19.2 Xalifaning qoidalar va uslublarni qabul qilishi, ya'ni qonunlarni (kanonlarni) qabul qilish

19.2 Xalifaning qoidalar va uslublarni qabul qilishi, ya'ni qonunlarni (kanonlarni) qabul qilish - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

0% read · 11 min left

Islomiy shaxsiyat Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

19.2 Xalifaning qoidalar va uslublarni qabul qilishi, ya'ni qonunlarni (kanonlarni) qabul qilish

19.2 The Khalifah's Adoption Of Rules And Styles I.e. Adopting Canons

by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī11 min readViewed 102 times

"Kanunlar" so'zining arab tilidagi ma'nosi asoslar (usul) bo'lib, yakka shakli "kanun" (qonun)dir. Bu so'z chet tilidan olingan va arab tiliga o'zlashtirilgan. Chet elliklarning istilohida kanun hukmdor tomonidan odamlar unga amal qilishi uchun e'lon qilingan buyruqdir. Kanun, shuningdek, "hukmdor odamlarni o'z munosabatlarida amal qilishga majbur qiladigan qoidalar majmuasi" deb ham ataladi. Kanun asosan ikki turga bo'linadi. Birinchidan, munosabatlarni o'z asosidan tartibga soluvchi qoidalar ikki xil bo'ladi. Birinchisi – asosiy kanun, ya'ni konstitutsiya; ikkinchisi – konstitutsiyaga kirmagan boshqa kanunlardir. Kanunlarning ikkinchi turiga kelsak, ular ikkilamchi harakatlarni tartibga soladi, ularga xos aniq hukm yo'q, lekin asosida umumiy hukm bor bo'lgan harakatlarni tartibga soladi. Yoki asosiy harakatlarni bajarish vositalarini, ya'ni usullarini tartibga soladi, ularning umumiy hukmi bor, lekin tarmog'ining aniq hukmi yo'q. Yoki vositalarni tartibga soladi. Ular ma'muriy kanunlar yoki ma'muriy tizimlar yoki shunga o'xshash nomlar bilanataladi. Shariat qoidalovchisining (Ash-Shoriy') so'zi bandalarning harakatlariga va ularga amal qilishni zimmalariga yuklashga doir bo'lganligi sababli, ularni tartibga solish Allohdan (SWT) keladi. Islom shariati odamlarning barcha harakatlariga va barcha munosabatlariga, ya'ni Alloh bilan munosabatlariga, o'zlari bilan munosabatlariga yoki boshqalar bilan munosabatlariga taalluqlidir. Shuning uchun Islomda odamlar tizimlarni tartibga solish uchun kanunlar chiqarishga o'rin yo'q, chunki ular shariat bilan cheklangandir. Alloh (SWT) aytadi:

Alloh (swt) insondir, qonunlarni xalqqa aynan U belgilaydi, hukmdor emas. U xalqni ham, hukmdorni ham munosabatlarida ularga amal qilishga majbur qiladi, ular bilan o'zini cheklashga va boshqa (har qanday) qoidalarga ergashishdan qaytaradi. Shuning uchun inson xalq munosabatlarini tartibga solish uchun qoidalar belgilashiga joy yo'q, hukmdorning ham xalqni majburlashiga yoki ularga inson tomonidan o'z munosabatlarini tartibga solish uchun yaratilgan tamoyil va qoidalarga ergashish imkonini berishiga joy yo'q. Biroq, bandalarning harakatlariga oid Shariat hukmlari — Qur'on va Sunnatda kelgan Qonun chiqaruvchining kalomi bo'lib, ularning ichida arab tili va shar'iy ma'noga ko'ra turli ma'nolarni anglatishi mumkin bo'lgan ko'p narsa bor. Shuning uchun odamlarning ularni tushunishda farqlanishi tabiiy va muqarrardir, bu tushunish farqi esa ajralish va murod qilingan ma'nolardagi ixtiloflar chegarasiga olib keladi. Demak, bitta hukm doirasida ajralgan va turli fikrlar bo'lishi uchun turlicha tushunchalarga ega bo'lish muqarrardir. Rasulullah ﷺ Ahzob (Ittifoqchilar) jangida aytganlarida:

Allah (swt) is the One who legislates laws for the people, not the ruler, and He compels them and the ruler to follow them in their relationships, to restrict themselves by them and to prevent them from following (any) other (rules). Therefore there is no place for the human being to lay down rules to organise people’s relationships, nor any place for the ruler to compel people or give them an option to follow principles and rules laid done by human beings organising their relationships. However the Shari’ah rules, which is the speech of the Legislator related to the actions of the slaves, came in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and there is much with them that carries (potentially) different meanings according to the Arabic language and the Shar’a. So it is natural and inevitable that people differ in understanding them, and that this difference in understanding leads to the limit of separation and differences in the intended meaning(s). Therefore it is inevitable to have separated and different understandings so that due to this, there can be separated and differing opinions in one rule. When the Messenger (saw) said in the battle of the Allies:

