Kilugha, ijtihadi ni kutumia juhudi zote za mtu kufikia jambo lolote linalohitaji kiwango fulani cha usumbufu na ugumu. Kwa upande wa ufafanuzi wa wanachuoni wa Usul, ijtihadi ni hasa kutumia nguvu za mtu katika kutafuta dhana yenye nguvu zaidi (zann) kuhusu jambo fulani miongoni mwa hukumu za Shari'ah, kwa namna ambayo mujtahid anahisi kwamba hawezi tena kujitahidi zaidi.

Linguistically Ijtihād is the exertion of ones utmost effort to realise a matter which entails a measure of discomfort and difficulty. As for the definition of the Usuli scholars, it is specifically the expenditure of ones energies in seeking a preponderant opinion (zann) about a thing from the Sharī’ah rules in a manner the mujtahid feels unable to exert any more.

Ijtihad imethibitishwa kwa matini ya hadithi. Imepokewa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba alimwambia Abu Musa alipomtuma Yemen:

Ijtihād has been proven by the text of the hadīth. It has been narrated about the Prophet  that he said to Abu Musa  when he sent him to Yemen:

Na imesimuliwa kuhusu yeye kwamba aliwaambia Mu'adh na Abu Musa al-Ash'ari alipowatuma Yemen:

And it has been narrated about him  that he said to Mu’az and Abu Musa al-Ash’ari having dispatched them to Yemen:

Qiyas huu ni Ijtihad kwa kuchota hukumu, na Mtume ﷺ aliukubali kutoka kwao. Imepokewa kutoka kwake ﷺ kwamba alimwambia Mu'adh alipomtuma kuwa Wali (gavana) huko Yemen:

This Analogy (qiyas) is Ijtihād by deriving the hukm and the Prophet  accepted it from them. It has been reported about him  that he said to Mu’az when he sent as Wali (governor) to Yemen:

Hii inadhihirika katika kukubaliwa kwa Mtume ﷺ nia ya Mu'adh ya kufanya Ijtihadi, na hakuna yeyote anayepinga uhalali wa Ijtihadi. Zaidi ya hayo, kumefanyika ijma' (makubaliano) ya Masahaba kuhusu suala la kuhukumu kwa kutumia maoni yaliyotolewa kutokana na dalili za Shariah, yaani, wamekubaliana juu ya matumizi ya Ijtihadi katika tukio lolote linalotokea ambalo hakuna maandiko (wazi) yaliyopatikana kwa ajili yake. Hili ndilo lililotufikia kwa mapokezi mfululizo (tawatur) ambayo hakuna shaka ndani yake. Mojawapo ya mapokezi hayo ni kauli ya Abu Bakr ؓ alipoulizwa kuhusu Kalala. Alisema: 'Nitazungumza juu yake kulingana na maoni yangu. Likiwa sahihi basi ni kutoka kwa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷻ. Likiwa kosa basi ni kutoka kwangu na kutoka kwa Shetani, na Mwenyezi Mungu ﷻ hana uhusiano nalo. Kalala ni yule ambaye hajaacha mtoto wala wazazi.' Kauli yake: 'Nitazungumza juu yake kulingana na maoni yangu' haimaanishi kwamba maoni haya yanatoka kwake. Badala yake, maana yake ni: Nitasema kulingana na ninavyoelewa neno 'Kalala' katika aya hiyo. Kalala katika lugha ya Kiarabu hutumika kwa watu watatu: yule ambaye hakuacha mtoto au mzazi, au yule ambaye hana mwana wala baba miongoni mwa wazao wake, na jamaa wa upande usio wa mtoto wala wa baba. Basi ni lipi kati ya maana hizi linalotumika kwa neno kalala katika aya hiyo? Abu Bakr ؓ alielewa kuwa lina mojawapo ya maana hizo katika kauli yake ﷻ:

This is clear in the Prophet’s  acceptance of Mu’az’s intention to practise Ijtihād and there is no one who disputes the legality of Ijtihād. Furthermore, an ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahabah  took place on the issue of judging by an opinion which has been deduced from the Sharī’ah evidence i.e, they have agreed on the use of Ijtihād on any incident that takes place for which no (clear) text has been found. And this is what has reached us in successive reports (tawatur) in which there is no doubt. One such report is the saying of Abu Bakr  when he was asked about the Kalala. He said: ‘I will speak about it according to my opinion. If it is correct then it is from Allah . If it is a mistake then it is from me and from Shaytan and Allah  has nothing to do with it. Kalala is the one who has no children or parents left.’ His statement: ‘I will speak about it according to my opinion’ does not mean this opinion is from him. Rather it means I will say according to what I understand from the expression ‘Kalala’ in the verse. Kalala in the Arabic language applies to three people; the one who did not leave a child or parent or the one who does not have a son or a father from his descendants and the relatives from other than the direction of the child or father. So which of these meanings would apply to the word kalala in the verse ? Abu Bakr  understood it to have one of those meanings in His  saying:

