← Back to Be Proud of Your Islam
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you, and mercy of Allah,
Today, we will review with you, dear audience, practical examples of human centrality in Muslim countries, to correct this flaw that has affected the Muslim consciousness over the years. With the reminder that the human centrality we mention is merely a link to the servitude of the devil.
We have shown in the previous episode that if a human being abandons the centrality of the Creator and returns the matter to Him out of a desire to achieve desires and interests, or under the pretext of achieving freedom and equality, then he ultimately falls into the servitude of the devil.
Let us see models of the link between servitude to the Most Merciful and servitude to the devil, models of human centrality in the laws enacted in Muslim countries, and even in the lives of most Muslims.
One of the glaring examples of the absence of the Creator's centrality from the lives of Muslim societies is the legal penalty for blaspheming against Allah the Almighty, His books, His messengers, or His religion, meaning blaspheming against true sanctities.
In most Muslim countries, you will find the legal text as follows: "Imprisonment or a fine of such and such shall be imposed on anyone who utters in a public place and within the hearing of another person a word or a sound that is likely to lead to the insult of the religious feeling or belief of that person."
Therefore, according to the law, the problem is not in blaspheming against Allah the Almighty or mocking His religion, but the problem is only the injury of the religious feeling of someone. If we assume that a person blasphemed against Allah and His Messenger with the most offensive words in a public place, and no one from the passersby felt their religious feelings were injured, then there is no penalty for this person.
Meaning, there is no sanctity in these laws for Allah the Almighty, nor for His books, nor respect for His messengers, nor for His religion. The important thing is not to hurt human feelings. And we are talking about the right of Allah the Almighty, our Creator, and the Creator of the heavens and the earth, who described those who say what is not befitting Him without the intention of blasphemy.
Therefore, if you say to a worshiper of a cow among the workers present in one of the countries: "This cow of yours is a beast that does no harm and no good," and his religious feelings are hurt, he has the right to sue you under the same law. And the one who blasphemed against Allah and the cow is the same in punishment.
Of course, in the Muslim countries themselves, there are legal penalties for merely blaspheming or criticizing some officials whom the law grants sanctity, so that criticizing them is a crime in itself, regardless of whether it hurt someone's feelings or not, or perhaps this criticism expressed what was in people's hearts. Similarly, what they consider symbols and slogans of the state are sanctified by law and criminalize those who diminish them, regardless of hurting the feelings of anyone or not.
Secondly, an example of human centrality: voting on the judgments of Allah the Almighty. The issue of Allah's judgment is often raised with a decisive statement, yet it is put forward for opinions and voting, whether in legislative councils, talk shows, university lectures, social media platforms, or public referendums.
All these questions are not based on the reference of Sharia and that there is no ijtihad or voting on the matter of the text, but on the basis of providing the opportunity for humans to vote on the judgment of Allah. There are channels of Western countries speaking Arabic that focus on raising these questions for voting to shake the dignity of the Quran and Sharia and make them a subject of discussion and debate.
The principle of these votes is that the statement gains legitimacy by the majority who choose it, even if it is in itself absurd because it is explicit disbelief in the judgments of Allah, while the command of the Lord of the Worlds loses its value in these votes if it does not find someone to support it.
The mere acceptance of Muslims that they vote on these matters is falling into the trap, and their duty is to denounce these votes and clarify their corruption. Directing these questions to a Muslim community in general is a contradiction, as if the questioner says: "You, as a Muslim, have submitted your affairs to Allah and known that He said: {And it is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly gone far astray into clear error}." What is your opinion, as a Muslim, on what you should not have an opinion on?
What is your opinion, as a Muslim, on what you should not have an opinion on because Allah has judged in it? Of course, a Muslim may disobey and fall short and sin, but even then, he is committed to the reference of Sharia and that it is the clear truth and everything else is false. As for these votes, they make the Sharia being true a matter of question, as if they say: "Allah said: {Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?}" What is your opinion? Does Allah actually know or not know who created? Does Allah actually know and is He subtle and acquainted or not subtle and acquainted?" God forbid.
Thirdly, an example of human centrality leading to the centrality of desires and then the devil: phrases like "hijab is personal freedom." Some Muslim countries have laws enacted by officials that restrict the hijabi, or media channels talk about the hijab in a malicious way. An absolute right ruling and dominating people's lives.
We say to them, for the sake of argument and compulsion: You claim that the supreme value for you is freedom. According to your principle, the hijab is personal freedom. So why do you allow everything except the hijab? Therefore, you are liars and contradictory in your claim.
There is a big difference between this speech, and on the other hand, for this to become the language of discourse among Muslims who are supposed to have submitted to Allah in all their affairs and acknowledged that the judgment is His. To raise the slogan "hijab is personal freedom" in their social media and gatherings as if it is a right we believe in.
This slogan in this context is based on human centrality, his choice, and his desires. Therefore, Muslims should not denounce the opposite, unveiling, and may consider the command of good and the prohibition of evil in that a violation of personal freedom.
While the hijab in reality is a legislation derived from the centrality of the Creator, and the encouragement of it is the command of good, and the prohibition of unveiling is the prohibition of evil. And all of this is the duty of the Muslim society, for it is not part of customs and traditions nor that the woman does it out of her desire, but it is worship in which intention is invoked and bequeathed to generations as worship, obedience, and closeness to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
And on this basis, judge all the rituals that are presented as freedoms but are in reality divine commands. So our slogan as Muslims is: {The only statement of the believers when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them is that they say, "We hear and we obey." And it is those who are the successful.} And {And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger and fears Allah and is righteous - it is those who are the successful.}
And let us remember in conclusion: {O mankind, you are the poor to Allah, and Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.} You are the beneficiary when you make centrality for Him, glorified and exalted be He, so hold on to your identity and be noble with your Islam. Peace be upon you, and mercy of Allah.