Shu tariqa, islomiy ishning birligini majburiy qilish uchun keltirilgan dalillar dalil sifatida qabul qilinmasligi aniqlandi. Biroq bu, guruhlarning ko‘pligiga ruxsat beruvchi boshqa fikrning qonuniy bo‘lib qolganini anglatmaydi. Chunki bir narsaning inkor etilishi uning aksini isbotlamaydi. Istidlolning (dalil keltirishning) to‘g‘riligini va istinbotning (xulosa chiqarishning) aniqligini ko‘rsatadigan dalillar bo‘lishi kerak. Xo‘sh, bu dalillar qanday?

It has been clarified that the evidences used to oblige unity of the Islamic work cannot be considered as evidence. However, this does not mean that the other opinion, which permits the plurality of groups, has become legitimate. This is because the negation of a matter does not prove its opposite. There must be evidences that demonstrate the correctness of the istidlaal (deduction), and precision of the istinbaat (inference). So what are these evidences?

Darhaqiqat, furu' (hukmlar) masalasida ixtilof qilishga ruxsat beruvchi dalillar sanoqsizdir. Sunnat furu'da ixtilof qilish mumkinligini ko'rsatgan. Shu sababli biz Sahobalarning, Tobi'inning va salaf olimlarining o'zaro ixtilof qilganini ko'ramiz. Ixtilofni man qilish esa kufforning ixtiloflariga nisbatan kelgan bo'lib, u dinning asosiy masalalari borasida bo'lgan, furu'da emas. Masalan, ular payg'ambarlar, Qiyomat kuni, hayot, o'lim va ularning kitoblari to'g'risida ixtilof qilganlar, natijada firqalarga, guruhlarga va milal hamda nihalga bo'lingan. Ular Alloh 􀀬 o'z payg'ambarlariga vahiy qilgan haqiqatdan uzoqlashib, payg'ambarlarining izdoshlarini ham adashtirdilar. U zot 􀀬 aytadi: "Shunda guruhlar o'rtasida ixtilof paydo bo'ldi. Ulug' kun huzuridan kofirlarning holiga voy!" [TMQ 19:37] Shunday qilib, Alloh 􀀬 bizni kofirlarnikiga o'xshash ixtiloflardan ogohlantirdi.

Indeed, the evidences that permit disagreement in the furu’ (rules) and not the Usul (beliefs) are innumerable. The Sunnah has indicated the permissibility of disagreement in furu’. Hence we find the Sahabah disagreeing amongst themselves, as well as the Tabi’in and the scholars of the Salaf (pious predecessors). As for the prohibition of disagreements, it came regarding the disagreements of the Kuffar, which was about the fundamentals of the deen and not in the furu’. For example the disagreements they had over the Prophets, the Day of Resurrection, life, death and their books, until they became sects, parties, and milal and nihal. They went away from the truth revealed by Allah 􀀬 to their Prophets, and deviated their Prophets’ followers. He 􀀬 said; “Then the sects differed, so woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of a great Day.” [TMQ 19:37] Thus, Allah 􀀬 warned us about the disagreements like those of the Kuffar.

Ahzab kuni, Rasulullah ﷺ sahobalarning uning so'zlarini turlicha tushunishlarini qabul qildilar: "Kim eshitib itoat qilsa, u asr namozini o'qimasin."

The Messenger 􀁕 accepted, at the day of the trench, the different understandings of the Sahabah for his 􀁕 words; “Whosoever hears and obeys, let him not pray ‘Asr (prayer)

"Bani Quraydaga qarshi" bo'lgan holatdan tashqari.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham] Ushbu hadisdan quyidagi xulosalar chiqariladi:

except in Bani Qurayza.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham] The following things are deduced from this hadith:

1- Mujtahid xato qilishi ham, to'g'ri topishi ham mumkin. Uning mujtahid bo'lishi u xato qilmaydi degani emas.

1- The Mujtahid will make mistakes and get things right. The fact that he is a mujtahid does not mean he does not make mistakes.

2- Mujtahid tomonidan chiqarilgan hukm, xato bo‘lsa ham, shar’iy hukm hisoblanadi.