Kalala ni kiima (khabar) cha kitenzi kana, yaani, mtu ambaye haachi warithi wa juu (wazazi na mababu) wala wa chini (watoto na wajukuu). Huenda alielewa hili pia kutoka aya ya pili:

Kalala is the predicate (khabar) of the verb ‘to be’ (kana) i.e, if the man leaves no ascendents or descendents to inherit after him. He  probably understood this also from the second verse:

Na pia kutoka kwenye hadīth iliyopokelewa kuhusu sababu ya ushuka wa aya hiyo:

And also from the hadīth which has been reported about the cause of the verse:

Imeripotiwa kwamba Mtume ﷺ alimtembelea Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah ﷺ ambaye alikuwa mgonjwa. Akasema: Sina wazazi wala watoto. Nifanye nini na mali yangu? Ndipo ikateremka aya hii:

It has been reported that the Messenger  visited Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah  who was ill. He said: I leave no ascendents or descendants. What shall I do with my wealth? Thus the verse:

ilishushwa kujibu swali la Jabir. Maoni haya aliyoyatoa Abu Bakr ni Ijtihadi na hayatokani na nafsi yake. Pia katika Ijtihadi hii Abu Bakr alimjumuisha bibi wa mama katika urithi kwa kumtenga bibi wa baba. Baadhi ya Answari walimwambia:

was revealed in response to the question of Jabir. This opinion which Abu Bakr  stated is an Ijtihād and it does not emanate from himself. Also from this Ijtihād Abu Bakr  included the mothers mother in the inheritance to the exclusion of the father’s mother. Some of the Ansar said to him:

Kwa hiyo Abu Bakr alimpa kila bibi mkubwa sehemu sawa katika urithi. Abu Bakr pia alikuwa akitoa zawadi sawa kwa Waislamu. ‘Umar alimwambia kuhusu jambo hili:

So Abu Bakr  gave both grandmothers equal shares in the inheritance. Abu Bakr  also used to give equal gifts to the Muslims. ‘Umar  said to him concerning this matter:

Abu Bakr alijibu:

Abu Bakr  answered:

Vivyo hivyo, 'Umar alisema:

Likewise ‘Umar  said:

Wakati wa utawala wa ‘Umar, mwanamke mmoja alifariki akiacha mume, mama yake, ndugu wawili wa upande wa mama, na ndugu wawili wa upande wa baba. ‘Umar mwanzoni alifikiri kwamba ndugu wa upande wa mama wanapaswa kupata theluthi kama haki yao, lakini hilo liliwaacha ndugu wa upande wa baba bila chochote. Ndugu wa upande wa baba walimwendea ‘Umar na kumwambia:

n the time of ‘Umars  rule a woman passed away leaving behind a husband, mother, two maternal brothers and two paternal fathers. ‘Umar first thought that the maternal brothers should have the third as their right, but this left nothing to the paternal brothers. The paternal brothers approached ‘Umar  and said to him:

Kwa hiyo 'Umar alibadili msimamo wake na kuwapa ndugu wote sehemu sawa katika theluthi, licha ya ukweli kwamba Maswahaba walikuwa wamehukumu kwa njia tofauti. Walikuwa wamempa mume nusu ya urithi, theluthi moja ya sehemu sita ya urithi ilipewa mama kama ilivyoamriwa katika maandishi, na theluthi ya mwisho ilipewa ndugu wa upande wa mama kama ilivyoamuliwa pia katika maandishi, hivyo wakiwaacha ndugu wa upande wa baba bila chochote. 'Umar alielewa kuwa ndugu wa upande wa mama walikuwa ndugu wa mwanamume upande wa mama yake, lakini hili halikuhusu ndugu wa upande wa mama peke yao bali pia ndugu wa upande wa baba. Mama ndiye kitu kilichowaunganisha wote, hivyo pale ambapo hakuna chochote kilichobaki kwa ndugu wa upande wa baba, haki yao ilikuwa ni kile walichostahili kutoka kwa ndugu wa upande wa mama. Maswahaba wengine waliona jambo hilo kwa namna nyingine; waliielewa maandishi na kufanya Ijtihad yao wenyewe. Fikiria pia kisa cha Muislamu aliyeitwa Samrah, aliyemchukulia mfanyabiashara Myahudi sehemu ya kumi ya pombe (kama ushuru), kisha akaiweka kwenye chupa na kuiuza. Hapo 'Umar alisema

So ‘Umar  changed his mind and gave all the brothers equal shares in the third, in spite of the fact the Sahabah had judged differently. They had given the husband one half of the inheritance, one sixth of the inheritance was given to the mother as decreed in the text, and the final third was given to the maternal brothers as also determined in the text, thus leaving nothing for the paternal brothers. ‘Umar  understood that the maternal brothers were brothers of the man from his mother’s side, but this applied not just to the maternal brothers but also to the paternal brothers. The mother was the common factor between them all, so when nothing had been left to the paternal brothers, their right was of what they deserved from the maternal brothers. The rest of the Sahabah saw it differently; they understood the text and made their own Ijtihād. Consider also the case when a Muslim, named Samrah took from a Jewish merchant a tenth portion of alcohol (as customs), bottled it and then sold it. So ‘Umar  said

Katika kesi hii, ‘Umar alifanya kiasi (qiyās) kati ya pombe na mafuta ya wanyama, na akasema kuwa kukatazwa kwake kunamaanisha kukatazwa pia kwa bei yake ya kuuzwa. Mfano mwingine wa Ijtihād ni kauli ya ‘Ali kuhusu adhabu (Hadd) ya kosa la kunywa pombe. Alisema:

In this case, ‘Umar  made the analogy between the alcohol and the fat, and that prohibition of it meant prohibition of its selling price. A further example of Ijtihād is what ‘Ali  said regarding punishment (Hadd) for the crime of drinking alcohol. He said:

Kama ‘Umar katika mfano uliotangulia, ‘Ali alifananisha kunywa pombe na kutunga uongo kwa sababu alielewa kutoka katika Shar’a kwamba kitu kinachowezekana kutokea kinashughulikiwa sawa na kitu kilichotokea. Hii ni kama vile Shar’a ilivyoshughulikia kulala sawa na najisi ya kitual, na kitendo cha tendo la ndoa katika kuhitaji ‘Iddah (kipindi cha kisheria ambacho mwanamke anasubiri baada ya talaka kabla ya kuolewa tena) sawa na kana kwamba tumbo limeshika mimba (ujauzito). Yote haya ni mifano ya Ijtihād ya Maswahaba na Ijma’ as-Sahaba kuhusu suala la Ijtihād.

Like ‘Umar  in the previous example, ‘Ali  made an analogy between drinking and fabrication of lies because he understood from Shar’a that which is likely to happen is treated the same as that which happens. This is like when the Shar’a treated sleeping the same as ritual impurity, and the act of sexual intercourse in requiring the Iddah (legal period a woman waits after divorce for marriage) the same as if the womb had become engaged (pregnant). All these are examples of Ijtihād by the Sahabah and Ijma’a as-Sahaba on the issue of Ijtihād.

Matumizi ya hukmu kwa masuala yanayoangukia chini yake hayahesabiwi kuwa Ijtihād, bali ni kuelewa tu hukmu ya Sharī'ah. Kwa kuwa Ijtihād ni kutoa hukmu kutoka kwenye maandiko, iwe kutokana na maneno yake (manṭūq), kutokana na maana inayofahamika kutoka kwake (mafhūm), au kutokana na dalili yake (dalālah).

The application of a hukm on issues which are classified under it is not considered Ijtihād rather but only as the comprehension of the Sharī’ah rule. Since Ijtihād is the inference of a hukm from the text whether from its wording (mantooq), understanding (mafhoom), from its indication (dalalah)

au kutoka kwenye 'illah iliyotajwa katika matini. Iwe ni hitimisho la hukm kulli kutoka dalili kulli; kwa mfano, hitimisho kwamba adhabu inapaswa kutolewa kwa mwizi kwa kuwa Mwenye Kutunga Sheria amefanya kukatwa mkono kuwa adhabu ya hadd kwa wizi. Au hitimisho linaweza kuwa la hukm juz'i kutoka dalili juz'i; kama vile kupata hukm ya kuajiri kwa kuwa Mtume ﷺ

or from the ‘illah which has been mentioned in the text. Whether the inference was an inference of a comprehensive hukm (hukm kulli) from a comprehensive evidence (dalīl kulli); for example, the inference that a punishment should be imposed on the thief since the legislator made the cutting of the hand a hadd punishment for theft. Or the inference could be of a partial hukm (hukm juz’i) from a partial evidence (dalīl juz’i); such as the deduction of the hukm of hiring since the Prophet PBUH

