8. Maslahat (shūro) yoki Islomda fikrni qabul qilish

8. Maslahat (shūro) yoki Islomda fikrni qabul qilish - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

Shuro yoki maslahat so'rash (tashawur yoki shura) Qur'on matnida va hadisda isbotlangan. Biroq ko'pchilik odamlar bilmaydigan narsa shuki: qaysi masalalarda shuro yoki maslahat bo'lishi mumkin? Ya'ni, qaysi masalada fikr olinadi? Keyin, bu fikr haqidagi hukm qanday? Uni ko'pchilikning fikriga ko'ra, to'g'ri yoki noto'g'riligidan qat'i nazar qabul qilish kerakmi? Yoki u to'g'ri fikrni, bu ko'pchilikning, ozchilikning yoki yakka kishining fikri bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, qabul qilishga majbur hisoblanadimi?

So seeking of an opinion is tashawur or shura which is proven in the text of the Qur’ān and the hadīth. However what many people do not know is; in what issues can there be a shura or tashawur ? i.e, in which issue is an opinion adopted ? Then, what is the rule on this opinion. Should it be adopted according to the opinion of the majority irrespective of right or wrong? Or, is he obliged to adopt the correct opinion irrespective of whether it is the opinion of the majority or minority or a single person?

Javobni tushunish uchun, rayning haqiqatini uning o‘zicha va nima ekanligini anglab olish, shuningdek, rayni so‘rash haqida keltirilgan batafsil shar'iy dalillarni tushunish va bu dalillarni rayning haqiqatiga shar'iy nuqtai nazardan tatbiq etish zarurdir.

In order to comprehend the answer, it is inevitable that we understand the reality of the opinion as it is and what it is and understand the detailed Sharī’ah evidences mentioned about seeking of opinions and apply these evidences on the reality of an opinion from a legislative perspective.

Dunyodagi fikrlarning haqiqatiga kelsak, ular to'rt turdan ortiq emas. Dunyodagi har qanday fikr ushbu fikrlardan biridir yoki ulardan kelib chiqqan, ularning biriga kiritilgan bo'ladi. Fikrlarning to'rt turi quyidagilardir:

As for the reality of opinions existent in the world they do not number more than four types only. Any opinion in the world is either one of these opinions or it has branched out from or classified under one of them. The four types of opinions are:

Birinchisi: yo'ki hukm shariat hukmi, ya'ni qonunchilik (tashri'iy) hukmi bo'lsa.

First: Either the hukm is a Sharī’ah rule that is, legislative opinion.

Ikkinchisi: Muayyan masalaning ta'rifi. Bu shar'iy ta'rif bo'lishi mumkin, masalan, hukmi shar'iy ta'rifi, yoki voqelikning ta'rifi bo'lishi mumkin, masalan, "aql", "jamiyat" va shunga o'xshash narsalarning ta'rifi.

Second: Being the definition of a certain issue. Either a Sharī’ah definition such as the definition of what a hukm shar’i is or the definition of a reality, such as the definition of the ‘mind’, ‘society’ and other such things.

Uchinchisi: bu biror mavzudagi fikrni yoki mutaxassislar va ekspertlar tushunadigan texnik masaladagi fikrni bildiradigan rayydir.

Third: It is an opinion which indicates a thought in a subject or it indicates a thought in a technical matter which is understood by specialists & experts.

To'rtinchi: Amal qilish zarur bo'lgan narsani bildiruvchi hukm.

Fourth: An opinion which indicates an action that needs to be undertaken.

Dunyoda mavjud bo‘lgan fikrlar shular va ularning haqiqati ana shundan iborat. Demak, shura (fikr so‘rash) bu fikrlarning hammasida amalga oshiriladimi yoki faqat ba’zilarida? Ko‘pchilikning fikri haqiqat yoki nohaqlikdan qat’i nazar afzal ko‘riladimi? Yoki fikr to‘g‘riligi jihatidan afzal ko‘riladi va ko‘pchilikka e’tibor berilmaydimi? Javobga yetishish uchun avvalo Qur’on va hadisda keltirilgan dalillarni ko‘rib chiqishimiz kerak. So‘ngra ushbu dalillarni bu fikrlarga tatbiq etamiz.

These are the opinions existent in the world and this is their reality. So is shura (seeking of an opinion) carried out in all of these opinions or only in some of them? Is the opinion of the majority preferred irrespective of being right or wrong? Or is the opinion preferred in terms of its correctness without taking notice of the majority? In order to arrive at an answer, we must examine the evidences mentioned in the Qur’ān and hadīth first. And then apply these evidences on these opinions.

Shūro (maslahat) haqidagi masalaga kelsak, Qur’on matni shuni ko‘rsatadiki, shūro barcha turdagi fikrlarga tegishlidir, chunki oyatda shunday deyilgan:

As regards shura the text of the Qur’ān indicates that shura applies to all types of opinions because the verse says:

Nutq bu yerda umumiydir. Shunday ekan, "ish" (al-amr) so'zi musulmonlarning ishlari degan ma'noni anglatadi, bu barcha ishlar uchun umumiy ifodadir. "Al-amr" so'zidagi "al" (alif lam) artikli esa ishlar turkumiga nisbatan jins ma'nosini bildiradi. Umumiy narsa, uni tahsis qiladigan dalil bo'lmagan ekan, umumiy bo'lib qoladi. Bu yerda esa shurоni biror narsa bilan tahsis qiladigan dalil yo'q. Demak, u barcha ishlar uchun umumiy ma'noda qoladi.

The speech here is general. So the word ‘matter’ means the affairs of the Muslims, which is a general designation for all affairs. And in the word ‘al-amr’ (the matter), the definite article (alif lam) is generic i.e, to the category of affairs. The general thing remains general as long as there is no evidence to specify it. And here there is no evidence to specify shura to anything. Therefore, it remains of general designation for all affairs.

Shura orqali olinadigan fikrga amal qilish majburiyati haqida: ko‘pchilik fikri to‘g‘ri yoki noto‘g‘ri bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar afzal ko‘rilaberadimi yoki fikrning to‘g‘riligi nazarda tutilib, ko‘pchilik fikriga hech qanday e’tibor berilmaydimi — albatta, ko‘pchilik fikriga amal qilinishi va unga bo‘ysunilishi kerakligini bildiruvchi matnlar bor. Shu bilan birga, ko‘pchilik fikriga amal qilinmasligini, balki rahbar shaxsga ko‘pchilik fikridan qat’i nazar, o‘zi qaror qilgan narsani amalga oshirish huquqi berilishini bildiruvchi matnlar ham bor. Payg‘ambar ﷺ Abu Bakr va ‘Umarga shunday dedilar:

With regards to the obligation of following an opinion which is sought by the Shura, that is, whether the majority opinion is preferred irrespective of right or wrong or the opinion is preferred in terms of its correctness without taking notice of the majority being given any consideration, certainly, there are texts which indicate that the opinion of the majority should be adopted and complied with. And there are texts which indicate that the opinion of the majority should not be adopted, rather it gives the person in authority the right to execute what he has decided irrespective of the majority position. The Messenger PBUH said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar:

U'zi o'ziga, ular kelishgan narsaga qarshi bormaslikni majburiy qildi. Shu o'rinda Rasululloh ﷺ ikki kishi bo'lib, o'zi bir kishi bo'lganda ko'pchilik fikriga qarshi chiqmaslik kerakligini ko'rsatdi.

He  obliged himself not to go against what they have agreed upon, So here the Messenger  demonstrated that the opinion of the majority should not be opposed when they are two persons and he is one.

Biz yana shuni ham ko'ramizki, Uhud jangi kuni Rasulullah ﷺ musulmonlar va musulmon bo'lishni da'vo qilgan kishilardan fikr egalarini yig'di va ular o'zaro maslahatlashdilar. Nabiy ﷺ Madinada panoh topish va Quraysh ko'chalarda qolishga majbur qilish fikrini oldi. Munofiqlar boshlig'i 'Abdulloh ibn Ubay ibn Salul ham shu fikrda edi. Bu fikr katta sahobalarning ham fikri edi. Badrda qatnashmagan, g'ayratli yoshlarning fikri esa dushmanga chiqib to'qnashish edi. Ko'pchilik ovoz yoshlar tomoniga o'tganday tuyuldi. Shunda Allah Rasuli ﷺ ularning fikriga ko'ndi va ko'pchilik fikriga amal qildi. Demak, bu voqea shuni ko'rsatadiki, u zot ko'pchilik fikriga bo'ysundi, ular bo'yicha ish tutdi va o'z fikrini hamda katta sahobalarning fikrini tark etdi, chunki ular ozchilik edi. Shunday qilib, odamlar pushaymon bo'la boshlagach, dedilar: "Biz Allah Rasulini o'z fikrimizga ergashishga majbur qildik, bunga bizning haqqimiz yo'q." Ular u zotning huzurlariga borib dedilar:

We also find that the Messenger  on the day of the battle of Uhud brought together the people of opinion from those amongst the Muslims and those who pretended to be Muslims and then they consulted each other. The Prophet  took the opinion that they should take refuge in Madina and force the Quraysh to stay outside. The head of the Munafiqin (hypocrites) ‘Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul was of this opinion. And this was the opinion of the senior companions. The opinion of the zealous youth who had not witnessed Badr was to go out to confront the enemy. The majority then appeared to be on the side of the youth. So the Messenger of Allah  yielded to their opinion and followed the opinion of the majority. So this incident indicates that he  gave in to the opinion of the majority and acted according to their opinion and he left his own opinion and that of the senior companions because they were the minority. So when the people began to regret and said: “We have forced the Messenger of Allah  to follow our opinion and we do not have that right.” They went to him  and said:

Ushbu to‘rt ta’dan biz Rasulullohning ﷺ faqat o‘z fikriga yopishib olganini, boshqa barcha fikrlarni rad etganini ko‘ramiz. Shuningdek, u zotning to‘g‘ri fikrga murojaat qilganini, bir kishining fikriga amal qilib, o‘z fikrini tark etganini va xalqning fikriga umuman murojaat qilmaganini ko‘ramiz. Shuningdek, u zotning ko‘pchilik fikriga rioya qilganini va ko‘pchilik fikriga murojaat qilish hamda unga qarshi chiqmaslik kerakligini bildiruvchi gap aytganini ham ko‘ramiz. Ushbu ahodislarni va ular kelgan vaziyatni sinchkovlik bilan o‘rganadigan bo‘lsak, Nabiy ﷺ Hudaybiyada shar’iy dalilga, ya’ni vahiyga murojaat qilganini, Badr jangida to‘g‘ri fikrga murojaat qilganini, Uhudda esa ko‘pchilik fikriga murojaat qilganini, shuningdek, Abu Bakr va Umarning fikrlariga e’tiroz bildirmaganini ko‘ramiz. Payg‘ambarning ﷺ amallari va so‘zlarini uch holatda jamlash mumkin: birinchidan, dalilning kuchliligiga, uni xulosa chiqarayotgan kishi qanday idrok etganiga qarab murojaat qilish, xalq uni qanday tushunishiga qarab emas; ikkinchidan, ko‘pchilikning fikridan qat’i nazar, to‘g‘ri bo‘lgan narsaga murojaat qilish va unga hech qanday e’tibor bermaslik; uchinchidan, to‘g‘ri yoki noto‘g‘ri bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, ko‘pchilik fikriga murojaat qilish, hatto to‘g‘rilik jihatini butunlay e’tiborsiz qoldirish.

From these four ahadīth we find that the Messenger  held on to his opinion solely and rejected all other opinions, We also find him referring to the correct opinion and adopting the opinion of a single person alone whilst leaving his own opinion and not referring to the opinion of the people at all. We also find him complying with the majority opinion and making a statement which indicates that the opinion of the majority should be referred to and not opposed. If we scrutinise these ahadīth and the context in which they came we find that the Prophet  referred to the Sharī’ah evidence, that is, the wahy (revelation) in Hudaybiya and that he  referred to the correct opinion in the battle of Badr but referred to the majority in Uhud, and we also find him not objecting to the opinions of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. The Prophet’s  action and sayings can be summed up in three situations: First, referring to the strength of the evidence as perceived by the one who deduces from it and not how the people perceive it. Second, referring to what is the correct irrespective of the opinion of the majority and not even giving it any consideration at all. Third, referring to the majority opinion regardless of whether it was right or not, infact neglecting the aspect of rightness completely.

Ushbu uch qoidani Payg'ambarning ﷺ amali va so'zlaridan chiqarilgan holda dunyodagi mavjud fikrlar haqiqatiga tatbiq etsak, quyidagilarni topamiz:

When we apply these three rules which have been deduced from the action and saying of the Prophet  on the reality of the existing opinions in the world we find the following:

Birinchidan — Shariat hukmi faqat dalilning kuchliligi asosida ustun qo‘yiladi. Chunki Payg‘ambar ﷺ faqat vahiy orqali nozil qilingan narsani afzal ko‘rgan va boshqa hamma narsani mutlaqo rad etgan. U zot ﷺ shunday degan:

Firstly- The Sharī’ah rule is outweighed only on the basis of the strength of the evidence. This is because the Messenger  only preferred what was sent down by revelation and absolutely rejected everything else. He  said:

Shariat dalili faqat Qur'on va Sunnatdir va Qur'on va Sunnat dalil sifatida ko'rsatgan har bir narsadir, chunki u Allohning amri yoki nahyi tegishli bo'lgan masaladir. Dalilning kuchi odamlarning uni qanday tushunishi yoki qanday ta'riflashi bilan emas, balki uni istidlol qilgan kishining (mustadill) qarashi bilan belgilanadi, hatto bu istidlol va ta'rif uning o'z fahmi va o'z ta'rifi bo'lsa ham, agar u dalilga o'xshash shubhali dalilga (shubhat dalil) tayangan bo'lsa. Buning sababi shuki, dalilning kuchi odamlar orasida shariat dalilining o'ziga oid turlicha tasavvurlari va arab tilini hamda shariatni qanday tushunishlari tufayli farq qiladi. Dalilning kuchi faqat hadisning sanad jihatidan ishonchliligini (sahihligini) anglatmaydi. Balki Qur'on bo'ladimi yoki Sunnat, dalilning kuchi ma'no (diroya), rivoyat (riviya), tushunish (fahm) va e'tibor (i'tibor) jihatidan belgilanadi va bu borada musulmonlar orasida hech qanday ixtilof yo'q.

The Sharī’ah evidence is the Qur’ān and Sunnah only and whatever the Qur’ān and Sunnah indicate as an evidence because it is the matter upon which the order or prohibition of Allah  applies. The strength of the evidence is not what the people perceive or what they define and understand it to be. Rather, the strength of the evidence is only according to what the one who educes (mustadill) it , even if this sense of deduction was his own understanding and the definition was his own, as long as he relied on the semblance of an evidence (shubhat dalīl). This is because the quwwa addalīl (strength of the evidence) differs among people due to their disparate perceptions of the Sharī’ah evidence itself and due to the manner in which they understand the Arabic language and the Sharī’ah. The strength of the evidence does not mean the strength (authenticity) of the hadīth only. Rather, the strength of the evidence, whether it be the Quran or the Sunnah, is in terms of the meaning (diraya), narration (riwaya), understanding (fahm) and consideration (i’tibar) and there is no difference among the Muslims about this.

Ikkinchidan — fikr ma'lum bir masala haqida o'y-mulohazani ifodalaydigan rأ¢y, to'g'ri nuqtai nazardan ustun keladi, masalan, tiklanish (nahda) masalasida. Bu tiklanish ma'naviy yuksalish orqali amalga oshadimi yoki iqtisodiy yuksalish orqali? Yoki xalqaro vaziyat bu yoki boshqa davlat uchun qulaymi? Ichki va xalqaro vaziyat siyosiy harakatlarni, shuningdek, siyosiy harakatlarga qo'shimcha ravishda harbiy harakatlarni amalga oshirish uchun mosmi yoki ular mos emasmi? Bularning barchasida nazarda tutilgan narsa to'g'ri rأ¢ydir. Chunki ular qaysi toifaga kirmasin, ular Rasulning ushbu so'zi doirasiga kiradi:

Secondly - The opinion which indicates a thought about a subject, is outweighed from the angle of what is right , for eg, the issue of revival. Will it be realised by an intellectual elevation or through an economic one? Or, is the international situation favourable to a particular state or another? Is the internal and international situation suitable for the undertaking of political actions or military actions in addition to the political action or are they not suitable. In all of these things what is referred to is the correct opinion. Because, whatever category they may be, they fall under the saying of the Messenger :

Bu Uhud voqeasi bilan bir xil toifadagi fikr haqida, ya'ni biror harakatni amalga oshirishga olib keladigan fikr haqida. Demak, harakatni amalga oshirishga olib keladigan har qanday fikrda ko'pchilik fikri afzal ko'riladi, masalan, rahbarni saylashda, hokimni (vali) lavozimidan chetlatishda yoki loyihani hal qilishda va hokazo. Ko'pchilik fikrini qabul qilish vojibdir va u to'g'ri yoki noto'g'ri bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, majburiydir.

This is regarding the opinion over the same category as in the case Uhud that is, an opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. So in any opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action, the majority is preferred such as in the election of a leader, or the removal of a governor (wali) or to decide on a project etc. It is incumbent that the majority opinion be adopted and that is binding irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.

Dunyodagi fikrlarning haqiqatiga dalillarni qo'llagandan so'ng shu narsa ayon bo'ladiki, bog'lovchi fikr, ya'ni ko'pchilik fikri afzal ko'rilgan fikr, Uhud voqeasidagi kabi toifaga kiradi. U Payg'ambar ﷺning: "Agar ikkovingiz mashuraga kelsangiz..." degan so'zlarida zikr etilgan "al-mashura" toifasiga tegishli. Bu harakatni amalga oshirishga olib keladigan fikrdir. Undan boshqasi bog'lovchi emas va ko'pchilik fikriga ko'ra amal qilish majburiy emas. Demak, bog'lovchi fikr, ya'ni ko'pchilik fikri afzal ko'rilgan fikr, dunyoda mavjud harakatlarning bir turi, ya'ni bajarilishi lozim bo'lgan harakatni muhokama qiladigan fikr bilan cheklanadi. Bu qo'llanishdan shu ham ayon bo'ladiki, Shariat hukmi va fikr yoki texnik masalaga olib keladigan fikr uchun ikkala holatda ham ko'pchilik fikriga e'tibor berilmaydi. Shariat hukmida faqat dalilning kuchi e'tiborga olinadi. Fikr yoki texnik masalaga olib keladigan fikrda, ya'ni fikr turiga, urushga yoki strategiyaga tegishli fikrda esa faqat to'g'ri fikrga e'tibor beriladi, boshqasiga emas.

After the application of the evidences on the reality of opinions in the world it becomes clear that the binding opinion i.e, in which the majority is preferred, is of the same category as in the case of Uhud. It falls under the ‘al-mashura’ mentioned in his  saying: “If both of you agree on a mashura...” It is the opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. Anything besides that is not binding and it is not obligatory to act upon based on the view of the majority. Thus, the binding opinion that is, in which the majority opinion is preferred, is restricted to one type of the actions that exist in the world which is the opinion that discusses the action which needs to be performed. Due to this application it also becomes clear that for the Sharī’ah rule and the opinion which leads to a thought or a technical matter no attention is given to the majority opinion in both cases. For the Sharī’ah rule, only the strength of the evidence is taken into account. And in the opinion which leads to a thought or technical matter i.e, which is of the type of opinion, war or strategy, only the correct opinion is given attention and nothing else.

Shunday ekan, ta'rif ilzomsiz (majburiy emas) fikr bo'lib, ko'pchilik fikriga amal qilinmaydi, chunki u hech qanday holatda "mashhur" (mashura) toifasiga kirmaydi, Uhud voqeasi unga tatbiq etilmaydi. Shu bilan birga, ta'rif masalasi tafakkurni ifodalovchi fikrga ham taalluqlidir, chunki ta'rif uchun hukmi shar'iyni o'rganish va aqlni o'rganish bir xil narsadir — ya'ni haqiqatini bilish uchun mavjud bir narsani o'rganishdir. Qaysi fikr voqelikka mos kelsa, o'sha afzal ko'riladi. Demak, narsani ta'riflashda afzal bo'lgan narsa to'g'ri fikrdir. Bunda shar'iy qoida o'rganilmaydi va ko'pchilik fikriga hech qanday ahamiyat berilmaydi. Shar'iy ta'rif bilan boshqa har qanday narsaning ta'rifi o'rtasida farq yo'q. Shunday qilib, agar ta'rif ta'riflanayotgan narsaning barcha tarkibiy qismlarini istisnosiz qamrab olsa (jome'), ta'rifning hech bir qismini chiqarib tashlamasa va ta'rif ma'nosiga kirmaydigan hech bir qismning kirishiga yo'l qo'ymasa, bunday ta'rif boshqa ta'riflardan afzal hisoblanadi; boshqacha aytganda, to'g'ri fikr afzal ko'riladi, chunki u ta'riflanayotgan narsaning haqiqatiga mos keladi va shu haqiqatning to'g'ri tavsifini beradi.

