Mening fikrim va sharhim oldingi misollarga nisbatan
My Opinion And Comment In Regards To The Previous Examples
Oldingi misollarda keltirilgan ahkomlarning aksariyati Kitob, Sunnat yoki Sahoba ijmosidan olingan shar'iy dalilga asoslangan.
Most of the Ahkaam mentioned in the previous examples are based upon a Daleel Shar’iy from the Kitaab, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah.
Shunday qilib, ancha afzalroq bo‘lgan kishi mavjud bo‘lganda ham xalifa tayinlash joiz bo‘lishi, xalifalik shartnomasi uning tomonidan bajarilgan shartlar sababli bo‘ladi, bu shartlar qatorida ijtihod qilish sharti kirmaydi. Sahobalar (rah) ‘Usmon ibn ‘Affon (ra)ga bay‘at berdilar, holbuki ulardan ba’zilari ‘Ali ibn Abu Solib ondan afzal, deb hisoblar edi. Ularni buning uchun hech kim qoralamadi va shu sababli bu ijmo‘ bo‘ldi, ijmo‘ esa Islom shariati manbalaridan muhim manba hisoblanadi.
So the permissibility of appointing a Khalifah when there is somebody who has greater merit is due to the conditions of the contraction of the Khilafah being met by him in the case where being a Mujtahid are not from amongst those conditions. The Sahaabah (rah) gave the Bai’ah to ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan (ra) even though some of them viewed that ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib was better than him. None rebuked them for that and as such it represented an Ijmaa’ which represents a considered source from sources of the Islamic legislation.
Fasod ahlini haydab chiqarish masalasiga kelsak, Umar ibn al-Xattob (roziyallohu anhu) Nasr ibn al-Hajjojni haydab chiqardi va buni hech kim qoralamadi. Shunday ekan, bu sahoba ijmo'i bo'lib, u dalil hisoblanadi, maslaha emas.
As for banishing the people of Fasaad, then ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) banished Nasr Bin Al-Hajjaaj and no one rebuked him for that and as such it represents an Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah which is a Daleel and not a Maslahah.
Dushmanga kuch-quvvat berishi ehtimoli katta bo‘lgan narsalarni buzish yoki vayron qilish masalasiga kelsak, musulmonlar Bani An-Nadir qabilasining xurmo daraxtlarini kesib tashlashgan. Alloh Taolo aytadi:
As for destroying or ruining that which is most likely to be believed to give strength to the enemy, then the Muslims destroyed the palm trees of Bani An-Nadeer. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:
Ular [yahudiylarning] xurmo daraxtlaridan qanday kesib tashlaganingiz yoki ularni tanalari ustida tik qoldirganingiz — hammasi Allohning izni bilan bo‘ldi va U itoatsizlik qilganlarni xor qilishi uchun shunday bo‘ldi (Al-Hashr surasi).
Whatever you have cut down of [their] palm trees or left standing on their trunks - it was by permission of Allah and so He would disgrace the defiantly disobedient (Al-Hashr ).
Xazinaning (Bayt ul-Mol) zarur xarajatlarni, ya'ni Davlat zimmasidagi majburiy xarajatlarni qoplash uchun yetarli mablag'i bo'lmasa, boylardan soliq olish ruxsati to'g'risida gap ketganda, bu hukm Xalifaning xalq ishlarini yuritish va ularga g'amxo'rlik qilish majburiyatidan hamda quyidagi qoidadan kelib chiqadi:
In respect to the permission to tax the rich if the Bait ul-Maal doesn’t have the necessary sufficient funds to meet the expenditures which are obligatory upon the State, then this is taken from the Khalifah’s obligation to foster and take care of the affairs of the people and from the principle:
“Vojib bo‘lmasa, o‘zi vojib bo‘lmaydigan narsa” — o‘zi ham vojibdir.
‘That which the Waajib is not completed except with it is (in itself) Waajib’
Bu qoida (asos) Kitob va Sunnat matnlaridan chiqarilgan shar'iy qoida (qoidai shar'iya) hisoblanadi.
This Qaa’idah (principle) is a Qaa’idah Shar’iyah deduced from the texts of the Kitaab and the Sunnah.
Hunarmandlar qo'lida buzilib ketgan narsaga, ular tomonidan hech qanday kamchilik yoki beparvolik bo'lmagan holda, kafolat berish borasida esa Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bunday kafolatni hadisda man qilganlar.
As for guaranteeing what is destroyed under the hand of the craftsmen without any shortcoming (or negligence) from them then the Messenger of Allah (saw) has forbidden such a guarantee in the Hadeeth:
Omonatga topshirilgan narsa uchun javobgarlik yo'q (Ad-Daaruqutniy).
There is no liability upon the thing that has been entrusted (Ad-Daaruqutniy).
Ayblanuvchini iqrorga keltirish uchun uni urish masalasiga kelsak, Al-G'azzoliy buni rad etgan, shuningdek, bu borada fiqhiy qoida (al-qoida al-fiqhiyya) mavjudligini ham ta'kidlagan.
In regards to hitting the one accused in order to get him to confess then Al-Ghazaaliy refuted that in addition to the existence of the Qaa’idah Al-Fiqhiyyah (Fiqhi principle):
“Asl” — mas’uliyatning begunohligidir.
‘The origin is the innocence of the responsibility’.
Va al-Qoida:
And the Qaa’idah:
«Isbot da’vo qiluvchining zimmasidadir, qasam esa inkor etuvchining zimmasidadir» (Al-Bayhaqiy sahih isnod bilan rivoyat qilgan).
‘The proof is upon the one making the claim and the Yameen (oath) is upon the one who denies (it)’ (Al-Baihaqi in a Saheeh Isnaad).
Shuning uchun biror kishidan iqror olish maqsadida uni urish yoki unga zarba berish joiz emas.
It is therefore not permitted to strike or hit someone to extract a confession.
Monopolistlarni o‘zlarida bor narsani o‘rtacha narx (ya’ni bozor narxi) bo‘yicha sotishga majburlashga kelsak, bu ularning mollarni yig‘ib olishi natijasida ummatga yetgan zarar (Darar)ni bartaraf etishdir. Shu sababli, Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning quyidagi so‘zi asosida, bu zararni bartaraf etish Xalifa yoki Hokimning (hukmdorning) huquqidir:
As for compelling those who have monopolised to sell what they have at a similar cost (i.e. market price) then this represents the removal of a harm (Darar) that has afflicted the Ummah as a result of their monopolising of the commodities. It is therefore the right of the Khalifah or Haakim (ruler) to remove this harm due to the Qawl of the Messenger (saw):
"Zarar ko'rish ham, zararga zarar bilan javob berish ham bo'lmasin" (Ahmad).
There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm (Ahmad).
Shunday qilib, bu Nassdan (matndan) olingan Hukmdir.
It is therefore a Hukm that is taken from the Nass (text).