Shari’ (Qonun chiqaruvchi) ummatga vakolat bergan va xalifani tayinlashni barcha musulmonlarga topshirgan. U (SWT) buni biror guruhga, boshqa guruhni chetlab, yoki biror qatlamga, boshqa qatlamni chetlab qo‘ymagan. Shu sababli bay’at barcha musulmonlarning zimmasidagi farzdir:

The Legislator (Ash-Shari’) has given the authority to the Ummah, and made the appointment of the Khaleefah by all Muslims. He (swt) has not confined it to a particular group to the exclusion of another group, nor to a particular section to the exclusion of another section, thus the Bay’ah is an obligation on all Muslims:

“Kimki boynida Bay’ah (sodiqlik ahdi) bo‘lmagan holda vafot etsa, u Johiliyyat (johiliyat davri) o‘limi bilan o‘ladi.” [Muslim Abdulloh ibn Umardan rivoyat qilgan] Bu hukm har bir musulmonga taalluqlidir. Shunga ko‘ra, Xalifani tayinlash huquqi faqat nufuzli shaxslarga tegishli emas va u boshqa musulmonlarni chetlab o‘tmaydi. Xalifani tayinlashga haqli bo‘lganlar muayyan bir guruh odamlar emas; aksincha, bu huquq istisnosiz barcha musulmonlarga, hatto munofiqlar (Munofiqin) va fosiqlar (Fujjar)ga ham tegishlidir, agar ular balog‘atga yetgan musulmonlar bo‘lsa. Chunki tegishli matnlar umumiy shaklda kelgan va balog‘at yoshiga yetmagan bolaning bay’atini rad etishdan boshqa hech narsa uni cheklash uchun naql qilinmagan, shuning uchun ular o‘z doirasida umumiy bo‘lib qoladi.

“Whoever dies while there was no allegiance (Bay’ah) on his neck He dies a death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).” [Narrated by Muslim from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar] This applies to every Muslim. It therefore, follows that the prominent figures are not the only people eligible to appoint the Khaleefah to the exclusion of other Muslims. Those eligible to appoint the Khaleefah are not a specific group of people; rather this right belongs to all Muslims without exception, even to the hypocrites (Munafiqeen) and the wrongdoers (Fujjar), so long as they are mature Muslims. This is because the relevant texts came in a general form, nothing else has been reported to specify them except the rejection of the Bay’ah of the child who is under the age of maturity, and therefore they remain general in their scope.

Garchi barcha musulmonlar bu huquqdan foydalanishi shart bo‘lmasa-da, bu ularning huquqidir. Garchi bu ularning zimmasidagi majburiyat bo‘lsa-da, chunki bay’at vojibdir, bu majburiyat farzi kifoya bo‘lib, farzi ayn emas. Shunga ko‘ra, agar musulmonlarning bir qismi buni amalga oshirsa, qolgan ummat bu vazifadan ozod bo‘ladi. Shunday bo‘lsa-da, butun ummatga xalifani tayinlash huquqidan foydalanish imkoniyati berilishi kerak, ular bu huquqdan foydalanganlari yoki foydalanmaganlaridan qat’i nazar. Boshqacha aytganda, har bir musulmon xalifani tayinlashda ishtirok eta olishi kerak, unga buni haqiqatan ham imkoniyat yaratib berish orqali. Shu sababli, bahs-munozaraga sabab bo‘layotgan masala, Alloh (SWT) musulmonlarning zimmasiga yuklagan, xalifani tayinlash vazifasini ularning bu vazifadan xalos bo‘ladigan tarzda ado etishlariga imkon berishdir, barcha musulmonlar tomonidan bu vazifaning haqiqatda bajarilishi emas. Chunki Alloh (SWT) ularning zimmasiga yuklagan majburiyat xalifani musulmonlar tomonidan va ularning roziligi bilan tayinlashdir, barcha musulmonlarning uni tayinlashi shart emas. Bu masaladan aslida ikki holat kelib chiqishi mumkin: biri, uning tayinlanishiga barcha musulmonlarning roziligi erishilgan bo‘lishi; ikkinchisi, bu tayinlanishga barcha musulmonlarning roziligi erishilmagan bo‘lishi, lekin ikkala holatda ham musulmonlarga bu huquqdan foydalanish imkoniyati haqiqatan berilgan bo‘lishi.

