Insisting on democracy until death!
Insistence on Democracy Until Death!
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah. Dear brothers, Allah the Almighty commanded us to contemplate, saying: "Then contemplate, O you with vision." The events in Egypt are full of lessons that we will present in episodes, by the permission of Allah, and we ask Him to benefit us all with them.
Brothers, from reviewing the book and the Sunnah, what happened in Egypt is a disaster in religion that can only be due to disobedience: "Say, 'It is from yourselves.'" If we want salvation, we must search for these sins and deviations and repent from them. However, what the Islamic parties are doing, unfortunately, is increasing these deviations and clinging to them, and this is a reality that bodes no good.
Democracy and Its Contradiction with Religion
These deviations, the most important of which is choosing the path of democracy with all its contradiction to the religion of Allah, as we explained in detail in the series "In Support of the Sharia." Yesterday, the leaders insisted on putting a new sign on the Rabaa al-Adawiya platform, which reads: "With democracy against the coup." And today, their supporters defend it and the principles of democracy again, and some even call for abandoning Islamic slogans to rally more people and avoid provoking the army.
The Story of the Monk and the Lesson from It
In fact, brothers, this reminds me of what the exegetes narrated, even if it is with weak chains, but we want it for the lesson: A righteous monk from the Children of Israel was brought a girl who had been afflicted with evil to pray for her, but the devil tempted him and whispered to him to have intercourse with her, saying, "Do it once and then repent." So he had intercourse with her, and she became pregnant with him. Then the devil came to him again and whispered to him to kill her and her fetus to cover himself, so the monk did it. Then her people discovered the matter and came to kill the monk.
The devil came to him again and said to him, "I am the one who brought you to this state, so no one will save you but me." In fact, he said to him, as in one of the narrations, "If you die in this state, no one from your peers will succeed after you," meaning that people will have a bad impression of the worshippers, i.e., he came to him in the name of the interest of the call. So the monk said, "What should I do?" The devil said, "Prostrate to me once, and I will take their eyes and save you from what you are in." So the monk prostrated to him, but the devil betrayed him and said to him, "I disown you; I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds." So the people took the monk and killed him, and he died in this state, associating partners with Allah.
"I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds" is not the issue here of excommunication and not excommunication, but the truth, brothers, I see the story repeating with the Islamic parties that have taken the path of democracy. The democracy that they have adopted completely, mechanisms and philosophy, and the concessions they have made have brought them and the people of Egypt to where they are, and enabled the criminals of the army and the enemies of the religion in Egypt.
Clinging to Democracy Instead of Repentance
Instead of repenting to Allah for what they did in the past period, they cling to democracy and the terms they have polluted with people's beliefs, such as popular legitimacy, until the last moment, and they think that it will save them. "But when their punishment came to them, they said, 'O Allah, give us one more chance; we will respond to Your call and be among the believers.'" Instead of repentance and turning to Allah, some think that the solution is to plunge deeper and deeper into the democracy swamp. It seems that the evidence is not in the calculations, the review of the Sunnah of Allah in the Quran is not in the calculations. And therefore, instead of "what your hands have earned," the conclusion is: "More concessions must be made."
Instead of: "Democracy did not benefit us, so now it is time for us to return to a pure Islamic call," the conclusion is: "Standing between Islam and democracy did not benefit us, so we must abandon our Islamism and enter democracy completely."
Instead of the verse of Allah: "O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely and do not follow the footsteps of Satan," meaning enter into Islam completely and do not abandon anything of it, otherwise you will be followers of Satan, it is as if it is said: "Enter into democracy completely and do not follow the verses of the Most Merciful."
Criticism of the Compromising Thought
And he who thinks that this is an exaggeration should review an article by one of the thinkers today regarding the disagreement that occurred on the comment of the sign "With democracy against the coup." And it is not my habit, brothers, to quote the speech of a specific person in order to avoid personalizing the disagreement, but the truth is that this article gathers more of the diseases of the compromising thought, which is completely devoid of the light of revelation and its movements.
And the platform and the like: "I wish he would remove from his mind the idea that this is an Islamic revolution with all that the term Islamism carries of consequences and mental images and psychological heritage and the like." And he continued: "It is not less than acknowledging a clear truth that says: We could not have succeeded alone with our current speech, as evidenced by what we are in now." That is, the Islamic speech has failed, and the evidence is what they are in terms of setback. Instead of concluding that their speech was not a pure Islamism, otherwise Allah would have granted them victory, he concludes that Islam does not benefit as a speech.
Then he said: "The only solution to get out of this impasse is to export a popular revolution, not an Islamic one, we determine exactly what we want so that we can rest. If we want it to be an Islamic revolution, then we bear the dispersion of the people who are not capable of our speech due to its lack of effectiveness or because of this or that," and he mentioned other reasons. After some have drunk democracy into their hearts, they imagined that people would disperse from the Islamic speech, and the truth is that they disperse from the fabricated, hybrid, mixed speech that lacks credibility.
Then the respected one said: "If you want it to be a popular revolution that makes the army confused and unable to distort the movement of the people with its spectrums and makes the goal or success after that popularly supported and defended, then we bear the cost of leaning towards a middle area that gathers all the different factions." So they are still clinging to the terms of consensus and gathering the factions because a handful of secularists have controlled their minds and ruled their actions more than the observation of Allah.
And the respected one calls for bearing the cost of leaning towards a middle area. What is this cost? Abandoning Islamism and entering into the religion of democracy completely, and making more concessions to save them after they have been put on the chopping block. Then he says: "Do you not like the word democracy? Fine, even though I do not understand why. Present, then, the clear, strong, popularly acceptable alternative that is in line with global political systems."
Consequences of Concessions
The global political systems still dominate their minds after their betrayal and conspiracy against them. This is one of the clearest statements, my brothers, regarding what we mentioned in the second episode of the series "Psychology of Deviation," the episode "Thus Do the Calls Deviate," under the title "The Principle of Commitment and Consistency." When we mentioned that whoever makes concessions finds himself forced to commit to the consequences of these concessions to be consistent with himself. Thus, our companion here, instead of saying that accepting to enter the presidential race based on the rules of the democratic game was a concession that must be repented from and retracted, concludes that in order to be consistent with ourselves, we must amend our discourse and get rid of our Islamism as prerequisites for demanding the democratically elected president.
Then His Excellency said: "Enough chatter or enough philosophy, please keep your utopian fantasies. It has been proven a million times that they are not feasible." So now, the legitimate proposal is philosophy and fantasies that have been proven unfeasible. Instead of saying that the path of concessions is the one that has been proven unfeasible. And we wonder, when he says that the Islamic proposal has been proven unfeasible, unfeasible in what exactly? In serving the religion of God? Is the Islamic discourse not feasible in serving Islam? Or has it been proven unfeasible in obtaining the seat of power? Or in rallying the masses? If the Sharia rallies, we use it, and if it does not rally, we use the word "democracy" instead.
A Call to Repentance and Return to God
I ask the proponents of this proposal: When was the last time you read the Quran with contemplation? And what is the meaning of your Islam if you do not derive rulings from what Allah has said and what His Messenger has said? What is the meaning of His saying then: "It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should have any choice in their decision"? And are you, through your method, supporting Allah so that you may deserve His promise when He said: "If you support Allah, He will support you and plant firmly your feet"? And I do not see except that Allah has entrusted you to yourselves and to the democracy that you have accepted in your war against the criminals of the military.
So fear Allah and enough prostration to democracy while you are on the brink of death. And rectify this corruption, O youth of the Brotherhood, rectify this corruption, O youth of the Brotherhood, before it is too late. We ask Allah to guide the astray and rectify the affairs of the Muslims. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.