in the wudhoo' is azeemah, and wiping the wounded or broken organ is rokhsah. Praying standing up is azeemah, and sitting down in the prayer in case of weakness is rokhsah, and as such. So the azeemah is what was generally legislated, it is not specific for some mukallafeen without the others, and it does not enable to choose between acting according to it or according to something else, but it obliges to act according to it solely. And the rokhsah is what was legislated for an unusual excuse, so its legislation is considered as long as the excuse exists, and it is not considered if the excuse vanishes, and it is especially for the mukallafeen that are characterized by this excuse. Accordingly, the rule that is an exception from a general text is not rokhsah, but it is azeemah, also the rule that is special for some situations is not rokhsah, but it is azeemah, because these are situations not excuses. An example for that is: the iddah of the women (period a widow should not remarry in it) that her husband died is four months and ten days, and the iddah of the pregnant women that her husband died is until she gives birth to her baby. This rule is an exception from the general rule so it is not a rokhsah. And also the sale, if its conditions are fulfilled and it is not forbidden; it is sahih (valid), and if the sale happened at al-ghobn al-faahish (excessive price), even if all its conditions are fulfilled and it is not forbidden; it is corrupted. Its buyer has the option about it (to return it), but it is not a rokhsah. Selling what is not received is baatil (invalid), and selling the animal that is not received is sahih (valid) and that is not a rokhsah. Accordingly the salam sale (forwarding the price and delaying the good), the araaya (palm trees given to the needy who could not wait until they are ripen so he is allowed to sell them by dates), the musaaqaat (a man allows a worker to water the trees and serve them for a known portion of the fruit), and the likes of the agreements are azeemah not rokhsah. And thus all the permissibles are determinations not concessions. And what is meant by obliging the servants to act according to it; is according to the rule, whether it is waajib or mandoub, mubaah, haraam or makrouh. Can you see that eating the maytah (dead not slaughtered meat) is haraam, but for the compelled one it is allowed, so it is a rokhsah, so what is considered is the action according to the rule, not the action itself. And as for the saying of the prophet (SAW) about the araaya He allowed the sale of the araaya as a rokhsah” narrated by maalik. What is meant is the linguistic meaning (of arkhasa) and that is He made it easy for you. And similar to that, all the agreements which Allah Ta’ala made easy for the people are determinations, because they are not exception from a rule that is originally forbidden for an excuse, so theire exception vanishes when the excuse vanishes, but these rules are legislated as facilitation for the servants, and their legislation is general and permanent. And there is difference in the case when someone could not stand up in the prayer, or he could with hardship so he prays sitting down, even though he violates one of the salaat’s pillars; it is not obligatory upon him to stand up, and that is a concession, and in the case when a man sells the estimated fruits of the palm trees to feed his family dates for the price of the estimated fruits of the palm trees, this is not a concession, because it is not an exception for an excuse, but it is a situation in which it is permitted to sell the ripe by the solid, even though it is an exception, but it was not legislated for an excuse to be considered as a concession, but it was legislated as a facilitation for the people, so it is of the facilitations of the shari'ah and not because of the excuses, so it is not a rokhsah. It is inevitable that the rokhsah is shown in a shari'ahi daleel to consider it as a shari'ahi concession. It is a rule Allah Ta’ala had legislated it for an excuse so the excuse is the cause for considering the rule as shari'ahi. However, the rokhsah is considered to be from the shari'ahi causes, and it is one of the circumstantial rules, and it is the legislators address related to the actions of the servants about the circumstance, and since it is a legislator’s address; it is inevitable to have a shari'ahi daleel for it. so the blindness, the limping and the illness are excuses for the sitting down (absence) from the jihaad, Allah Ta’ala is blame No :said there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor on the ill one (if he joins not the war)…), 17 Surat Al-Fath, and the traveling is an excuse for the fast breaking in ramadhaan, Allah Ta’ala said: but if any one of you is ill, or on a travel, the prescribed period (should be made up) by days later...),185 Surat Al-Baqarah, and the forgetfulness, the mistake and the compulsion are excuses which lift up the sin of the involved person that falls into a forbidden. The messenger (SAW) said: verily Allah had put down the blame of my Ummah for the mistake, the forgetfulness, and that which they are compelled to do” narrated by Ibn Maajah, and the ignorance about what can be ignored by some people is an excuse, because Rasoul Allah (SAW) heard Mu’awiah Ibn Al-Hakam saying the tashmeet (saying may Allah bless you) to a person that sneezed while in the prayer, so after they finished the prayer, the Messenger (SAW) taught him