Although, it is not a condition for all the Muslims to exercise this right, eventhough it is their right. Although it is an obligation on them, since the Bay’ah is obligatory, the obligation is one of sufficiency (Fard Kifayah) and not an individual obligation (Fard ‘Ayn). Accordingly, if some of the Muslims performed it the rest of the Ummah would be exempted. Nevertheless, the whole of the Ummah should be enabled to exercise their right of appointing the Khaleefah, regardless of whether they utilised this right or not. In other words, every Muslim should be able to participate in appointing the Khaleefah, by genuinely enabling him to do so. Therefore, the point at issue is in enabling the Muslims to perform that which Allah (swt) has ordained upon them of appointing the Khaleefah in a way that would exempt them of this duty and not the actual exercise of that duty by all the Muslims. This is because the obligation that Allah (swt) ordained on them is to appoint the Khaleefah by the Muslims and by their consent, and not obliged upon all Muslims to appoint him. Two issues could actually arise from this matter: One is that the consent of all the Muslims of his appointment was realised; the other is that the consent of all the Muslims of this appointment was not achieved, although, in both cases, the Muslims were genuinely enabled to exercise this right.

Birinchi masalaga kelsak, xalifani tayinlovchi kishilar soni belgilangan emas. Aslida, xalifaga bay‘at bergan har qanday sondagi musulmonlar xalifani tayinlashi mumkin, bunda musulmonlarning roziligi ularning jim turishi, yoki xalifaga sadoqat va itoat qasamyod qilishi, yoki ularning roziligini bildiruvchi boshqa shunga o‘xshash belgi orqali erishiladi. Shunda tayinlangan xalifa barcha musulmonlarning xalifasi bo‘ladi va hatto xalifani atigi besh kishi tayinlagan bo‘lsa ham, u shariat bo‘yicha qonuniy xalifa hisoblanadi. Sababi, bunday guruh xalifa tayinlashga qodir to‘g‘ri guruh sanaladi. Rozilik musulmonlarning jim turishi va itoat qasamyodi yoki shunga o‘xshash harakatlar orqali erishiladi, shartki, bu ish to‘liq erkin tanlov asosida amalga oshirilsin va har kim xohlasa o‘z fikrini bildirishi uchun zarur choralar ko‘rilgan bo‘lsin. Agar barcha musulmonlarning roziligi erishilmagan bo‘lsa, xalifani tayinlash amalga oshmaydi, faqat musulmonlardan bir guruh bu vazifani o‘z zimmasiga olib, uni tayinlasa va shu orqali aholining roziligi, ya’ni ko‘pchilikning roziligi erishilsa, guruhning soni qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, tayinlash amalga oshadi. Shu munosabat bilan ba’zi olimlar xulosaga kelganlar: xalifani Ahlul Hall val-‘Aqd tomonidan bay‘at berilsa, tayinlash amalga oshirilishi mumkin, chunki ular olimlarning nazarida musulmonlarning keng jamoatchilik fikrini ifodalovchi guruh hisoblanadi va shartnoma shartlariga javob beradigan har qanday odamga bay‘at berishga qodir kishilardir. Biroq, Ahlul Hall val-‘Aqd ning bay‘ati xalifani tayinlashni aniq yakuniy qarorga aylantirmaydi. Ularning bay‘ati xalifa tayinlashni qonuniy qiladigan shart emas. Bay'ah faqat musulmonlarning roziligi erishilishi kerakligini bildiruvchi belgidir, chunki ular musulmonlarning vakillari hisoblanadilar. Xalifaning bay'ah orqali musulmonlarning roziligi amalga oshganligini ko'rsatuvchi har qanday belgi tayinlovni qonuniy va majburiy qiladi.

