The Khaleefah is restricted in the adoption by the divine rules. He is thus forbidden from adopting a rule that has not been correctly extracted from the divine evidences. He is also obliged to restrict himself to the rules He has adopted, and to the method of Ijtihad (extracting rules) He committed himself to. Therefore, He is forbidden from adopting a rule that has been extracted by a method contrary to the one He had adopted, nor to issue an order that contradicts the rules that He has adopted.

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:

Firstly: Allah (pbuh) has obliged every Muslim, including the Khaleefah to conduct his actions according to the divine rules. Allah (swt) says:

“But no, by your lord, they will not believe (truly) until they make you judge of what is in dispute between them.” [TMQ An-Nisa: 65]

Conducting actions according to the divine rules obliges the Muslim to adopt a specific rule when the understanding of the Legislator’s speech varies i.e. when the divine rule varies. So adopting a specific rule from amongst various rules becomes obligatory upon the Muslim, when He wants to carry out an action, i.e. when He wants to implement the rule. This is obligatory upon the Khaleefah as well, when He performs his duty that is the ruling.

Secondly: The content of the text of the Bay’ah which the Khaleefah is given obliges him to abide by the Islamic Shari’ah, for it is a Bay’ah on the Book and the Sunnah. He is thus forbidden from violating it and would even commit an act of disbelief if He did so with conviction, while He would be disobedient, a wrongdoer and a rebel if He violated the Shari’ah without conviction.

Thirdly: The Khaleefah is appointed to implement the Shar’a, therefore He is forbidden to refer to anything other than Shar’a in ruling the Muslims. This is because Shar’a has made this decisively unlawful, to the point where belief is denied of anyone who rules by other than Islam, a matter which is a connotation of decisiveness. This means that the Khaleefah is restricted in his adoption of the rules, namely in his enacting of laws, solely by the divine rules. If He enacts any law from other than Shar’a, He would commit an act of disbelief if He did so with conviction, and an act of disobedience, wrongdoing and rebellion, if He did not believe in that.

These three evidences are evidences of the first matter. As for the second matter, the Khaleefah is restricted to the rules that He adopted, and to the method of deduction He committed himself to. The evidence for this is that the divine rule that the Khaleefah executes is the divine rule that is upon his neck, and not anybody. In other words it is the divine (Shar’ai) rule that He adopted to conduct his affairs and not just any divine rule. This means that if the Khaleefah extracted a rule or imitated in a rule, this divine rule would become Allah’s rule on his neck. He would be restricted also in adopting this rule for all the Muslims, and forbidden from adopting any other rule. This is because any other rule would not be Allah’s rule upon his neck, and it would not thus be a divine rule to him, and accordingly it would not be a divine rule to the Muslims. Therefore, He is restricted in the orders that He decrees to the subjects by the divine rule, which He adopted. He is forbidden from issuing an order that conflict with what He had adopted in terms of divine rules, because such an order would not be considered as Allah’s rule on his neck (does not apply to him). Therefore, it would not be a divine rule for him, and thus not a divine rule to the Muslims. In such a case it would be as if He issued an order contrary to the divine rule, hence, He is forbidden to issue an order conflicting with what He had adopted in terms of divine rules.

The understanding of the divine rule varies according to the method of extraction (Istinbat). If the Khaleefah considers that the reason (Illah) of the rule is considered a divine reason if taken from a divine text, and He does not consider that interest (Maslaha) is a divine reason, or that the Masalih Mursala (undefined interests) are a divine evidence, then He would have defined for himself the method of Istinbat. Accordingly, He must restrict himself to it, and it would be wrong for him to adopt a rule that had its evidence as Masalih Mursala, or to use an analogy (Qiyas) based on an ‘Illah that was not extracted from a divine text. For such a rule would not be considered a divine Shari’a rule upon his neck, because He considers its evidence not divine evidence, therefore it would not in his view be a divine rule. Since such a rule is not considered a divine rule regarding the Khaleefah, it would not also be a divine rule regarding the Muslims. This would be as if the Khaleefah has adopted a rule alien to the Shari’ah rules and this is forbidden. If the Khaleefah is a Muqallid (imitator) or a Mujtahid Mas’ala (Jurist in a single matter), and has no specific method of Istinbat, in this case, He is allowed to adopt any divine rule whatever its evidence, as long as He has a probable evidence, and He has not been restricted by any method in adopting the rules. He is only restricted, when He issues orders, not to issue them except in accordance with the rules He has adopted.