that speaking in the prayer invalidates it, by saying to him as narrated by Muslim: “verily nothing of the people’s talk is allowed in this prayer, it is but glorifying, praising Allah, and reciting the Quran”, and He did not command him to repeat the prayer. So these are excuses that came in the Shari'ahi daleel so they are considered excuses, and thus whatever came in the adillah (evidences) as specific excuses for specific rules will be considered as excuses, and whatever does not come in the daleel has no value, and will not be considered as a shari'ahi excuse at all. These excuses are considered for them selves, not because of the illah (reason in them), that is because the shari'ahi daleel which showed that they are excuses did not set reasoning (ta’leel) for considering them as excuses, but left them without reasons, so we don’t make ilal (reasons) for them, because the shari'ah did not set reasons for them, and made every excuse of them an excuse for the rule which it came for it, not for other rules, so it is considered as a special excuse for the rule which it came for it, not a general excuse for every rule, therefore, the blindness is an excuse to leave the jihaad, not an excuse to leave the salaat. Moreover, these excuses: the illness, he limping, the traveling, the forgetfulness, the compulsion and the mistake, even though they are qualitys; they are a kind of quality which does not indicate that it can be used for setting reasons (ta’leel), and does not show an indication for reasoning, therefore, we don’t measure other excuses to it, and we don’t seek a cause to set a reason for it, i.e. a reason to consider it as a illah for applying the illah rule on it, therefore, we don’t say that traveling is a illah because of its hardship but the travel itself is the illah because Allah Ta’ala considered it as a illah not because of its hardship, i.e. it is an insufficient illah, therefore, the traveler is allowed to shorten the salaat for the distance of the shortening (qasr), even if he travels by plane, and does not shorten for less then the shortening distance even if he travels in the desert while it is very hot, because the hardship is not the excuse that allowed the shortening, but the excuse that made the roukhsa (concession) to shorten the salaat is the travel, for it is a travel regardless of the hardship, and thus are all the excuses because of which the roukhas (concessions) are issued by the shari'ahi text. This is with regard to the reality, that the roukhsa and the azeemah are from the shari'ah perspectives. As for acting according to the rokhsah or the azeemah (determination); verily acting according to either one of them is a mubaah, so one can act according to the rokhsah or according to the azeemah, because this is shown in the texts of the concessions. Allah Ta’ala said: to inclination no with ,hunger by forced is any if But transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful) 3 Surat Al Ma’idah, and He said: (…But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful) 173 Surat Al-Baqarah, so He Ta’ala showed the rokhsah by lifting up the guilt of the eating and this is the ibahah (permissibility), and forgave the sin of his action and it is the ibahah. He Ta’ala said: When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers may attack you: for the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies) 101 Surat Al-Nisaa’, and lifting up the blame means the ibahah. Allah Ta’ala said: ......) but if any one is ill, or on a travel, the prescribed period (should be made up) by days later...) 185 Surat Al-Baqarah, and this is the ibahah, so the evidences of the rokhas themselves give the ibahah (permissibility) to act according to the rokhsah not the wujoub (obligation), nor the nadb (preference). Also Muslim narrated on the authority of Hamzah Ibn Amrou that he said: I ,Allah Rasoul Oh find strength in myself for fasting while traveling, is it an offence I commit? Rasoul Allah (SAW) said: it is a rokhsah from Allah Ta’ala, whoever takes it, it is well done. And whoever likes to fast, there is no sin on him”, and on the authority of Abu Sa’ied that he said: َ ,” we traveled with Rasoul Allah (SAW) the faster would fast and the fast breaker would break the fast, and non of them blame the others, narrated by Muslim. These texts indicate explicitly that the rokhsah and the azeemah are mubaah (when the choice is given), so one is free to opt either one of them he wills.

Inaweza kusemwa kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Hakika Allah anapenda ruhusa Zake zichukuliwe, kama anavyopenda amri Zake zitekelezwe," imepokewa na Ibn Hibbaan, na hii ni ombi, hivyo ni dalili kwamba ni mandoub. Ikiwa mwenye kulazimishwa anaogopa kifo, lazima ale nyama ya mzoga, na ni haramu kwake kujizuia kuila. Ikiwa mwenye kusonga hakupata isipokuwa kileo, lazima akinywe ili apate nafuu ya kukabwa koo ikiwa anaogopa kifo, na ni haramu kujizuia na kufa. Ikiwa mfungaji amechoka sana hadi kufikia kifo, lazima afungue saumu yake, na ni haramu kwake kuendelea kufunga na kufa. Mifano kama hii inaonyesha kwamba kutenda kwa mujibu wa ruhusa kunaweza kuwa faradhi, mandoub, au mubaah. Jibu la hilo ni: mjadala unahusu ruhusa kwa mtazamo kwamba ni wepesi wa sheria; hakika ni mubaah kwa sababu ya dalili zilizotangulia. Hivyo hukmu ya ruhusa kwa upande wa sheria yake ni mubaah. Kuhusu kauli ya: "Hakika Allah, Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ amesema..." ...

