← 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.
Our discussion here is about those who believe that a system of governance or a president becomes legitimate merely by being chosen by the people, without considering their commitment to the Sharia. Then, they use Islamic texts to make people comply with this ruler. We say to these people: Clarify your position, what is your source of legitimacy?
Is the source the Book of Allah, which says: {O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you}? If so, then the Book of Allah also says: {Then We have made you upon a clear method of the command, so follow it, and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.} If the reference is to Allah and His Messenger, then let it be a complete and sincere reference, otherwise, you will be subject to His saying: {And when they are called to [the words of] Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, lo and behold, a party of them turn away in aversion. But if the right is theirs, they come to him in full submission.}
Or is the source of legitimacy for you the choice of the people for this president, regardless of what he rules with? If that is the case with you, then whoever does not obey the command of Allah to rule with His Sharia has no right to make people comply with his rule in the name of Allah. For the Sharia of Allah is a binding contract for the ruler as it is for the ruled.
An Azhari scholar issued a fatwa that mixes the religion of the sovereignty of Allah with the religion of the sovereignty of the people. In his fatwa, he warns against rebelling against a certain president, justifying this by saying that the nation chose him through a direct pledge represented by free elections. Then, this Azhari scholar used Islamic texts on how to deal with them and apply the punishment of rebellion upon them!
This is a contradiction, confusion, and a strange mixture of hesitation between making the Sharia the reference and making the people the reference. Either the legitimacy is derived from the Sharia of Allah, in which case the president is bound to apply the Sharia and the people are bound to obey him by the text of the words of Allah and the words of His Messenger. Or the legitimacy with you is derived from the choice of the people alone, in which case do not resort to "Allah says and the Messenger says," but be consistent with yourselves and say: "The religion of democracy says" and "Jean-Jacques Rousseau says."
And if the legitimacy is derived from the choice of the people for the president alone, then it necessarily follows that if the people choose a secular president, he is a legitimate president. And by the logic of this fatwa, he has the right to apply the punishment of rebellion to those who rebel against him because he has apostated from freedom and democracy. Such fatwas necessarily entail extremely corrupt implications.
The second of the disastrous consequences of the spread of the concept of popular sovereignty is that some people judge an action as wrong merely because it contradicts the order of the ruler who enjoys popular legitimacy, even if this action enjoys divine legitimacy. We now hear people opposing the fighting of Jews through the Egyptian borders and the bombing of gas lines, because that is a deviation from the policies of the president who enjoys popular legitimacy.
We return and say: Is the reason for your criticism that this is a legitimate ruler whose obedience is obligatory? And is the prevention of fighting the Jews based on Islamic texts? Let him show us these texts. Then, if he shows them, is he committed to the Sharia with which he makes people comply? Or are the Islamic texts not your language, but you see that whoever the people give legitimacy to has the right to punish those who carry out actions that Allah has given legitimacy to?
Define for us the definition of this distorted hybrid concept of "popular legitimacy" with which you judge individuals and actions. Therefore, the Sharia is no longer the sole criterion for judging actions and persons among these people. Does this mean that their jihad is wrong? He will not hesitate and will say: Yes, it is wrong, and he will come to you with the reasons. Therefore, there is another criterion for correcting and condemning actions other than the Sharia, and this is a matter of great danger.
The third consequence of the concept of popular sovereignty: promoting secularism with an Islamic cloak. What is secularism? It is to worship Allah in your personal affairs as you wish, but to refer to the laws formulated by popular majority in public policies, and not to speak afterward about the imposition of Islamic rule and making people submit to their Lord.
The bats of secularism have long promoted this principle, during which they were ostracized, known by the tone of their speech and the discord of their forms, as tails of systems that people hate and hate those who follow them. Then, behold, these secular principles sneak into the homes of Muslims with an Islamic cloak, and an Islamic touch is placed on them with hybrid terms that mix Sharia texts and popular sovereignty.
The fourth consequence of the concept of popular sovereignty: obliterating the doctrine of loyalty and disavowal, and equating the Muslim with the disbeliever on the basis of citizenship, even in matters where the Sharia has made a distinction. Rather, equating them in a practical, self-imposed manner. The pious Muslim scholar, the Christian, the atheist communist, and the sexually deviant, all of these are individuals of the people, and each has a share in the distributed sovereignty, meaning that each has a share in divinity.
We have explained in the previous episode that the sovereignty they speak of is one of the characteristics of divinity. It is no longer acceptable in taste to say about this small god that he is a disbeliever, misguided, or corrupt, for he and his group may one day obtain the majority and thus popular legitimacy, so his disbelief and misguidance become a law that rewards those who comply with it and punishes those who oppose it. The matter is numerical and relative, so there is no absolute right nor absolute misguidance.
The fifth consequence of its effects: you see someone who claims to be a Muslim yet defends laws applied in Western countries, such as those that ban the hijab in schools and universities, on the grounds that these laws were formulated by the majority and obtained popular legitimacy, which is what gives legitimacy to any ruling, no matter what it is.
The sixth impact of the sovereignty of the people: nullifying the Sharia of Islam, such as jihad of invitation. I do not know the justification for Islamic conquests and jihad of invitation if it involves going against the will and sovereignty of peoples who reject Islam and the payment of jizyah. How can one reconcile {And the religion is for Allah} with respecting the sovereignty, will, and democracy of these peoples?
After the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him, some people revolted and others refused to pay zakat. Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, did not possess popular legitimacy. If fair democratic elections were held, Musaylimah the liar would have won, as he enjoyed the support of one hundred thousand from the Banu Hanifa.
Abu Bakr's fight against those who refused to pay zakat and the apostates was, according to the religion of popular sovereignty, a coup against popular legitimacy, a regression from freedom and democracy, a religious dictatorship, and the imposition of his own concept of Islam. According to the religion of popular sovereignty, he should have spread his concept of Islam peacefully and resorted to the ballot boxes, accepting the result no matter what it was.
In the religion of Allah, the application of the Sharia is the binding contract for both parties. If the ruler deviates from the Sharia, the people depose him. If a part of the people deviates from the Sharia, the ruler fights them until they return.
These are some of the implications of the sovereignty of the people. However, I would like to conclude by drawing attention to the fact that our real problem is not with the Islamic peoples. I do not want it to appear from our speech as if the people claimed sovereignty and we tried to seize it from them. Rather, our problem in this matter is with those who practiced politics in the name of Islam and introduced strange concepts through their dangerous practices that distorted the natural Islamic principles inherent in the peoples.
Then, they did not even respect the sovereignty of the people that they advocated, but after coming to power, they did what Allah forbids and what the people reject. They did not establish a Sharia, nor did they honor the people, nor did they leave the people's beliefs in their natural purity. Instead, they carried out what the Christians, the corrupt, the secularists, and the Western countries wanted. This is what we will clarify in the next episode, God willing. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.