Episode 20 - Can God's Law Be Obtained by Swearing to Violate It?

Does the Law of God Allow Oaths Against It?

Subscribe to the channel. The legislation was made for someone other than God Almighty, then we explained that it is so beloved that the Islamists put the Shariah at the doorstep of the parliament, and the first door they put it on is their acceptance of the laws of the parties that prevent the establishment of a party on a religious basis, and this makes them derive their parliamentary legitimacy from the people who elected them and not from the Shariah, which is therefore their surrender to the principle of democracy.

Then we explained that the second door that leaves no trace of the claim of applying the Shariah is the oath to respect the Egyptian constitutional law. We explained texts from this constitution that refer legislation to the people and issue rulings in their name, and therefore the oath to respect it is an oath to respect giving humans an attribute of the divine, which is legislation.

Then we mentioned one of the declared excuses of the parliamentarians for this oath, which is the existence of Article Two in the constitution that makes Shariah the main source of legislation. However, we explained in the last two episodes the absence of the value of this article, but rather its absence is less daring to God than its existence in its text, context, and human control. This is what we explained in the last two episodes.

The Oath to Respect the Constitution

Therefore, let the fair-minded person agree with us that the oath to respect the Egyptian constitution is an oath to respect the shirk of legislation, making humans legislators without God, and there is no concealment in the ruling of such an oath in the religion of God Almighty. But if someone says, "I respect that legislation is for humans without God" or says, "Legislation is not for God" thus without an oath, this statement negates his faith. So how when he swears to that? And how when he swears by God Almighty to shirk with God Almighty?

Therefore, let the fair-minded person agree with us on the original prohibition at the outset, let the fair-minded person agree with us on the original prohibition at the outset as a first step. In the second step, let us review the excuses of the Islamic parliamentarians with which they justify this oath to take it out of the original prohibition, and we will present these excuses on the scale of the Shariah.

Excuses of the Islamic Parliamentarians

In fact, when reviewing these excuses, you see a discussion of the subject from a completely different perspective than required, as if we are talking about some of the sin, not an issue related to faith and its negation.

Excuse "What Does Not Contradict the Law of God"

The first of these excuses is that some Islamic deputies say after their oath: "What does not contradict the law of God." I say, brothers: in solving mathematical equations, we raise the symbol and put in its place the number that equals it. In our case, the constitution and positive law equal making legislation for humans. If this expression is lighter in impact than describing disbelief that God Almighty is the only one who legislates.

When the Islamic parliamentarian says, "I swear by God Almighty that I will respect the constitution and the law with what does not contradict the law of God," what is the difference between this and saying, "I swear by God Almighty that I will respect making legislation for people instead of God Almighty with what does not contradict the law of God"? Brothers, this is not exaggeration or overloading the speech with what it cannot bear, this is removing the covers of beauty to discover the bitterness of the reality of the matter. And the amazing thing is that the hall is filled with applause when the deputy insists on it, as if he has done what he should and avoided sin and error by adding this phrase.

Such an oath is a deception to the people and a blurring of the concept that the constitution contradicts the Shariah in a complete and radical way. The constitution is the Shariah of humans based on making legislation for humans, so it is the opposite of the Shariah of God Almighty. The issue is not that it contains contradictory materials, but it is the contradiction itself.

Excuse of Changing Intention and Tawriya

The second excuse they use is that the Islamic parliamentarian changes the intention of the oath in his heart. Some of them said: he intends to respect Article Two or what does not contradict the Shariah, and we have explained the invalidity of all this in what has preceded. And some of them said: he intends in his heart to respect the Quran which is the constitution of the Muslims. Then they go on to explain the rulings of tawriya and that the intention can be on the intention of the one who swears and not on the intention of the one who is sworn, and the issue is lost in these details that are not the subject of our discussion. And they completely ignore the deception that occurs to the people in the most dangerous issues of their servitude to God and their submission to His Shariah.

We ask the parliamentarians here a question we asked before: when you entered the parliament and swore this oath, what was your specific goal? Partial reforms or the establishment of the Shariah? If the goal is partial reforms, is it permissible to swear to respect making legislation for humans instead of God, even if it is tawriya for the sake of these partial reforms?

And if you say our goal is the establishment of the Shariah, then here we must stop. We say: can the establishment of Islam be imagined by swearing to extinguish an attribute of the divine attributes on humans? And would the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, have done that?

Comparison with the Position of the Messenger, Peace Be Upon Him

If it was said to the Messenger of God, peace be upon him: "Prostrate to an idol of our idols once and we will allow you at that time to rule us as you wish," would he have said: "I will prostrate before the idol with the intention that this prostration is for God and not for the idol in exchange for this great benefit"?

An answer to this question, let us remember the saying of God Almighty to His beloved Muhammad, peace be upon him: {And they had almost seduced you away from that which We revealed to you, that you might fabricate against Us some other thing. Then they would have taken you as a friend. And if We had not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little. Then We would have made you taste double of life and double of death, then you would not find for yourself against Us any helper.} (17:73-75)

If we review what was mentioned in the reason for the revelation of this verse, we find that the Quraysh asked the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, to show a little respect for their idols, a little without worship, such as touching their idols, then if he did that, they would enter his religion. They said: "O Muhammad, come and greet our gods and we will enter your religion with you." And a number of scholars went to the fact that he, peace be upon him, did not fall into it, nor even approach inclining to respond to their request, by the strengthening of God for him, nor even the inclination to show respect. Despite this, there is a severe warning from God Almighty about the hypothetical state of the inclination to show a little respect, no matter how tempting the counterpart. That is because the honor of monotheism must remain bright and clear, and must be guarded with great guardianship, and no one should be allowed to approach its sanctuary. And the speech to the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, is a speech to his nation after him, and the warning to the Messenger of God is a warning to his nation after him, otherwise he, peace be upon him, is the farthest of people to fall into such inclination.

The Danger of Deception to People

Brothers, the issue of deceiving people through such an oath is never given its due in discussions. You see the parliamentarian discussing the issue of wordplay and the intention of the oath-taker and the one who administers the oath, without considering the deception imposed on people through this oath, at a time when we know that these constitutions have replaced the Sharia and are held in higher esteem than the Sharia itself. Indeed, the punishment for insulting the constitution is greater than the punishment for insulting Allah the Almighty. Then, the Islamic parliamentarian stands before the people to swear by Allah the Almighty to respect this constitution and strengthen its pillars. All of this does not receive the slightest consideration in discussions.

Look at how the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, would correct the speech of the Companions to safeguard the sanctity of monotheism, knowing that their words were uttered with pure intentions. Someone said to him, "As Allah wills and as you will," so he, peace be upon him, replied, "Do you make me equal to Allah?" meaning sufficient, "but rather, only as Allah wills alone." And these people, whom Allah has guided, deceive the people with an oath that makes humans equal to Allah, or rather, legislators instead of Allah. The constitution did not say, "As Allah wills and as the people will," but rather, "As the people will alone." This is not a poor expression with a pure intention like the intention of the Companions, but rather, a binding text that is followed by enforceable laws that punish those who violate it. So, where is the safeguarding of the sanctity of monotheism, O oath-takers? Are you demolishing monotheism and deceiving the people to establish the Sharia?

The Excuse of "The Interest of Establishing the Sharia"

Then, there are those who say, "We bear the harm of the oath with wordplay for the sake of the interest of establishing the Sharia." And they may cite the example of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who permitted Muhammad bin Maslamah to use wordplay in front of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf the Jew with words that showed his lack of conviction in Islam, as he said, "This man (meaning the Prophet, peace be upon him) has wronged us and asked for charity," and said, "We have followed him, but we dislike to leave him until we see what happens to his affair." General words that the Messenger of Allah permitted him to say so that Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf would feel secure, enabling Muhammad bin Maslamah to kill him and relieve the Muslims from his evil and his incitement of the disbelievers against the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.

We say: Does this incident justify your reality, O parliamentarians? Is your reality like that of Muhammad bin Maslamah, who used wordplay with the permission of the Prophet in a decisive moment, the purpose of which was to uproot disbelief and defeat it without any act that contradicts faith, without deceiving the Muslims in the matter of referring to the Sharia, and without his action being a deception of the Muslims before the disbelievers, and without immediately changing the course of the train to put it on the track of the Sharia?

Democracy as a System and Context

Is the matter this simple? Or is the reality that the parliamentarians swear to enter a legislative council overshadowed by the laws of the constitution that make legislation the domain of the people and make judgments issued in the name of the people? Then, the parliamentarians go and move according to the provisions of this constitution. Their involvement in such a council is a practical respect for the constitution that practically confirms what they swore to with their tongues. The language of action is more eloquent than the language of speech. It is not a decisive moment between faith and misguidance, nor is it an oath followed by the eradication of ignorance from its roots, but rather, it is followed by an act that is forbidden in itself and deceives the people as if it were a deception of them before it is a deception of the enemies of the Sharia.

The parliamentarians swear their oath to enter the control room of a train that runs on a predetermined track. It does not matter who is in the control room of this train as long as it runs on the predetermined democratic track. In this case, what is required is changing the track, not changing the crew in the control room. What is required is changing the track, not changing the crew in the control room.

Therefore, when discussing the partial issue of the oath, it should be placed within the democratic system and context that created the oath to be a declaration with the tongue followed by a declaration with action that the source of legislation is the parliament without Allah. In addition to our problem with the oath itself, the problem with its context and what it is sworn for is greater.

Human Rights and the Right of Allah

Perhaps someone will say, "Why do you focus on these articles of the constitution and not mention the other articles that preserve the citizen's humanity, freedom, dignity, and equality with others?" And may I say to those who ask such a question: May Allah have mercy on you regarding the right of Allah the Almighty. There is no old or new pagan principle that does not contain these resonant slogans about freedom, equality, and dignity. But what is the benefit if we obtain human rights and neglect the right of Allah the Almighty?

The Danger of the Word

When we talk about associating the servants with Allah in one of His attributes, a point of this transgression against Allah, if placed in an ocean of good deeds, would corrupt it. "And indeed, it has been revealed to you and to those before you: If you associate (with Him), then indeed your work will be in vain, and you will surely be among the losers."

Then, perhaps someone will say, "Is all this for the sake of a word? A word that the parliamentarian says with good intention and noble purpose?" We remind him that a person enters Islam with a word and exits it with a word, and that Allah described a statement containing shirk as {The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse into ruins}. And we mention the hadith of Bukhari that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "Indeed, a servant may utter a word that angers Allah without considering it, and he will fall into Hell because of it."

Conclusion

Brothers, this was regarding the guarantees that democracy has put in place to ensure its protection as a human, man-made system and to prevent the climb through it to the application of the Sharia of Allah the Almighty. The next episode, in my opinion, is one of the most important episodes in the series so far, presenting a great truth that has been confused by many of the elite, let alone the general public. So, wait for it. And ask Allah for yourselves, for your brother, and for the Muslims for guidance and protection from trials. And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.