As far as the first issue is concerned, it is not stipulated to have a specific number of those who appoint the Khaleefah. In Actuality any number of Muslims who give their Bay’ah to the Khaleefah, whereby the consent of the Muslims is achieved by their remaining silent, or by pledging allegiance and obedience to him, or by any other similar sign which indicates their approval, can appoint the Khaleefah. Thereupon, the appointed Khaleefah becomes the Khaleefah of all the Muslims and He would be the lawful Khaleefah according to the Shari’ah, even if only five people appointed him. This is because they would be regarded as a valid group able to appoint a Khaleefah. Consent would be achieved through the Muslims remaining silent and pledging obedience or the like, on condition that this should be carried out with absolute flexibility of choice and with the necessary steps taken to enable everyone to voice his (or her) opinion should they wish to do so. If the consent of all the Muslims was not achieved then the appointment of the Khaleefah would not take place unless a group of Muslims undertook the task of appointing him and in so doing the consent of the populace is achieved, i.e. the majority, regardless of the number of that group. In this context, some learned scholars have concluded that: The appointment of the Khaleefah can be carried out if He is given the Bay’ah by the Ahlul Hall Wal Aqd because they - the scholars - regard them as being the group which represents the opinion of the Muslims at large, and those who are able to give the Bay’ah to any man who satisfies the contractual conditions. However, the Bay’ah of the Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqd does not actually make the appointment of the Khaleefah a forgone conclusion. Their Bay’ah is by no means a precondition which makes the appointment of the Khaleefah lawful. The Bay’ah is merely a sign indicating that the consent of the Muslims has to be achieved, since they are regarded as the representatives of the Muslims. Any indication that the consent of the Muslims has been realised by the Bay’ah of a Khaleefah makes the appointment legal and binding.

Shunga ko'ra, shar'iy hukm shundan iboratki, agar bir guruh odamlar xalifa tayinlasa va shu tarzda biror ishora orqali musulmonlarning roziligi hosil bo'lsa, u amalga oshadi. Bu ishora Ahlul Hall val-'Aqdning ko'pchiligining bay'ati orqali yoki ular o'zlari musulmonlarning vakillari bo'lishi orqali bo'lishi mumkin, yoki bay'at qilingan xalifaga nisbatan musulmonlarning sukuti orqali bo'lishi mumkin. Shuningdek, bunday bay'at asosida musulmonlarning sadoqat va itoat bilan bay'at qilishga shoshilishi orqali yoki boshqa har qanday vosita yoki ishoralar orqali ham bo'lishi mumkin, agar ular o'z fikrlarini bildirishga to'liq imkoniyatga ega bo'lsalar. Shar'iy hukmda bunday ishoraga Ahlul Hall val-'Aqd orqali erishilishi, ularning besh yoki besh yuz kishi yoki undan ko'proq yoki kamroq bo'lishi, poytaxt yoki viloyatlar aholisidan bo'lishi kerakligi haqida hech qanday shart yo'q. Shar'iy qoida faqat shuni bildiradiki, ularning bay'ati orqali musulmonlarning ko'pchiligining roziligi shu roziligini aks ettiruvchi har qanday ishoraga ko'ra hosil bo'ladi. Bu esa saylov huquqi kafolatlanganini va ularning fikr bildirish imkoniyati cheklanmaganini anglatadi.

Therefore, the Shar’ai verdict is executed if a group of people appointed a Khaleefah and in so doing the consent of the Muslims was achieved by any indication. It could also be by the Bay’ah of the majority of the Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqd or by themselves being the representatives of the Muslims, or by the silence of the Muslims about the Bay’ah of the Khaleefah whom they had given the Bay’ah to. It could also be by the Muslims rushing to pledge allegiance and obedience on the strength of such a Bay’ah, or by any other means or indications so long as they had been fully enabled to voice their opinion. The Shari’ah verdict does not contain any provisions maintaining that such an indication must be arrived at through the Ahlul Hall Wal’Aqd or that they should constitute five or 500 people or more or less, nor that they need be the inhabitants of the capital or the provinces. The Shari’ah rule merely states that with their Bay’ah the consent of the majority of the Muslims is achieved according to any indication that reflects such consent. This means that the right to vote has been guaranteed, and their ability to voice an opinion has not been curtailed.

