37.7 Bayonlovchi murojaat [khitāb al-wad’] - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

37.7 Bayonlovchi murojaat [khitāb al-wad’] - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

0% read · 2 min left

Islomiy shaxsiyat Bookmark

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

Show original

37.7 Bayonlovchi murojaat [khitāb al-wad’]

37.7 The declaratory address [khitāb al-wad’]

by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī2 min readViewed 119 times

Qonun chiqaruvchining xitobi haqiqatda mavjud bo‘lgan harakatlarga oid vujub va ixtiyor hukmlarini aniqlashtiradi. Bu xitob ushbu hukmlar uchun ularning amalga oshishi [tahaqquq] yoki to‘liqligi [ikmāl] uchun talab qilinadigan narsalarni ham joriy etadi. Ya’ni, ular hukm shar’iy talab qilgan narsa uchun joriy etiladi. Shunday qilib, qonun chiqaruvchining xitobi ham iqtidā’ (talab) va takhyīr (ixtiyor)ni, shuningdek, iqtidā’ va takhyīr talab qilgan narsani o‘z ichiga oladi. Oxirgisi narsani sabab [sabab], shart [shart], mone’ [māni’], sahīh [sahīh], botil [bātil], fosid [fāsid], asliy hukm [azimah] yoki yengillik [rukhsah] qilish orqali amalga oshadi. Yana, taklif xitobi insonning harakatlariga oid hukmlarni o‘z ichiga olgani kabi, vaz’ xitobi ham ushbu hukmlarga va ularga bog‘liq narsalarga oid hukmlarni o‘z ichiga oladi.

The legislator’s address clarifies the rulings, of obligation and choice, of the actions which exist in reality. This address also enacts for these rulings that which they require for their fulfillment [tahaqquq] or their completion [ikmāl]. That is, they are enacted for that which the hukm shar’i requires. Thus the address of the legislator comprises of both the compulsion [iqtidā’] and choice [takhyīr], as well as that which the compulsion and choice require. The latter is by the making of a thing the a cause [sabab], a condition [shart], a preventative factor [māni’], valid [sahīh], invalid [bātil], void [fāsid], an original rule [azimah] or a concession [rukhsah]. Further, as the address of compulsion of choice (the address of taklīf) comprises of rules which deal with the actions of man, so too does the address of declaration comprise of rules which deal with these rules and what is related to them.

Shunday qilib, majburlash va ixtiyor haqidagi xitob insonning harakatlari uchun hukmlar bo'lib, e'lon qilish haqidagi xitob esa o'sha hukmlar uchun hukmlar bo'lib, ularga aniq xususiyatlar beradi. Ammo ularning shunday bo'lishi ularni insonning harakatlari bilan aloqasiz qilmaydi, chunki bir narsaga bog'liq bo'lgan narsa o'sha narsaning o'ziga ham bog'liqdir. Shunday ekan, zarurat [idtirār] murdani iste'mol qilishning ruxsat etilishi uchun sabab, cho'rilar bilan nikohlanishning ruxsat etilishi uchun esa zinodan qo'rqish sabab, namozga tahorat (vudu') olish majburiyati uchun esa tanosil yo'lidan najosat chiqishi (hatto namoz vaqtida chiqsa ham bitta vudu' har bir namoz uchun yetarli bo'ladigan darajada) sabab, namozlarning farz bo'lishi uchun esa quyoshning zavoli, botishi yoki tong otishi sabab bo'ladi, va shunga o'xshash boshqalar. Bularning barchasi qonun chiqaruvchidan kelgan, hukmga bog'liq xitobdir, masalan, murdani iste'mol qilishning ruxsat etilishi, cho'rilar bilan nikohlanishning ruxsat etilishi, namoz tark qilinganda najosatdan keyin vudu' qilish majburiyati va namozning vaqtida ado etilishi majburiyati kabi. Demak, sabab xitob al-va'd'dan hisoblanadi.

Hence the address of compulsion and choice are rulings for the actions of man, and the address of declaration are rulings for those rulings, giving them specific attributes. Their being such however does not make them unrelated to the actions of man, because that which is related to that which is related to a thing is also related to that thing. Thus dire necessity [idtirār] is the sabab for the permissibility of consuming carrion, the fear of afflication is the sabab for the permissibility of marrying the slave women, incontinence is the sabab for the obligation of making wudu upon excrement for prayer being dropped (such that one wudu suffices for every salat even if one excretes during the salat), the zawāl of the sun or it setting, or the rise of dawn is the sabab for the obligation of prayers, and the like - all of these are an address from the legislator related to the hukm, such as the permissibility of consuming carrion, the permissibility of marrying the slave women, the obligation of doing wudu upon excrement for the salat being dropped, and the obligation of the presence of the salat. Thus the sabab is from the khitāb al-wad’.

Ish harakatlarining bu dunyodagi natijalariga tegishli masalalarda murojaat (xitob) aynan shu natijalarda namoyon bo‘ladi. Masalan, agar salatning barcha arkonlari bajarilgan bo‘lsa, uni "sahih" deymiz; agar savdoning barcha shartlari bajarilgan bo‘lsa, savdo "sahih" bo‘ladi; agar sherikchilikning barcha qonuniy shartlari bajarilgan bo‘lsa, sherikchilik "sahih" bo‘ladi. Bu hukmni amalga oshirish jihatidan ta’riflash bo‘lib, uni qonunlashtirish jihatidan emas, balki bu ta’riflarni Shari’ (Qonun chiqaruvchi) o‘rnatgan. Xuddi shunday, agar savdoda ijob bo‘lmasa yoki salatda rukū’ bo‘lmasa yoki sherikchilikda qabul bo‘lmasa, u holda u "botil" bo‘ladi. Uning botil bo‘lishi ham hukmni amalga oshirish jihatidan ta’rif bo‘lib, uni qonunlashtirish jihatidan emas; shunga qaramay, bu ta’rifni va uni botil deb hisoblashni Qonun chiqaruvchi o‘rnatgan. Demak, sihhat va butlon bir toifadir, chunki ularda Qonun chiqaruvchining murojaati bitta hukmga – yo sahih, yo botil bo‘lishga – nisbatan bo‘ladi, hamda sihhat asl bo‘lib, butlon sihhat qoidalariga bog‘liqdir.

As for what is related to the effects of acts in this world, the declaratory address appears in these effects. For example we say that the salat is valid [sahīh] if all its arkān are fulfilled, that trade is valid is all its conditions are met, that the partnership is valid if all its legal conditions are met. This is a description of the ruling in terms of its performance, not its legislation, and it is the Legislator who has established these descriptions. Similarly if the trade does not include the offer, or the salat does not include the rukū’, or the partnership does not include the acceptance, it will then be invalid [bātil]. Its being invalid is a description of the ruling in terms of its performance, not its legislation, yet it is the Legislator who established the description and considered it invalid. Thus the validity [sihhah] and invalidity [butlān] are one category, because the address of the legislator in them is relation to one hukm, either valid or invalid, and because the validity is the orgin and the invalidity depends on the rules of validity.