关于与乌侯德之役同类的意见，即导致采取某种行动的意见。因此，凡是导致采取行动的意见，都以多数人的意见为准，例如选举领导人、罢免总督（wali）或决定某项计划等。多数人的意见必须被采纳，并且具有约束力，无论其对错如何。
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.
在对世间各类意见的实际情况运用相关依据之后，可以清楚地看出：具有约束力的意见，即以多数意见为准的意见，与乌候德之役中的情形属于同一类别。它归入他所说的“al-mashura”（协商之议）之列，即：“如果你们两人就一个协商之议达成一致……”这是导向采取某种行动的意见。除此之外的意见都不具约束力，也没有义务依据多数人的看法行事。因此，具有约束力的意见，即以多数意见为准的意见，仅限于世间存在的行动类型中的一种，即讨论需要执行之行动的意见。
通过这一运用还可以清楚地看出：对于沙里亚律例以及导向某种思想或专业事务的意见，两种情况下都不重视多数意见。对于沙里亚律例，只考虑依据的强弱。而对于导向某种思想或专业事务的意见，即属于战争或战略一类的意见，则只重视正确的意见，别无其他。
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.
因此,定义只是一种并不具有约束力的意见,即不遵循多数人的意见,因为它根本不属于“mashura”(协商)的范畴,乌侯德之役的事件也不适用于此。然而,定义问题同时也属于那种表示某种思考的意见,因为为了定义而研究“hukm shar'i”(沙里尔律例)以及为了定义而研究理智,实际上就是研究一个实在之物,以便达到对其实相的理解,即理解其真实本质。凡与实相相符的,便是更可取的。因此,在对一事物下定义时,更可取的是正确的意见。在此过程中,并不研究沙里尔的律例,也不重视多数人的意见。沙里尔的定义与任何其他事物的定义之间并无区别。所以,当一个定义涵盖了被定义对象的所有组成部分而无一遗漏或排除,并且它限制了任何不属于该定义含义的成分被纳入其中时,这个定义就优于其他定义。换言之,正确的意见更为可取,因为它与被定义对象的实相相符,并给出了这一实相的真实描述。
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.
这是关于沙ura（协商）在伊斯兰教中的裁定，经文和圣训已经清楚说明，先知ﷺ的行为也对此作了详细阐述。然而，为了获得精确的理解，人们在讨论"通过观点得出一个想法"的观点与"通过观点得出一个行动"的观点之间的区别时，可能会感到困惑。在将证据应用于世界上流行的观点时，巴德尔之役与乌侯德之役的区别问题也可能令人困惑。在讨论观点的实质时，有人可能会说，导向行动的观点与导向想法的观点之间没有区别，归根结底，它们都会回归到行动。那么，这种区别从何而来？对此问题的回答是：两者之间存在一种细微的差别。对于导向想法的观点而言，只讨论主题本身，而不考虑行动。因此，讨论的范围是主题，而非行动。讨论的目的是就某一主题形成一种想法，这种想法是在不考虑行动的情况下对主题进行研究所得的，无论这种想法在行动层面会带来什么结果。例如，阿布·伯克尔ﷺ曾将穆斯林出征平定叛教（ridda）的战争归入这样一个范畴：他统治下的某个群体反叛了伊斯兰法的实施。欧麦尔ﷺ则从另一个角度讨论，认为这是在对付一个强大并挑战国家权威的群体，而国家可能无力与之作战。于是，阿布·伯克尔说："以真主发誓！即便他们拒绝交给我当年他们向真主的使者ﷺ所交的那根驼绳，我也要与他们作战！" 当事情对他变得清楚之后,‘Umar别无选择,只能收回他先前的意见,遵从正确的意见,即Abu Bakr的意见,因为实际上问题在于伊斯兰统治之下的一支派系发动了叛乱,而不是一支庞大的派系在挑战国家。真正的讨论不在于是否出征作战,如同Uhud之役那样,而在于贝都因人在先知之后拒绝缴纳天课,并挑战国家,这是否构成对沙里亚统治的叛乱,还是一支庞大派系对国家的挑战。这才是真正的讨论。因此,这是一场关于某个会引出某种思想的意见的讨论,而参照的只是那个正确的意见。正确的意见是,一支派系在伊斯兰国家的统治之下反叛了沙里亚律法的实施。例如,Mu'awiyya要求由他与sayyidina ‘Ali之间以《古兰经》进行仲裁(tahkeem),并高举经卷,那究竟是对《古兰经》的真正仲裁,还是针对sayyidina ‘Ali的一个诡计?‘Ali视之为诡计,与他在一起的许多人则将其视为对《古兰经》的仲裁。因此,这个问题应当加以研究,以便弄清高举经卷(mushafs)的真正意义,这同样是一个会引出某种思想的意见,所以应当参照正确的意见,即那是针对sayyidina ‘Ali的一个诡计。再例如,统治者人数的增加会削弱一个国家还是加强它?换言之,当统治者人数减少时,国家是变得更强,还是每当他们人数减少时国家便变弱,而每当他们人数增加时国家便变强?换言之,民主制度中的内阁是否在其成员减少时变得更强,在其成员增加时变得更弱,还是情况正好相反? 这个问题是为了探究真实情况而加以研讨的。因此这是一个引出思考的观点，而在这一问题上，正确的观点是：每当统治者（辅佐者）的数量增加，国家就会变得更弱；每当他们的数量减少，国家就会变得更强。
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.