Uning ma'nosi shuki, musulmon kofir uchun o'ldirilmaydi va ahd bergan kishi ham kofir uchun o'ldirilmaydi. Ahd bergan kishi kofir bo'lgani uchun, "kofir" so'zi harbiy kofir degan ma'noni anglatishi kerak, ya'ni ahd bergan kofir harbiy kofir uchun o'ldirilmaydi. Demak, hadisning ma'nosi: musulmon harbiy kofir uchun o'ldirilmaydi va ahd bergan kishi harbiy kofir uchun o'ldirilmaydi; uning tushunilishi shuki, musulmon harbiy bo'lmagan kofir uchun o'ldiriladi va ahd bergan kishi harbiy bo'lmagan kofir uchun o'ldiriladi. Ahd bergan kishi kofir bo'lib, uning musulmon kabi kofir uchun o'ldirilmasligi hadisdagi "kofir" so'zining ma'nosi zimmiy emas, balki harbiy kofir ekanini ko'rsatadi. Buni rivoyat qilingan narsa ham mustahkamlaydi: Rasulullah ﷺ huzuriga yahudiyni o'ldirgan bir musulmon keltirildi va u uni o'ldirdi. Tushunishdagi bu farq hukmdagi farqni keltirib chiqaradi. Xuddi shu narsa ko'plab oyat va hadislarga ham taalluqlidir. Bir hukmdagi ixtiloflar musulmonga ularning orasidan bir fikrni qabul qilishni zaruriy qiladi, chunki ular barchasi shariat hukmlaridir va bir shaxsga nisbatan Allohning hukmi bittadan ortiq bo'la olmaydi. Shuning uchun ulardan birortasini qabul qilish uchun aniq bir hukmni belgilash zarurdir. Musulmonning shariat hukmlarini qabul qilishi shartdir va amal qilganda bundan hech qanday yo'l bilan qochib bo'lmaydi. Bir hukmga amal qilish majburiyati, u vojib, mustahab, haram, makruh yoki mubah bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, aniq bir hukmni qabul qilishni taqozo etadi. Shuning uchun har bir musulmonga, u mujtahid bo'lsinmi yoki muqallid, xalifa bo'lsinmi yoki bo'lmasin, qabul qilish vojibdir. U aniq bir hukmni qabul qilganda, bu shariat hukmi unga nisbatan Allohning hukmiga aylanadi va faqat shunga muvofiq amal qilish, uni odamlarga o'rgatish va shunga asoslanib Islomga da'vat qilish unga vojib bo'ladi. Muslimning biror hukmni qabul qilishining ma'nosi — uni amalga oshirish, boshqalarga o'rgatish va Islomning hukmlari hamda fikrlariga da'vat qilganda unga chaqirishdir. Musulmon muayyan hukmni qabul qilganda, bu hukm o'z-o'zidan uning uchun Allohning hukmiga aylanadi va uni uch holatdan boshqa hollarda tark etishi joiz emas: Birinchidan: Agar unga dalilning zaifligi aniq bo'lsa va uning dalilidan kuchliroq, Allohning hukmi shu kuchliroq dalil ko'rsatgan narsa ekanini bildiruvchi dalil namoyon bo'lsa. Bu holda u qabul qilgan narsani tark etib, yangi fikrni qabul qilishi vojib bo'ladi, chunki u endi uning uchun Allohning hukmiga aylangan. Ikkinchidan: Agar u yangi fikr istidlolda undan bilimliroq, istidlolda aniqroq yoki Shar'iy ilmi kengroq bo'lgan kishi tomonidan qabul qilingan deb o'ylay boshlasa. Bu holda u qabul qilgan narsani tark etib, boshqa narsani qabul qilishi joiz, chunki mashhur sahobalarning o'z fikrlarini tark etib, boshqalarning fikrini qabul qilgani isbotlangan. Abu Bakr (roziyallohu anhu) Aliy (roziyallohu anhu)ning fikrini qabul qilib, o'z fikridan qaytgan va Umar (roziyallohu anhu) ham Aliy (roziyallohu anhu)ning fikrini qabul qilib, o'z fikridan voz kechgan. Uchinchidan: Agar niyat musulmonlarning bir fikr atrofida birlashishi bo'lsa. Bu holda musulmon qabul qilgan fikrini tark etib, musulmonlarning nazarini birlashtirmoqchi bo'lgan fikrni qabul qilishi joiz, chunki Utmon (roziyallohu anhu)ning odamlardan Allohning Kitobi, Uning Rasulining Sunnati va undan keyingi ikki sheyx — Abu Bakr va Umarning fikrlari asosida bay'at olishga rozi bo'lgani isbotlangan. Sahobalar uning qilgan ishiga, ya'ni qabul qilgan narsasini tark etib, Abu Bakr (roziyallohu anhu) va Umar (roziyallohu anhu) qabul qilgan narsani qabul qilishiga rozi bo'lganlar. Bunday vaziyatlarda musulmon o‘zi qabul qilgan narsani tark etib, boshqasini qabul qiladi; bundan tashqari, uni hech qanday tarzda tark etishi joiz emas, chunki Shariat har bir shaxsga murojaat qilgan va har bir musulmonning zimmasida ijtihod yoki taqlid orqali yetib kelgan narsani qabul qilish vojibdir. Qabul qilgach, u Shariat dalilida istisno qilingan holatlar bundan mustasno, qabul qilgan narsasiga amal qilishga majburdir.

Its meaning is that a Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever, nor is the covenanted person killed for a disbeliever. Since the covenanted person is a disbeliever, it necessitates that the word disbeliever means belligerent i.e. the covenanted disbeliever is not killed for a belligerent disbeliever. So the hadith’s meaning is that the Muslim is not killed for a belligerent disbeliever, nor is a covenanted person killed for a belligerent disbeliever; its understanding is that the Muslim is killed for a non-belligerent disbeliever and the covenanted person is killed for a non belligerent disbeliever. The covenanted person is a disbeliever and his being like the Muslim who is not killed for a disbeliever indicated that the meaning of the word “disbeliever” in the hadith is the belligerent disbeliever not the dhimmi. This is strengthened by what is narrated that there was a Muslim brought to the Messenger of Allah (saw) who had killed a Jew so he killed him. With this variation in understanding, there is variation in the rule. The same applies to many ayat and ahadith. The difference of opinions in one rule makes it inevitable upon the Muslim to adopt one opinion among them as they are all Shari’ah rules and the rule of Allah in respect of one person cannot be more than one. Therefore it is inevitable to specify one rule among them to adopt, thus the Muslim’s adoption of the Shari’ah rules is essential and there is absolutely no escape from this in any way when one performs the action. The mere obligation of acting upon one rule whether it is obligatory or recommended or prohibited or disliked or allowed obliges the adoption of a specific rule. Therefore it is obligatory upon each Muslim to adopt whether he is a mujtahid or a follower (muqallid), Khalifah or not. When he adopts a specific rule, this Shari’ah rule becomes the rule of Allah upon him and it becomes obligatory upon him to act according to it alone, teach it to people and call to Islam based upon it. This is because the meaning of the Muslim’s adoption of the rule is to act according to it, teaching it to others and calling to it when he calls to the rules and thoughts of Islam. When the Muslim adopts a specific rule this rule becomes in itself the rule of Allah upon him, and it is not allowed for him to leave it except in three (cases): Firstly, if the weakness of the evidence becomes clear to him and there appears stronger evidence than its evidence which is attributed to him that the rule of Allah is that indicated by the stronger evidence. In this case, it is obliged upon him to leave what he adopted and to adopt the new opinion since it has become the rule of Allah upon him. Secondly: If he begins to think that the new opinion was adopted by one more knowledgeable than him in deduction and more precise in deduction or has more comprehensive knowledge about the Shar’a. In this case, it is allowed for him to leave what he adopted and adopt something else due to what is proved about the famous Sahabah who left their opinions and adopted the opinion of others. Abu Bakr (ra) adopted Ali’s (ra) opinion and left his opinion, and Umar (ra) adopted Ali’s (ra) opinion and left his own. Thirdly: If the intention is to unify the Muslims’ standpoint upon one opinion. In this case, it is allowed for the Muslim to leave the opinion he adopted and adopt the opinion which he wishes to unify the Muslims’ standpoint due to what was proved about Uthman who accepted to take the pledge from the people upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the opinion(s) of the two Sheikhs after him, Abu Bakr and Umar. The Sahabah consented to him doing what he did which is leaving what he adopted and adopting what Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) had adopted. In these situations, the Muslim leaves what he adopted and adopt something else; apart from these (situations), he is not allowed to leave it in any way since the Shari’ah addressed each individual and it is upon each Muslim to adopt what he reached via ijtihad or following (taqleed). Once he adopted, he is obliged upon what he adopted save the situations excluded by the Shari’ah evidence.

