← 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 and His blessings.
Dear brothers, we are still in the series "Supporting the Sharia". In the previous episode, we spoke about the example of the three men who returned to their homes and found them on fire. We said that whoever reaches the rule should be like the first man who was preoccupied with the important over the less important.
Similarly, the workers for Islam will inevitably find themselves preoccupied with duties over other duties, but there is no blame on them. Allah says: {There is no blame upon the good-doers} (2:238), and He says: {And He has not laid upon you in the religion any hardship} (22:78), and He says: {So fear Allah as much as you are able} (64:16).
And when the Prophet, peace be upon him, was on the day of the Confederates, he said: "May Allah fill their houses and graves with fire, they preoccupied us from the middle prayer," meaning the afternoon prayer, "until the sun set."
So what is required then? The Islamists must declare from the very first moment that the rule is for Allah, and whatever contradicts the Sharia of the laws is under their feet. The absolute and complete sovereignty of the Sharia alone, which no other sovereignty can compete with.
If they are unable to fulfill an obligation, then its obligation is lifted from them and it is not binding upon them until they have the ability and capacity. {Allah does not charge a soul except according to what it can bear} (2:286). As long as the law is Islamic and the state applies what it can, that is honorable.
Someone may say: Is that not called gradualism? We say: Never, it has no relation to gradualism, and I will clarify that in another episode, God willing.
Let us start with some important practical applications so that the matter becomes clear.
Perhaps - and this has a story that will come, God willing - the workers for Islam may not demand the declaration of jihad to liberate the occupied Muslim lands from the very first day of taking power. But suppose that some youth infiltrated from the Islamic state to Palestine and fought the occupier, then returned to the protection of the Islamic state. Will the Islamic state enforce the anti-terrorism law against them, which in this case criminalizes and imprisons them? Of course not.
For the anti-terrorism law and the Camp David Treaty and any law or treaty that prevents the support of Muslims and humiliates their necks to their enemy will be null and void as soon as the application of the Sharia is declared from the very first moment. And in its place will be the law: {And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children} (4:75).
For the state to enforce this new law according to its capacity and strength is one thing, and to work against it is another. The ruler in this case may come to the mujahid youth and say to him gently: "Why, my son, did you rush? We are in the stage of preparing the equipment and arranging the ranks, and the time of fitnah, and we want your zeal with us in that. And by Allah, we will not rest until we liberate the lands of the Muslims. Do not open for us now, my son, a new front that we are not capable of."
And he may reprimand him if his action harmed the nascent state and dragged it into confrontations that exhausted it and preoccupied it from what it is in. But for the state to enforce against him the anti-Islam law known as the anti-terrorism law, what remains for it then of the name of Islam? The state may not have the ability to liberate the lands of the Muslims, but it should not have the ability to oppress the mujahideen either.
Secondly: If the workers for Islam take power in a country with a large number of places of debauchery, taverns, video halls that are forbidden, and tapes of forbidden songs, and internet cafes where immorality is practiced, and cinemas, and women's salons where men work, and massage parlors, and shops of forbidden idols, and libraries that contain pornographic or heretical books, etc.
The state may not have the capacity to close all of this at once, but as soon as the application of the Sharia is declared, the ruling on all these things becomes clear and known. They were in the positive law places protected by the name of the law, and it was criminal to attack them. Now they have become forbidden places with no sanctity, but they are waiting to be closed as soon as the state is able to do so, and they can no longer seek refuge in the state or protection in the law.
Thirdly: Hypocrites and secularists, and at the instigation of enemy states, may deliberately attack the Sharia and mock its rulings, even mocking Allah and His signs and His Messenger, peace be upon him. The state may not have the capacity to bring all of them to account at once or to deal with all of them at once.
But as soon as the application of the Sharia is declared, these people, if they do not repent, will be awaiting the just retribution that Allah has prescribed for those who apostatize from their religion or mock it. And they will be held accountable for their words as soon as the state is able to do so. The garbage of the ideas of these hypocrites and secularists is no longer freedom of expression as it was under the state that gives them freedom and forbids it to the callers to Allah. But stopping them at their limit will be given the highest priority in a state built on the glorification of Allah and servitude to Him.
Fourthly: In some countries, there are a large number of shrines and mausoleums that people visit, seek blessings from, and practice superstitious or idolatrous rituals there. These were protected by the states that appointed caretakers and guards for these mausoleums. As soon as the application of the Sharia is declared, these shrines are awaiting removal by the state and conversion into ordinary graves, not their protection.
Fifthly: The state must achieve health care for its people, and undertake agricultural and animal projects that achieve self-sufficiency from its enemies, so that it does not attempt to blackmail it and control its policies through its possession of wheat, milk, etc. Also, the state must undertake heavy industry projects that achieve its independence as well.
All of this is from the application of the Sharia and from the preservation of self, wealth, and offspring, which are among the objectives of the Sharia. However, as is known, achieving all of this does not happen from the first day of taking power. But the declaration of the application of the Sharia includes that the state does not commit to any agreement that blackmails it and puts its power in the hands of its enemies.
Sixthly: The Islamic state may find itself facing thousands of corrupt individuals who benefited from the non-Islamic, ignorant system. These corrupt individuals have plundered the country's wealth, owning its lands and vital projects, allocating public sectors to themselves, and drowning people in usurious loans through banks owned by these corrupt individuals.
The nascent state may not be able to return what is in the hands of these plunderers to the general public all at once. But if a bank from its banks says: "So-and-so borrowed from me 100,000 before years, and the interest accumulated on him and he was unable to pay, so he only paid the principal of the debt. Come, O state, evict him from his mortgaged house to sell it and I get my interest." Will the state support him? Of course not. For this interest has become usury, forbidden, and nullified by the declaration of the application of the Sharia. And accordingly, many examples can be likened.
Are we in all of this demanding from those who take power more than their capacity and ability? No, by Allah. But the matter is simply: either Islam or no Islam, either Sharia or positive laws.
There are many lessons that can be derived from these examples. What are these lessons? This is what we will know in the next episode, God willing. So follow us, and peace be upon you and mercy.