Therefore, the definition is an opinion which is not binding i.e; the majority opinion is not followed since in no way does it fall under ‘mashura’, because the incident of Uhud does not apply to it. However, the question of definition also belongs to the opinion which indicates a thought because the study of the hukm shar’i in order to define it and the study of the mind to define it is the study of an actual thing in order to arrive at the understanding of its reality i.e, the understanding of its true nature. Whenever it is in agreement with the reality then that is what is preferred. Therefore, in defining a thing what is preferred is the correct opinion. In this the Sharī’ah rule is not studied and nor is any importance attached to the opinion of the majority. There is no difference between the Sharī’ah definition and the definition of any other thing. So when the definition is inclusive (jami’) of all components of the object being defined without exception or exclusion of any components of the definition and it restricts the inclusion of any component which does not come under the meaning of the definition then this definition is preferred over other definitions, in other words the correct opinion is preferred because it agrees with the reality of the object being defined, and gives the true description of this reality.

Bu shūroning hukmi Islomda Qur’on va hadis matnlaridan aniq ko‘rinib turadi va Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ning amallarida batafsil bayon qilingan. Ammo aniq tushunishni maqsad qilgan kishi fikr bilan erishiladigan razm va amal bilan erishiladigan razm o‘rtasidagi farq haqida bahslashganda chalkashib qolishi mumkin. Badr voqeasi va Uhud voqeasi o‘rtasidagi farq masalasi ham dunyodagi mavjud fikrlarga dalillarni qo‘llashda chalkashlik tug‘dirishi mumkin. Fikrlarning haqiqati haqida gap ketganda, amalga olib keladigan fikr bilan tafakkurga olib keladigan fikr o‘rtasida hech qanday farq yo‘q, chunki oxir-oqibat ularning barchasi amalga qaytadi, deyilishi mumkin. Demak, bu farq qayerdan paydo bo‘ladi? Bu savolga javob shuki, ular o‘rtasida nozik farq bor. Tafakkurga olib keladigan fikrga kelsak, faqat mavzu muhokama qilinadi, amal esa e’tiborga olinmaydi. Demak, muhokama sohasi mavzu bo‘lib, amal emas. Muhokamadan maqsad, amalga qanday oqibatlar olib kelishidan qat’i nazar, amalga e’tibor bermasdan o‘rganilgan mavzu bo‘yicha fikrga kelishdir. Masalan, ridda urushlarida musulmonlarning jang qilishga chiqishi Abu Bakr tomonidan, uning hukmronligi ostidagi bir guruh Shariat qonunlarini joriy etishga qarshi isyon ko‘targani doirasida muhokama qilingan. ‘Umar esa uni kuchli bo‘lgan va davlatga qarshi chiqayotgan guruhga qarshi jang qilish, davlat esa ularga qarshi kurasha olmasligi mumkin, degan doirada muhokama qilgan. Shunday qilib, Abu Bakr aytdi: “Allohga qasamki! Agar ular mendan Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ga berib kelgan bir bog‘ arqonni ham bermasalar, men ular bilan jang qilaman!” Muammo ularga aniq bo‘lganda ‘Umarning oldingi fikridan voz kechib, to‘g‘ri fikrga, ya’ni Abu Bakrning fikriga ergashishdan boshqa chorasi qolmadi, chunki haqiqatda masala shundan iborat edi: Islom hukmronligi ostidagi bir guruh isyon ko‘targan edi. Masala katta bir guruhning davlatga qarshi chiqishi emas edi. Asosiy muhokama urushga chiqish yoki chiqmaslik haqida emas, Uhud voqeasida bo‘lgani kabi, balki Payg‘ambar ﷺ vafotidan keyin badaviylarning zakot to‘lashdan bosh tortishi va davlatga qarshi chiqishi Shariat hukmiga qarshi isyon hisoblanadimi yoki katta bir guruhning davlatga qarshi chiqishimi, degan savoldir. Bu haqiqiy muhokamadir. Shunday ekan, bu fikrdan kelib chiqadigan bir tushuncha haqidagi muhokama edi va unda faqat to‘g‘ri fikrga murojaat qilinadi. To‘g‘ri fikr shuki, Islom davlati hukmronligi ostidagi bir guruh Shariat hukmlarini amalga oshirishga qarshi isyon ko‘targan edi. Masalan, Mu’otiya Qur’on hakamligini talab qilib, mushaflarni baland ko‘targanida, u Qur’onning haqiqiy hakamligi edimi yoki sayyidina Alига qarshi hiyla edimi? Ali uni hiyla deb bilgan, u bilan birga bo‘lgan ko‘p odamlar esa uni Qur’on hakamligi deb ko‘rgan. Shuning uchun mushaflarni ko‘tarishning haqiqiy ma’nosini aniqlash uchun bu masala o‘rganilishi kerak. Bu ham fikrdan kelib chiqadigan tushuncha bo‘lib, to‘g‘ri fikrga murojaat qilinadi, ya’ni bu sayyidina Alига qarshi hiyla edi. Yana masalan, hukmdorlar sonining ko‘payishi davlatni zaiflashtiradimi yoki kuchaytiradimi? Boshqacha aytganda, hukmdorlar soni kamaygan sari davlat kuchliroq bo‘ladimi yoki ularning soni kamayganda davlat zaiflashadi, soni ko‘paygan sari esa davlat kuchayadimi? Boshqacha aytganda, demokratik tizimdagi vazirlar mahkamasi a’zolari kamaygan sari kuchliroq, ko‘paygan sari zaifroq bo‘ladimi yoki aksinchami? Islom tizimida davlat Xalifaning yordamchilari (mu‘avvinlar) soni kamaygan sari kuchayadimi va ularning soni ko‘paygan sari zaiflashadimi, yoki aksincha bo‘ladimi? Bu masala haqiqiy holatni aniqlash maqsadida o‘rganiladi. Shunday ekan, bu fikr bir tushunchaga olib keladigan qarash bo‘lib, bu mavzuda to‘g‘ri qarash shundan iboratki: hukmdorlarning soni ko‘paygan sari davlat zaiflashadi, ularning soni kamaygan sari esa davlat kuchayadi.