Au kama hukmu ya kutoa ujira wa mfanyakazi baada ya kumaliza kazi yake, kwa kuzingatia kauli ya Nabii ﷺ:

Or like the inference of the hukm of giving the worker his wage after he has finished his work due to the Prophet’s  saying:

Ni dalili ya sehemu kwa hukumu ya sehemu. Basi hitimisho la hukumu ya jumla kutoka kwenye dalili ya jumla, na hitimisho la hukumu ya sehemu kutoka kwenye dalili ya sehemu, yote haya huitwa Ijtihād kwa kuwa ni kuchukua hukumu kutoka kwenye dalili, iwe hukumu hiyo ilikuwa ya jumla iliyotolewa kutoka dalili ya jumla, au hukumu ilikuwa mahsusi iliyotolewa kutoka dalili mahsusi. Yote haya yanajumuisha kutumia juhudi zote katika kufahamu hukumu kutoka kwenye dalili. Kuhusu kutumia hukumu kwenye masuala mapya yanayoingia ndani ya maana yake au yanayoainishwa chini yake kama sehemu zake, hili halihesabiwi kuwa Ijtihād. Kwa mfano, Allah ameharamisha mzoga. Ng'ombe anapouawa kwa kupigwa pigo kichwani hadi afe, nyama yake haliwi kwa sababu amekufa kama mzoga na hakuchinjwa kisheria, na nyama ya mzoga ni haramu. Na hukumu ya nyama ya kwenye kopo, inayotokana na ng'ombe ambaye hajachinjwa kisheria, kuila na kuiuza ni haramu katika Sharī'ah. Hukumu hii haikutolewa kwa kuchimbua; badala yake imeainishwa chini ya neno 'mzoga'. Kwa mfano, wanyama wanaochinjwa na Druze hawaliwi kwa sababu hawakuchinjwa na Mwislamu wala mtu kutoka miongoni mwa Watu wa Kitabu. Basi hukumu hii, yaani kukatazwa kula mnyama anayechinjwa na Druze, haikutolewa kwa kuchimbua. Badala yake, hukumu iliyokwisha kujulikana imetumika juu yake, ambayo ni kukatazwa kula wanyama wanaochinjwa na makafiri wasio miongoni mwa Watu wa Kitabu. Kwa mfano, kuruhusiwa kwa mwanamke kuwa mjumbe wa majlis al-Shūrā ni hukumu ya Sharī'ah. Hukumu hii haikutolewa kwa kuchimbua; badala yake hukumu ya Wakālah (uwakilishi) imetumika juu yake. Ujumbe wa majlis al-Shūrā ni uwakilishi wa maoni. Inaruhusiwa kwa mwanamke kumwakilisha wengine kutoa maoni, na anaweza kuwakilisha wengine katika maoni yao. Kwa mfano, Zakat haitolewi kwa mtu yeyote isipokuwa yule aliye maskini, na umaskini wake umethibitishwa kwa dalili za kukisia ambazo ushahidi wake umetolewa kwa ajili ya kuzingatiwa kwake kisheria. Hukumu haitolewi bila kauli ya mtu mwadilifu ('adl), na uaminifu wake ('adala) unajulikana kwa kiwango cha chini kabisa cha shaka. Vivyo hivyo, mtu anayefanya uchunguzi ili kujua Qibla (upande wa kuswalia) mpaka Qibla ijulikane baada ya uchunguzi, na mifano mingine kama hiyo. Mambo haya yote hayafikiwi kwa njia ya Ijtihadi, ambayo ni kutoa hukumu za Sharia kutoka kwenye dalili za Sharia, bali kwa njia ya kutumia hukumu kwenye masuala ya kina (juz'iyyat), au kwa kuelewa masuala ya kina na kutumia hukumu zake juu yake. Mwenendo huu unaingia katika wigo wa mahakama (qadā') wala haumo katika Ijtihadi. Mwenendo huu hauhesabiwi kuwa Ijtihadi kwa sababu haubainishi hukumu maalum ya Sharia, bali unatumia tu hukumu ya Sharia kwenye tukio ambalo tayari limeshaamuliwa na kueleweka. Tukio jingine la aina kama hiyo linapotokea, hukumu hutumika juu yake kama ilivyotumika kwenye tukio la awali, hivyo haihesabiwi kuwa Ijtihadi. Hukumu za Sharia zinahitaji kutumika baada ya kuzielewa kutoka kwenye dalili, si Ijtihadi, ambayo ni kinyume cha maandiko ya Sharia yanayohitaji Ijtihadi ili kupitisha hukmu Shari'. Kwa hiyo,

