← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Greetings.
When Americans vote every four years according to their democratic system, do they vote on a question like, "Do we adopt the capitalist or socialist system?" or a question like, "Do we consider the state of Israel a friend or an enemy?" Of course not. Why? Because there are constants in the American state that are not allowed to be exceeded, not put to question, or voted on.
This observation is taken from a podcast with Professor Tariq Khamees titled "From Gaza to Damascus: The Long Road of the Ummah," which contains many important points. So, even according to the democratic system of those who believe in it, there are governing constants, a framework within which voting takes place. This applies to all democratic countries without exception. In fact, attempting to go against some of these constants is criminalized as an attempt to undermine the state's existence.
Let's look at Syria now. There are those who call for democracy, so you see headlines like, "Anticipation in Syria for the hoped-for democratic transition," "How does Germany want to support the democratic transition in Syria?" "Syria relies on the National Conference for a democratic future."
These calls for democracy imply that this should include choosing the reference for governance, whether it is Islam or secularism. This is either ignorance or presumption, because even in democracy, anything that is voted on is done so after the constants have been determined. Democracy does not mean taking the majority's opinion on what these constants are, even democratic countries do not do that. Rather, after the constants are set, after the framework is drawn, voting on detailed matters takes place in democratic countries.
Note that here I am not talking about the fact that democracy is a great lie, but we have repeatedly shown that democracy is opposed to Islam in that it makes the reference for governance human rather than the religion of Allah the Almighty, and that correction, error, permission, and prohibition are the exclusive right of Allah the Almighty who says: {Unto Him belongs creation and commandment.} For just as He is the one who created humans, He is the one who commands, prohibits, forbids, permits, allows, and prevents.
We have shown the truth that even if democracy were implemented sincerely, it does not rule the peoples, but it is a tool in the hands of politicians, capitalism, and the media to enslave the peoples with it, as we explained in the episode "The Illusion of Freedom."
But here we are talking about another aspect, that even if democracy were implemented in its entirety by those who believe in it, it does not mean voting on the governing principles, it does not mean voting on the constants.
Nevertheless, the West, which intervenes in Syria with arrogance, with the same colonial and superior attitude, and whose agents raise secularist slogans in some squares in Syria, speak of democracy as if it were a vote on the form of the state and its constants: "Do we adopt Islam as the supreme governing reference or secularism?"
The West knows that democracy does not include this, and they do not allow voting on the constants in their own countries, but they presume with Syria and want to put the constants themselves and the reference for governance in Syria up for a vote, even with a single constant presented as forbidden to Islamize Syria, as Western politicians arrogantly state.
Anyone who responds to these calls from the secularists is either an agent helping them with their presumption or a fool who does not even know the truth about democracy.
Who has the right to speak about the constants in Syria today? Those who were aligned and in harmony with the rule of the rat fleeing from artists, owners of bars, dancers, and those who expose themselves on the beaches? Then today, they raise their voices the loudest: "Secularism, secularism"?
Who has the right to speak about the constants? The thugs of yesterday and their sectarian incubators that remained silent about the crimes of their children against the Sunni people, but rather instilled hatred in their children towards the Sunni people and excelled in torturing and killing them?
Is it the international system that has the right to speak about the constants? The international system that was complicit with the fleeing rat and worked to recycle and legitimize his rule before his fall, and supplied him with chemical weapons under the table while denouncing his crimes in the media, then quickly comes after his fall to say: "We warn against any attempt to Islamize the education and judicial system in Syria"? Do these people have the right to speak about the constants?
Or the Sunni Muslim supporters and their Mujahideen who opened the country in the name of Allah and purified it from the filth of the fleeing rat and his thugs in the name of Allah? They cannot imagine anything but ruling by the law of Allah whom they sought help from. Are not these people the rightful ones? They and those who contribute to this victory through action, education, call, and support? Are not the rightful ones those who migrated, were expelled from their homes, were harmed for the sake of Allah and not for the sake of secularism, and fought and killed?
Did they not call for help before the battle? Because it is a religion that came to liberate man from slavery to other men to the worship of Allah alone, it is the same Islam that commanded them to establish the rule of Allah over what they open of lands as a continuation and continuation of liberation from slavery except to Allah.
The Islamic system is indivisible, and the demand that the liberators of the country and their incubators have equal participation with the aforementioned categories that remained silent about the rule of the fleeing rat or helped to consolidate it directly or indirectly, this demand is futile even if it is about details after the constants. Do we make Muslims like criminals? What do you have to say about your ruling? This is a foolish, unjust, and cunning equality. So how, when presumption is made, is the demand to include these people in shaping the constants themselves?
The strange and funny thing is that when talking about ruling by Islam in Syria, it is as if we are talking about a Muslim minority hosted in a Western country, as if we are talking about four million Muslims among 335 million Americans demanding that Islamic Sharia be the applied rule in America.
We have been programmed so that when the Muslim is a minority, he must feel like a minority and act like a minority, and when he is a majority, he must also feel like a minority and remain afraid, suspicious, and ashamed of the will to rule by his religion: {And judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires, and beware of them lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. If they turn away, then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their sins. And indeed, many of the people are defiantly disobedient. Do they seek the judgment of ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who are certain [in faith]?}
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.