Bu har bir insonning o‘zi bilan o‘z munosabatlarini tartibga solishiga oiddir. Ummat ishlarini yuritish, Xalifaning hukmdorlik mas'uliyatini o‘z zimmasiga olishi va Allohning hukmlarini odamlar ustida o‘rnatishi bilan bog‘liq masalaga kelsak, shubhasiz, u xalqning ishlarini ular asosida boshqarish uchun muayyan qoidalarni qabul qilishi shart. U, shuningdek, barcha musulmonlar uchun umumiy bo‘lgan masalalarda, hukmronlik va hokimiyat ishlarida, masalan, zakot, xaroj (yer solig‘i), tashqi munosabatlar va davlat birligi hamda hukmronlikka tegishli barcha masalalarda muayyan qoidalarni qabul qilishi kerak. Xalifaning bunday vaziyatlarda qoidalarni qabul qilishi majburiydir, ixtiyoriy emas, chunki u musulmon sifatida qilayotgan amallariga nisbatan majburiy masaladir: u o‘z harakatlarining barchasini o‘ziga yuklangan Allohning muayyan hukmi asosida yo‘naltirishga majburdir. Bu jihatdan shaxsiy masalalar bilan jamoat masalalari o‘rtasida farq yo‘q. Hukmronlik va hokimiyat masalalari esa ishlarni yuritishning asosiy amallari qatoriga kiradi, ular bitta muayyan qoida asosida yo‘naltirilishi unga farz qilingan. Davlat birligiga aloqador masalalar esa bitta muayyan qoida asosida yo‘naltirilishi kerak, chunki davlat birligi farzdir va unga olib boradigan har bir amal ham farzdir. Shuning uchun u bilan bog‘liq hamma narsa uchun bitta qoidani qabul qilish majburiy, ixtiyoriy emas. Bundan tashqari masalalarda esa Xalifaga odamlarni amal qilishga majbur qiladigan muayyan qoidalarni qabul qilish mubohdir, va qabul qilmaslik ham mubohdir. U bu borada musulmonlarning manfaati, Islom tarqalishini mustahkamlash, uning hukmlarini o‘rgatish, hukmronlik adolati va hokimiyat qudratiga ko‘proq mos keladigan narsani ko‘rganicha ish tutadi. Abu Bakr (r.a.) odamlar zimmasiga majbur qilgan shariat qoidalarini qabul qildi, uning ortidan Umar (r.a.), Usmon (r.a.) va Ali (r.a.) ham odamlarni amal qilishga majbur qilgan qoidalarni qabul qildilar. Sahobalar bu masala bo‘yicha butun davrlari davomida sukut saqlashdi, va ularning hech biri hukmlarni qabul qilishni, ularni odamlarga majburiy qilishni va o‘zlari qabul qilgan hukmlarga amal qilmaslikni rad etgani haqida hech narsa eshitilmagan. Holbuki, bu rad etiladigan narsalar qatoriga kiradi, chunki bu odamlarni o‘zlari qabul qilgan hukmlarni tark etishga majbur qilishdir, ular esa ularga nisbatan Allohning (SWT) hukmlaridir. Shunday ekan, Khalifaning ma’lum hukmlarni qabul qilishi va odamlarni ularga amal qilishga majbur qilishi mumkinligi sahobalarning ijmo’sidir. Shuning uchun, agar Khalifa ma’lum hukmlarni qabul qilsa, ular uning zimmasida qabul qilishi lozim bo‘lgan narsalar doirasiga kirsinmi yoki qabul qilishi ruxsat etilgan narsalar doirasiga kirsinmi, uning fuqarolari orasidagi har bir musulmonga ushbu hukmga amal qilish va ilgari qabul qilgan hukmiga amal qilishni tark etish vojibdir. Chunki Khalifa qabul qilgan narsa amal jihatidan unga nisbatan Allohning hukmiga aylanadi. Unga bu hukmga zid ish qilish joiz emas; aksincha, uning faqat shunga amal qilishi vojibdir, hatto bu uning fikriga ko‘ra boshqacha bo‘lsa yoki uning nazarida dalili zaif bo‘lsa ham. Buning sababi, sahobalarning ijmo’si Imom ma’lum hukmlarni qabul qilishi mumkinligi, ularga amal qilishni buyurishi va musulmonlar uning ijtihodlaridan farq qilsa ham unga itoat qilishlari vojib ekanligi haqida xulosa qilganidir. Bu borada mashhur shar’iy qoidalar quyidagilardir:

Ya'ni, uning (Xalifaning) va odamlarning o'rtasida Davlatga itoat qilish bor, Allah (swt) bilan uning o'rtasida esa, Imom qabul qilgan narsa amal jihatidan unga nisbatan Allahning hukmiga aylanadi. Biroq, odamlarning Imomning buyrug'iga itoat etishi, uning qabul qilgan hukmlariga muvofiq amal qilish majburiyati va o'z fikrlariga hamda o'zlari qabul qilgan narsalarga amal qilmaslik, Imom qabul qilgan narsani qabul qilish hisoblanmaydi. Bu, balki, uning (Xalifaning) buyrug'iga itoat qilish va amal jihatidan qabul qilgan narsani ijro etishdir, qabul qilgan narsani qabul qilish emas. Shu sababli, har bir musulmonga Imom qabul qilganidan farqli bo'lsa ham, hukmlardan o'zi qabul qilganini o'rgatish va Islomga da'vat qilganda ularga chaqirish joiz. Chunki sahobalarning ijmo'si Xalifaning qabul qilganiga amal qilish majburiyati haqida bo'lib, o'rgatish yoki da'vat (targ'ib) haqida emas; u faqat amalga xosdir. Shunday ekan, Abu Bakr (ra) musulmonlar o'rtasida molni teng taqsimlar edi, Islomni kimning erta qabul qilgani yoki kech qabul qilganiga qaramasdan. Umar (ra) esa boshqacha fikrda edi: bir kishi va uning Islomni erta qabul qilgani hamda boshqa bir kishi va uning kech qabul qilgani nazarda tutilgan. U bu masalada Abu Bakr (ra) bilan bahslashdi, lekin Abu Bakr (ra) qabul qilganiga itoat qildi va uning fikrini qabul qilgan holda qoldi. Xalifa etib tayinlanganda, u Abu Bakr (ra) fikriga amal qilishni bekor qildi va o'z fikriga amal qildi. Demak, musulmonning fikrni qabul qilishi bilan Xalifaning qabul qilganiga itoat qilishi o'rtasida farq bor. Xalifaning qabul qilganiga itoat qilish faqat unga amal qilishni majburiy qiladi, unga chaqirishni yoki uni o'rgatishni emas. Fikrni qabul qilishga kelsak, u uni o'rgatish, unga chaqirish va unga amal qilishdir. Shu sababli siyosiy guruhlarning mavjud bo'lishi joiz, ya'ni... Khalifa qabul qilgan fikrlardan farq qiladigan fikrlarni qabul qilgan partiyalar bo'lsa ham, ular boshqa barcha musulmonlar kabi, amal jihatidan faqat Khalifa qabul qilgan narsaga muvofiq harakat qilishga majburdirlar va boshqasiga emas.

I.e. between him and the people is the obedience to the State, and between him and Allah (swt) is that what the Imam adopts becomes the rule of Allah upon him in respect of action. However, the obedience of the people to the Imam’s command, the obligation upon them to act according to what he adopted in the rules, and not acting upon their opinions and what they adopted is not considered an adoption of what the Imam adopted. It is rather obedience to his (the Khalifah’s) command and executing what he adopted in terms of action not the adoption of what he adopted. Therefore it is permitted for any Muslim to teach what he adopted of the rules and to call to them when he invites to Islam even if they differed from the Imam’s adoption. This is because the Ijma’a of the Sahabah is upon the obligation to act according to the Khalifah’s adoption not teaching or invitation (da’wah); it is specific to action. Thus we find that whereas Abu Bakr (ra) would divide wealth between Muslims equally without looking into who embraced Islam early or not, Umar (ra) had a different opinion which is (considering) a man and his precedence (in embracing) Islam and another man and his lateness. He debated Abu Bakr (ra) in this, but he obeyed what Abu Bakr (ra) adopted and remained adopting his opinion. When he was appointed Khalifah, he invalidated acting upon Abu Bakr’s (ra) opinion and acted upon his opinion. Therefore there is a distinction between the Muslim adopting the opinion and his obedience to what the Khalifah adopted. Obedience to the Khalifah’s adoption obliges acting upon it only and not calling towards it or teaching it. As for adopting the opinion, it is (for) teaching it, calling to it and acting upon it. Therefore it is allowed for there to exist political groups i.e. parties which adopt opinions different from those adopted by the Khalifah, but they are all like the rest of the Muslims, obliged in respect of action to act according to what the Khalifah adopted and nothing else.

Xalifa Shariat hukmlarini qabul qilganda, u shariat ijtihodi orqali chiqarilgan, shariat hukmi sifatida aniq bir hukmni tanlaydi. U o‘z xohishiga ko‘ra qonun chiqarmaydi; haqiqatan ham, Alloh (SWT) yagona Qonun chiqaruvchidir. Shu sababli u Shar’ doirasida va shariat hukmlari bilan cheklangan, chunki uning bay’ati sharti Kitob va Sunnatga amal qilishdir. U xalifa bo‘lsa ham, musulmon sifatida Allohning (SWT) amrlari va qaytarishlari bilan cheklangan bo‘lib, shariat hukmlari chegarasida to‘xtashga majbur va ularni hech qanday tarzda buzishga haqli emas. Islom shar’idan tashqari boshqa manbadan, hatto bitta bo‘lsa ham, hukm keltirishi joiz emas. Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning so‘zi aniqdir:

However, when the Khalifah adopts Shari’ah rules he chooses a specific rule in its capacity as a Shari’ah rule deduced by Shari’ah ijtihad. He does not legislate from his own self; verily Allah (swt) is the only Legislator. Thus he is restricted within the Shar’a and the Shari’ah rules since the condition of his pledge (bay’ah) is to act upon the Book and the Sunnah. And since he, in his capacity as a Muslim even if he is a Khalifah is restricted by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), is obliged to stop within the limits of the Shari’ah rules and is not permitted to transgress them in any way whatsoever. It is not permitted for him to come with a rule, even if a single one, from other than the Islamic Shar’a. The Messenger’s (saw) statement is clear:

Shuning uchun imomga halolni harom qilish yoki haromni halol qilish, hukmni bekor qilish yoki hukm bo‘yicha amal qilishni man etish joiz emas, chunki bu xalifa uchun ham, har bir musulmon uchun ham harom. Shuningdek, "musulmonlarning manfaati shuni talab qiladi, shuning uchun falon narsani man etamiz", deyish ham mumkin emas, chunki Alloh musulmonlarning manfaatini aniq hukmlar orqali belgilab qo‘ygan. Agar xalifa manfaatni bu hukmlardan boshqacha tarzda ko‘rsa, u ularni bekor qilgan bo‘ladi, bu esa hech qachon joiz emas. Demak, musulmonlarning ishlarini yuritish uni o‘z ijtihodiga ko‘ra ularni boshqarishga haqli qilib qo‘yadi, deyish ham to‘g‘ri emas, chunki Alloh unga musulmonlarning ishlarini Kitob va Sunnat, ya’ni Shariat hukmlari bilan yuritishni va ularning doirasida ijtihod qilishni ruxsat bergan. U ijtihodni aniq matni bo‘lmagan, lekin asllari umumiy aniq matn bilan kelgan ikkilamchi masalalarda qiladi; u o‘zi ma’qul va foydali deb bilgan narsani tanlash uchun ijtihod qiladi. Allohning hukmi kelgan masalaga kelsak, unda xalifaning ijtihodiga o‘rin yo‘q; aksincha, u Shariat hukmlarini hech qanday almashtirishsiz va o‘zgartirishsiz ijro etishga majburdir. Ha, u biror ishni joiz deb ko‘rishi mumkin, lekin u Shariat man etgan harom narsaga olib keladigan bo‘lsa, masalan, muayyan kitobni almashtirish xalqning dinida buzilishga yoki xalq orasida fisqu fujur tarqalishiga muqarrar olib kelishini ko‘rsa, uni man etadi. U biror ishni joiz deb ko‘rishi mumkin, lekin u Shariat yo‘qotilishini talab qilgan zararga muqarrar olib kelsa, masalan, yo‘lda mollarni do‘konlar oldiga qo‘yish yo‘ldan o‘tuvchilarni to‘sib qo‘yishi yoki yo‘lovchilarni bezovta qilishini ko‘rsa, bunday holda u joizni man etadi va buni qilgan kishini jazolaydi. Ammo bu halolni man etish emas, balki Shariat qoidasidan chiqarib olgan Shariat hukmini ijro etishdir.

