Modda 37 - Xalifalik davlatining qoralama konstitutsiyasi | Quran Course

Modda 37 - Xalifalik davlatining qoralama konstitutsiyasi | Quran Course

“Kim Alloh nozil qilgan narsa bilan hukm qilmasa, ana o‘shalar kofirlardir” (TMQ 5:44) – bu oyat unga tegishli bo‘ladi. Shunday ekan, agar u o‘zi qabul qilgan qoidaga e’tiqod qilsa, u holda kufrga yo‘l qo‘yadi va Islomdan chiqib ketadi. Agar u unga ishonmasdan, Islomga zid emas deb hisoblab qabul qilsa, xuddi Usmonli xalifalarining so‘nggi davrlarida qilganlari kabi, bu unga harom bo‘ladi, lekin kufrga kirmaydi. Agar u, masalan, hech bir dalilga ega bo‘lmagan hukmni, o‘zi ko‘rgan biror manfaat tufayli joriy qilgan kishi kabi, Al-Masolih al-Mursalah qoidasiga yoki “vositalarni man etish” yoki “amallarning vositalari” qoidasiga yoxud shunga o‘xshash boshqa qoidalarga tayansa, agar u bu qoidalarni Shariat hukmlari va dalillari deb bilgan bo‘lsa, bu unga harom bo‘lmaydi va u kufrga ham kirmaydi. Biroq u adashgan bo‘ladi, va u chiqargan hukm barcha musulmonlar tomonidan Shariat hukmi deb hisoblanadi hamda xalifa uni qabul qilsa, unga itoat qilish vojibdir, chunki u Shariat hukmidir va dalil ko‘rinishiga ega bo‘ladi, garchi u dalilda adashgan bo‘lsa ham, chunki u dalillardan to‘g‘ri istidlol qilishda xato qilgan kishiga o‘xshaydi. Har qanday holatda ham xalifaga o‘z qabul qilishlarini Islom Shariati bilan cheklash, o‘zini esa Shariat dalillaridan to‘g‘ri istidlol orqali chiqarilgan Shariat hukmlarini qabul qilish bilan cheklashi vojibdir. Bunga dalil:

“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (TMQ 5:44) apply to him, so if he believed in the rule that he had adopted, then he would commit disbelief and apostatise from Islam. If he did not believe in it, but he took it upon the basis that it did not contradict Islam, in the same manner that the Ottoman Khulafaa’ acted during their final days, then it would be forbidden for him but he wouldn’t commit disbelief. If he had a semblance of an evidence, such as the one who legislates a rule which has no evidence, due to a benefit that he thinks is there, and relies upon the rule of Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, or the “preventing the means” or “the means of the actions” or anything similar, then if he thought that these rules were Shari’ah rules and evidences, it wouldn’t be forbidden for him and nor would he commit disbelief. However, he is mistaken, and what he has derived is considered a Shari’ah rule by all of the Muslims, and it is obligatory to obey it if the Khalifah adopts it, since it is a Shari’ah rule, and it would have a semblance of an evidence even if he was mistaken in the evidence, since he is like the one who is mistaken in the deduction from the evidences. In any case, it is obligatory for the Khalifah to restrict his adoption to the Islamic Shari’ah, and to restrict himself to adoption of Shari’ah rules derived by a correct deduction from the Shari’ah evidences. The evidence for this:

Ushbu maqoladagi birinchi masalaning dalili ana shu uchta dalildir. Maqoladagi ikkinchi masala, ya'ni Xalifaning o'zi qabul qilgan va istinbot usuli jihatidan amal qiladigan narsalar bilan cheklanishi haqida gap ketganda, buning dalili shuki, Xalifa amalga oshiradigan shar'iy hukm uning uchun shar'iy hukmdir, boshqalar uchun emas. Boshqacha aytganda, u o'z ishlari shariat asosida bo'lishi uchun qabul qilgan shar'iy hukm, boshqa har qanday shar'iy hukm emas. Shunday ekan, agar Xalifa biror hukmni istinbot qilgan yoki boshqa birovga ergashgan bo'lsa, o'sha shar'iy hukm u uchun Allohning (swt) hukmi bo'ladi va u Muslimlar uchun shu hukmni qabul qilishda ushbu shar'iy hukm bilan cheklanadi. Unga bundan boshqasini qabul qilish joiz bo'lmaydi, chunki bu uning uchun Allohning (swt) hukmi hisoblanmaydi, sababi u unga nisbatan shar'iy hukm bo'lmaydi va shunga ko'ra Muslimlarga nisbatan ham shar'iy hukm bo'lmaydi. Demak, u raiyat manfaati uchun chiqargan buyruqlari ham qabul qilgan ushbu shar'iy hukmga muvofiq cheklanadi va u hukmlardan qabul qilgan narsasiga zid keladigan buyruqlar chiqarishi joiz emas. Chunki uning chiqargan bunday buyrug'i unga nisbatan Allohning hukmi hisoblanmaydi, shuning uchun unga nisbatan shar'iy hukm bo'lmaydi, bu esa Muslimlarga nisbatan ham shar'iy hukm bo'lmasligini anglatadi va bunda u shar'iy hukmga asoslanmagan buyruq bergan bo'lib qoladi. Shu sababli, u qabul qilgan hukmlarga zid keladigan har qanday buyruq berishi joiz emas.