Maandiko ya Sharī‘ah ya Kiislamu yanawalazimu Waislamu kufanya Ijtihād. Hii ni kwa sababu maandiko ya Sharī‘ah hayakuja kwa namna ya kina na maelezo ya kila jambo, bali yamekuja kwa namna ya jumla (mujmal), yanayohusu matukio yote yanayomhusu binadamu. Kuyaelewa na kuchota hukmu ya Allah (SWT) kutoka kwayo kunahitaji kutumia juhudi ili kupata hukmu ya Shar‘i kwa kila tukio. Hata maandiko ambayo yamekuja kwa namna ya kina na yanashughulikia maelezo madogo madogo, kwa hakika ni ya jumla (‘amm) na yenye maana isiyo dhahiri (mujmal). Kwa mfano, aya za urithi zimekuja kwa namna ya kufafanua na zinashughulikia maelezo madogo kabisa, lakini bado, kwa upande wa hukmu za kiundani, zinahitaji ufahamu na uchambuzi katika masuala mengi, kama suala la kalala na masuala ya kuzuiwa kurithi (hajb). Wanazuoni wote wa Ijtihād wanaona kwamba mtoto wa kiume au wa kike anatangulizwa katika urithi kuliko ndugu wa marehemu, kwa sababu neno ‘walad’ (mtoto) linahusu watoto wa jinsia zote mbili. Ibn ‘Abbās anaona kwamba msichana hana nafasi hiyo kwa sababu neno ‘Walad’ linahusu mwanamume pekee. Hii inaonyesha kwamba hata maandiko yanayoshughulikia masuala kwa undani yamekuja kwa namna ya jumla (mujmal), na kwamba kuyaelewa na kuchota hukmu kutoka kwake kunahitaji Ijtihād. Hata hivyo, maandiko haya yanayoshughulikia maelezo yanahitaji kutumika kwa matukio mapya yanayotokea. Utumiaji huu, hata hivyo, si ndio maana halisi ya Ijtihād. Kinachokusudiwa ni kuchota hukmu kutoka katika maana yake ya jumla na isiyo dhahiri (mujmaliha). Hata yakiwa yanashughulikia maelezo, bado ni ya jumla (‘amm) na yenye maana isiyo dhahiri (mujmal), na ni maandiko ya kisheria. Ni asili ya maandiko ya kisheria kuwa ya jumla na yenye maana isiyo dhahiri (mujmal), hata yakishughulikia maelezo. Maandiko ya Sharī‘ah, iwe yanatoka Qur’ani au Sunnah ya Mtume ﷺ, ndiyo maandiko bora ya kisheria kwa uwanja wa fikra, yenye wigo mpana zaidi wa kujumlisha, na ardhi yenye rutuba zaidi ya kulima kanuni za jumla. Na hayo peke yake ndiyo yanayofaa kuwa maandishi ya kutunga sheria kwa watu na mataifa yote. Kuhusu kuwa maandishi bora kwa uwanja wa fikra, hili linaonekana kutokana na jinsi yanavyojumuisha aina zote za mahusiano. Kwani mahusiano ya kila aina, iwe ni mahusiano baina ya watu binafsi, mahusiano baina ya dola na raia, au mahusiano baina ya nchi, watu na mataifa, ni hivyo: ijapokuwa mahusiano haya ni mapya na yenye aina nyingi, fikra inaweza kutoa hukumu kwa ajili yake kutoka kwenye maandishi hayo ya Sharī‘ah. Kwa hiyo ndiyo maandishi bora kwa uwanja wa fikra miongoni mwa maandishi yote ya kutunga sheria. Kuhusu kuwa na upeo bora zaidi wa kujumlisha, hilo ni dhahiri kutokana na sentensi zake, maneno yake, na mtindo wa kuunda kauli zake, kwa jinsi yanavyojumuisha maana ya moja kwa moja (manṭūq), maana iliyofahamika (mafhūm), dalili (dalāla) na sababu ya hukumu (ta‘līl), pamoja na kufananisha na ‘illah inayofanya hitimisho la kila tendo kuwa linawezekana, la kudumu na lenye kujumuisha. Hili linahakikisha kwamba yanaweza kujumuisha kila kitu, kuwa kamili na ya jumla. Kuhusu kuwa ardhi yenye rutuba zaidi ya kulima kanuni za jumla, hilo linaonekana kutokana na wingi wa maana za jumla ambazo maandishi haya yanazo, na kutokana na asili ya maana hizo za jumla. Hii ni kwa sababu Qur’ān na hadīth zimekuja kwa misingi mipana hata zinapogusia mambo ya kina. Asili ya misingi hii mipana ni kwamba inatoa kwa Kitabu na Sunnah maana za jumla ambazo chini yake masuala ya jumla na mahsusi yanaweza kupangwa. Na kutokana na hili ndipo wingi wa maana za jumla unapotokea. Zaidi ya hayo, maana hizi za jumla zinajumuisha masuala halisi na yanayoonekana, si masuala ya kudhania yaliyofikiwa kinadharia au kimantiki. Pia zipo kutatua matatizo ya binadamu, na si kwa watu fulani tu; yaani, kufafanua hukumu ya matendo ya binadamu, bila kujali msukumo wa kimaumbile uliowasukuma kwenye tendo hilo. Hivyo ndivyo zilivyo zinafaa kwa maana mbalimbali na hukumu nyingi. Kwa hiyo, matini za Sharī‘ah ndizo ardhi yenye rutuba zaidi ya kuzalisha kanuni kuu (qawā‘id ‘Aammah).