Therefore it is not permitted for the Imam to make the allowed (halal) forbidden (haram) or make the forbidden allowed, nor to abolish a rule or prevent acting upon a rule since this is haram for the Khalifah as it is haram for every Muslim. Nor should one say that the benefit of the Muslims requires forbidding such and such since Allah has specified the Muslims’ benefit by specific rules; if the Khalifah comes and views the benefit in other than these (rules), then he would have abrogated them which is never permitted. Thus one cannot say that taking care of the Muslims’ affairs has allowed him to direct them according to his ijtihad because Allah has allowed him to take care of the Muslims’ affairs by the Book and Sunnah i.e. the Shari’ah rules and allowed him to (perform) ijtihad within their limits. He does ijtihad in the secondary actions which have no explicit text but whose origins (usul) came with an explicit text which is general; he does ijtihad to choose what he sees as more suitable and beneficial. As for what came with the rule of Allah (swt) upon it, there is no place for the Khalifah’s ijtihad in this affair; rather he is obliged to execute the Shari’ah rules as they are without any substitution or change. Yes, he can view an action as allowed but it leads to a haram which the Shar’a forbade such as viewing that the exchange of a specific book would inevitably lead to corruption of the people in their deen or would inevitably lead to spreading debauchery among the people so he prevents it. He can see an action as allowed but it would inevitably lead to a harm which the Shar’a came obliging its removal such as seeing that placing goods before the stores would prevent people passing by the road in the road or annoy by passers so in this case he prevents the allowed and punish whoever does it. However this is not forbidding the halal but rather executing a Shari’ah rule he deduced from the shari’ah principle:

Yoki boshqa biri buni chiqarib olgan va xalifa uni qabul qilib, amalga oshirgan. Bunday holatda unga bunday qilish vojib, chunki bu bajarilishi majburiy bo‘lgan shar’iy hukmdir. Demak, u harom qilishni man etgan bo‘ladi, mubohni emas. Xuddi shunday, agar biror masala yoki hukm bir qancha ikkilamchi amallar orqali bajarilishi mumkin bo‘lsa va uning asosi haqida umumiy dalil kelgan bo‘lsa, u holda hukmni yoki masalani bajarishga imkon beradigan barcha amallar mubohlardandir. Masalan, xalifaning xalq fikrini bilishi yoki ularning Majlis ash-Shuroda o‘zlarini kimning vakil qilishini xohlashi haqidagi fikrlari, bu saylov qonuni deb ataladigan narsaga o‘xshaydi. Bu barcha ikkilamchi amallar mubohlardandir. Shuning uchun xalifaga ulardan birini boshqalari o‘rniga buyurishi joizdir va unga itoat qilish vojibdir. Bunday holatda u mubohni vojib qilmagan va boshqa mubohni man etmagan bo‘ladi, balki u hukmni qabul qilgan va hukmni amalga oshirish uchun vosita tanlagan bo‘ladi. Shu o‘rinda u qabul qilgan hukmga va unga olib boradigan amalga itoat qilish vojib bo‘ladi, chunki u hukmga ergashadi va ergashuvchi ergashilganning hukmini oladi. Shunga o‘xshash barcha tashkiliy va ma’muriy qonunlar ham shundaydir. Ular mubohni majburiy qilishadi, chunki ular xalifa qabul qilgan hukmga ergashuvchi narsani majburiy qiladi, majburiy qilish esa undan boshqa narsani man etishni talab qiladi. Bu xuddi hukmlarni qabul qilish kabidir va ular shar’iy hukmlardan kelib chiqmaydi. U mubohni vojib qilmagan va boshqa mubohni man etmagan, balki shar’iy hukm uning hukmlarni qabul qilish va ularni bajaradigan narsalarni joriy etish uchun ruxsat bergan ishini qilgan. Bu uch holatda: haramga olib boradigan narsani oldini olish yoki zararga olib boradigan narsani (oldini olish), yoki ko‘p uslublar orasidan muayyan bir uslubni majburlash — xalifa Shariat hukmlarini va uning qabul qilish vakolatini chetga qoldirmagan, va bularning har biri uchun dalil mavjud. Xalifaga maslahat (manfaat) bahonasida biror Shariat hukmini o‘zgartirishga ruxsat beradigan hech narsa yo‘q; aksincha, u har bir narsada barcha Shariat hukmlariga to‘liq amal qilishi shart.

Or someone else deduced it and he (the Khalifah) adopted and executed it. In this case it is obliged upon him to do this as it is a Shari’ah rule which is obligatory to be executed. So he would have prevented haram and not what is allowed. Similarly, if there is a matter or a rule which can potentially be performed via numerous secondary actions for whose origin came general evidence, then in this case all the actions through which it is possible to perform the rule or matter are of the permissible actions. This is like the Khalifah reaching the knowledge of the people’s opinion, or their opinion concerning who should represent them in the Majlis Ash-Shura which is similar to what is known as the electoral canon. All these secondary actions are from the permissible actions, so it is permitted for the Khalifah to command with one of them in exception among the others, wherein obeying him is obligatory. In this case he would not have obliged a permissible action or prevented another permissible action, but would have adopted a rule and adopted a means by which to execute a rule. At this point, obeying him is obliged in the rule he adopted and the action leading to it since it follows the rule and the follower takes the rule of the followed. Similar to this are all the organizational and administrative canons as they are compelling a permissible action as it is compelling what follows a rule adopted by the Khalifah and compelling it requires leaving anything other than it i.e. preventing it. It is just like adopting rules and it does not come from the Shari’ah rules. He would not have obliged a permissible action or prohibited another permissible action, but rather he did of what the Shari’ah allowed him in adopting rules and what would lead to performing them. In these three situations: Preventing what leads to haram, or (preventing) what leads to harm, or compelling specific styles among many, the Khalifah has not left the Shari’ah rules or his competency from adoption and there is an evidence for each one of them. There is nothing here to legitimise and permit the Khalifah to change any Shari’ah rule under the pretext of benefit; rather he must completely restrict (himself) to all the Shari’ah rules in everything.

