From their presentation of the rational justifications allowing deviation from the Shar’a rules, it appears that the culture of these people is not an Islamic culture, even though they use some Usuli and Shar’ee expressions.

They do not posses the regulated method of thinking in Islam, regarding how to look at the reality in deducing the Shar’ee rule, or in looking at the Shar’ee rule itself. They did not distinguish between the method and style in their work. Perhaps the dominant idea of ‘flexibility of the Sharee’ah’ has made them complacent regarding the Shar’ee rules and their substitution with non-Shar’ee rules, under the pretext of keeping up with the age.

The view that allows us not to take the method of the Messenger 􀁕, and the rules of the Sharee’ah, as long as many things have changed, is incorrect and does not indicate that a deep study of the reality that they wish to change has taken place. That is because, what is important about the reality is its fundamental characteristics and not its variable forms.

Society, in terms of its basic constituent elements (the people, thoughts, emotions and systems) remains as it is without change, even if it takes on different forms such as being tribalistic, a simple or complex State, and whether it is democratic or a dictatorship. Thus, the consideration is for the fundamental characteristics, and the changing forms have no effect on the method of change. For example, challenging the erroneous thoughts, incorrect concepts, and bad customs and traditions in the society intended for change is a Shar’ee rule that the Messenger 􀁕 acted upon, so it is an established work. What varies is the thought of society, which could be shallow Patriotism, narrow Nationalism or ideological Capitalism or Communism. It is well known that the ideological thought is stronger than any other thought, and overthrowing it requires great effort. The difference in thoughts may make the work more difficult or easy, but it will not change the method. Whether the form of the system is tribalistic as it was in the time of the Messenger 􀁕, or it is a simple or complex State as it is in our day, does not change the rules of the method, though it may obstruct or facilitate the work. Whether the system aiming for change depends upon armies or armed tribes for its protection and consolidation there is a force that it depends on. The work of the Messenger 􀁕 was focused on seeking the Nusrah from this type of force to establish the Islamic State.When the Messenger 􀁕 worked to establish a new society, he concentrated on the constituent elements of society.

Thus he produced people who had strong Imaan, people who were ready to carry the burden of the da’wah and establish the State (the Muhajireen), and he created the popular base, which would embrace the da’wah and its carriers and accept the state to be established amongst them (the Ansaar). Hence the seeking of the Nusrah is the method to reach power. The Messenger 􀁕 persisted with this method, despite the obstacles and difficulties he faced during seeking of the Nusrah. The one who studies the work of the Messenger 􀁕 in Makkah finds that the method of change deals with the basic pillars. He finds that his 􀁕 method did not change by the change of the time and place, and nor did it change from region to region. This is because the differences in the characteristics of the different regions and societies relates to the form and not the essence. The nature of these characteristics is what makes the work difficult or easy.

The view that the Sharee’ah is flexible, does not also allow the minds and whims of Muslims’ to change it, under the pretext of flexibility.

Allah 􀀬 has made the Sharee’ah complete such that it is wide enough to solve all the problems of life, whether old or new. However, all this is within the regulated Usul (principles), that emanate from the fact that the rule is only for Allah 􀀬.

It is not allowed to suspend the texts using the view that the Sharee’ah is vast, or to extend it to include that which it not from it. Some Muslim scholars have suspended the Shar’ee punishments under this pretext.

They said that since the aim of the punishments in the Sharee’ah is to be a deterrent, then whatever deters crime can be considered to be in agreement with the Sharee’ah. Since the Shar’ee punishments are not considered to be consistent with the spirit of the time and they have been dismissed and rejected by the hearts and minds of the people, we can move onto something else, as long as it achieves the aim. Had the Sharee’ah not been flexible and evolving, we could not have done that.

They also said that Jihaad fee sabeelillah is for the purpose of spreading Islam. Since it is possible to spread Islam using means other than Jihaad, by the modern civilised means available to us such as the radio, television and other types of media, then it is possible to replace Jihaad with these means. Had the Shar’a not been flexible and evolving, we could not have done that.

Regarding the method of attaining the Islamic ruling they said that any method that can achieve this, can be followed. It is not necessary to stick to one way and not go beyond it. This is rigidity and tightness that contradicts the nature of Islam, which is kind, flexible and evolving, and in which Allah 􀀬 has not placed any difficulty.

Thus, the statement that the ‘Sharee’ah is flexible’ in this sense is haraam, because it suspends the laws of the deen, and because it is in conflict with the nature of Islam. It is affected by the western thinking, and follows along behind it.

As for the view that when the partial (rule) clashes with the comprehensive (rule), then the comprehensive (rule) is weightier. This is a statement that requires explanation, because it appears that there is a similarity between the expressions that they used and the expressions of the Usuli scholars, but they do not carry the same regulated meanings that Usuliyeen used. It also shows unsteadiness in the concepts and criteria.

So if the Sharee’ah was lenient in a matter or soft in a particular issue, then this is enough for them to generalise that to every matter and every issue.

In this regard, another point remains. That is, that the rational justifications can have no effect in determining the Shar’ee rule. The scholars of Usul have stated that the reality forms the Manat (object) of the rule, but does not oblige or forbid. Rather the reality is understood only as it is. The Shar’ee evidences by which the rule of the Shar’a is determined come after that. Therefore, rational justifications, in principle, have no value.

As for the Shar’ee justifications, they are based on the fact that in origin, it is not allowed to participate in a government that rules by a Shar’a other than the Shar’a of Allah 􀀬 This is owing to a number of factors.

* The generality of the texts mentioning those who do not rule by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed characterised them with kufr (disbelief), zulm (injustice) and fisq (transgression). He 􀀬 says; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kaafirun (disbelievers).” [TMQ 5:44]. He 􀀬 says; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the zaalimun (unjust, oppressors).” [TMQ 5:45]. He 􀀬 says:

“And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Faasiqun (transgressors).” [TMQ 5:47] * The Hakimiyyah (sovereignty) must belong only to Allah 􀀬. He 􀀬 said:

“Indeed, the Rule is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but him.” [TMQ 12::40] * Also Allah 􀀬 has forbidden the believers from referring to a law other than the Sharee’ah of Allah 􀀬, and He made that a negation of the Imaan when He 􀀬 said; “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Imaan, until they make you the judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission.” [TMQ 4:65] * He also criticised the hypocrites for referring to other than what Allah has revealed:

“Have you seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which has been sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taghut (false judges) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaytan wishes to lead them far astray.” [TMQ 4:60] * It is not allowed to leave the rule of Allah 􀀬 for the rule of anyone else. Whoever does that would be giving preference to the rules of Jahilliyyah over the rule of Allah 􀀬.

“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm belief.” [TMQ 5:50] This is the rule in origin, but participation in the cabinet is allowed (in their view) as an exception to the origin, deduced from the following evidences:

1. Yusuf ’s (as) participation in ruling.

2. The position of an-Najashi.

3. Al-Maslahah (interest).