14.4 Islam huquqshunosligining gullab-yashnashi
14.4 The Flourishing Of Islamic Jurisprudence
Odatda musulmonlar mujtahidlarga taqlid qilar edilar, ularning ixtilof qilishlariga qaramay, chunki ularning ixtiloflarining asosi shar'iy dalil edi. Shunday ekan, har bir mujtahidning Shoriy'ning xitobini (khitab al-shaari') tushunishi u uchun va uga taqlid qiluvchi uchun shar'iy hukm sifatida qabul qilinadi. Buning sababi shuki, Shoriy'ning xitobi hukmi shar'iydir va Shoriy'ning xitobini tushunish ham shar'iy hukmdir, lekin uni tushungan kishi uchun va uning bu tushunchasiga ergashgan kishi uchun. Shoriy'ning xitobiga yetishgan kishilar ijtihod qilar edilar. Ijtihod darajasiga yetmaganlar esa, ahkomda ijtihod darajasiga yetgan va ijtihod qilgan kishilarga ergashar edilar. Masala faqihning shaxsiga ergashish masalasi emas, xuddi mazhabga taqlid qilish masalasi bo'lmaganidek. Balki masala faqih chiqargan shar'iy hukmni qabul qilish va unga amal qilish masalasidir. Chunki musulmon faqat shar'iy hukmga ergashishga va unga amal qilishga buyurilgan, na biror mazhabga yoki shaxsga ergashishga, na biror muayyan mazhab bo'yicha ish tutishga va na biror muayyan shaxsga ergashishga. Agar u o'z ijtihodi orqali shar'iy hukmga yeta olsa, shuni qilishi kerak; yetmasa, boshqa birov chiqargan hukmni qabul qilishi kerak. Dastlabki asrlarda mujtahidlarning soni minglab kishilarga yetar edi. Shu sababli musulmonlar ergashgan mujtahidlar to'rt, besh, olti yoki boshqa biror sonli mazhab bilan cheklanmaganini ko'ramiz; aslida mazhablar va mujtahidlar ko'p edi. Har bir guruh mazhabdan bo'lsin yoki bo'lmasin, bir mujtahid chiqargan hukmlarga amal qilar edi. Masalan, Kufa aholisining umumiy qismi Abu Hanifa va Sufyon as-Savriy fatvolariga amal qilar edi, shia esa Ja'far as-Sodiq mazhabiga amal qilar edi. Makkah xalqining amaliyoti Ibn Jurayjning fatvosi bo‘yicha, Madina xalqiniki Molikning fatvolari bo‘yicha, Basra xalqiniki Uthmonning fatvolari bo‘yicha, Shom xalqiniki al-Avzoiyning fatvolari bo‘yicha, Misr xalqiniki Ibn Sa’dning fatvolari bo‘yicha, Xuroson xalqiniki Abdulloh ibn al-Muborakning fatvolari bo‘yicha, Yaman xalqining ba’zilari esa Zayd ibn al-Husaynning fatvolari bo‘yicha amal qilar edi. Ko‘plab musulmonlar Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, Ibn Abu Layla, Ikrima, Rabi’a ar-Ra’y, Muhammad ibn Shihob az-Zuhriy, Hasan al-Basriy, Lays ibn Sa’d, Sufyon ibn Uyayna, Ishoq ibn Rohaviya, Abu Savr, Dovud az-Zohiriy, Ibn Shubrima va Ibn Jarir at-Tabariyning fatvolariga ergashar edilar. Ularning har biri mujtahid bo‘lib, o‘z mazhabini yuritgan edi. Bu mazhablarning har birida ijtihodda o‘ziga xos usul va ahkomda o‘ziga xos ra’y (fikr) mavjud edi. Ko‘plab mujtahidlar va imomlar yurtlarda qozi va hokim bo‘lgan. Imomlar, qozilar va hokimlar o‘rtasidagi ixtiloflar ahkomlarda ham farqlarga olib keldi: har biri o‘z ra’yi yoki o‘zi ergashgan faqihning ra’yi bo‘yicha hukm chiqarar edi. Natijada davlatda turli xil hukmlar paydo bo‘ldi. Shu sababli hukm berishda qo‘llaniladigan qoidalarni birlashtirishni va xalifa tomonidan odamlarni unga amal qilishga buyurilishini istagan ulamolar bor edi. O‘sha paytda jamiyat ahvolini yaxshi biladigan ayrim kishilar qozilar va boshqalar murojaat qiladigan keng qamrovli kitob yozilishi kerak, deb hisobladilar. Shunda qozilarning yukini yengillashtirish va da’vogarlar uchun ishni osonlashtirish mumkin bo‘lar edi. Ibn al-Muqaffa’ bu masala yuzasidan xalifa al-Mansurga xat yozdi, unda shunday deyilgan edi:
The Muslims generally used to perform Taqlīd to the mujtahidin despite their disagreements since the basis of their disagreements was the Sharī’ah evidence. So the understanding of every mujtahid of the address of the Legislator (khitab al-shaari’) is considered a Sharī’ah rule with respect to him and with respect to the one who makes Taqlīd to him. This is because because the address of the Legislator is the hukm shar’i (Sharī’ah rule) and the understanding of the Legislator’s address is a Sharī’ah rule but in respect to the one who understood it and in respect to the one who follows him in this understanding. Those who attained the understanding of the Legislator’s address used to perform Ijtihād. Those who did not reach the level