It could be said that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: " Verily, Allah loves that His concessions are taken, as He loves that His determinations are taken”, narrated by Ibn Hibbaan, and this is a request, so it is a daleel that it is a mandoub. If the compelled one fears death; he must eat the dead meat, and it is forbidden for him to abstain from eating it. If the choked one could not find except the intoxicant; he must drink it to relief himself from the choke if he fears death, and it is forbidden that he abstain and die. If the fasting person becomes very fatigue to the extant of death; he must break his fast, and it is forbidden for him to remain fasting and die, and as such, which indicate that acting according to the rokhsah could be a fardh, a mandoub and could be a mubaah. The answer to that is: the talk (discussion) is about the rokhsah from the perspective that it is a concession; it is certainly a mubaah (permissible) because of the previous evidences. So the hukm of the concession with regard to its legislation is the mubaah. As for the :(SAW (Messenger the of saying Allah ,Verily" “...

Anaupenda Allah kwamba ruhusa Zake zichukuliwe…”, hakuna katika hadithi kinachoonyesha nadb (upendeleo), bali kinaonyesha ibaahah (ruhusa ya kawaida), kwa kuwa inafafanua kwamba Allah Ta'ala anapenda ruhusa Zake (rokhas) zichukuliwe (zitekelezwe), na anapenda misimamo Yake madhubuti (azaa'im) ichukuliwe, na hakuna kati ya maombi hayo mawili lenye kipaumbele juu ya jingine. Na hili lipo katika maandishi ya hadithi: " " Hakika Allah anapenda ruhusa Zake zichukuliwe, kama anavyopenda misimamo Yake madhubuti ichukuliwe”. Kwa hiyo hakuna dalili katika hadithi kwamba kutenda kwa mujibu wa rukhsa ni mandub. Kuhusu suala la kula nyama ya mzoga (isiyochinjwa), mudhtarr (aliyelazimishwa) si yule ambaye kifo chake kimethibitika, bali ni yule anayehofia kifo tu; anachukuliwa kuwa mwenye kulazimishwa. Lakini ikiwa kifo kitathibitika endapo hatakula, basi inakuwa haramu kwake kujizuia kula, na inakuwa wajibu (waajib) kwake kula, si kwa sababu ni rukhsa, bali kwa sababu kula kunakuwa wajibu. Hii ni kwa sababu kutenda kwa mujibu wa azimah, ambayo ni kujizuia kula (katika hali hiyo), ni mubaah, lakini kwa hakika kunapelekea haramu, nayo ni kujiangamiza. Hivyo, kutekeleza azimah katika hali hiyo inakuwa haramu kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya shari'ah: "njia ya haramu ni haramu", na kutekeleza rukhsa kunakuwa wajibu kutokana na sababu ya dharura, nayo ni uhakika wa kifo. Hii si kanuni ya rukhsa (kama ruhusa), bali ni mojawapo ya hali ambazo kanuni "njia ya haramu ni haramu" inatumika. Matumizi haya si mahsusi kwa rukhsa, bali ni ya jumla kwa kila mubaah. Vivyo hivyo ni kunywa kileo kwa mtu aliyekabwa koo, na kuvunja funga kwa mtu ambaye kifo chake kimethibitika, na mengineyo. Kwa hiyo, hukumu ya rukhsa yenyewe na kwa mujibu wa sheria yake ni mubaah (inaruhusiwa), lakini ikiwa kuacha rukhsa hiyo na kutekeleza azeemah kunapelekea hakika kwenye haramu, basi kutekeleza mubaah hiyo kunakuwa haramu.

loves that His concessions are taken…”, nothing in the hadeeth indicates the nadb (preference), but it indicates the ibaahah, because it clarifies that Allah Ta’ala loves that His rokhas (concessions) to be taken (practiced), and He loves that His azaa’im (determinations) to be taken, and non of the two request has a priority over the other, and this is in the text of the hadeeth: " " Verily, Allah loves that His concessions are taken, as He loves that His determinations are taken”, therefore there is no indication in the hadeeth that acting according to the rokhsah is a mandoub. As the issue of eating the dead (not slaughtered) meat; the modhttar (compelled one) does not mean the one which is ascertained of his death, but just for fearing the death; he is considered as a compelled one, but if death becomes ascertained if he doesn’t eat, then it becomes forbidden for him to refrain from eating, and becomes a must (waajib) upon him to eat, not because it is a rokhsah, but because eating becomes a waajib. That is because acting according to the azeemah, which is refraining from eating (in that situation) is a mubaah, but it definitely leads to the haraam which is the self perishing. So it becomes haraam to carry out the azeemah in that situation according to the shari'ahi :principle " the means to the forbidden is a forbidden” and carrying out the rokhsah becomes a waajib because of the emergency cause which is the death certainty, and this is not the rule of the rokhsah (as a concession), but one of the situations on which the principle:" the means to the forbidden is a forbidden” is applicable. This application is not specially for the rokhsah, but it is general for every mubaah, and like that is the drinking of the intoxicant for the choked person, and the fast breaking for the ascertained of death person and others. Accordingly, the rule of the rokhsah as it is and with regard to its legislation is the mubaah (permissible), but if refraining from it and carrying out the azeemah lead certainly to the haraam, then carrying out the mubaah becomes haraam.