These three evidences are the proof for the first issue in this article. As for the second issue of the article which is that the Khalifah is restricted by what he has adopted and by what he adheres to in terms of a method of deduction, the proof for this is that the Shari’ah rule which the Khalifah implements is the Shari’ah rule for him, and not for others; in other words, the Shari’ah rule which he adopted in order for his actions to proceed in accordance with and not any Shari’ah rule. So if the Khalifah deduced a rule, or followed someone else in it, that Shari’ah rule would be the rule of Allah (swt) for him, and he would be restricted by this Shari’ah rule in his adoption of it for the Muslims. It would not be permitted for him to adopt anything different to it, since it would not be considered to be the rule of Allah (swt) for him, because it would not be a Shari’ah rule with respect to him, and accordingly it would not be a Shari’ah rule with respect to the Muslims. Therefore, his orders that he issued for the sake of the subjects would be restricted according to this Shari’ah rule which he had adopted, and it is not permitted for him to issue orders which contradict whatever he had adopted from the rules. This is because that order which he issued would not be considered the rule of Allah (swt) for him, and so would not be considered a Shari’ah rule with respect to him, and then it would not be a Shari’ah rule in respect to the Muslims, in which case, it would be as though he had issued an order which was not based upon the Shari’ah rule. Due to this, it is not permitted for him to issue any order which contradicts what he adopted from the rules.

Shuningdek, istidlol usuli Shariat hukmini tushunishda o‘zgarishga olib keladi. Agar xalifa illatni, agar u Shariat matnidan kelib chiqqan bo‘lsa, Shariat illati deb hisoblasa, maslahatni esa Shariat illati deb hisoblamasa va al-masolih al-mursalani Shariat dalili deb qabul qilmasa, bu uning o‘ziga xos istidlol usulini belgilab olganini anglatadi. Bunday holda unga shu usulga rioya qilishi shart bo‘ladi va u dalili al-masolih al-mursalaga asoslangan hukmni qabul qilishi, yoki Shariat matnidan kelib chiqmagan illatga asoslangan qiyosni olishi to‘g‘ri bo‘lmaydi. Chunki u dalilini Shariat dalili deb tan olmagan hukm uning nazarida Shariat hukmi hisoblanmaydi. Agar xalifa uchun bu hukm Shariat hukmi bo‘lmasa, musulmonlar uchun ham Shariat hukmi bo‘lmaydi va bu xuddi u Shariat hukmlaridan boshqa manbadan hukm olgandek bo‘ladi, bu esa unga man etilgan. Agar xalifa muqallid (boshqa kishining ijtihodiga ergashuvchi) yoki bir masalada mujtahid bo‘lib, mutlaq mujtahid yoki mazhab mujtahidi bo‘lmasa va o‘ziga xos istidlol usuliga ega bo‘lmasa, u dalili bor har qanday Shariat hukmini qabul qilishi mumkin bo‘ladi, agar o‘sha dalil dalilga o‘xshash bo‘lsa. Hukmlarni qabul qilishda unga hech narsa cheklov qo‘ymaydi, lekin u chiqaradigan buyruqlar jihatidan cheklanadi, ya’ni ular faqat qabul qilgan hukmlariga muvofiq chiqarilishi kerak.

Also, the method of deduction causes a change in the understanding of the Shari’ah rule, so if the Khalifah considered the Illah to be a Shari’ah Illah if it is derived from a Shari’ah text, and he does not think that Maslahah is a Shari’ah Illah, and he does not consider Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah to be a Shari’ah evidence, then it means that he has specified a method of deduction for himself. In which case, it would be obligatory for him to be restricted by it, and it would not be correct for him to adopt a rule whose evidence was based upon Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah, or to take an analogy based upon an Illah which was not derived from a Shari’ah text, since that rule would not be considered a Shari’ah rule for him as he does not recognise its evidence as a Shari’ah evidence, in which case in his view, it would not be a Shari’ah rule. As long as it is not considered to be a Shari’ah rule for the Khalifah, then it would not be a Shari’ah rule for the Muslims and so it would be as if he adopted a rule from other than the Shari’ah rules, which is prohibited for him. If the Khalifah was a Muqallid (someone who follows another person’s Ijtihad), or a Mujtahid in an issue and not a Mujtahid Mutlaq or Mujtahid Madhhab, and he did not have a specific method of deduction, then he would be permitted to adopt any Shari’ah rule as long as it has an evidence, as long as that evidence is a semblance of an evidence; he would not be restricted by anything in his adoption of the rules but rather he would only be restricted by what he issued in terms of orders such that they should not be issued except according to what he had adopted from the rules.