Bular fikrga olib keladigan fikrning uchta misolidir. Ulardan ravshan bo'ladiki, muhokama qilinadigan soha mavzu bo'lib, harakat emas, garchi mavzu ustidagi muhokama harakatlarni ta'minlashi mumkin bo'lsa-da. Muhokama harakatga emas, balki aniqlanganda harakatni amalga oshirish yoki amalga oshirmaslikni taqozo qiladigan yoki muhokama qilingan fikr tomonidan talab qilingan tarzda harakatni amalga oshirishni taqozo qiladigan fikrga qaratilgan. Demak, muhokama mavzuda fikrga, ya'ni bir tafakkurga erishish maqsadida olib boriladi. Fikrga erishilgach, o'rganishdan keyin erishilgan fikr asosida harakat mavzusida qaror qabul qilinadi. O'rganilayotgan fikr to'g'ridan-to'g'ri harakatga olib kelmaydi, faqat fikrga olib keladi. Erishilgan fikr harakatni amalga oshirishni taqozo qilishi yoki qilmasligi mumkin. Shunday qilib, bu fikrga olib keladigan fikrdir. Harakatga olib keladigan fikrga kelsak, harakatni amalga oshirish shu harakat bog'liq bo'lgan mavzu nuqtai nazaridan muhokama qilinadi, shuning uchun muhokama sohasi harakatni amalga oshirish bo'ladi, mavzu emas. Muhokamaning maqsadi harakatni amalga oshirish yoki amalga oshirmaslikni yoki harakatni aniq bir tarzda amalga oshirishni aniqlashdir; maqsad mavzuni muhokama qilish emas. Masalan, xalifa saylash va unga bay'at berish niyat qilinganda, xilofat mavzusi muhokama qilinmaydi: u farzmi yoki mandubmi, va muhokama ham: respublika prezidentini saylaymizmi yoki xalifami? Muhokama qilinishi kerak bo'lgan narsa: falonchi saylanib, unga bay'at berilishi kerakmi yoki boshqa bir shaxs saylanib, unga bay'at berilishi kerakmi? Davlatning qarz olish harakati muhokama qilinganda, muhokama qarz olish joizmi yo'qmi degan masala ustida bo'lmasligi kerak; muhokama qilinishi kerak bo'lgan narsa: qarz olinsinmi yoki olinmasinmi? Yangi yo'lni qurish masalasi muhokama qilinganda, muhokama bu yo'lni ochish mumkinmi yoki yo'qmi, degan savol ustida bo'lmasligi kerak — chunki uning o'rnini egallaydigan boshqa yo'l mavjud — balki yo'lni ochish kerakmi yoki yo'qmi, degan masala ustida bo'lishi lozim. Muhokama harakatning o'zi haqida, uni amalga oshirish yoki oshirmaslik nuqtayi nazaridan olib boriladi. Bu harakatdan kelib chiqadigan mavzu muhokama qilinmaydi. Mavzuni muhokama qilish — fikrga olib keladigan mulohaza bo'lib, mavzu emas, balki muhokama doirasi ostidagi mavzu — harakatni amalga oshirish-oshirmaslik masalasidir. Shunda bu harakatga olib keladigan fikr haqidagi muhokama hisoblanadi. Demak, fikr harakatni amalga oshirish uchun ilgari suriladi. Masalan, Abu Bakr (r.a.) o'zidan keyin kim xalifa bo'lishi haqida musulmonlar bilan maslahatlashganida, bu xalifa saylanishi masalasi ustida — ya'ni falon yoki falon shaxs saylanishi kerakmi, degan savol ustida muhokama edi. Albatta, muhokama xalifalik masalasi haqida emas edi. Bu harakatga olib keladigan fikr haqidagi muhokama edi. Yana, Mu'oviya va Sayyidina Alī o'rtasidagi hakamlik shartnomasi tuzilganda, Alī tomonidan hakamni tanlash borasida muhokama bo'lib o'tdi. Alī Abdulloh ibn Abbosni tanladi, ammo u bilan birga bo'lganlarning ko'pchiligi Abu Muso al-Ash'arīyni tanladi. Bu muhokama kimni hakam qilish kerakligi haqida edi, hakamlikni qabul qilish masalasi haqida emas edi. Demak, bu harakatga olib keladigan fikr haqidagi muhokama edi. Yana misol: agar musulmon xalq davlat Xabarni (Islom xabarini) yetkazishi uchun zarur bo'lgan barcha turdagi mashina va jihozlarni ishlab chiqarish maqsadida og'ir sanoatni yo'lga qo'yish kerak, deb hisoblasa, rahbarlari esa dehqonning turmush darajasini yaxshilash uchun to'g'onlar qurish va qishloq xo'jaligini rivojlantirish kerak, deb hisoblasa, bu muhokama og'ir sanoatni yo'lga qo'yish kerakmi yoki to'g'on qurilishini amalga oshirish kerakmi, degan masala haqida bo'ladi. Munozara davlat Xabarni (Islom) olib borishi kerakmi yoki yo'qmi, degan masala ustida bo'lmasligi kerak. Shuning uchun munozara amalga olib keladigan fikr haqida bo'lishi kerak.

Bular amalga olib keladigan fikrning uch misolidir va shu narsa aniqki, muhokama maydoni amal bo'lib, mavzu emas. Bu amallar ma'lum masalalarga bog'liq bo'lsa ham, ularning muhokamasi bu masalalarga emas, balki amalni bajarishga qaratilgan. Shuning uchun muhokama amal haqida bo'ladi, fikr haqida emas.

These are three examples of the opinion which leads to an action, and it is clear that the area of discussion is the action and not the subject. These actions even if they depend on certain issues, their discussion however is not focused on these issues rather on the undertaking of the action Therefore, the discussion is about the action and not about the opinion.

Shu muhokama va yuqoridagi misollardan ko'rinadiki, fikr-mulohazaga olib keladigan rey va harakatga olib keladigan rey o'rtasida farq bor, garchi bu nozik farq chuqur o'ylashni va puxta tekshirishni talab qilsa ham. Bularning hammasi fikrga olib keladigan rey va harakatga olib keladigan rey o'rtasidagi farq borasida yuzaga kelishi mumkin bo'lgan chalkashlikka aloqadir. Badr va Uhud voqealari o'rtasidagi farqqa oid chalkashlikka kelsak, Badr voqeasi bilan Uhud voqeasi o'rtasida hech qanday farq yo'q, deb da'vo qilinishi mumkin. Ikkalasida ham jangga kirish bo'lgani va ular o'rtasida farq bo'lmagani uchun nima uchun Badr voqeasi fikrga olib keladigan rey, Uhud voqeasi esa harakatga olib keladigan rey deb hisoblanishi kerak? Bunga javob shuki, ikki voqea o'rtasida aniq farq bor, chunki Badr voqeasining haqiqati Uhud voqeasinikidan farq qiladi. Uhuddagi masala: shahardan chiqish kerakmi yoki Madinada qolish kerakmi, degan savol edi. Bu g'ayrat va ehtiyotkorlik bilan bog'liq edi; muhokama urushdagi (harbiy) strategik o'rin haqida emas edi. Shu sababli biz Nabiy ﷺ Uhud tog'ida strategik o'rinda qo'shinni tartibga solish uchun kelganlarida, bu ishni o'zlari zimmalariga olganlarini ko'ramiz. U zot ﷺ o'qchilarni orqada kutib turishga va hujum qilmaslikka buyurdilar (to'liq hikoya Al-Buxoriyda bor). Bu ish uchun u zot ﷺ odamlarning fikriga murojaat qilmadilar. Badr haqiqatiga kelsak, masala faqat qo'shinni strategik o'rinda joylashtirish masalasi edi. Shu ish uchun Allohning Elchisi ﷺ to'g'ri fikrga murojaat qildilar. Bu bir tomondan shunday. Boshqa tomondan, bunga dalil faqat Rasulullohning ﷺ harakati emas, balki uning harakati va so'zidir. Rasulullohning ﷺ so'zi,