of Ijtihād used to follow, in ahkām (rules), those who had reached the level of Ijtihād and practised Ijtihād. The issue was not that of following the faqih personally just as the issue is not one of making Taqlīd to a mazhab. Rather, the issue is about adopting the hukm shar’i deduced by the faqih and acting upon it. Since, the Muslim is ordered to follow the Sharī’ah rule only and act upon it and not follow a mazhab or person or act according to any particular mazhab or follow any particular person. When he is able to reach the hukm shar’i through his own Ijtihād he should do that, if not he should adopt a hukm deduced by someone else. In the early ages the mujtahidin could be counted by the thousands. That is why we find that the mujtahidin whom the Muslims used to follow were not restricted to four, five, six or any number of mazhabs, in fact there were many mazhabs and numerous mujtahidin. Each group used to follow rules deduced by a mujtahid whether he was from a mazhab or not. For example, the general population of Kufa acted upon the fatwa of Abu Hanifah and Sufyan al-Thawri but the Shi’a used to act upon the mazhab of Ja’far al-Sadiq. The practise of the people of Makkah used to be according to the fatwa of Ibn Jurayj and the people of Madina on the fatwas of Malik and the people of Basra on the fatwas of ‘Uthman and the people of al-Sham on the fatwas of al-Awza’i and the people of Egypt on the fatwas of Ibn Sa’d, and the people of Khurasan on the fatwas of ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak and some of the people of Yemen on the fatwas of Zayd ibn al-Husayn. Many of the Muslims used to follow the fatwas of Sa’id ibn al Musayyab, Ibn Abi Layla, ‘Ikrama, Rabi’i Ar-Ra’i, Muhammad ibn shihaab Az-Zuhri , Hasan Al Basari, Laith ibn sa’ad, Sufyan Ibn ‘Uyayna, Ishaq ibn Rahawiya, Abi Thawr, Dawud Az-Zahiri, Ibn shibrima and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Each of them was a Mujtahid and lead a mazhab. Each of the mazhabs from these mazhabs had a particular methodology in Ijtihād and a particular ra’i (opinion) in the ahkam. Many of the Mujtahidin and Imams were judges and rulers in the lands. The differences among the imams and the judges and rulers lead to a difference in the ahkam (rules), each one judged with his own opinion or according to the opinion of a faqih whose opinion he held. This resulted in the presence of different judgements in the state, due to this there were ‘Ulamā who were obviously inclined towards unifying the ruling by which judgement is given and wanted the Khalifah to issue an order for people to adhere to it. At that time, certain people who knew about the situation of the society took the view that a comprehensive book should be written to which judges and other should refer, so as to lighten the burden of the judges and make it easy for the litigants. Ibn al-Muqaffa’ wrote a letter to the Khalifah al-Mansur regarding this matter, in which it was mentioned:
‘Amir al-mu’minin nimani ko‘radi, Basra va Kufa shaharlari hamda boshqa shaharlar va hududlar masalasida, qon, nomus va mulkka oid hukmlardagi, ziddiyatli hukmlar orasidagi farq haqida, bu farq hukmlarda katta miqyosga yetgan? Basrada qon va nomusga oid ruxsat berilgan narsa Kufada harom hisoblanadi; bunday ixtiloflar Kufaning o‘zida ham uchraydi: bir hududda ruxsat etilgan narsa boshqa hududda man etilgan. Shunday bo‘lsa-da, turli shakllariga qaramay, bu hukmlar musulmonlar hayotida, ularning qoni va muqaddas mulkida qonuniy kuchga ega bo‘lib, qozilar ular bilan to‘g‘ri hukm chiqaradilar. Agar Amir al-mu’minin buni to‘g‘ri deb hisoblasa va buyursa, bu turli hukmlar va yo‘llar unga yozma ravishda, Sunnat va qiyosdan olingan dalillari bilan birga yetkazilsin. Shunday bo‘lsa-da, turli shakllariga qaramay, bu hukmlar musulmonlar hayotida, ularning qoni va muqaddas mulkida qonuniy kuchga ega bo‘lib, qozilar ular bilan to‘g‘ri hukm chiqaradilar. Agar u bu borada kitob yozsa, biz Alloh taolo o‘sha hukmlarni, ya’ni to‘g‘risi noto‘g‘risi bilan aralashgan hukmlarni, xuddi shu to‘g‘ri hukmga aylantirishini umid qilamiz. Shuningdek, masalaning amalda qo‘llanilishi Amir al-mu’minin fikri va so‘ziga ko‘ra bo‘lishini ham umid qilamiz.
‘ What does the Ameer al-mu’minin see regarding the matter of these two cities ; Basrah and Kufah and other cities and regions, about the difference of these contradictory rulings which has reached great proportions in rulings relating to blood, chastity and property. The rules concerning blood and chastity allowed in Basrah are forbidden in Kufah, such disagreements are taking place in the heart of Kufah as well, something is allowed in one area but not in another. However, despite its various forms it is legally valid in the life of Muslims, in their blood and sacred possessions, where judges validly judge with it. If the Ameer ul Mumineen sees it is appropriate and ordered that these different verdicts and courses be reported to him in writing together with the supporting evidences from the Sunnah and Qiyas: However, despite its various forms it is legally valid in the life of Muslims, in their blood and sacred possessions, where judges validly judge with it. If he then wrote a book in that, we would then hope that Allah makes these verdicts, in which the right one is mixed with the wrong one, the same correct one. We would also hope that the convention of the matter will be by the opinion and on the word of Ameer ulM’umineen.’
Biroq, al-Mansur bu xatga amal qilmadi, garchi u bilan qoyil qolgan bo‘lsa ham. Shuning uchun u fuqaho va muhaddislarga, odamlarda murojaat qilishlari mumkin bo‘lgan manbalar bo‘lishi uchun, o‘zlariga yetib kelgan narsalarni yozib qoldirishni buyurish choralarini ko‘rdi. Al-Mansur Ibn al-Muqaffa’ning fikriga ko‘ra davlat uchun konstitutsiya va qonunlar qabul qilib, xalqni muayyan ahkomlar atrofida birlashtirishi mumkin bo‘lgan ishni amalga oshirmaganining sababi uning Molik bilan o‘rtasida yuz bergan voqea edi. Ibn Sa’d “at-Tabaqot” kitobida rivoyat qiladi: Molik ibn Anas dedi:
However, al-Mansur did not act upon this letter although he was impressed by it. So he took steps to make the Fuqaha and the muhaddithin record what has reached them until people had references to which they could refer. The reason for al-Mansur not acting upon the opinion of Ibn al-Muqaffa’ in laying down a constitution and canons for the state which would have brought the people together on specific ahkāms was what transpired between him and Malik. Ibn Sa’ad narrates in al-Tabaqat that Malik bin Anas said:
Когда аль-Мансур совершал хадж, он сказал мне: «Я решил приказать людям следовать книгам, которые ты написал. Их перепишут, затем я пошлю копию в каждый мусульманский город, и прикажу им действовать согласно им и не обращаться ни к каким другим трудам». Тогда я сказал: «О Повелитель верующих! Не делай этого. У людей уже есть свои мнения, они слышали хадисы и передавали предания; каждый народ уже придерживается того, что принял. Оставь людей, пусть жители каждой земли сами выбирают для себя».
When al-Mansur performed hajj he said to me: I have taken the decision to order people to follow the books which you have written. They will be copied then I will send a copy to every Muslim city and and I will order them to act upon them and not refer to any other works. So I said O Ameer al-Mu’minin! Do not do this. The people already hold opinions, and they have heard ahadīth and narrated reports, each people took what they already followed it, leave the people, let the people of each land chose for themselves.’