Ushbu kontekstda "barcha Musulmonlar" deganda o'sha mamlakatda Islomiy Davlat hukmi ostida yashayotgan musulmonlar tushuniladi, ya'ni agar Xilofat allaqachon o'rnatilgan bo'lsa, avvalgi Xalifaning fuqarolari; agar Islomiy Davlat o'rnatilmagan bo'lsa va ular Islom hayot tarzini qayta tiklash uchun uni o'rnatishga harakat qilgan bo'lsa, Islomiy Davlatni qayta tiklaydigan va ularning Bay'ati bilan Xilofat tuziladigan musulmonlar tushuniladi. Boshqa musulmonlarning Bay'ati shart qilib qo'yilmaydi va ularning roziligi ham shart hisoblanmaydi. Chunki ular yo Islom hokimiyati doirasidan tashqarida bo'ladi, yo Dor-ul Kufrda yashaydi va Dor-ul Islomga qo'shilish imkoniga ega bo'lmaydi. Ikkala holatda ham ularda tuzish Bay'ati berish huquqi yo'q, lekin ular itoat Bay'atini berishlari kerak. Islom hokimiyatiga bo'ysunmaydiganlar bog'iylar (Bug'ot) hisoblanadi. Dor-ul Kufrda yashovchilar Islom hokimiyatini o'rnatishga aniq ojiz bo'lganlar, shu sababli ular hozir uni amalda o'rnata olmaydi yoki darhol unga qo'shila olmaydi. Demak, tuzish Bay'ati berish huquqiga ega bo'lgan musulmonlar va ularning roziligi Xalifaning qonuniy tayinlanishi uchun shart bo'lgan kishilar — ular orqali Islom hokimiyati haqiqatda o'rnatiladi. Bunday deyish noto'g'ri bo'lardi, ya'ni bu aql bilan bog'liq masala bo'lib, unga Shar'iy dalil yo'q, deyish mumkin emas. Chunki bu masala hukmning o'zi emas, balki hukm mavzusi (Manat ul-hukm) bilan bog'liq. Shuning uchun uning haqiqatini tushuntirish kerak bo'ladi, unga Shar'iy dalil keltirish shart emas. Masalan, o'lik hayvon go'shtini yeyish harom, bu hukmdir. O'lik hayvon go'shti nimadan iborat ekanini aniqlash va belgilash esa hukm mavzusi, ya'ni Manat yoki hukm bog'liq bo'lgan narsadir. Shuning uchun musulmonlar xalifa tayinlashi kerak, degan hukm shariat hukmidir, va bu tayinlash rozilik va tanlov asosida amalga oshirilishi kerak, degan hukm ham shunday; bular dalil talab qiladigan masalalardir. Ammo agar biz so‘rasak: bu tayinlashni amalga oshiradigan musulmonlar kimlar va rozilik hamda tanlovni amalga oshirish imkonini beradigan narsa nima, bular hukm mavzusini (manat-ul hukm) tashkil etadi, ya’ni hukm aynan nimaga taalluqli kelgan bo‘lsa, o‘sha narsadir. Shariat hukmining mavzuga muvofiq kelishi hukmning amalga oshishi va bajarilishini ta’minlaydi. Shuning uchun shariat hukmi kelgan mavzu o‘z haqiqatini bayon qilish orqali o‘rganilishi lozim.

In this context, “all the of Muslims” means those Muslims living in that country under the rule of the Islamic State, i.e. those who were the subjects of the previous Khaleefah, if the Khilafah was (already) established, or those through whom the Islamic State would be reestablished, and by whose Bay’ah the Khilafah would be contracted if the Islamic State was not established and they had worked towards establishing it so as to resume the Islamic way of life. The Bay’ah of the other Muslims would not be considered as a condition, nor would their consent be considered as such. This is because they would either be outside the authority of Islam, or living in Dar-ul Kufr and unable to join Dar-ul Islam. In either case, they would not have the right to give the Bay’ah of contract but they should give the Bay’ah of obedience. Those who do not submit to the authority of Islam would be considered rebels (Bughat). Those living in Dar-ul Kufr were thus evidently unable to achieve the establishment of the Islamic authority and therefore they cannot now establish it practically or join it immediately. Thus, the Muslims who possess the right to excercise the Bay’ah of contract and those whose consent is conditional for the Khaleefah to be lawfully appointed are the ones through whom the authority of Islam effectively gains its establishment. It would be wrong to say that this is an intellectual matter that has no Shari’ah evidence to back it up with. One cannot say this because this is related to the subject of the verdict (Manat-ul Hukm) and not the verdict itself. Therefore, it is necessary to explain its reality, rather than bring a Shari’ah evidence for it. For instance, the eating of carrion meat is forbidden, now that is the verdict (Hukm). To investigate and determine what constitutes carrion meat would be the subject of the verdict, i.e. the Manat or the subject that the verdict is related to. Thus the Muslims have to establish a Khaleefah constitutes the Shari’ah verdict, and this appointment has to be carried out by consent and choice would be the verdict too, these are what require evidence. Whereas, if we were to ask who constitutes the Muslims by whom the appointment would be carried out and what constitutes the matter which makes consent and choice achievable these would constitute the subject of the verdict (Manat-ul Hukm), i.e. the subject for which the ‘Hukm’ (verdict) had come to deal with. The conformity of the Shari’ah verdict with the subject makes the verdict achievable and accomplished. So the subject that the Shari’ah verdict came for should be investigated by explaining its reality.

Noto'g'ri bo'lardi, agar manat-ul hukm hukmning sababi ('illat al-hukm) deb aytilsa, shuning uchun esa dalilni talab qilsa. Bu noto'g'ri, chunki hukmning manati (mavzusi) hukmning sababi ('illa)dan boshqadir; aslida manat bilan sabab o'rtasida katta farq bor. Sabab hukmning kelib chiqishiga turtki beradigan narsadir, ya'ni u hukm ortidagi Qonun chiqaruvchining maqsadini ko'rsatadi. Shubhasiz, bu hukm joriy etilishining maqsadini ko'rsatish va tushunish uchun shariy dalilni talab qiladi. Hukmning manatiga kelsak, bu hukm qo'llaniladigan yoki unga taalluqli bo'lgan mavzudir. Boshqacha aytganda, bu hukm mos keladigan masala bo'lib, uning dalili ham, sababi ('illa) ham emas. Demak, manat hukm bog'lanadigan narsadir, ya'ni hukm u bilan shug'ullanish yoki uni hal qilish uchun keladi. Hukm u tufayli kelgan, shuning uchun u hukmning sababi, deb aytish to'g'ri emas. Shunday ekan, hukmning manati shariat hukmining nomatnli jihatidir. Uni anglash sababni anglashdan boshqadir, chunki sababni anglash sababni oqlash uchun kelgan matnni tushunish demakdir, bu esa aslida matnni tushunishdir (naqliyyat). Bu ham manat emas, chunki manat naqliyyatdan butunlay farq qiladi, zero u (ya'ni manat) shariat hukmi mos keladigan haqiqatdir.

It would be incorrect to say that the ManaT-ul Hukm is the reason behind the Hukm (‘illatul Hukm) therefore requiring evidence. This is incorrect because the subject (ManaT) of the verdict is different from the reason (‘illah) behind the verdict; in fact there is a big difference between the subject and the reason. The reason is what initiates the verdict to be initiated, i.e. it is the thing that indicates the intention of the Legislator behind the verdict. Without any doubt, this requires a Shari’ah evidence to indicate and understand the intention of the Legislator for initiating the verdict. As for the subject of the verdict, this is the subject upon which the verdict applies or to which the verdict is related. In other words, it is the issue that the verdict conforms and not its evidence nor its reason (‘illa). It therefore, follows that the ManaT is the thing that the verdict is attached to, i.e. the verdict is brought to deal with it, or solve it. It is not true to say that the verdict is brought because of it, so as to say that it is the reason behind the verdict. Thus, the ManaT of the verdict is the nontextual aspect of the Shari’ah verdict. To realise it would be other than to realise the reason, for realising the reason would be to understand the text that had come to justify the reason, and this is to actually understand the text (Naqliyyat). This is not the ManaT either, because the ManaT is completely different from the Naqliyyat, as it (ie. the ManaT) is the reality to which the Shari’ah verdict conforms.