← 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
One should not lead people to deception in matters of their religion. But what is the problem? The problem is that after political practices occurred that were highly erroneous and led to this deception in its severest forms, we expected these scholars to apply their principle and call for the prohibition of these practices, to distance people from them, and to publicly guide those who practice them, as they occurred publicly and their effects were widespread.
However, our scholars, instead of that, called for supporting and electing those who practice these deviant practices. Thus, three factors converged on the people, all contributing to their deception in matters of their religion: the erroneous practices, the scholars' call to elect those who practice them, and, in contrast, the scholars' failure to denounce these modern practices. The harm of deception, which, according to these scholars themselves in the past, surpasses any anticipated benefit from calling people to elect those who practice these practices.
What we demand from these scholars is that they apply the principle they advocated before: that any political movement should not lead to the deception of people in matters of their religion. So look, O our scholars, at reality to learn that this deception has occurred, then denounce and address it.
We will take an example from the Salafi scholars and an example from scholars considered by the Ikhwan: the preacher, the eminent scholar Dr. Muhammad Ismail Al-Muqaddim, the Sheikh of Salafism in Alexandria and one of the prominent Salafi scholars in Egypt.
Here, I say to Dr. Al-Muqaddim and the Salafi call scholars in Egypt: We now hold you accountable publicly, although we loved you, benefited from you in the past, defended you, and spread your lectures and virtues. However, the truth is dearer to us than you. By Allah, then by Allah, your return to the truth is dearer to us than the earth and all that is on it, and we are then servants to your call. We have no intention but to hope for the contribution to attracting your attention to these matters and saving the nation, which we fear may be entrusted to you. So, O Allah, if this call is true, then spread this speech, accept it, and benefit from it. If it is false, then bury it in its place and do not bear the burden of lying in it.
Before the Arab revolutions, Sheikh Al-Muqaddim saw the prohibition of entering parliamentary councils, yet he considered entering them a controversial matter. However, note the condition he set for the matter to be considered controversial. Dr. Al-Muqaddim said: "It is not valid that we sacrifice our creed for a seat in the People's Assembly. The basic condition for permission is not to compromise and not to use taqiya, because taqiya in matters of creed and fundamental issues leads to the deception of the truth to the masses. Thus, matters become confused for them, and fundamental concepts related to the creed are mixed. Allah, the Most High, says: 'And judge between them by what Allah has revealed.' Then look at what follows, a great crime and a serious deviation that affects the root of religion." End of his speech, may Allah preserve him.
Words that are as clear as can be, showing the guardianship of monotheism. Let us derive the lessons from this speech:
Now, what is the position we expect from you, Dr. Muhammad Ismail, after the candidate you rallied people to support won? Among the first things he said in his speech was: "Brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, O Muslims in Egypt, O Christians in Egypt." Until he said: "O great people, I come to you today because I completely believe that you are the source of authority and legitimacy that nothing is above. You are the people of authority and its source, and you are the legitimacy and the strongest in it." Then he said: "I come to you because you are the source of authority and legitimacy that is above everyone, no place for anyone or institution or body above this will. The nation is the source of all authorities, and it is the one who rules, decides, appoints, and dismisses for that." Then he said: "There is no authority above this authority. You are the owners of authority, you are the owners of the will, you are the source of this authority, you have what you wish, and you prevent what you wish."
Notice "you have what you wish and prevent what you wish." This reminded me of Ibn Hani Al-Andalusi's praise of the Abbasid caliph Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah: "What you will, not what fate wills, so judge for you are the one, the dominant." Allah's refuge.
Then, after affirming his rejection of seizing the people's power and the authorities entrusted to him in the name of the people, he said: "Nor does this mean that we will not respect the law or not elevate the value of the constitution and the judiciary." And he concluded by saying: "We respect the will of the people, the law, the constitution, and the rulings issued by the Egyptian judiciary." The constitution, of course, which stipulates in its third article that sovereignty belongs to the people alone, and they are the source of authorities. Of course, the verses are recited as every current or deposed Arab president recites them, but the matter is not about adorning the speech with verses but about acting upon them. Christians are mentioned at the beginning of the speech, and power, legitimacy, and will are given to them along with Muslims, and Sharia is not mentioned, neither explicitly nor implicitly. The constitution and the positive judiciary are sanctified, and Sharia is not mentioned. And no one says: there is a difference between sovereignty and authority, the sovereignty of the people and the authority of the people. Here, the spokesman for the presidency has confirmed that the president of the republic is responsible for confirming the sovereignty of the people, respecting the constitution, and the sovereignty of the law. And the group's statements over the decades pour into the same concept, the concept of the sovereignty of the people, as we will see later, God willing. In contrast, Sharia sovereignty is not mentioned in this speech, neither near nor far. All of this consolidates in the minds that the people have the right to legislate whatever laws they wish, for they are the owners of sovereignty and legitimacy.
Before the revolution, what did Dr. Muhammad Ismail Al-Muqaddim say about such statements? May Allah preserve him, in his series "Sovereignty Belongs to the Quran, Not to Parliament," he said: "In summary, the issue is a matter of principle. Either sovereignty belongs to the Sharia or it belongs to the nation. Either the right to legislation is for Allah alone, exclusively for Him, and the role of the nation is to derive rulings from the principles of Sharia and to exert effort in applying its rulings to new cases, thus being upon the religion of Allah, and that is Islam. Or the right to absolute legislation belongs to someone other than Allah, such as the parliament or others, who may permit what they wish, prohibit what they wish, suspend what they wish of the Sharia rulings, proceed with what they wish, and give legitimacy to what they wish and withdraw legitimacy from what they wish. That, said Dr. Al-Muqaddim, is the path that the entire nation has agreed upon, meaning consensus, not a disputed matter. That is the path that the entire nation has agreed to reject throughout the centuries, and it is fundamentally invalid, not acceptable for correction or permission. I remind you here of the story of 'Ajlan, whose marriage to Salima was fundamentally invalid and not acceptable for correction."
Then he said: "Any authority established on this basis, meaning on the basis that legislation is for the parliament, is null and void, and any law issued based on it is invalid. Imagine if a state in Europe or America issued some Islamic punishments to curb crime in their societies, and decided to adopt them from Islamic civilization to fix the issues in their countries, would that make it an Islamic state?"
Then he said: "The application of Sharia that is considered in this context does not begin with the selection of some Sharia rulings and their codification and imposition on people, but it begins with correcting this greater flaw that has spread its corrupt spirit in all aspects of the nation, which is the principle of the sovereignty of the nation in Western terminology and what it implies of acknowledging the right of its representatives to absolute legislation and removing the sovereignty from Islamic Sharia. Addressing and resolving this point at the beginning will prevent people from being in confusion and darkness, and what comes after that of reforms will not be mere patching up that does not fix the worldly matters nor is acceptable in religion." End of his speech, may Allah preserve him.
Precise, well-structured, and clear speech supported by evidence. So we say to Dr. Muhammad Ismail: O Doctor, your support for their speeches confirms the sovereignty of the nation in this form, which entrenches the corrupt ideological concept that no corruption is above it, as you have taught us. The clarifications and affirmations that your support is of the lesser of two evils, all these additions are lost, and what remains in the minds and in history is that the Salafi scholars support this president. Even if you say that you are convinced that he will not apply Sharia, when we talked about the prohibition of participating in elections, the opponents would object to us by saying: Here are the Salafi scholars supporting so-and-so. Thus, it remains in the minds that you support those who make such statements. The previous presidential speech, which has no mention of Allah, in the eyes of the people, is stamped with your seal.
Alright, what has happened has happened, and you have supported it. Now, we expect you, O Doctor, to denounce these statements and disassociate yourselves from them, and for that to be spread so that people know that you reject this speech. Now, when we browse Islamic sites and scholars' sites, we hardly find any denunciation of such statements, and this is a very strange phenomenon.
Of course, all of this is without mentioning this very strange stance from the scholars of the Salafi call, from the party that calls itself Salafi, and it revolves around the same concept of the people's right to choose what they want, using fabricated phrases between Sharia, the right of society, democracy, and Shura, and it states in its program the right of society to determine political, economic, cultural, and social choices for the state through representative institutions. These are phrases that entrench in people's minds the corrupt concept of the sovereignty of the people and their right to choose what they want to rule with. Then, despite this, the general scholars of the Salafi call support this party, give it legitimacy, and describe it as the closest party to the principles of pure Salafism.
Then, when this party embodied the principle of the sovereignty of the people by presenting names of figures they call consensual to participate in writing the constitution, and when they approved the second article in its tattered form, leaving no room for what is impossible for him, we hardly hear from the scholars of the Salafi call any denunciation, disassociation, or retraction from supporting this party. Is there not in these practices and your silence, O Dr. Muhammad Ismail and O scholars of the Salafi call, is there not in them what you warned against earlier, O Doctor, of ideological deception?
The conclusion of the episode is two phrases from Dr. Al-Muqaddim himself, we direct these two phrases to him from him:
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.