From this discussion and the above examples, it is clear that there is a difference between the opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action even though this subtle difference requires reflection and scrutiny. All this is in relation to the confusion that can occur with respect to the difference between an opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action. As for the confusion that may occur with regards to the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud; it might be claimed that there is no difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud. Why should the incident of Badr be considered as an opinion which leads to a thought and the incident of Uhud be considered as an opinion which leads to an action when both involve going into battle and there is no difference between them? The answer to this is that there is a clear distinction between the two incidents since the reality of the incident of Badr is different to that of Uhud. The issue in Uhud was: Should they go out or remain in Madina? It was to do with zeal and cautiousness, the discussion was not about a (strategic) position in war. This is why we find the Prophet , when he came to organise the army in a strategic position on the mountain of Uhud, he assumed the task of organising them himself. He made the marksmen wait in the rear and ordered them not to attack (the complete story is available in AlBukhari), for this action he did not refer to the opinion of the people. As for the reality of Badr the issue was purely the question of arranging the army in a strategic position. So for this action the Messenger of Allah  referred to the correct opinion. This is from one perspective. From another perspective the evidence for this is not just the action of the Messenger  but it is his action and his saying as well. So the Messenger’s  saying,

shuningdek, bu ham dalildir.

is also an evidence.

Bitta masala hali ham qolmoqda: kim to‘g‘ri fikrni ajratib beradi va kimning fikri ustun deb hisoblanadi? Biz aytdikki, Shariat hukmlarida dalilning kuchi (quwwat al-dalil) afzal ko‘riladi; amal qilishga olib keladigan fikrda ko‘pchilikning qarashi afzal ko‘riladi; tafakkurga olib keladigan fikrda esa, texnik masalalar va ta’riflarga oid savollarda to‘g‘ri fikr afzal ko‘riladi. Endi qolgan vazifa shuki, to‘g‘ri fikrni kim bayon qiladi va kimning fikri ustun bo‘ladi, buni aniqlashdir. Javob shuki, to‘g‘ri fikrni ustun qo‘yuvchi shaxs o‘sha masalada vakolatga ega bo‘lgan kishidir; ya’ni xalqni boshqaruvchi, ularning rahbari bo‘lgan kishidir, chunki aynan u xalq bilan maslahatlashish vazifasini o‘z zimmasiga oladi. Jamoa bir-biri bilan maslahatlashganda, faqat bir qarorga kelish va shu qaror bo‘yicha ish tutish uchun maslahatlashadi. Jamoa sifatida shu qaror bo‘yicha ish yuritish uchun ularning ustidan rahbar bo‘lishi zarur bo‘ladi; shuning uchun maslahat o‘tkaziladigan masala bo‘yicha vakolat faqat unga tegishli bo‘lishi kerak. To‘g‘ri fikrni ustun qo‘yish huquqi faqat unga, ya’ni xalqning rahbariga tegishlidir. Buning dalili quyidagi oyatdir: {Ey iymon keltirganlar! Allohga itoat qilinglar, Rasulga va sizlardan bo‘lgan rahbarlarga itoat qilinglar.}

One issue still remains; who will be the one to expound what is right and that his opinion is considered to be the preponderant? We have explained that in the Sharī’ah rules the quwwa addalīl (strength of the evidence) is preferred, and in the opinion which leads to an action, the view of the majority is preferred. And that in the opinion which leads to a thought, the technical matters and questions of definition, in all these matters the correct opinion is preferred. It remains for us to identify who will expound the right opinion and whose opinion will be preponderant. The answer is that the one who outweighs the correct opinion is the one who has jurisdiction over the matter in question, he is the one who leads the people that is, their leader, since he is the one who assumes the task of consulting the people. When the community consults each other, it only does that to reach an opinion so as to proceed according to it. To proceed according to it as a community it becomes necessary to have a leader over them so only he should have the authority over the matter for which the consultation takes place. The one to outweigh the correct opinion should be only him, the one who leads the people. The evidence for this is the verse which states:

Demak, shuroni Rasulullah ﷺ o‘tkazgan va u Musulmonlarning rahbari edi. Alloh unga qaror qabul qilish huquqini berdi: shuradan keyin o‘zi to‘g‘ri deb bilgan narsani amalga oshirish. Shunday ekan, to‘g‘ri bo‘lganini aniqlab, uni tanlagan ham o‘sha edi. Xuddi shunday, bu holat har qanday xalq rahbari uchun ham o‘rinlidir, chunki bu hukm faqat Rasulullah ﷺ ga xos emas, balki barcha Musulmonlarga umumiydir. Buning sababi shuki, Rasulullah ﷺ ning so‘zi o‘z Ummatiga qaratilgan so‘zdir, agar uni faqat unga xos qiladigan dalil bo‘lmasa. Bu yerda esa uni Rasulullah ﷺ ga xos qiladigan hech qanday dalil yo‘q. Shuning uchun u umumiy (‘aam) hisoblanadi.

So the shura was performed by the Messenger  and he was the leader of the Muslims. Allah  gave him the right to decide, to implement what he decides after the consultation i.e, what he views as being correct. So he was the one who outweighed what was correct. Likewise, it is the same situation with any leader of a people because this is not special to the Messenger  but general to all Muslims. This is because the speech of the Messenger  is a speech to his Ummah as long as there is no evidence to specify it to him. And here there are no evidences to make it specific to the Messenger . So it is general (‘aam).

Agar jamoada rahbar bo'lmasa va u biror kishini tanlamoqchi bo'lsa, to'g'ri fikrni tanlab olish huquqiga ega bo'lgan shaxsni, ya'ni to'g'ri fikrni boshqalaridan ustun qo'yish huquqiga ega bo'lgan kishini tanlashi kerak. Bunday hollarda jamoa faqat bitta kishini tanlashi lozim, toki u to'g'ri fikrni ustun qo'yish huquqiga ega bo'lsin. Jamoa bir nechta kishini tanlashi joiz emas. Chunki to'g'ri fikrni ustun qo'yish bir necha kishi tomonidan amalga oshirilishi mumkin emas. Haqiqatan ham, ko'pchilik to'g'ri fikrni aytishi mumkin va to'g'ri fikr ikki kishi tarafida bo'lishi mumkin, bitta kishi tarafida emas. Lekin masala to'g'ri fikr kimning tarafida ekani emas, balki to'g'ri fikrni kim ustun qo'yishi masalasidir. Bu bitta kishimi yoki ikki kishimi? Buni ko'pchilik amalga oshira olmaydi, chunki ko'pchilikka ergashish to'g'ri fikrga amal qilishga zid keladi. Bular ikki qarama-qarshi masaladir. Shunday ekan, ko'pchilikka to'g'ri fikrdan qat'i nazar amal qilinadi, to'g'ri fikrga esa ko'pchilikdan qat'i nazar amal qilinadi.