2- The rule deduced by the Mujtahid is considered a Shar’ee rule, even if it was a mistake.

3- Xato qilgan mujtahid o‘zining xato qilganini bilmaydi. Agar bilganida, u xatosida qolishiga ruxsat berilmas edi. Aksincha, uning fikri o‘z nazarida boshqalarning fikridan vaznliroqdir.

3- The Mujtahid who has made a mistake does not know that he has made a mistake. If he had known then he would not be allowed to remain in his error. Rather his understanding is more weighty, in his view, than the understanding of others.

4- Mujtahid Alloh tomonidan mukofotlanadi, u to'g'ri bo'lsin yoki xato, garchi mukofot turlicha bo'lsa ham.

4- The mujtahid is rewarded by Allah 􀀬, whether he was right or wrong, though the reward is different.

Imomlar (olimlar) ijtihod qiluvchilar haqida, fiqhdagi taxminiy masalalarga oid shar'iy hukmlarda, gunoh ulardan ko'tarilishiga kelishib olganlar.

The Imams (the scholars) agreed that the sin is removed from the Mujtahideen regarding the Shar’ee rules that pertain to speculative issues in jurisprudence.

Al-Qurtubiy (Allohning rahmati unga bo‘lsin) o‘zining tafsirida shunday deydi: “Sahobalar voqealarning hukmlari to‘g‘risida hamon ixtilof qilishda davom etdilar, garchi ular o‘zaro uyg‘unlikda qolgan bo‘lsalar ham.” Al-Bog‘dodiy o‘zining “Al-Faqih val-mutafaqqih” kitobida ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz 􀁗 dan quyidagi so‘zni rivoyat qiladi: “Agar Ashob (sahobalar) ixtilof qilmaganida edi, men xursand bo‘lmagan bo‘lardim”

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) says in his tafseer; “The Sahabah still continued to differ regarding the rules of the incidents, though they remained in harmony.” Al-Baghdadi reported the following saying of ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul-’Azeez 􀁗 in his book ‘Al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqqih’; “I would have not been pleased if the Ashab (Companions)

...Muhammad ﷺ ning (sahobalari) orasida ixtilof bo'lmagan, chunki agar ular orasida ixtilof bo'lmaganida, (biz uchun ixtilof qilishga) ruxsat ham bo'lmas edi.” Ulamolar tomonidan ixtiloflarning sabablarini ochib beruvchi ko'plab kitoblar yozilgan.

of Mohammed did not differ, because if they did not differ, there would not have been a permission (for us to differ).” Many books have been written by great Muslim scholar that clarify the reasons for disagreement.

Bu sabablardan biri shundaki, inson idrokining o‘zi tabiatiga ko‘ra bir kishidan boshqasiga farq qiladi. Ularning qobiliyatlari turlicha, shuning uchun ularning tushunchalari ham turlichadir. Shu sababli Sahoba davridan to bizning kunimizgacha turli ijtihodlar va istinbotlar mavjud bo‘lib kelgan va Qiyomat kunigacha shunday davom etadi. Bu sabablardan yana biri, Shar’at tabiatining o‘zi musulmonlarni turlicha fikrlashga undashi va bunda rahmat borligidir.

One of these reasons is that man’s understanding, by his very nature, will differ from one person to another. Their abilities differ and so does their understanding. Hence, different ijtihadaat and istinbaat existed since the age of the Sahabah until our age today, and this will remain until the Day of Judgement. One of these reasons is the fact that the nature of the Shar’a forces the Muslims to differ, and there is a mercy in that.

Qiroatlardagi farq tushunishdagi farqlarga olib keladi. Har bir mujtahid o'zi tanlagan qiroatga muvofiq tushunchaga ega bo'ladi. Bu xuddi vudu (tahorat) oyatidagi oyoqlarni yuvish kerakmi yoki mash qilish kerakmi, degan ixtilofga o'xshaydi-mi?

- The difference in the qira’aat (readings) leads to differences in understanding. Every mujtahid will have an understanding in accordance to his reading. This is like the disagreement regarding the ayah of Wudu (ablution) in regards to whether the feet should be washed or be wiped?

- Ulamolar va fuqaholar ba’zi hadislar borasida ixtilof qilganlar. Biror hadis bir olim uchun sahih (ishonchli), boshqasi uchun esa sahih emas bo‘lishi mumkin, bu olimning hadislarni qabul qilish yoki rad etishda qo‘llagan usuliga bog‘liq. Masalan, mursal hadis misolini olaylik. Muhaddislar (hadis ilmi mutaxassislari), Usuliyyun (fiqh asoslari ilmi olimlari)

- The ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’ differed on certin ahadith. A hadith may be Sahih (authentic) for one scholar but not for another, depending upon the method employed by the scholar in accepting or rejecting ahadith. For instance let’s take the example of the Mursal hadith. The Muhaddithun (hadith experts), Usuliyyoon (scholars of the foundations of jurisprudence)

va bu ummatning a'immalari bo'lgan fuqaholar (faqihlar) mursal hadisni dalil sifatida qabul qilish masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Ba'zilari uni dalil sifatida qo'llagan, boshqalari esa uni munqati' hadis (ya'ni rivoyat zanjirida uzilish bo'lgan hadis) deb hisoblab, dalil sifatida qabul qilmaganlar.

and Fuqahaa’ (jurists) from the a’immah of this Ummah, have differed on the use of Mursal hadith as proof. Some used it as proof whilst others did not, considering it a Munqati’ hadith (ie an hadith that had a break in the chain of transmission.)

Ihtilof sabablaridan yana biri — dalillarning ziddiyatidir. Masalan, ba'zi matnlar najas (nopok) yoki harom narsani tibbiy maqsadda ishlatishni man qilgan, jumladan, Abu Dovud rivoyat qilgan hadisda: "Albatta, Alloh {jismoniy kasallikni} va shifoni nozil qildi hamda har bir kasallik uchun shifo yaratdi. Shunday ekan, harom bilan davolanmanglar" — boshqa matnlar esa najas (nopok) yoki harom moddadan foydalanishga ruxsat bergan, masalan, quyidagi hadisda:

- The conflict of evidences is another reason for difference. For example, some texts prohibited the use of something that is najas (impurity) or something that is haraam for medical purposes, as in the hadith, “Verily, Allah 􀀬 revealed the disease and the cure, and for every disease he has given a cure. So do not cure with the Haraam.” [Reported by Abu Dawud], whilst other texts permitted the use of the najas (impurity) or haraam substance, as in the hadith:

“Пайғамбар ﷺ Абд ар-Раҳмон ибн Авф ва аз-Зубайр розияллоҳу анҳумога қичишишдан азият чекаётгани сабабли ипак кийишга рухсат бергани” ва бухорий ривоят қилган ҳадис: “Мусулмонлар туяларнинг пешобини дори сифатида ишлатар эдилар ва бунда ҳеч қандай нохушлик кўрмас эдилар.” Агар бир масала бўйича аниқ матн бўлмаса, у ҳолда Аллоҳнинг ҳукмини топиш усули ижтиҳод бўлади, ижтиҳод эса ихтилофга мойил, тахминий ҳукмдир.

“That the Prophet 􀁕 permitted ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf and ah- Zubayr to wear silk because they suffered from itching” and like the hadith, “The Muslims used to use the urine of camels as medicine and they did not see anything wrong in that.” [Reported by Bukhari] - When there is no clear text regarding an issue, then the method of finding the rule of Allah 􀀬 will be by Ijtihaad, and Ijtihaad is a speculative rule prone to disagreement.

Arab tilining ma'nolar jihatidan kengligi ham ixtilofga sabab bo'ladigan omillardan biridir. Buni ishtirok (omonimlar), haqiqat (to'g'ri, asl ma'no), majoz (ko'chma ma'no), mutlaq (cheklanmagan) va muqayyad (cheklangan), 'omm (umumiy) va xos (aniq, alohida) kabi hodisalar ko'rsatib turadi.

- The expansive nature of the Arabic language in its meanings is also a cause for difference. The presence of Ishtiraak (homonyms), Haqeeqah (literal meaning), Majaz (the metaphorical), Mutlaq (absolute) and Muqayyad (restricted), ‘aamm (general) and Khaas (specific) illustrates this.

Shunday qilib, vahiy nozil bo‘lgan arab tilining tabiati shundaki, uning iboralari va sintaksisi turli ma’nolarga va xilma-xil ishoratlarga ochiqdir.

Thus, the nature of the Arabic language in which the revelation was sent down, is that its expressions and syntax are open to different meanings and diverse indications.

Shunday qilib, Alloh 􀀬ning ajrashgan ayollar haqidagi so‘zi: “Ajrashgan ayollar (turmushga chiqish masalasida) uch quru’ kutadilar.” [TMQ 2:228]. Arab tilida “quru’” so‘zi “pok bo‘lish” yoki hayz ko‘rish davri ma’nosini anglatishi mumkin. Lekin qaysi ma’no nazarda tutilgan? Bu mavzuda fuqaholar (huquqshunoslar) o‘rtasida ixtilof bo‘lishining sabablaridan biri ham shu edi.

Thus, the saying of Allah 􀀬 regarding the divorced women; “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three Quru.” [TMQ 2:228]. The word (quru’) in Arabic can mean either pure or the time of menstruation. But which meaning is intended? This was one of the reasons for the disagreement of the Fuqahaa’ (jurists) regarding this subject.

Bu umuman shariat haqida. Lekin muhokama qilinayotgan mavzuga bularning biror qismi tegishlimi? Boshqacha aytganda, shar'iy hukmlardagi ixtilofning ruxsat etilishi, ya'ni shariat tomonidan qabul qilingan narsa, o'zgarish uchun ishlayotgan harakatlar, guruhlar yoki partiyalarning ko'pligiga ruxsat beradimi? Yoki bu masalaning o'z xos dalillari bor, ular uni asl qoidadan istisno qiladimi?

This is regarding the Sharee’ah in general. But does any of what has been mentioned apply to the subject under discussion? In other words, does the permissibility of disagreement in the Shar’ee rules, which is accepted by the Shar’a, allow the plurality of movements, groups or parties working for change? Or does this subject have its own specific evidences which exclude it from the original rule?

Guruh yoki partiya matnlarni shar'iy tushunishga asoslangan bo'lib, ular turli yo'llar bilan tushunilishi mumkin bo'lgan matnlardir, xuddi boshqa har qanday shar'iy tushuncha kabi, faqat aniq hukmlar bundan mustasno. Guruh qabul qilgan shar'iy hukmlar istinbot qilingan shar'iy hukmlardir va ular to'g'ri yoki xato bo'lishi mumkin. Guruhda ko'p xatolarni ko'rgan musulmonning u bilan birga ishlashi joiz emas. Aksincha, u guruhga nasihat qilishi va u orqali Allohning 􀀬 huzurida gunohdan xalos bo'ladigan, unda ishlash orqali uni gunohdan xalos qiladigan guruhni izlashi kerak. Biz aytganimizdek, insonlarning tabiati, ularning ulamolari, shariat va arab tili ko'p xil tushunchalarga ruxsat berilganini ko'rsatadi. Aynan shu narsa bir necha guruhning mavjudligini oqlaydi. Bunda hech qanday zarar yo'q, agar bu tushunishdagi ixtilofdan ortiq bo'lmasa. Bunday holda haqiqatga eng yaqin turgan guruh yoki partiya bilan ishlash farz bo'lib qoladi.

The group or party is established on a Shar’ee understanding of texts that have the propensity to be understood in different ways, just like any other Shar’ee understanding is, except for that concerning the definite rules. The Shar’ee rules adopted by the group are Shar’ee rules that have been deduced, and are liable to be correct or mistaken. It is not allowed for a Muslim who sees many errors in a group to work with it. Rather he should advise it and search for the group that will relieve him of the sin in front of Allah 􀀬 through him working with it. As we have mentioned, the nature of people, their scholars, the Shar’a and Arabic language all indicate that it is permissible to have multiple understandings. This is what justifies the presence of more than one group. There is no harm in this, as long as it is not more than disagreement in understanding. In that case the work with the group or party that is closest to the truth becomes an obligation.