这些是导向某一思想的意见的三个例子。由此可以看出,讨论的领域是主题本身,而非行为;尽管对主题的讨论会确定行为,但讨论的焦点并不在行为上,而在于一种思想,该思想一旦明确,便会导致采取或不采取某种行动,或以该思想所必然要求的方式采取行动。因此,讨论的目的在于就某一主题形成一种意见,即形成一种思想。一旦形成该思想,便会依据研究后所得的思想,就行为的问题作出决定。所研究的意见不会直接导向行动,而只会导向一种思想。所形成的思想可能要求采取某种行动,也可能不要求。所以,这是一种导向思想的意见。
至于导向行动的意见,对行动的采取是结合该行动所依赖的主题来讨论的,因此讨论的领域是行动的采取,而非主题。讨论的目的在于决定是否采取某行动,或以某种特定方式采取行动,而不是讨论某个主题。例如,当打算推选哈里发并向其宣誓效忠(Bay'a)时,并不讨论哈里发制度本身是义务(fard)还是提倡(mandub)的问题,也不讨论应当推选总统(共和国的总统)还是哈里发的问题。应当讨论的是:应当推选某某人并向其宣誓效忠,还是应当推选另外某人并向其宣誓效忠?当讨论国家借贷的行为时,讨论的不应是借贷是否被允许的问题,而应当讨论的是:是否应当借贷。 当讨论修建一条新路时，讨论的不应是是否允许开通这条路，因为已有另一条路取代了它；而应讨论的是这条路是否应当开通，即讨论的是行动本身，看是否应当去做。由这一行动所牵涉的事物本身并不是讨论的对象。对某一事物的讨论是一种意见，它会引出一种想法，但该事物并非讨论的领域，讨论领域之下的问题是是否应当采取某一行动。这样，它就被视为关于某种意见的讨论，而这种意见会导向一个行动。因此，提出意见是为了采取某一行动。例如，当艾布·伯克尔就谁将在他之后担任哈里发一事咨询穆斯林时，讨论的是哈里发的选举，即应当推举这个人还是那个人，而绝非关于哈里发制度本身的问题。这显然是一场关于导向行动的意见的讨论。又如，穆阿维叶与圣门使者阿里之间的仲裁协议确定之后，阿里一方就选派仲裁人展开了讨论。阿里选择了阿卜杜拉·伊本·阿拔斯，但与他同在的大多数人选择了艾布·穆萨·阿尔-阿什阿里。这场讨论的是谁将担任仲裁人，而不是是否接受仲裁。因此，这同样是一场关于导向行动的意见的讨论。再如，若穆斯林民众认为应当兴办重工业，制造各类机器设备，以满足国家传递（伊斯兰）使命所必需的条件；而他们的统治者认为应当兴建水坝、鼓励农业，以改善农民的生计，那么这场讨论所涉及的是应当发展重工业，还是应当修建水坝。 讨论的焦点不应当是国家是否应当承载（伊斯兰的）讯息。因此，讨论的对象是一种会导向行动的观点。
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.
这里举出三个会导致某种行为的观点的例子，可以清楚地看出，讨论的范围是行为本身，而不是讨论的主题。即便这些行为依赖于某些问题，其讨论的重点也不在这些问题上，而在于行为的实施。因此，讨论的是行为，而不是观点。
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.
从这段讨论和上面的例子可以清楚看出,导致思想的意见与导致行动的意见之间存在差别,尽管这一细微差别需要反思与审察。所有这些都与可能出现的混淆相关,即导致思想的意见与导致行动的意见之间的区别。至于可能出现的关于巴德战役与乌禾德战役之间区别的混淆,有人可能会主张巴德战役与乌禾德战役之间并无区别。既然两者都涉及出战,且两者之间并无差异,为什么巴德战役应被视为导致思想的意见,而乌禾德战役却被视为导致行动的意见呢?对此的回答是:这两次战役之间存在明确的区别,因为巴德战役的实际情况与乌禾德战役不同。乌禾德战役的问题在于:他们应当出城迎战,还是留在麦地那?这涉及的是热忱与审慎的问题,讨论的并非战争中的战略阵地。因此,我们看到先知ﷺ在乌禾德山上组织军队、安排战略阵地时,亲自承担了部署的任务。他让弓箭手留守后方,并命令他们不得出击(完整的故事见于布哈里圣训集),对于这一行动,他并未征求众人的意见。至于巴德战役的实际情况,问题纯粹是军队的战略部署。因此,对于这一行动,安拉的使者ﷺ采纳了正确的意见。这是从一个角度来看。从另一个角度来看,其证据不仅在于使者ﷺ的行动,也在于他的言语。于是使者ﷺ的话是:
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,