As for when the community does not have a leader and it wishes to select some one who will have the right to outweigh the correct opinion. In this situation the community should choose a single person only so that he will have the right to outweigh the correct opinion. The community is not allowed to choose more than one person. This is because outweighing the correct opinion cannot be undertaken by more than one person. Indeed the majority might state the correct opinion and the correct opinion might lie more with two persons as opposed to one but the issue is not the possibility of with whom the correct opinion lies rather who will outweigh the correct opinion. Is it one person or two? That cannot be possible for the majority, because following the majority (opinion) is contrary to adopting the correct opinion. They are two opposite issues. Thus, the majority is adhered to irrespective of the correct opinion, and the correct opinion is adhered to irrespective of the majority.

Bitta shaxsning to'g'ri fikridan ustun kelishi va bundan ortiq shaxsning buni qilishi joiz emasligi haqida gap bo'lsa, bu bir qator sabablarga ko'ra majburiydir:

As for the fact that only one person should outweigh the correct opinion and that it is not permitted for more than one person to do so. This is obligatory due to a number of reasons:

Haqiqiy to'g'ri fikrning shu tabiati bitta shaxsning bo'lishini zaruriy qiladi, chunki tarjih ishi ikki, uch yoki undan ortiq kishiga topshirilsa, ular faqat ixtilof qiladilar. Ularning bu ixtilofi hakamlikka murojaat qilishga majbur qiladi. Agar ular ikki kishini hakam qilib tayinlasalar, ular yana ixtilof qiladilar, shuning uchun hukm ulardan biriga o'tishi kerak bo'ladi. Shunda hukm qilish huquqi faqat bir kishiga topshirilgan bo'ladi. Agar ular uch hakam tayinlasalar, ularning ixtilofi muqarrar bo'ladi, keyin hukm yo bir kishi yoki ikki kishi tomonidan chiqariladi. Agar ular ikki kishiga murojaat qilsalar, ular ko'pchilik fikriga murojaat qilgan bo'ladilar, holbuki talab qilinadigani to'g'ri fikrga murojaat qilishdir. Bitta kishiga murojaat qilish zaruriy bo'lib qoladi. Shuning uchun boshidanoq hukm faqat bitta kishiga berilishi shart, ya'ni to'g'ri fikrni tarjih qiladigan kishi faqat bitta bo'lishi kerak. Ikki yoki uch kishi o'rtasida yuz beradigan ixtilof undan ko'p sonli kishilar o'rtasida yuz beradi. Shuning uchun hukm chiqarish bir kishidan ortiqqa berilmasligi kerak, chunki hukm chiqarish huquqi bir kishidan ortiq kishiga berilganda, hukm ko'pchilikka, to'g'ri bo'lgan narsaga emas, balki ko'pchilik fikriga o'tadi. Maqsad ko'pchilik fikri bo'yicha emas, balki to'g'ri fikr bo'yicha hukm chiqarishdir.

First: That reality of the correct opinion makes it inevitable that there should be one person because if the outweighing is left to two, three or more persons they will only disagree. And this disagreement of theirs will force them to refer to arbitration. If they appoint two people as arbitrators they will only disagree so the judgement will have to go to one of them. Then the right to judge will have been referred to one person only. If they appoint three arbitrators then their disagreement will be unavoidable, then the judgement will be given either to one or two persons. If they refer to two persons then they would have referred to the majority opinion whereas it is required that they refer the correct opinion, It becomes inevitable that they refer to one person. Therefore, it is imperative that from the beginning the judgement is given to only one person i.e, the one who outweighs the correct opinion should be one person only. The disagreement that occurs between two or three persons occurs between people of greater number than that. So passing judgement should not be given to more than one person because when more than one person is given the right to pass a judgement, the judgement goes to the majority and not to what is right. What is intended is the judgement on the correct opinion and not the majority.

Ikkinchidan: Eng to‘g‘ri fikrni ustun qo‘yishning asosi shu bo‘lishi kerakki, bu faqat hokimiyat egasi uchun bo‘lsin va u bitta kishi bo‘lsin, chunki agar u amir, ya’ni rahbar bo‘lsa, u faqat bitta kishi bo‘lishi mumkin, va agar u maslahat qilingan masalani amalga oshiruvchi bo‘lsa, u ham faqat bitta kishi bo‘lishi kerak, chunki ikki kishi amalga oshirish usullari haqida albatta ixtilof qiladi, ularning ixtilofi amalga oshirishga to‘siq bo‘ladi. Shuning uchun hokimiyat egasi faqat bitta bo‘lishi kerak. Demak, to‘g‘ri fikrni ustun qo‘yuvchi ham faqat bitta kishi bo‘lishi kerak.

Second: The basis in outweighing the correct opinion is that it should only be for the one in authority and it should be only one person because if he is an ameer i.e a leader then he can only be one person and if he is implementing the matter for which the consultation took place then he should be one person only because two persons will unavoidably disagree about the styles of implementation, their disagreement will obstruct the implementation. Therefore, the person in authority should only be one. Consequently, the person who outweighs the correct opinion should be one person only.

Uchinchidan: Musulmonlar uchun xalifalik lavozimi eng buyuk narsadir. Islom huquqi xalifaga qoidalarni qabul qilishda bir qoidani boshqasidan ustun qo'yish yakka vakolatini bergan va uni dalil kuchiga asoslanib qabul qilishda yolg'iz bo'lish huquqini bergan, shuningdek, to'g'ri fikrni ustun qo'yish huquqini unga yagona tarzda bergan. Urush e'lon qilish, shartnoma tuzish, kofir davlatlar bilan munosabatlarni belgilash va xalifaning vakolatiga kiradigan boshqa har qanday masalalarda yagona huquq unga tegishli. Ishlarni yuritish uning ko'ruvi bilan bog'liq bo'lib, u to'g'ri deb hisoblagan narsani amalga oshirishga qaratilgan. Bu masalada sahobalarning ijmo'i sodir bo'lgan. Xalifaning fikri bir kishining fikri bo'lgani uchun, o'sha og'ir vazifa, ya'ni xalifaning vazifasidan kichikroq masalalarda to'g'ri fikrni bir kishi ustun qo'yishi min bab awla (yanada ko'proq darajada) joizdir.

Third: For the Muslims the post of the Khilafah is the greatest thing. The Islamic Law has granted the Khalifah the sole authority to outweigh one rule over another in the adoption of rules and it has given him the right to be alone in his adoption based on the strength of the evidence and it has given him the sole right to outweigh the correct opinion. He has the sole right to declare war, conclude a treaty, define the relationship with the Kafir nations and anything else that comes under the authority of the Khalifah. The looking after the affairs has been made subject to his opinion only, according to what he sees as being correct to undertake. The ijma’ of the Sahabah has taken place on this. The opinion of the Khalifah is the opinion of one person only so by greater reason (min bab awla) for things of lesser importance than that weighty task - that is, the job of the Khalifah- the correct opinion should be outweighed by a single person.

Bu shūro (maslahatlashish) va tashovur (o‘zaro maslahatlashish) masalasi bo‘lib, bu fikrlarni qabul qilish masalasidir va bu borada Shariat qoidasi shudir. Bu qoida demokratik qoidadan butunlay farq qiladi. Fikrlarni qabul qilish borasidagi Allohning bu qoidasi yagona to‘g‘ri qoidadir. Demokratiyadan kelib chiqqan boshqa har qanday narsa noto‘g‘ri bo‘lib, uni qabul qilib bo‘lmaydi.

This is the matter of shura (consultation) and tashawur (mutual consultation) which is the adoption of opinions and this is the rule of the Sharī’ah with regards it. This rule differs completely with the democratic rule. This rule of Allah  concerning the adoption of opinions is the only true one. Anything else emanating from democracy is false and it cannot be accepted.

This is the hukm of shura in Islam and it is clear from the texts of the Qur’ān and hadīth and it has been elaborately described in the actions of the Messenger of Allah . However, for the purpose of gaining a precise understanding someone may become confused when discussing the reality of opinions about the difference between an opinion through which a thought is reached and the opinion through which one arrives at an action. The question of the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud in applying the evidences on the opinions prevalent in the world may also become confused. It might be said when discussing the reality of opinions that there is no difference between the opinion which leads to an action and the opinion which leads to a thought, in the end all of them revert back to an action. So from where does this difference arise? The answer to this question is that there is a subtle difference between them. With respect to the opinion which leads to a thought, only the subject matter is discussed without considering the action. So the area of discussion is the subject and not the action. What is intended from the discussion is to arrive at a thought over a subject which is studied without considering the action irrespective of whatever this thought may entail in terms of actions. For example, the Muslims going forth in the apostasy (ridda) wars was discussed by Abu Bakr as being in the sphere that a faction under his rule had rebelled against the implementation of the laws of the Sharī’ah. ‘Umar discussed it in the sphere that it constitutes fighting a faction which is strong and is challenging the state and the state may not be able to fight them. Thus, Abu Bakr said: “By Allah! If they withhold from me the cord of a camel which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah  I will fight them!” When the issue became clear to him ‘Umar had no choice but to retract from his previous opinion and follow the correct opinion, which was the opinion of Abu Bakr because in reality the issue was that a faction under the Islamic rule had rebelled. The issue was not that a large faction was challenging the state. The real discussion is not about going out to war or not going out as was the case in Uhud rather it is about whether the bedouin’s refusal to pay Zakah after the death of the Messenger  and their challenge to state constitutes rebellion against the Sharī’ah rule or a challenge to the state by a large faction. This is the actual discussion. Therefore, it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to a thought, for which reference is only made to the correct opinion. The correct opinion is that a faction under the rule of the Islamic state had rebelled against the implementation of the Sharī’ah rules. For example, Mu’awiyya’s request for the arbitration (tahkeem) of the Qur’ān between him and sayyidina ‘Ali by raising aloft the mushafs, was that a true arbitration of the Qur’ān or was it a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali ? ‘Ali  saw it as a ploy and many people with him viewed it as an arbitration of the Qur’ān. So, this subject should be studied in order to arrive at the true significance of raising the mushafs (scripts) which constitutes an opinion that leads to a thought, So the correct opinion is referred to which is that it was a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali. For example, does the increase in the number of rulers weaken a state or strengthen it? In other words, as the number of rulers decreases, does the state become stronger or whenever their numbers decreases does the state become weaker and whenever their number increases does the state become stronger? In other words, does the cabinet in the democratic system become stronger whenever its members decrease and weaken whenever its members increase or is it the opposite? Does the state in the Islamic system become stronger whenever the number of the Khalifah’s assistants (mu’awwinin) decrease and weaken whenever their numbers increase, or is it the opposite? This issue is studied in order to arrive at the true reality. So it is an opinion which leads to a thought and in this subject the correct opinion is accredited which is that whenever the number of rulers increases the state becomes weaker and whenever their number decreases the state becomes stronger.

These are three examples of the opinion which leads to a thought. It is clear from these that the area of discussion is the subject and not the action even though the discussion in the subject would ensure actions yet the discussion is not focussed on the action but on a thought which upon becoming clear entails the undertaking or non-undertaking of an action or undertaking an action in a manner which is necessitated by the thought which has been discussed. So the discussion is for the purpose of arriving at an opinion in a subject i.e, to a thought. Once a thought is reached a decision will be made on the subject of the action in light of the thought arrived at after the study. The opinion which is being studied will not lead directly to an action rather it will only lead to a thought. The thought which is reached may entail the undertaking of an action or it may not. Consequently, it is an opinion which leads to a thought. As for the opinion which leads to an action, the undertaking of an action is discussed considering the subject upon which this action depends, so the area of discussion is the undertaking of an action and not the subject. The purpose of discussion is to determine whether or not to undertake an action or to undertake an action in a specific manner, the purpose is not to discuss a subject, For example when it is intended to elect a Khalifah and give Bay’a to him the subject of Khilafah is not discussed, Whether it is obligatory (fard) or preferred (mandub) and nor is the discussion; should we elect a president (of a republic) or a Khalifah? What should be discussed is: should so-and-so be elected and given Bay’a or should a different person be elected and given Bay’a? When the state’s action of taking a loan is discussed, the discussion should not be on the issue of whether or not it is allowed to take the loan rather what should be discussed is: whether the loan is to be taken or not ?. And when the building of a new road is discussed, the discussions should not be whether or not it is allowed to open this road due to the presence of another road taking its place but what is discussed is whether the road should be opened or not, the action itself is discussed in terms of whether or not to undertake it. The subject which is entailed by this action is not discussed. The discussion of a subject is an opinion which leads to a thought but the subject is not the area of discussion rather the subject under the area of discussion is whether to undertake an action. Then it will be considered a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. So the opinion will be put forward in order to undertake an action. For example, when Abu Bakr consulted the Muslims with regards to who will be Khalifah after him, it was a discussion about the election of a Khalifah i.e, should so-and-so or so-and-so person be elected. Definitely, the discussion was not about the issue of Khilafah. It was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example when the agreement of arbitration between Mu’awiyya and sayyidina ‘Ali was finalised, a discussion took place about selecting a mediator on the side of ‘Ali . ‘Ali  chose ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas but most of the people with him chose Abu Musa al-Ash’ari. This discussion was about who will be the mediator and not about the issue of accepting arbitration. So it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example, if the Muslim populace take the view that they should establish heavy industry to manufacture all types of machinery and equipment in order to fulfil the elements necessary for the state to carry the Message (of Islam) but their rulers take the view that they should establish dams and encourage agriculture in order to improve the livelihood of the farmer, this discussion is about whether to pursue heavy industry or to undertake the construction of dams. The discussion should not be whether the state should carry the Message (of Islam) or not. So the discussion is about an opinion which leads to an action.