Shu sababli mazhablar va fikrlar birlashmadi, ijtihod va ra’y esa odamlarda qoldi: ular to‘g‘ri deb bilgan hukmni qabul qilishar edi. Qozilar va hukmdorlar ham o‘zlari munosib deb bilgan narsa bilan hukm chiqarish ixtiyorida qoldi. Shu tufayli har bir fiqh imomining o‘z fikrlarini o‘rganish, mazhabini tushuntirish uchun kelgan shogirdlari bo‘ldi va yuz bergan ixtilofga bo‘lgan qarash o‘zgardi hamda u mustaqil ilmga aylandi; uni ilm al-xilof (ixtilof ilmi) deb atashdi. Ular uni xuddi usul al-fiqhni o‘rganganday o‘rganishdi. Ular imomlarning ixtilofi rahmat ekanini aytishdi. Har bir imomning shogirdi furu’ (fiqh tarmoqlari)ni kengaytirar edi. Aynan shu kengaytirish ayrim mujtahidlarning mazhablarini saqlab qoldi, boshqalarining yo‘qolib ketishiga sabab bo‘ldi. Al-Avzo‘iy, al-Hasan al-Basriy, as-Savriy va Ibn Jarir at-Tabariy ilmining kengligi va ijtihodi jihatidan eng buyuk imomlardandir. Biroq ular furu’da kengaytirish bilan shug‘ullanmay, o‘zlarini usul bilan chegaralab qo‘yishdi va mazhablarining mavqeini bayon qiladigan shogirdlari bo‘lmadi, shu sababli ularga amal qilinmadi va ular yoyilmadi. Qolgan imomlar, masalan, Abu Hanifa, Ja’far as-Sodiq, Zayd ibn al-Husayn, ash-Shofi’iy, Ahmad ibn Hanbal va Molik esa shogirdlar va izdoshlarga ega bo‘ldilar, shu sababli ularning mazhablari yozib olindi va davom etdi. Abu Ja’far al-Mansur Ja’far as-Sodiq va Ali avlodidan bo‘lgan boshqalarga cheklovlar qo‘ygan bo‘lsa-da, u hukmlar chiqardi va shia hamda boshqalardan shogirdlari bo‘ldi. Ular uning fikrlarini yozib oldilar va ularni sunnatga o‘xshash deb bilishdi. Uning mazhabi dunyoning ko‘plab mintaqalarida yoyildi. Abu Hanifaning ko‘p shogirdlari bo‘lgan, ulardan eng mashhurlari Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaniy va Zufar. Ularning barchasi Abu Hanifa kabi mujtahid edilar. Garchi ular o‘z fikrlarini uning fikrlari bilan aralashtirib yuborgan bo‘lsalar-da, Abu Hanifa mazhabini yozib qoldirgani uchun ularga shuhrat berilishi kerak. Imom Molik haqida ham xuddi shunday. U Madinada yashagan; uning ko'plab shogirdlari hadisni va hadis rivoyat qiluvchilarini tekshirishda, ayniqsa "al-Muvatta" kitobi bo'yicha, keng tanilgan edilar. Uning vafotidan keyin shogirdlari uning fatvolarini yozib borishdi, furu'ni kengaytirishdi va masalalar yuzasidan o'z fikrlarini bildirishdi. Molikning shuhratiga qaramay, uning mazhabini tarqatish xizmati shogirdlariga tegishlidir. Ash-Shofi'iyga kelsak, u usul al-fiqh sohasida o'z qo'li bilan ulkan shuhratga erishgan. Bu uning katta asari "al-Umm"da, shuningdek "ar-Risola" va "Ibtol al-istihsan" kitoblarida ko'rinadi; ular o'sha davrdagi ilmiy uyg'onishning eng yorqin namunalaridir. Uning shogirdlari, masalan ar-Rabi' va al-Muzaniy, shu usulni davom ettirib, uning fikrlarini o'rganishdi va mazhabini kengaytirdilar, shu sababli u keng tarqaldi. Xuddi shunday, Ahmad ibn Hanbalning mazhabida hadis ustun bo'lishiga qaramay, uning ham mazhabini kengaytirib, fikrlarini o'rgangan shogirdlari bo'lgan. Avvalo va eng ko'p xizmat ushbu shogirdlarga tegishlidir: ular nafaqat ustozlari va imomlarining mazhabini tarqatishdi, balki fiqhni sharhlashga va uning gullab-yashnashini ta'minlashga ham xizmat qilishdi. Ularning davri imomlar davridan ham yorqinroq deb hisoblangan, chunki aynan shu davrda ahkomlarga sharhlar yozildi va dalillar izohlandi. Shu tariqa faqihlar fiqhni o'rganish va sharhlashda, ayniqsa fiqhning haqiqiy asosi bo'lgan usul al-fiqh ilmida oldinga intilishdi. Fiqh keng tarqalib, katta rivoj topguncha davom etdi. Uning eng yuqori gullagan davri mazhablar shakllanganidan bir asr keyin, hijriy to'rtinchi asrda bo'ldi.