← Back to In Support of the Sharia
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Subscribe to the channel.
Instead, he asked his friend Barman, a respected and religious young man, to ask for Salima's hand in marriage instead of asking her father, because Barman would agree to a lower dowry. Indeed, Ajilan married Salima, and the Quran was recited at their wedding, which was an Islamic ceremony par excellence, attended by scholars and dignitaries.
Ajilan and Salima lived together, and they would stay up at night and fast during the day. Whenever Ajilan would visit his family, he would say, "In the name of Allah, O Allah, protect us from Satan and protect us from what you have provided us with." They had children. The money that Ajilan had saved by avoiding the high dowry was spent on teaching their children the Quran in Islamic centers.
This, in brief, is the story of Ajilan and Salima. Some questions arise, and I would like you, my brother, to answer them.
Answer: In a hadith narrated by the Prophet peace be upon him, he said: "Any woman who marries without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is void, her marriage is void, her marriage is void." Therefore, their marriage is not legal.
Answer: As long as Salima was asked for in marriage without the permission of her guardian, it makes no difference whether this substitute for the guardian is of bad character or a religious man. Indeed, if the religious man agrees to play this false role, there is no good in him or in his religion, for his alleged religion gives a false legitimacy to this void marriage.
Answer: It is narrated from the Prophet peace be upon him that he said: "Allah is good and does not accept except what is good." Their staying in their unlawful seclusion is a sin upon them even if they stay up at night.
Answer: Since the marriage is void, the children born from it are not legal. Ajilan, by spending the dowry money on Quran memorization centers instead of using it to make his marriage legal, is sinful and not rewarded.
Answer: Yes, this single mistake at the beginning is the difference between a legal blessed marriage and a void marriage. And whatever is built on falsehood is false.
My beloved in Allah, seeking parliament's permission to apply the Sharia means making it a ruler over Allah's Sharia. If it applies any of the rulings, it does not apply because it is obligatory to apply as a ruling of Allah, but because the parliament has permitted this ruling to be applied. Even if we assume that the parliament chose to apply the Islamic rulings completely, these rulings are not called Islamic nor are they called an application of the Sharia at all, for they are applied in the name of the parliament, not in the name of Allah, just as Ajilan asked for his girlfriend from Barman, not from her guardian.
The issue is not whether the parliament will agree or whether the people will agree to the rulings of the Sharia, but merely seeking the parliament's permission to apply these rulings removes the characteristic that they are rulings of the Sharia and makes them rulings of the parliament. There is no difference here whether these rulings are applied all at once or gradually, for as long as their application is tied to the permission of the parliament and issued in the name of the people, they are rulings of the Taghut even if they agree in form to the rulings of Allah, for the Taghut is everything that is worshipped besides Allah with his permission.
The right to legislate and to compel people to obey is a characteristic of the Taghut. The issue here is not a formal one. If you say in the name of the people or in the name of the parliament over your sacrifice, you are a sinful polytheist, for you consecrate it to other than Allah, and the sacrifice at that point is dead and it is forbidden for you to eat it.
Article twenty-four of the Egyptian constitution states: "Judgments are issued and executed in the name of the people," meaning because the people have permitted it and wanted it. This difference, which some see as simple, between in the name of Allah or in the name of the parliament, is the difference between monotheism and polytheism, it is the difference between referring to Allah and referring to humans besides Allah.
Some people think that applying the Sharia through the parliament is formally different from applying it in submission to Allah the Most High, as long as the rulings in the end agree in form. That is, he says to you: "We want to apply the Sharia in any way, the important thing is to reach the application of the Sharia." The truth is that referring to the parliament is polytheism. The difference after that between applying rulings that agree with the Sharia in form or contradict it is a formal difference.
Brothers, here is a very important point: applying the Sharia in itself is not an ultimate goal, but rather a means to achieve servitude to Allah, the Almighty. The goal is not to reach the mere application of Sharia, but to achieve the application of Sharia that fulfills servitude to Allah, the Almighty. Otherwise, the rulings of Sharia are for our benefit, us humans. What Allah wants from us is that our application of His Sharia is out of submission to His command: "Their flesh and blood do not reach Allah, but piety from you does reach Him."
The ultimate goal of applying Allah's Sharia is to show submission, obedience, and surrender to Him, the Almighty. When the application of Sharia lacks this ultimate goal, it has no value in the sight of Allah, the Almighty. Therefore, all that Allah wants from us is this phrase: "Rulings are issued and executed in the name of Allah." If the rulings of Sharia are issued and executed in the name of the people, then what is for the partners (of Allah) does not reach Allah, and what is for Allah reaches the partners, however badly they may rule. Allah has no share in these rulings.
All that Allah wants from us is that we obey His commands in submission to Him, the Almighty, alone. This is the phrase that Allah wants from us. And the application of the command of Allah, the Almighty, because it is the command of Allah, not because the majority agreed on it. Seeking parliament's approval to apply the command of Allah is associating partners with Allah, but rather subjecting the command of Allah to the command of humans, however badly they may rule.
From the moment rulings are issued in the name of the parliament, the meaning of servitude has collapsed completely. It is of no use afterward that the members of parliament are respected like Barman, nor the Basmala at the beginning of the sessions as when Barman would say Basmala when his family came, nor is it of use afterward the Islamic appearance of the decisions of this council like the children of Salima, who are not legitimate according to the Sharia. Nor is it praised the activities of this council nor what it may produce of combating corruption and lifting injustice, just as it is not praised the spending of Barman's dowry for Salima to memorize the Quran when he was negligent in spending this dowry and the consequences of her request from her guardian.
Salima's request from Barman made the relationship unlawful from the beginning to the end, and made it void, and everything built on void is void. Therefore, I am grieved when some ask me: "Okay, Sheikh, suppose the parliament actually succeeded in applying the Sharia, would you change your opinion about participating in it?" This question is flawed in itself, as if they were saying: "Suppose Barman succeeded in making his marriage to Salima lawful, would you change your opinion about their relationship and consider it lawful?" At that point, their relationship would not be lawful unless Barman asked for his bride from her guardian and bore the costs of that.
This principle, despite its clarity and simplicity, has unfortunately become a subject of discussion, and this is one of the negative consequences of the positions of Islamic parties towards the democratic process and their confused statements regarding the application of Sharia. In reality, brothers, one of the most important goals of this series was to highlight these ominous fruits of the mistakes of Islamic parties, and then diagnose these mistakes, determine their symptoms, and treat them. This axis will be the subject of the upcoming episodes, followed by, with Allah's permission, other important axes, so follow us.
O Allah, Lord of Jibreel, Mikaeel, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You judge between Your servants in matters wherein they differ. Guide us to the truth in what we differ about, by Your leave. Verily, You guide whom You will to a straight path.
Seeking parliament's approval to apply the Sharia makes it the ruling of humans, not the ruling of Allah, the Almighty.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.