Maswahaba walifikia ijmaa' (makubaliano) kwamba dhambi huondolewa kwa Mujtahidina katika hukumu za Shari'ah kuhusu masuala ya kifiqhi yanayohusu dhana (ya kubahatisha). Kwa upande wa masuala ya uhakika, kama wajibu wa ibada, katazo la uzinzi na la mauaji, hakuna Ijtihadi wala mgogoro kuhusiana nayo. Ndiyo maana Maswahaba walitofautiana katika masuala ya dhana, lakini si katika masuala ya uhakika.

The Sahabah formed an ijma’ (consensus) that the sin is taken off from the Mujtahiddin in the Sharī’ah rules in terms of the speculative fiqhi (jurisprudential) issues. As for the definite issues such as the obligation of the worships, prohibition of fornication and murder there is no Ijtihād or dispute with respect to them. That is why the Sahabah  disagreed on the speculative issues and not on the definite issues.

Mujtahid katika masuala ya kidhanni yuko sahihi katika kile alichokifikia kwa Ijtihadi yake, hata kama yuko katika hatari ya kukosea katika maoni yake. Hata hivyo, kuwa sahihi hakumaanishi kwamba amepata lengo la kweli, kwa sababu hilo halilingani na uhalisia wa hukumu ya kidhanni, kwani Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alimwita mukhti' (aliyekosea). Badala yake, kinachomaanishwa kwa kusema kwamba mujtahid yuko sahihi ni kwa maneno yasiyokataa uwezekano wa kukosea, si kwa maana ya kupata lengo la kweli (isaba), ambalo ni kinyume cha kukosea. Kwa hiyo, kumwelezea mtu anayekosea katika Ijtihadi kuwa yuko sahihi (musib) kunamaanisha kwamba maandiko yanamlipa mujtahid hata anapokosea, na si kwamba hakukosea. Basi, kila mujtahid yuko sahihi kulingana na kile anachokiona kuwa sahihi, jambo ambalo halikatai kukosea. Ni katika maana ya kupata sahihi, si katika maana ya kupata lengo la kweli.

The mujtahid in the speculative issues is correct in what he has arrived at by his Ijtihād even if he is liable to make a mistake in his opinion. However, being correct does not mean that he has hit the true target because this does not agree with the reality of a speculative rule since the Messenger  called him a mukhti’ (one who has made a mistake). Rather what is meant by saying that the mujtahid is right is in terms that do not rule out a mistake and not in terms of hitting the true target (isaba) which is the opposite of mistake. So describing someone who makes a mistake in Ijtihād as right (musib) is in the meaning that the text rewards the mujtahid even when he makes a mistake and not in the sense that he did not make a mistake. Therefore, every mujtahid is right according to what he thinks is right which does not rule out mistake. It is in terms of getting it right and not in terms of hitting the true target.