Bundan tashqari, quyidagi oyat ham bor:

In addition there is the ayah:

"Sizlardan shunday bir jamoa bo‘lsin, ular xayrga (Islomga) da’vat qilsinlar, ma’rufni buyursinlar va munkardan qaytarsinlar. Ana shular najot topguvchilardir." [TMQ 3:104] Bu oyatdagi buyruq shunga qaratilganki, kamida bir jamoa tashkil etilsin, uning vazifasi quyidagilardan iborat bo‘lsin: xayrga (Islomga) da’vat qilish, ma’rufga buyurish va munkardan qaytarish. Oyat bir jamoaning mavjudligini nazarda tutmaydi. Aks holda U, subhanahu, "Ummatun vohida (bir ummat)" deb aytardi. Balki buyurilgan narsa – da’vat, ma’rufga buyurish va munkardan qaytarish ishini qiladigan jamoaning turidir. Bu farz kifoya qilish farzi bo‘lib, uning vojibligi bir jamoaning mavjudligi bilan ado etiladi. Bir nechta jamoa mavjud bo‘lsa, bajariladigan ishni turlicha tushunishlari sababli, bunda hech qanday yomonlik yo‘q. Bunday ifoda yuzlab oyatlarda va hadislarda takrorlangan. Masalan, hadis: "Sizlardan kim munkarni ko‘rsa, uni qo‘li bilan o‘zgartirsin..." Bu bitta munkarni emas, balki munkar turini nazarda tutadi.

“And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khayr (Islam), enjoining the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). And it is they who are successful.” [TMQ 3:104] The order in this ayah is focussed on the obligation of establishing at least one group whose work will be the following; calling to the Khayr (Islam), enjoinng the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). The ayah does not mean the presence of one group. Otherwise He 􀀬 would have said: ‘Ummah waahidah (one Ummah).’ Rather what has been ordered is the type of group whose work will be da’wah, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar. This fard is a fard of sufficiency and its obligation is realised by the presence of one group. As for when more than one group exists, because of the different understandings of the work to be done, there is nothing wrong with that. This type of expression has been repeated in hundreds of ayaat and ahadith. For example the hadith; “Whosover amongst you sees a munkar, let him change it with his hand...” It does not mean one munkar, but the type of munkar.

Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi (Allah unga rahm qilsin) o‘zining “Din va davlat haqidagi islomiy tushunchalar” kitobida “Ma’ruf ishga buyurish va munkardan qaytarish vojibligi” bobida quyidagilarni keltirgan: “Oyatdagi ‘min’ (dan) harfi ‘va sizlardan shunday bir guruh bo‘lsinki, xayrga (Islomga) da’vat qilsinlar’ ma’nosida ekani ayon bo‘lmoqda. Bu shuni anglatmaydiki, musulmonlarga da’vat ishini, ma’ruf ishga buyurish va munkardan qaytarish vazifasini bajaradigan alohida bir guruh bo‘lishi buyurilgan, qolgan musulmonlarga esa asli bu vazifani bajarish vojib emas. Balki uning ma’nosi shuki, ummat hech bir vaqtda haqiqat va yaxshilik chirog‘idan kelayotgan nurni qo‘riqlaydigan, yomonlikning zulmatiga va yolg‘onning xavf-xatariga qarshi kurashadigan kamida bitta guruhsiz qolmasligi lozim. Musulmonlar orasida bunday guruh mavjud bo‘lmasa, ummatning Allohning la’natidan va og‘ir azobidan qutulishi mumkin emas, insoniyat uchun chiqarilgan eng yaxshi ummat bo‘lish esa gap ham emas.” Yuqorida aytib o‘tilganlarga asoslanib:

Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the following in his book ‘Islamic concepts regarding religion and state’ under the chapter on: The obligation of enjoning the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar; “What is apparant from the partative in the ayah; ‘And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khair (Islam).’ It does not mean that the Muslims are ordered to have a group that will undertake the obligation of da’wah to Islam, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar, whilst it is not an obligation on the rest of the Muslims to undertake this task in origin. Rather its meaning is the obligation that the Ummah should not be at any time without -at leastone group that will guard the light coming from the lamp of truth and goodness, and struggle against the darkness of evil and dangers of falsehood. When no such group exists amongst the Muslims, then it is impossible for the Ummah to be saved from the curse and severe punishment of Allah 􀀬, let alone be the best Ummah brought forth for mankind.” Based on what we have mentioned previously:

Biz shuni yaxshi bilishimiz kerakki, Shar’a ma’qullagan har bir narsa rahmatdir.

- We must know very well that whatever the Shar’a approves is a mercy.

Agar bu balo-ofatga aylangan bo‘lsa, bu faqat musulmonlarning tushunmovchiligi tufaylidir, boshqa hech narsa sababli emas. Bu ummatning ikki buyuk imomining mo‘tabar fiqhiga qarang: “Shuzur az-Zahab” (Oltin parchalari) kitobida zikr qilinishicha, bir kuni Imom Shofi‘iyning shogirdlari uning oldiga kelib, u Imom Ahmad ibn Hanbalni ziyorat qilishidan shikoyat qilganlar, shu bilan birga ular Imom Ahmadning shogirdlari bilan fikrlardagi ixtiloflari tufayli bahslashishgan. Shofi‘iy aytdi: “Ular deydilar: ‘Ahmad sizni ziyorat qiladi, siz esa uni ziyorat qilasiz’. Men aytaman: ‘Fazilatlar uning uyidan ajralmaydi’.”

If it turned into an affliction then that is because of the misunderstanding of the Muslims and nothing else. Look at the exalted Fiqh of two great Imaams of this Ummah; it has been mentioned in ‘Shuzuur az-Zahab’ (Fragments of gold) that the students of Shafi’i came to him one day complaining how he visits Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal, while they dispute with his students because of their differences in opinions. Shafi’i said; “They say; ‘Ahmad visits you and you visit him’, I say; ‘The virtues do not separate from his home.

Agar u mening oldimga kelsa, bu uning fazli tufaylidir va agar men unga borsam, bu uning lutfi tufaylidir.

If he visits me, then thanks to him, and if I visit him, this is because of his grace.

"…bu ikki holatda ham rahmat unga bo'lsin.'" Shunga o'xshash voqea Imom Ahmad shogirdlari va u bilan ham sodir bo'lgan. Shuning uchun Imom Ahmad ularga dedi: "Agar biz nasabda farq qilsak, bizni birlashtiradigan narsa – biz ota o'rniga qo'ygan ilmdir. Dengizlarning suvlari farq qilsa ham, biz bir idishdan oqib chiqqan toza suvmiz." Kimki barcha musulmonlarni bir amal ustida birlashtirishni istasa, u Shar'ning haqiqatini va odamlarning haqiqatini e'tiborsiz qoldirgan bo'ladi. Biz unga Imom Molik Horun ar-Rashidga aytgan so'zlarni aytamiz. Horun ar-Rashid Molikning fikr-tushunchasi va mazhabini qabul qilib, uni odamlarga majburiy qilmoqchi bo'lgan va boshqalarning tushunchasiga amal qilishni taqiqlamoqchi bo'lganida, Molik unga dedi: "Alloh 􀀬 musulmonlar uchun keng qilgan narsani ularga tor qilmang." Kofir davlatlar va ularning nazorati ostidagi tuzumlar Alloh 􀀬 hukmini o'rnatish uchun jiddiy harakat qilayotgan bir yoki bir necha guruhni ko'rganda, ularga qattiq choralar ko'rish va tuhmatlar tarqatishdan tashqari, ularni nazoratlari ostidagi guruhlar orqali chalg'itishga yoki muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchratishga urinadilar. Agar biz bir nechta guruh bo'lishi joiz emas deb faraz qilsak, bu guruh barcha boshqa guruhlar bilan birlashishi, ya'ni yaxshi va yomonni birga qamrab olishi kerak degani bo'ladi. Holbuki, talab etilayotgan narsa aksincha: yomonni tashlab, odamlarga foyda beradigan yaxshisini saqlashimiz kerak.

