Birinchi masala — Ahkom Shariah tomonidan xalifaning hukmlarni qabul qilishidagi cheklovi ko‘rib chiqilishi kerak. Bu cheklov uni qonun chiqarishda va qonunlar joriy etishda Islom Shariati doirasida bog‘laydi. U Shariatga zid keladigan hech qanday qonunni qabul qilishdan man etiladi, chunki Shariatga zid har qanday qonun kufr qonuni hisoblanadi. Agar u Shariatdan kelib chiqmagan qoidani bilib turib qabul qilgan bo‘lsa, bu masala tekshirilishi lozim. Agar u qabul qilgan qoidaga e’tiqod qilgan bo‘lsa, u kofir bo‘lib qoladi. Agar unga ishonmagan holda, lekin Islomga zid emas deb tushunib qabul qilgan bo‘lsa, xuddi Bani Usmonning so‘nggi davridagi xalifalar qilganidek, bunday qilish u uchun harom bo‘ladi, ammo u kofir bo‘lmaydi. Biroq, agar u ehtimoliy dalilga (Shubhat dalil) ega bo‘lsa — masalan, dalili bo‘lmagan, faqat u tasavvur qilgan maslahat (manfaat) sababli qonun qo‘yadigan kishi holatida, Al-Masolih al-mursala, ya’ni cheklanmagan manfaatlar qoidasi, yoki Ma’alat al-af’al, ya’ni harakatlar oqibatlari qoidasi, yoki Sad az-zaro’i, ya’ni vosita (bahona)ni to‘sish qoidasi va shunga o‘xshash qoidalarga tayangan bo‘lsa, va agar u bularni ilohiy qoida va dalil deb hisoblagan bo‘lsa, unga bu harom bo‘lmaydi va u kofir bo‘lmaydi, balki shunchaki xato qilgan bo‘ladi. Shunga ko‘ra, barcha musulmonlar u chiqargan narsani ilohiy hukm deb bilishlari va xalifa uni qabul qilgan bo‘lsa, unga amal qilishlari kerak. Chunki bu ehtimoliy dalilga ega bo‘lgan ilohiy hukmdir, garchi u dalilni to‘g‘ri tushunishda adashgan bo‘lsa-da, xuddi dalildan xulosa chiqarishda (istinbot) xato qilgan kishiga o‘xshaydi. Biroq xalifa Islom Shariati tomonidan qabul qilinishida o‘zini cheklashi shart, va u Shariatdan faqat Shariat dalillaridan to‘g‘ri chiqarilgan ilohiy hukmlar bilan cheklanishi kerak. Buning dalili shuki:
There are two issues here that need closer examination. The first is the restriction by the Ahkam Shari’ah of the Khaleefah in his adoption of the Ahkam. This restricts him in legislation and enacting laws, with the Islamic Shari’ah. He is forbidden from adopting any law contradicting Shari’ah, for any law that contradicts Shari’ah is regarded as Kufr law. If He adopted a rule not derived from Shari’ah knowingly, then it has to be examined. If He believed in the rule that He adopted, but He would become a disbeliever. If He did not believe in it but took it, understanding that it did not contradict Islam, as the Khulafaa’ of Banu ‘Uthman did in their last days, then it would be Haram for him to do so, and He would not become a disbeliever. However, if He has a probable evidence (Shuabhat Daleel), as is the case for the one who puts a law that has no evidence, but only due to an interest (Maslahah) He conceives, referring to the principle of Al-Masalih Al Mursala, the undefined interests, or the principle of Maalat Al-Afa’al, the consequences of the actions, or the principle of Sadd Ath-Thara’i, averting the pretext, or the like. If He deems these as divine principles and evidences, then it would not be prohibited for him and He would not become a disbeliever, but simply mistaken. Accordingly, all the Muslims would regard what He extracted as a divine rule, and they should abide by it if the Khaleefah adopted it. This is because it is a divine rule that had probable evidence, though He was mistaken in the Daleel (evidence) for He is like the one who is mistaken in the extraction from the evidence (Istinbat). However, the Khaleefah must restrict himself in the adoption by the Islamic Shari’ah, and He should be restricted in the adoption from the Shari’ah by the divine rules which are correctly extracted from the Shari’ah evidences. The evidence on that is: