Therefore, the Shari’ah rules and the Islamic Fiqh had been abandoned.

The Western laws were adopted as was the Western jurisprudence. The way these laws were taken varied from one law to another. Some Western rules were taken as they were, without any consideration as to whether these were found in the Islamic Fiqh or not, and without any thought given as to whether they agreed or contradicted the Shari’ah rules, such as the penal code which abolished the Hudud. Other laws were taken as rules only, with consideration given to the fact that they were found in the Islamic Fiqh even if this were by an unknown Mujtahid, or from a Faqih who was not qualified to the extent of a Mujtahid. In other words if the rule had been found in the books of Fiqh or found amongst the scholars opinions, it would have been taken, otherwise it would not have been taken, as was the case with the procedure laws. Some of the laws were imitated in terms of codification, categorisation and cases, while making the Shari’ah rules the exclusive articles of law, such as the Journal, which represents a host of Shari’ah rules that was established in imitation of the French civil law. Hence, the Shari’ah by which the judges ruled became Western rules rather than the Islamic Shari’ah, even if some of those rules were Shari’ah rules.

What enabled the introduction of the rules of the democratic system as a constitution for the Islamic State and the Western laws as legislation implemented in the courts, in their capacty as Islamic courts within the Khilafah State, were the Fatwas of the scholars which stated that they did not contradict Islam, particularly the Fatwas of the Sheikh-ul-Islam. Fatwas were issued stating that the democratic system did not contradict Islam and that Islam was the Deen of democracy. A Fatwa was given by the Sheikh-ul-Islam stating that it was permitted to adopt the Western laws and implement them in the courts upon the Muslims, because Islam does not prohibit their adoption. Hence, the rules of the democratic system were established as a constitution for the Islamic State, and the ruling system was considered by the majority of Muslims to be a Khilafah system, so long as the head of state was called the Khaleefah, even if the ruling systems implemented were not from the rules of Islam. Furthermore, the Western laws started to be implemented in courts of the Islamic State and these became considered as Islamic laws. Thus the State was still considered an Islamic State, implementing Islam, even though what in fact she was implementing was Western laws, as long as Islam permitted these laws. This implementation of the democratic system within the ruling system and of the Western laws within the courts did not affect the Islamic status of the State, nor did it affect the Islamic status of the laws as far as the majority of the Muslims were concerned, since Islam did not prohibit the adoption of these laws. Contrary to this, this implementation was approved by the Muslims. To some it was even regarded as a reform initiative within the State. Nobody looked upon these laws and these rules as being rules and laws of kufr, they rather approved of them and kept silent about them. If there had been anyone who disapproved of those laws and those rules, he never spoke out, nor did he oppose the Khaleefah, nor did he demand anything of him. If there had been anyone who disapproved of the suspension of the Hudud, he never proclaimed this openly by confronting the Khaleefah with his disapproval nor did he demand him to restore them.

The reasons behind the Fatwa of the Sheikh-ul-Islam and other scholars pertaining to the adoption of the democratic rules and Western laws was attributable to three matters:

1- It had become implanted in people’s minds at the time, and even nowadays, that it was permitted to adopt any matter which did not contradict Islam and which was not prohibited by a Shari’ah text. They used as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had found contracts dating back to the days of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) existing among people and he had approved them, and that which he did not approve of, he prohibited. Hence, that which he approved was permitted and that which he prohibited was unlawful. Likewise, it was permitted to adopt any thought, or rule, or law that did not contradict Islam and that had not been prohibited.

2- The Mubah (permitted) is that which carries no rebuke. Hence the absence of the rebuke is a permission. So taking a matter whose prohibition has not been mentioned would be Mubah. Furthermore, the Shari’ah kept silent about it and did not outline its rule, and whatever Shari’ah kept silent about is Mubah. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Truly Allah has commanded some obligations, hence do not neglect them; and He prohibited certain matters, hence do not violate them; and He determined certain limits, hence do not transgress them and He condoned certain matters out of mercy, not forgetfulness, hence do not search for them.” In another narration, he (saw) said: “And that which He kept silent about is a condonation.” Therefore, anything that Shari’ah kept silent about is Mubah.

The adoption of rules and laws which have not been mentioned by the Shari’ah and which the Shari’ah did not mention by any prohibition is part of the Mubah. This is since there is no rebuke about them, and since no prohibition was mentioned, and since it was not mentioned by the Shari’ah and because the Shari’ah kept silent about it.

3- The fact that at that time it became widespread that democracy is from Islam, for it is based on Shura’ (consultation), justice and equality. It was also based on giving the authority to the Ummah, and this is what Islam is concerned with. Islam equates between rich and poor, rights and duties and between a minister and a shepherd and makes their affairs amongst them based on Shura’ and makes enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar one of the most important principles. Shura’ in Islam has been organised in modern times by what the Europeans refer to as parliament. Enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar has been formulated in the modern civilisation through the freedom of press to criticise and the freedom of individuals and groups to write and voice their opinions frankly. They approve what they see and they disapprove what they see and they speak as they wish. Hence no person is beyond reproach, nor is the government, or the Wali. What straightens them, deters them and forces them to keep to the straight and narrow is the awareness of public opinion and its freedom of criticism. This is what is referred to in the Qur’an as “joining together in the mutual teaching of Truth.” In this way it was deduced that democracy is from Islam and the Qur’an mentioned it and the Messenger (saw) commanded it.

Consequently, Fatwas related to the adoption of the democratic constitution and the Western laws were issued. The State was still considered to be an Islamic State, functioning as the Khilafah system, and the legislation was still considered Islamic as the laws that had been adopted were Islamic laws.

This is where the flaws and the deviation occurred, because the thoughts concerning these three matters contained a fundamental error in their understanding of Islam. This is attributable to several aspects:

1- There is a difference between the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters namely the doctrines and Shari’ah rules, and the thoughts related to sciences, techniques, industries and the like. It is permitted to adopt the thoughts related to sciences, techniques and the like, provided these do not contradict Islam. As for the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters and Shari’ah rules, it would be forbidden to adopt any of them, except those brought to us by the Messenger of Allah (saw) whether it was from the Book of Allah (swt), or the Sunnah, or from what the Book and the Sunnah have guided to. Evidence about this is reflected in what Muslim reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "I am but human like you. Hence, if I ordered you something related to your Deen’s affairs, do take it, and if I ordered you something related to your worldly affairs, then I am only human.” Evidence is also reflected in the Hadith about the pollination of palm trees, where he (saw) was reported to have said:

“You are better acquainted with your worldly affairs.” Therefore that which is not part of the Shari’ah, namely the Aqeedah matters and the rules, can be taken as long as it does not contradict Islam. However, that which is part of the Shari’ah, namely Aqeedah matters and rules, can only be taken from what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought and nothing else. The democratic rules and laws are rules taken to solve man’s problems, hence they form part of the legislation. Thus it would be wrong to adopt them, unless they have been brought by the Messenger of Allah (saw). It would be wrong to adopt them unless they were Shari’ah rules only.

2- The Messenger of Allah (saw) has explicitly forbidden us from taking anything other than what he brought. Muslim reported on the authority of Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who introduces in our order something that is alien to it, must be rejected.” In another narration, he (saw) was reported to have said: “He who performs an action alien to our order, must be rejected.” Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw)

said: “The Hour shall not come until my Ummah follows the ways of the nations before her, hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length. Upon this they asked: Is it the Persians and the Romans? He (saw) replied: Who else among people but them?

Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: You shall follow the ways of those before you hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length, and even if they entered a lizards hole you will follow them. I said: O Messenger of Allah! You mean the Jews and the Christians? He (saw) replied: Who else? These texts clearly forbid us from taking anything from others. The first Hadith, with its two narrations, is clear about the prohibition and about the censure of taking, for it says:

8 - Democracy contradicts Islam completely in the fundamentals and in the details, and this is reflected in several aspects :

(i) Democracy gives the sovereignty to the people and entrusts them with the whole matter. Hence, people are the supreme reference in everything.

According to the rules of democracy, people are the source of power.

Thus people are the source of the legislative power, the judicial power and the executive power. It is people who legislate, appoint the judges and establish the rulers. This is contrary to Islam which makes the sovereignty to Shari’ah and not to people. In this way the whole matter is to the Shari’ah and it is the supreme reference in everything. As for the powers, Islam has made the legislative power for Allah (swt), not to people. It is Allah (swt) alone who legislates the rules in everything, be it in regard to worship, transactions, the punishments or otherwise. It is forbidden for anyone to legislate, even if it was a single rule. People in Islam have the authority - namely the rule, so it is the people who elect the ruler and appoint him. Thus people are the source of the executive power only - they select the man who assumes the authority and the rule. As for the judicial power, this is assumed by the Khaleefah or whoever deputises for him in this. It is the Khaleefah who appoints the judges or appoints someone who appoints the judges. No person from among the people, individuals or groups alike have the authority to appoint a judge. This is rather restricted to the Khaleefah and his deputy.

(ii) The leadership in the democratic system is collective and not for the individual. The power is also collective and not for the individual. The authority, or the rule is assumed by the council of ministers meaning the cabinet. The head of state, be it a king or a president, is a nominal figure who reigns but does not rule. The body that rules and assumes the power is the cabinet. This is contrary to Islam, where the leadership is for the individual and not a collective and where the power is also for the individual and not a collective. It has been reported on the authority of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said : “If three people set off on a journey, they should appoint one of them as an Amir.” Abdullah ibn Omar also reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said : “It is forbidden for any three people to be anywhere on earth without having appointed one Amir from amongst them.” The word “one” means just that, and it refers to a number, namely one and no more.

This is deduced from the opposite understanding of the word “one”.

The opposite understanding can be asked and its indication is equal to the indication of the text as far as the evidence is concerned. The opposite understanding can only be made redundant in one single instance, that is if a text nullifies it. In this instance, no text has come to nullify it, thus it is applicable. This stipulates the application of : “they should appoint one as Amir” and no more, or “without having appointed one Amir” and no more. Hence, the opposite understanding in the two Ahadith indicates that it is absolutely forbidden for the Imara to be conferred to more than one man. This is supported by the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw), for in all the situations in which he appointed Amirs, never did he (saw) appoint more than one Amir over one single area. Thus the authority, namely the rule, is assumed by the head of state - the Amir ul- Mu’mineen, (the Khaleefah) and all of the state related mandatory powers are confined to him. He is the one with the competence in the authority and in the rule and no one shares any of this competence with him, rather it is exclusive to him. Thus, leadership and authority in Islam is for the individual.

(vii) There exists in the democratic system what is known as general freedoms : Personal freedom, freedom of ownership, freedom of creed and freedom of expression. Hence, every person can do what they wish.

So there is no punishment against fornication; it is even forbidden to enact such a punishment, for this is regarded as an infringement of personal freedom. Also, every person can acquire through any means, anything they wish. Thus one can acquire wealth through gambling, deception or monopoly. Also, every person can embrace any Aqeedah they wish and they can express any opinion they wish. This is contradictory to Islam, for in Islam there is no freedom, meaning non adherance to anything when performing actions. Islam indeed restricts the Muslim to abiding by the Shari’ah rules. Every action performed by the Muslim is subject to the adherence to the Shari’ah rules. What is known as general freedoms has no existence in Islam. There is no personal freedom, for the men and women fornicators will be lashed and the men and women adulterers will be stoned. Also there is no freedom of ownership, for the wealth that is acquired through gambling or unlawful transactions cannot be owned, and the wealth whose acquisition is forbidden by Shari’ah such as Riba (usury) cannot be owned. One cannot own anything by way of deception or monopoly. Also, there is no freedom of belief, for if the Muslim apostasised he would be killed if he did not repent. As for what is referred to as freedom of expression, Islam has permitted the Muslim to express his own opinion, provided it is not sinful and has also ordered the uttering of the truth everywhere and at all times. In the Hadith of Ubada ibn us-Samit (ra), when the Ansar gave their Baya’a to the Messenger of Allah (saw), he was reported to have said : “That we would speak the truth at all times and that in Allah’s service, we would fear the censure of none.” Islam has also commanded the confronting and the accounting of the ruler with regard to his actions. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said : “The master of martyrs is Hamza, and a man who stood up to a tyrant ruler to advise him and was killed by him.” This is not regarded as freedom of expression, but an adherence to Shari’ah rules. It is also a permission to voice one’s opinion in some cases and an obligation to voice it in other cases. Therefore, Islam contradicts democracy in terms of what is known as general freedoms, for there are no freedoms in Islam except for the freedom that means the liberating of slaves from slavery.

From these seven points alone, the complete contradiction between Islam and democracy becomes clear. It also becomes clear that the rules of democracy are one thing and the rules of Islam are another and that there exists a clear difference between them. Each of them is conspicuously different from the other. Therefore, democracy is other than Islam.

From all that which has been mentioned in these sections, it becomes clear that the idea stating : “That which does not contradict Islam and has not been prohibited by a text can be taken”, is false in essence. It becomes clear once the evidences have been closely studied, that the adoption of any rule from other than what the Shari’ah has brought is an adoption of a Kufr rule, for it is an adoption of other than what Allah (swt) has revealed.