← Back to In Support of the Sharia
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah
Leaving the Sharia at the door before entering the parliament. The idea of parliament is that the people elect representatives to legislate laws for them. And of course, the laws we are talking about are not limited to administrative and technical matters that the Sharia has left to human judgment, but rather it is a referendum for humans in matters of ruling in which the Lord of humans, may He be glorified and exalted, has ruled. This is based on the principle that the people have the right to legislate for themselves whatever laws they want.
Therefore, democracy is a nullification of Islam. Islam is the submission and complete surrender to the rule of Allah, the Exalted, and the recognition that the right of legislation is His alone, may He be glorified and exalted. This is part of the oneness of Lordship, for just as He is the Creator, He is the Lord whose command is obeyed: "Is not He who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yes, indeed! [He is] the Knowing Creator." (Ya-Sin 36:81) Obeying Him in His legislation, may He be glorified and exalted, is part of the oneness of divinity, for the oneness of divinity requires that He, may He be glorified and exalted, be singled out with worship, which is obedience and love.
Democracy nullifies all of this, for it makes legislation for other than Allah and necessitates obedience to other than Allah, the Exalted, in the religion of Allah, the Exalted. "But it is not for any believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in their matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error." (Al-Ahzab 33:36)
In the religion of democracy, if Allah and His Messenger decree a matter, this matter is presented to the parliament to choose, and the parliament has the full right to accept the rule of Allah or to reject it. If the parliament disobeys Allah and His Messenger, their opinion is respected because they represent the majority.
In the religion of Allah, the Exalted: "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 those are the successful." (Al-Nur 24:48) And in the religion of democracy, the statement of the democrats when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them is that they say: "We will present the rule of Allah to the parliament, if the parliament permits the rule of Allah to be executed, then it will be executed."
In the religion of Allah, the Exalted: "But no, by your Lord, they are not believers until they ask you to judge between them in their disputes, then they do not find within themselves any discomfort from what you have judged, and they submit completely." (Al-Nisa 4:65) And in the religion of democracy: "But no, by your Lord, they are not believers in democracy with sincere faith until they rule the parliament in their disputes, then they do not find within themselves the intention to exploit the democratic game or abandon it in the future to impose the Sharia, but they must submit to the rules of the democratic game completely."
In the religion of Allah, the Exalted: "The judgment is not but for Allah." (Yusuf 12:40) And in the religion of democracy: "The judgment is not but for the parliament, which rules even over the rule of Allah." Democracy is contrary to Islam, where the definition of Islam is complete submission, surrender, and compliance with the rule of Allah, the Exalted, and the implementation of the command of Allah, the Exalted, because it is the command of Allah. Democracy is making the parliament a ruler over everything, even over the Sharia of Allah.
If a ruling is applied, it is not applied because it is an obligation to apply it as a rule of Allah, but rather to obscure the call to apply the Sharia gradually, until when this goal is achieved, it turns against democracy and supports oppressive systems that implement its agenda, not paying attention to the will of the people, their freedom, or their dignity.
You see a country from the Muslim countries suffering under a criminal system that has been violating lives, wealth, and honor for decades with the support of America and European countries. When this system falls and the voices for the establishment of an Islamic state and the application of the Sharia rise, the Western countries quickly intervene in the political scene and move their tails inside to call for democracy, and some of those affiliated with Islamic work join them, intentionally or unintentionally.
Then you see an intense American follow-up to conduct elections and cover the democratic wedding and American praise for the integrity of the elections and respect for the will of the people. This will, which America itself and the Western world offered bribes to the corrupt systems in proportion to their suppression of the people and their will, as explained by the author Noam Chomsky in his book "What Uncle Sam Wants."
In reality, all of this is to obscure the call to the rule of the Sharia in a correct manner based on it being the Sharia of Allah. When the West and its tails achieve this, and withdraw recognition from the Islamists who were deceived by them and from the masses of people with democracy and its polytheistic principle, and lure them into positions hostile to the application of the Sharia, the West itself turns against democracy and supports a president or an army that excels in suppressing the people and degrading their will, and exploits the country and the servants to serve foreign interests. The people then have nothing but the bitterness of democracy, which deprived them of the Sharia, and they did not reap anything from the sweetness of its freedom.
If the West does not intervene in a blatant manner as it did, it at least strives to bring democracy to power in distorted models that declare their lack of intention to apply the Sharia or sacrifice the Sharia for the sake of rule in its democratic path that it has taken.
Therefore, we must be aware, we who oppose democracy and nullify it, that our speech to the peoples is distorted by the media machine and the tails of the West, who say to the peoples: These people want to impose the Sharia on you, these people do not want freedom for you, they do not respect your will, these people promote another form of tyranny that you have prospered under, O peoples. In short, they portray us as enemies of the people and their freedom.
We must focus in our speech on the fact that there is no real freedom for you, O peoples, except in the absolute slavery to Allah, the Exalted, by applying His Sharia, and this will save you from slavery to the West and its tails. We are the callers of the Sharia, callers of freedom, dignity, and sovereignty for the Islamic peoples, sovereignty over the people of the earth with the Sharia that they carry. Allah, the Exalted, says: "You are the best nation ever brought forth to [the service of] mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah." (Al-Imran 3:110)
While democracy is a vile slavery to other than Allah, for it is, in appearance, the slavery of slaves to slaves, and in reality, it is slavery to the West, which uses democracy to pass its enslaving plans for the Islamic world.
In the hadith that Albani deemed good, Adi bin Hatim came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and said: "O Messenger of Allah, they did not worship them," so the Messenger of Allah said: "Yes, they did. They prohibited for them what is permissible and made permissible for them what is impermissible, so they followed them, and that is their worship of them." What has not settled in the minds of many Muslims is that democracy equals freedom, which is an illusion, but the correct view is that it is slavery. Instead of being slavery to one dictator, it becomes slavery to a group of legislators and to the West, which is keen that the Muslims do not become strong with their slavery to Allah, the Exalted.
May Allah guide the Islamists when they engaged in the democratic process, they accepted the rules of this enslaving game, enslaving for humans in appearance and for the West in reality. Let us take an example of this, the Egyptian situation before the fall of the symbol of the previous regime.
Many Islamists believed in the prohibition of participation in a parliament based on making the right of legislation for the people and referring its legislation to a constitutional constitution. Then, after the revolution, they assumed a state of legislative and constitutional vacuum, and therefore, they considered that they were no longer required to make the concessions that prevented their participation in parliamentary work before.
A very simplified and imaginary image of parliamentary participation has prevailed in the minds of some, as follows: The country is in a state of chaos, the people have conflicting demands; among them are Muslims, Christians, and secularists, and each wants to rule according to what the other does not want. Therefore, there is no way out of the conflict except for people to nominate representatives. These representatives will gather under the dome of parliament to convey the voice of a segment of the people. It is hoped that the Islamic voice will prevail because the majority supports it, and a decision will be made to draft a purely Islamic constitution that makes Sharia the sole source of legislation. An Islamic state will be established, the army will submit, and the Islamists will take the reins of power. The role of the people and parliament thereafter will be to submit and comply with the Sharia as the rule of Allah, the Almighty. This great interest will be achieved without much corruption.
In this case, entering parliament does not mean endorsing the polytheistic principles of democracy, but rather democracy is emptied of its content and takes on means and mechanisms. The role of the Islamic representative is to convey the voice of the people that we want to enforce Sharia. The representative will not adhere to a positive constitution, but it is the Islamists who will write the constitution.
Of course, this justification, whose invalidity we will prove, was celebrated by those who originally saw the prohibition of the parliamentary path as a doctrinal stumbling block. Otherwise, there were Islamic parties that were involved in parliamentary work and making concessions before the revolutions and did not see any doctrinal stumbling block in all of the above. In any case, the naive image mentioned may have been imagined by some when talking about the constitutional vacuum. I wonder if this is what actually happened?
Rather, what happened was that the new Islamists committed to parliamentary work from the very first moment and adhered to the rules of the democratic game, no matter how much they patched it up with secondary positions and emotional statements that do not change the reality of the matter. First, they adhered to Article Four of the Constitutional Declaration, which states: "No political activity or establishment of political parties may be carried out on a religious basis." I see that as long as it has been agreed that there will be no religious parties because this may lead to sectarian tension, then there are no religious parties. "I do not see that parties should be religious, I do not see that parties should be religious." This is the beginning of the mistake.
To appease a handful of arrogant Christians and in accordance with a constitutional declaration based on democracy, they agreed that the party would not be religious. Consequently, this was followed by submission to the positive law that prohibits the use of religious slogans in electoral campaigns. Therefore, the notion that the role of Islamic parliamentarians is limited to conveying the people's desire to enforce Sharia has nothing to do with reality. If this were their role, the party would be nothing but religious, its declared slogan being the application of Sharia, since it was allegedly established for no other purpose.
However, the Islamists deposed Sharia at the threshold of parliament. For in the hypothetical imaginary state that some have conceived, Sharia was the reason for the existence of parliamentarians as representatives of the people, and Sharia was their identity, their cause, and the source of their legitimacy. They derived their legitimacy from Sharia, which they carried and wanted to apply. Again, it was supposed that they derived their legitimacy from Sharia.
However, by submitting to these articles, the parliamentarians derived their parliamentary legitimacy from the people who elected them, not from Sharia. They derive their legitimacy from the people who elected them, not from Sharia. This is their acknowledgment of the principle of democracy. Imagine the Islamic representative standing at the door of parliament wanting to enter, and he is told: In what capacity do you want to enter? He says: In the name of Sharia that I and those who elected me want to apply. He is told: No, this does not give you legitimacy to enter parliament. You must acknowledge that you are entering parliament in the name of the people who elected you, and you derive your legitimacy from the people electing you as a legislator, not from Sharia. You derive your legitimacy from the people electing you as a legislator, not from Sharia. Your vote on legislation will not be accepted, and you will not be allowed to propose a law except as a representative of the legislative people.
The Islamic representative thus deposes Sharia at the door and enters parliament under this condition and in this capacity, and then he goes and moves in the name of the people from whom he derives his existence in parliament, just as our friend left his clothes at the door of the orphanage in the episode "The operation was successful and the patient died." This difference, which some consider secondary, is the crux of the matter, the beginning of deviation, and the diversion of the right of legislation from Allah, the Almighty, to His servants.
Indeed, some Arab countries amended their party laws after the Arab revolutions to prevent religious parties, which is the completion of the pillars of the religion of democracy. Nevertheless, those who designed the parliamentary system as a strong barrier against the application of Sharia were not satisfied with that, but they placed other doors before the representative to ensure that he deposes any remaining call to apply Sharia before he sits under the dome of parliament. What are these doors? This is what we will know in the next episode, God willing.
Democracy makes the representative derive his legitimacy from humans, not from the Sharia of the Lord of humans, and it contemplates the Western enslavement of the Islamic world.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.