Disagreements of the Jurists. al-Qadi al-Nu'man
Читать онлайн книгу.
but do not become a spineless half-wit between the two, for the half-wit among you will make his faith ride on the backs of other men’s saddles.”100
٥٨
وروي عن عبد الله بن عبّاس أنّه قال أما تخافون أن يخسف الله بكم الأرض ؟ أقول لكم١ قال رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم وتقولون٢ قال أبو بكر وعمر؟
١ ل تزيد هنا: ما. ٢ ل تزيد هنا: ما.
It has been transmitted from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās that he said, “Do you not fear that God will bury you so far underground that no trace of you will remain on the surface? I tell you what the Messenger of God said, and you tell me what Abū Bakr and ʿUmar said?!”101
٥٩
وهؤلاء الصحابة ينكرون التقليد ، فكيف يجوز لأحد أن يقلّدهم وهم ينكرون ذلك ؟ ولو كان تقليدهم يجب لقلّد١ بعضهم بعضًا ، وقد نراهم٢ يردّ بعضهم على بعض ويخالف بعضهم بعضًا. ولو كان الاقتداء بهم هدًى كما جاء في ظاهر الحديث لوجب٣ أن يكون قتالهم وقتلهم هدىً لأنّهم قد حارب بعضهم بعضًا وقتل بعضهم بعضًا بعد رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وعلى آله وامتازوا وتحاجزوا وصاروا أحزابًا . فكان يجوز على ظاهر الحديث أنّ من اقتدى بحزب واحد منهم فقتل الآخرين وقاتلهم كان٤ على هدىً ، وكذلك من اقتدى بحزب٥ الآخر ففعل مثل ذلك كان كذلك على هدىً. وهو التضادّ والتغاير الذي لا شبهة فيه ولا ستر عليه . وتكون دماؤهم على هذا حلالًا مباحة٦ إذا٧ كان من قتلهم على هدىً من الله فيكون الحقّ في الشيء وخلافه والأمر وضدّه ويستوي القاتل والمقتول وتستحلّ دماء أصحاب رسول الله صلّى االه عليه وعلى آله.
١ ل: تقلّد. ٢ كذا في خ، ل، و في ز: تراهم. ٣ ل: يوجب. ٤ ز، خ، ل: أنّه. ٥ ز، خ: الحزب. ٦ ز: مباحًا. ٧ ل: اذ.
Those Companions denounced submission to the authority of others, so how could it be permissible for anyone to submit to their authority, when they themselves denounced doing so? If it were obligatory to submit to their authority, then they would have submitted to each other’s authority, but we see instead that they sometimes opposed and contradicted each other. If it were right guidance to submit to their authority, as has been transmitted in the plain meaning of the Prophetic report, then their killing of, and doing battle with, each other would necessarily have been right guidance, because they did battle against one another and killed one another after the passing of the Messenger of God, and because they took sides against one another, thwarted one another’s plans, and formed factions. Thus, whoever followed one faction among them, killing the others and doing battle with them, could be considered guided aright, according to the plain meaning of the Prophetic report, and whoever followed the opposing faction, acting accordingly, would also be guided aright. This is a contradiction and an incongruity that cannot be disputed or concealed. In this fashion, then, the Companions’ lives would be forfeit and could be taken lawfully, since whoever killed them would be following God’s guidance, so that the truth would lie in one thing and in its opposite, in one matter and its contrary. The murderer and the victim would be equal, and it would be lawful to shed the blood of the Companions of the Messenger of God.
٦٠
وكذلك ما اختلفوا فيه فحرّمه بعضهم وحلّله بعضهم . إن اقتُدِيَ بهم فيه كلّهم وكان المقتدي بهم على هدىً من الله كما جاء في ظاهر الحديث صار الحلال حرامًا والحرام حلالاً، وكان للمقتدي١ بالواحد منهم أن يحرّم ما حرّمه فيكون ذلك الشيء حرامًا عند الله لأنّ الذي حرّمه على هدىً ثمّ يبدو له فيستحلّ بتحليل الآخر فيكون حلالاً عند الله لأنّ الذي أحلّه٢ على هدىً من الله. ولو جهد المشركون على أن يدخلوا مثل هذا النقص على دين الإسلام لما قدروا عليه، فكيف بمن ينتحله ويذهب إليه ؟ وسوف أستقصيه٣ بما يحضرني من الحجج في هذا المعنى في باب الاجتهاد إن شاء الله .
١ ل: المقتدي. ٢ حذا في خ، وفي ز: لأنّ الذي أحلّه بمستحلّه، وفي ل: لأنّ مستحلّه. ٣ خ، ل: استقصى ما.
Similarly, if they differed over a matter, with some Companions declaring it forbidden and others declaring it lawful, and if one followed all of them regarding this matter, and if whoever emulated them were following the guidance of God, as is stated explicitly in the Prophetic report, then permissible matters would be forbidden, and forbidden matters permissible. Whoever followed the views of one Companion would declare forbidden what that Companion had declared forbidden, and thus it would be forbidden in the view of God because the Companion who declared it forbidden was guided aright. Then, he might change his mind and consider the same matter permissible on account of another Companion’s declaration that it was permissible, and thus it would also be permissible in God’s view, because the Companion who considered it permissible was guided by God as well. Had the polytheists expended great efforts to foist such a terrible defect as this onto the faith of Islam, they would have been unable to do so. Then how could someone who adopts this religion espouse it?! I will address this topic exhaustively in the chapter on legal interpretation, God willing, along with the proofs that I am able to provide.
٦١
فإن كان الحديث أصحابي كالنجوم بأيّهم اقتديتم اهتديتم. ثابتًا عن رسول الله فقد غلط فيه أهل التأويل بأن جعلوا أصحاب النبيّ ههنا كلّ من صحبه، وقد يصحب البرّ الفاجر والمؤمن الكافر وقد ذكر الله في كتابه عزّ وجلّ في صاحبين أحدهما مؤمن والآخر كافر {وَٱضْرِبْ لَهُم مَّثَلًا رَّجُلَيْنِ جَعَلْنَا لِأَحَدِهِمَا جَنَّتَيْنِ مِنْ أَعْنَٰبٍ وَحَفَفْنَٰهُمَا بِنَخْلٍ} إلى قوله في الكافر