In both situations the grace is for him.’” A similar thing happened with the students of Imaam Ahmad and him. So Imaam Ahmad told them; “If we differ in lineage, then a knowledge which we have put in the position of a father unites us; If the water of the seas differ, we are all fresh (water) that streams out from one vessel.” - Whosoever wishes to unite all the Muslims on one action, besides his negligence of the reality of Shar’a and the reality of people, we say to him what Imaam Malik said to Harun ar-Rasheed when Harun ar- Rasheed wanted to adopt Malik’s understanding and mazhab (school of thought) and make it binding on the people and forbid them from (following) the understanding of others; “Do not make narrow for the Muslims that which Allah 􀀬 has made wide for them.” - When the Kaafir states and the regimes under their control see a group or groups working seriously to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬, in addition to using harsh measures against them and spreading rumours, they try to derail these groups or cause them to fail by establishing groups which are under their control. If we assume that having more than one group is not allowed, this means the group must unite with all the other groups, and thus include the good and the bad. But what is required is the opposite, where we have to throw away the bad, and keep the good that benefits the people.

Chunki bu taklif (islomiy ishni birlashtirish va guruhlarning ko‘pligini taqiqlash majburiyati) Shariat haqiqatiga, insonlarning haqiqatiga va vahiy nozil bo‘lgan tilga zid keladi.

- Since this suggestion, (the obligation of uniting the Islamic work and prohibiting the plurality of groups) contradicts the reality of the Shar’a, human beings and the language in which the revelation was sent down.

Bu imkonsiz taklifni amalga oshirib bo‘lmaydi. Uni muhokama qilish Xalifalikni o‘rnatish uchun qilinayotgan ishdan, ya’ni bundan ancha muhimroq vazifadan chalg‘itadi. Allohning 􀀬 Musulmonlarga faqat birlashsalargina yordam bermasligi haqidagi gap asossiz hukm bo‘lib, qabul qilib bo‘lmaydi. Aksincha, Alloh 􀀬 musulmonlarga Shar’iyatga amal qilmay, Alloh ipiga mahkam yopishmay va Uning amrini bajarmay turib yordam bermaydi. Alloh 􀀬 ular oz bo‘lsa ham yordam beradi. Chunki haqiqatga sodiq bo‘lgan bitta inson ko‘p hisoblanadi, batil ustida bo‘lgan ko‘p odamlar esa dengizdagi ko‘pikka o‘xshaydi.

Then this is an impossible suggestion to realise. Discussing it will remain a distraction from what is more important, which is the work to establish the Khilafah. The statement that Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims, unless they unite, is an baseless judgement that is unacceptable. Rather, Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims unless they adhere to the Shar’a and hold fast to the rope of Allah 􀀬 and fulfill His command. Allah 􀀬 will help them even if they are few. For the one person committed to the truth counts as many, while the many people who are on the falsehood are like the scum (of the sea).

Bu mavzuga yana bir so'z qo'shish qoldi: Xalifa va Islom davlatining mavjudligi musulmonlarni birlashtiruvchi eng muhim jihatdir; u bo'lmasa, birlashish bo'lmaydi. Tushunchalar baribir turlicha bo'lib qoladi, ammo bizga Xalifaga itoat qilish buyurilgan. Imom qarorni qabul qiladi va shu qarori bilan nizoni hal qiladi, lekin nizoning paydo bo'lishini oldini olmaydi va uni yo'q qilmaydi. Uning buyrug'iga musulmonlar oshkora ham, yashirin ham itoat qilishlari kerak. Partiya amiriga kelsak, uning buyrug'iga partiya ichida itoat qilinadi va u partiya a'zolari o'rtasidagi nizoni hal qiladi, umumiy musulmonlar o'rtasidagi nizoni emas.

It remains to mention a word on this subject, that the presence of the Khaleefah and the Islamic State is the most important aspect that unites the Muslims; there is no unification without it. The understandings will remain different, but we are ordered to obey the Khaleefah. The Imaam adopts, and by his adoption he settles the dispute, but he does not prevent the dispute or remove it. His order must be obeyed openly and secretly by the Muslims. As for the Ameer of a party, his order is obeyed within the party and he settles the dispute between the members of the party and not the Muslims at large.