Shuningdek, Payg‘ambar (s.a.v.) mubox narsalarni man qilgan va ularning oldini olgan, deb aytilgan gaplarga kelsak, bu narsada musulmonlar ishlarini yuritishda Imom uchun buni qilishga dalil yo‘q. Chunki Payg‘ambar (s.a.v.) Alloh (s.w.t.) nomidan qonun chiqaruvchidir, shuning uchun agar u ruxsat etilgan narsani man qilgan yoki harom bo‘lgan hukmni ruxsat etgan bo‘lsa, demak u uni bekor qilgan bo‘ladi. Bekor qilish (naskh) faqat Qur’on va Sunnatga xos, ya’ni Qur’on va Hadis orqali amalga oshadi, Payg‘ambar (s.a.v.)dan boshqa hech kim uchun emas. Uning ma’lum mubox narsalarni man qilishiga kelsak, bu yo Alloh taqiqlagan zararga olib keladigani uchun yoki Alloh harom qilgan narsaga olib boradigani uchundir. Bu bizga qonun-hukmdir va ishlarni yuritish bilan bog‘liq emas, shuning uchun uni Imomga “xalq ishlari” bahonasida hukmlarni o‘zgartirish vakolatini berish uchun dalil sifatida olib bo‘lmaydi. Payg‘ambar (s.a.v.)ning ba’zi harakatlarini ko‘rib chiqqan kishi buning aniq bo‘lishini ko‘radi, masalan:

As for what is said that the Messenger (saw) did forbid permissible matters and prevented them in taking care of the Muslims’ affairs, there is no proof in it for the Imam to do this in taking care of the Muslims’ affairs. This is because the Messenger (saw) is a legislator on behalf of Allah (swt) so if he forbade an allowed (thing) or allowed a forbidden rule then he has verily abrogated it. Abrogation is specific to the Qur’an and Sunnah i.e. by the Qur’an and Hadith, not for anyone other than the Messenger (saw). As for his preventing specific allowed things, this is either because they would lead to harm which Allah had forbidden or to a haram forbidden by Allah. This is legislation for us, and does not relate to taking care of the affairs, so it is not taken as evidence to give the Imam the competency to change the rules under the pretext of taking care of the affairs of the people. Whoever reviews some of the Messenger’s (saw) actions; this would become manifestly clear for example:

1. Rivoyat qilinadiki, Tabuk jangida Payg'ambar ﷺ Al-Hijf yonidan o'tayotganda, o'sha yerda to'xtadi va odamlar uning quduqlaridan suv ichishga intildilar. Ular dam olgach, Allah Elchisi ﷺ dedi:

1. It was narrated that in the battle of Tabuk when the Messenger (saw) passed by Al-Hijf, he encamped there and people sought to drink from its well. When they rested, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Ko'rinadiki, bu misolda Rasululloh (saw) ruxsat etilgan narsani man qilgan, ya'ni ruxsat etilgan narsani harom qilgan kabi ko'rinadi. Holbuki, hodisaning haqiqati bunday emas. Balki haqiqat shuki, Rasululloh ruxsat etilgan narsalarning muayyan bir ishini man qilgan, na ruxsat etilgan hukmni va na ruxsat etilgan narsani. Bu muayyan ish, zarurat bilan, Shar'ning harom qilgan zararga olib kelar edi, shuning uchun uning yuz berishini taqiqlovchi matn kelgan. Rasululloh ﷺ bu quduqning suvidan ichish aniq zararga olib kelishini bilar edilar, shuning uchun Rasulullohning ﷺ qilgani ruxsat etilgan ishni man qilish emas, balki Shar' harom qilgan zararga, ya'ni qo'shin boshiga tushadigan ziyonga olib keladigan narsani man qilish edi. Xuddi shunday, u zotning ﷺ hamrohsiz yolg'iz chiqishni man qilishi ham ruxsat etilgan narsalarning muayyan bir ishini man qilishdir, ya'ni Shar' harom qilgan zararga aniq olib keladigan ishni man qilishdir. Buning dalili shuki, Rasululloh ﷺ buyurgan kishilar buyurilganini bajardilar, faqat Bani Sa'ida qabilasidan ikki kishi bundan mustasno. Bittasi hojatini ravo qilish uchun chiqdi, ikkinchisi esa tuyasini izlab chiqdi. Hojatga chiqqan kishi o'z joyida yiqilib qoldi, tuyasini izlagan kishini esa shamol ko'tarib, Toy tog'ining ikki tog'i ustiga tashladi. Rasulullohga ﷺ bu haqda xabar berilganida, u zot shunday dedilar:

It appears from this example that the Messenger (saw) prohibited the use of an allowed thing so he forbade an allowed thing, whereas the reality of the incident is not like this. Rather, its reality is that the Messenger prohibited a specific thing of the allowed things not an allowed rule or an allowed thing. This specific thing would inevitably lead to a harm for which a text came forbidding its occurrence. The Messenger (saw) knew that drinking water from this well would result in a definite harm such that what the Messenger (saw) did was not forbidding an allowed action but rather forbidding what would lead to a harm forbidden by Shar’a which is harm befalling the army. Similarly his prohibition of anyone going out alone except that he have a companion is the prohibition of a specific action of the allowed matters, a specific action which would definitely lead to a harm that is forbidden by the Shar’a. The evidence for this is that those people whom the Messenger (saw) commanded did what they were commanded except two men from Banu Sa’ida. One went out to relieve himself and the other went out searching for his camel. As for the one who went out to relieve himself he collapsed in his place and the one who went to find his camel, the wind carried him and cast him on the two mountains of Tayyi. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) was informed about this he said:

Bu yerda shuni ta'kidlash kerakki, ruxsat etilgan narsalardan muayyan bir amalni man etish bilan ruxsat etilgan amalni man etish o'rtasidagi farqni ajratish lozim, shuningdek ruxsat etilgan narsalardan muayyan bir narsani man etish bilan ruxsat etilgan narsani man etish o'rtasidagi farqni ham. Ruxsat etilgan amalni man etish shundan iboratki, amal Shar'iy hukm bilan ruxsat etilgan bo'ladi, so'ngra hokim kelib, unda zarar mavjud degan bahona bilan uni man etadi; masalan, tashqaridan tovarlar olib kirish Shar'at tomonidan ruxsat etilgan, lekin hokim olib kirishga ruxsat berish (ichki) zavodlarga zarar keltiradi deb hisoblab, uni man etadi. Bu ruxsat etilgan amalni man etishdir, bu hokim uchun hech qachon ruxsat etilmaydi, chunki Shar' uni ruxsat berganda, undan foyda yoki zarar kelishini bilgan va unga ruxsat hukmini bergan. Uni man etish joiz emas, chunki bu hech qanday holatda bekor bo'lmaydigan Shar'iy hukmni bekor qilish bo'ladi. Ruxsat etilgan narsalardan muayyan bir narsani man etishga kelsak, bu shunday holatki, unga ruxsat etilgan masalalardan biri Shar' man etishga kelgan zararga olib kelishi aniq bo'ladi, shuning uchun hokim zararni bartaraf etish maqsadida ushbu masalani man etishni to'g'ri deb biladi. Masalan, hokim shakar import qilish mamlakat ichidagi shakar zavodlarining yopilishiga va bankrotligiga olib kelishini, bu esa uni shakar olib kirishda kofirlarga qaram qilib qo'yishini hisoblaydi. Shu paytda hokimga shakar importini to'xtatish joiz bo'ladi, chunki bu butun ummatga, ya'ni uning zaruriy ehtiyojlaridan biri bo'yicha kofirlarga qaramligi va yetarli emasligi zararining oldini olish uchundir. Bunday holatda ruxsat etilgan masalani to'xtatish joiz, bu ruxsat etilgan narsani man etish emas; aksincha, ruxsat etilgan narsa, ya'ni import, ruxsatli bo'lib qoladi. Balki man etilayotgani ruxsat etilgan masala, ya'ni shakar importidir. Bu xuddi Rasulullah ﷺ ichida zarar bilganlari muayyan quduqdan suv ichishni man etganlariga o'xshaydi. Uning man etishi ruxsat etilgan narsani, ya'ni U suv tiyib qo'ymagan, balki ruxsat etilgan narsaning ichida aynan shu quduqdan ichishni man etgan. Shunga ko'ra, ruxsat etilgan amallarning ichidan muayyan bir narsani man etish joiz, ammo ruxsat etilgan narsani man etish hech qachon joiz emas.

Here we must note the distinction between forbidding a specific action of the allowed actions or forbidding a specific thing of the allowed things, and forbidding an allowed action or forbidding an allowed thing. Forbidding an allowed thing is where the action has been allowed by the Shar’a, then the ruler comes and forbids it on the pretext that there is a harm existing in it; such as importing goods from outside has been allowed by Shar’a but the ruler views that allowing importing causes harm to (internal) factories and forbids it. This is forbidding an allowed action which is never allowed for the ruler since the Shar’a knew, when it allowed it, that it would be beneficial or harmful and gave it the rule of permissibility. Forbidding it is not allowed as this would be abrogating the Shar’a rule which is void in all circumstances. As for forbidding a specific thing among the allowed things, this is when it occurs to him that one of the allowed matters would lead to a harm which the Shar’a came to forbid so the ruler considers it correct to forbid this matter to lift the harm. For instance, the ruler considers that importing sugar leads to closing and the bankruptcy of sugar factories within the country making it dependent upon the kuffar in importing sugar. At this point, it is allowed for the ruler to prevent importation of sugar to prevent the harm to the whole Ummah which is her dependency upon the kuffar for one of its necessities and it's the lack of sufficiency. In this case, it is allowed to prevent this allowed matter and it is not forbidding an allowed thing; rather, the allowed thing i.e. importing remains allowed. It is rather the forbidding of an allowed matter which is importing sugar. This is like the Messenger (saw) forbidding the drinking of water from a specific well in which he knew there was harm. His forbidding did not forbid an allowed matter i.e. he did not forbid water, but rather he forbade a specific matter of the allowed matter which is drinking from this well. Accordingly, forbidding a specific thing of the allowed actions is permitted whereas forbidding an allowed thing is never permitted.

2. Rivoyat qilinadiki, Rasululloh ﷺ Tabukdan qaytayotganda, o'zlaridan oldin suvga yetib borganlarni undan ichishdan man qildilar, to ular (ya'ni Rasulullohning ﷺ o'zlari) yetib kelgunlaricha. Bir guruh munofiqlar (boshqalardan) oldinga o'tib, undan ichdilar. Rasululloh ﷺ kelganlarida va oldin o'tganlar undan shunday ichib qo'yganlarini ko'rdilarki, hech qanday suv topmadilar, ular oldinga o'tib suvdan ichganlarni la'natladilar. Bu ham ruxsat etilgan narsalardan ma'lum bir narsani man qilishdir, chunki bu zarar keltiradi, ya'ni cho'lda suvga bo'lgan shiddatli ehtiyojga qaramay, suvni faqat bir guruhning foydasiga qilib, qolgan lashkardan ustun qo'yishga olib keladi. Shunga ko'ra, bu ishlarni tartibga solish bahonasida ruxsat etilgan narsani taqiqlash emasdir.

2. It is narrated that when the Messenger (saw) was returning from Tabuk, he prevented those who reached water before him from drinking from it until he reached. A group of hypocrites preceded (the others) and drank from it. When the Messenger (saw) came and found that those who preceded had drank from it such that he did not find any water, he cursed those who preceded and drank from it. This is also preventing a specific thing from the allowed things, as this leads to a harm which is preferring a group with the water exclusively over the rest of the army despite the dire need for it in the desert. Accordingly, this is not forbidding an allowed thing under the pretext of taking care of the affairs.

3. Muslim Amru ibn Ash-Shareed orqali, uning otasidan rivoyat qiladi, u aytdi: Saqif elchilari orasida bir kishi moxov kasalligiga chalingan edi. Shunda Payg'ambar ﷺ unga odam yuborib dedilar:

3. Muslim narrated via Amru bin Ash-Shareed from his father who said: In the delegation from Thaqif there was a man suffering from leprosy so the Prophet (saw) sent to him:

Shu tariqa bilan, amal qiluvchi uchun bu masalada Payg'ambar (saw) hadislaridan qaysi dalil ishlatilayotgani aniq bo'ladi: ularda ruxsat etilgan narsani man qilish yo'q. Aksincha, ruxsat etilgan narsaning ma'lum bir jihati man qilinadi, va bu jihat Shar'at man qilishga kelgan zararga olib keladi. Shuning uchun bu qonun va dalildirki, imom ruxsat etilgan narsalar ichidan aniq bir narsalarni va ruxsat etilgan amallar ichidan aniq bir amallarni man qila oladi, agar ular Shar'at oldini olishga kelgan zararga olib kelsa. Sahobalardan rivoyat qilingan voqealarga kelsak, ularga ergashgan har bir kishiga ayonki, ular harom ga olib keladigan yoki Shar'at oldini olishga kelgan zararga olib keladigan ruxsat etilgan amallarni man qilganlar. Ulardan ba'zilari esa, Shar'iy hukmni yoki Shar'at buyurgan, ba'zilarini man qilgan ishni amalga oshirish uchun mubah amalni majburlaganlar, masalan, uslublarni qabul qilishda. Bu imom uchun ruxsat etilgan, masalan, Umar (ra) tomonidan diyon (ro'yxatlar)ni tuzishi va Usmon tomonidan bitta mushafni majburiy qilib, boshqa barcha mushaflarni yoqishi kabi. Shu turga Umar (ra)ning sahobalarni, hadis bilan shug'ullanish Qur'ondan chalg'itganida, hadis to'xtatishga majburlashi va ko'zga ko'ringan sahobalarning Madinadan fath etilgan yerlarga chiqishini man qilishi kiradi, toki odamlar ularga maftun bo'lmasin va ular dunyoga maftun bo'lmasin. Bunga o'xshash narsa hokimlar, boshqaruvchilar va xalifalarning xamir qoriganlarni peshonalariga salla o'rashga, ularning terlari xamirga tushmasligi uchun yuzlariga bir parcha mato qo'yishga, xamirga hech narsa tushmasligi uchun qo'ltiq ostini oldirishga majburlashi, va fiqh kitoblarida kelgan boshqa shunga o'xshash ishlardir. Bularning barchasi shar'iy qoidaga kiradi.

In this way it becomes clear to the one following what is used as evidence in this matter from the Messenger’s (saw) hadith that there is no forbidding of an allowed (matter) in them. Rather it is forbidding a specific thing of the allowed thing, and this specific thing leads to a harm which the Shar’a came forbidding it. Therefore this is legislation and evidence that the Imam can prevent specific things from the allowed things, and specific actions of the allowed actions, this is if it leads to harm which the Shar’a came to prevent. As for what is narrated about the Sahabah regarding (certain) incidents, it is clear to anyone who follows them that they are forbidding an allowed (action) which leads to haram or leads to a harm which the Shar’a came to prevent, and some of them are compelling an allowed (mubah) action (in order) to perform a Shari’ah rule or a matter the Shar’a commanded some and prevented others such as the adoption in styles. This is allowed for the Imam, for eg; the compilation of the registers (diwan) by Umar (ra), and obliging one mushaf and burning all (other) mushafs by Uthman. Of this type is Umar (ra) obliging the Sahabah to stop (discussing the) hadith when this preoccupied them from the Qur’an, and his preventing the prominent Sahabah from leaving Madinah to the conquered lands so that the people are not enchanted by them and they are not enchanted by the world. Similar to this is what the governors, rulers and Khulafaa did in compelling those who knead dough to placing their turbans on their forehead so that their sweat does not fall in his dough, and to place a piece of cloth upon their nose so that nothing from it falls into the dough and shave their armpits so that nothing from it falls into the dough, and other similar things which came in the Fiqh books. All of them fall within the shari’ah principle

This is in relation to each individual organising his relationships with himself. As for taking care of the affairs of the Ummah by the Khalifah, his undertaking the ruler’s responsibilities and establishing the rules of Allah upon the people, there is no doubt that he must adopt specific rules to direct the people’s affairs according to them. He must also adopt specific rules in what is general for all Muslims in all affairs in the affairs of ruling and authority like zakat, land tax (kharaj), foreign relationships and all that relate to the unity of the State and rule. Adoption in these situations by the Khalifah is obligatory not optional, because it is an obligatory matter in relation to the actions he undertakes in his capacity as a Muslim obliged to direct all his actions according to a specific rule which is the rule of Allah upon him. There is no difference in this between personal matters and public matters. In relation to the affairs of rule and authority, they are within the basic actions in taking care of the affairs which are obliged for him to direct according to one specific rule. As for what relates to the unity of the State, it must be directed according to one specific rule since the unity of the State is obligatory and each action leading to it is obligatory. Therefore adopting one rule for all that relates to it is obligatory, not optional. As for anything beyond that, it is allowed for the Khalifah to adopt specific rules to compel the people to act upon, and it is allowed for him not to adopt. He will act in this matter according to what he sees as more beneficial for the good of Muslims, strengthening the spread of Islam, teaching of its rules and more suitable for the justice of the rule and strength of the authority. Abu Bakr (ra) did adopt Shari’ah rules which he obliged upon the people, and Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra) adopted rules after him which they obliged people to act upon. The Sahabah were silent about this throughout their time, and none of them was heard about rejecting the adoption of rules, obliging them upon the people and not acting upon rules they had adopted; even though it is from what is rejected since it is obliging people to leave the rules they adopt which are rules of Allah (swt) upon them. Thus, it is an Ijma’a of the Sahabah that the Khalifah can adopt specific rules and oblige people to act upon them. Therefore if the Khalifah adopts specific rules, whether they were within what he is obliged to adopt or in what he is allowed to adopt, it is obligatory upon every Muslim among his citizens to act according to this rule and leave acting upon the rule he had previously adopted. This is because what the Khalifah adopted became the rule of Allah upon him in respect of action. It is not permitted for him to act in contradiction to it; rather it is obligatory for him to act according to it alone even if it were contrary to what he thought and even if it were weak evidence in his view. This is due to what the Ijma’a of the Sahabah concluded that the Imam can adopt specific rules; commanded acting upon them and it is obliged for the Muslims to obey him even if it differed from their ijtihad. The famous Shari’ah principles about this are: