Regarding Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), they say that the society in which he lived was a Jaahili society, in which the creed of Shirk was dominant. In that society, the moral corruption was widespread and Sayyiduna Yusuf was open to temptation and injustice in it to the extent that the people decided to imprison him when they saw the signs of his innocence. The King took him out of the prison when he realised how well Yusuf (as) could interpret dreams, and realised Yusuf ’s honesty.

So the King chose him and kept him close. So Sayyiduna Yusuf (as)

asked the King to put him in charge of the storehouses, and so the King accepted his request. So Yusuf assumed the responsibility of a ministry in a Jaahili rule and system, which was known to contradict the Sharee’ah of Bani Israel. In terms of implementation, Sayyiduna Yusuf was on the ‘deen (system) of the King’, ie his authority and rule, to the extent that he needed to use the trick of referring to the law of Ya’qub in order to keep his brother with him. This was when he planned a trick for his brother, by accusing him of (committing) theft, because the thief is enslaved according to the Sharee’ah Ya’qub.

They add to this by saying that it should not be said that this is specific to Sayyiduna Yusuf, because specification requires evidence. This is because in origin anything mentioned regarding the Prophets and their guidance is intended to be emulated and followed.

In addition they say that nobody should claim that this is from the Shar’a of those before us, because the subject of ruling is not from the furu’ (branches) of the Sharee’ah over which there may be differences in the laws, rather it is from the Usul, which are agreed upon. This is also because Sayyiduna Yusuf acknowledged that, “The Command is for none but Allah.” [TMQ 12:40], and despite his acknowledgement, he still participated in ruling.

The one who studies the ayaat from Surah Yusuf, which relate to this subject, will notice that this opinion, that permits participation in the systems of kufr, is based on the two following ayaat; “He could not take his brother by the deen (law) of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76], and; “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land.’” [TMQ 12:55]. They explained them in a manner that agrees with their opinion. They forgot all the principles upon which Islam is built that are contrary to their opinion, and ignored the ayaat that contradicted this understanding. They even dismissed the subject of the infallibility of the Prophets. If their understanding of these two ayaat collapsed, then everything they built on the subject of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) collapses.

The Prophets are the pure ones of Allah 􀀬 from His creation and His chosen ones. He selects them to spread His deen. They are the example and model for their people. They are the true examples of subservience and adherence, since they undertook His command in the best way. Allah 􀀬 has protected them from sins and temptations, and made them firm on the truth and granted them His Help. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) is from this chosen group. Allah 􀀬 has praised him and given him a brilliant commendation in more than one ayah. He 􀀬 said; “Thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the interpretation of dreams and perfect His favour on you…” [TMQ 12:6]. He 􀀬 said; “And when he (Yusuf) attained his full manhood, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, thus we reward the Muhsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:22].

He 􀀬 said; “Thus it was, that We might turn away from him evil and illegal sexual intercourse.

Surely he was one of Our chosen, guided slaves.” [TMQ 12:24]. He 􀀬 said; “Thus did We establish Yusuf in the land, to take possession therein, as when or where he likes. We bestow of Our Mercy on whom We please, and We make not to be lost the reward of the Muhsinoon (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:56] He was a da’ee (carrier of da’wah) to Allah 􀀬 of the highest type. The Qur’an mentions that when his companions in prison asked him about the interpretation of their dreams he said; “Are many different lords (gods) better or Allah, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him, but only names that you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40] He was chaste, bound by Allah 􀀬 and seeking protection with Him. So Allah 􀀬 turned him away from the tricks of women and from the tricks of al-Aziz’s wife, whose statement has been mentioned by the Qur’an; “And I did seek to seduce him, but he refused. And now if he refuses to obey my order, he shall certainly be cast into prison, and will be one of those who are disgraced.

He said: ‘O my Lord! Prison is more to my liking than that to which they invite me.

Unless You turn away their plot from me, I will feel inclined towards them and be one (of those who commit sin and deserve blame or those who do deeds) of the ignorant.’ So his Lord answered his invocation and turned away from him their plot. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.” [TMQ 12:32-34]. The people testified to his chastity, goodness and honesty. His two companions in prison said to him; “Inform us of the interpretation of this, verily, we think you are one of the Mushsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:36]. One of the two companions, who was freed after the King saw his dream, said to Yusuf:

“O Yusuf, the man of truth!” [TMQ 12:46]. After he refused to come out of prison unless his innocence was manifest, the women said; “The women said: ‘Allah forbid! No evil know we against him!’ The wife of Al- Aziz said: ‘Now the truth is manifest (to all), it was I who sought to seduce him, and he is surely of the truthful.’” [TMQ 12:51]. The King, impressed by him, said; “Bring him to me that I may attach him to my person.” [TMQ 12:54]. His brothers said, after he decided to take his brother:

“So take one of us in his place. Indeed we think that you are one of the Muhsinuun (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:78]. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) acknowledged that what Allah 􀀬 had favoured him with, was because of his Taqwa and steadfastness, in obedience and his staying away from sins. He said; “He said: ‘I am Yusuf, and this is my brother. Allah has indeed been gracious to us. Verily, he who fears Allah with obedience to Him, and is patient, then surely, Allah makes not the reward of the Musinoon (good-doers) to be lost.’” [TMQ 12:90] How is it possible for some Muslims to accuse someone of such status to whom Allah 􀀬 bears witness, and who was not accused by anyone that met him? This is despite there is nothing, not even a single indication in the Qur’an - that shows that he used to rule by the laws of the King.

There is no mention of any rule with which he ruled, except the one that is; “They (Yusuf ’s brothers) said: ‘The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime).’” [TMQ 12:75]. This rule was according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as). There is no indication to any knowledge that he ruled by something other than what Allah 􀀬 had revealed. Their suspicious argument has come from the following ayah:

“He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76]. This ayah, when it is explained with the correct tafseer (interpretation), then this shubhah (suspicion) is removed and their claims fall apart.

The ayah was ambiguous to the advocates of this approach, so they explained it in a way that suits their position. So their explanation was as follows.

After the famine years occurred, people started to come to Yusuf (as)

from everywhere to give them something from the crops that he had saved by his management, and whose distribution the King had charged him with. His brothers came, and he recognised them while they did not recognise him. He told his younger brother that he was his brother, so that he would not be grieved. He planned a trick for his brothers, and put the siqayah (drinking vessel) in the saddle of his brother’s camel, without anybody noticing. So he said that he had lost it, and somebody announced that the owners of the camel caravan had stolen. They assigned one camel load for the one who finds it. The brothers of Yusuf (as) rejected the accusation with great vehemence. Those who supervised the distribution from amongst the aides of Yusuf (as), said; “What then shall be the penalty of him, if you are (proved to be) liars.” [TMQ 12:74]. Yusuf ’s brothers said; “The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held (as a bondman) for the atonement.” [TMQ 12:75], which means the thief would be taken as a bondsman (enslaved). This was in accordance with the Sharee’ah (law) of Ya’qub (as). So Yusuf (as) started to search their baggage before his younger brother’s baggage. He then brought it out of his younger brother’s baggage, so his penalty was to be taken as a bondsman and enslaved. Then came the ayah that said about Sayyiduna Yusuf (as); “He could not take his brother by the law of the King.” [TMQ 12:76]. Some of them explained it to mean the Sharee’ah (law) and Nizam (system) of the King. This meant that the King in Egypt had a Sharee’ah and a system, and Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) governed with the Sharee’ah and system of this King. In this problem, he planned a trick by which he could keep his brother at his side. So he resorted to a polite plot, to make them pronounce themselves the penalty by which they will be accounted. He did not tell them that the penalty of the thief according to the law of the King is such and such. Rather he made them pronounce the verdict according to the law of Ya’qub, so as to keep his brother with him.

The explanation of this ayah in this manner has made them come out with this understanding.

If we refer to the word ‘deen’ in the Arabic, we find it of the common words, which carry more than one meaning. In the dictionary Lisan al- Arab (the arab tongue), it states that, ‘deen’ means the coercion and obedience. So ‘dintuhum fa danoo’ means ‘I coerced them, so they obeyed.’ Deen also means the reward and the prize. You say ‘dintuhu for his action deenun’ to mean ‘I rewarded him.’ Also ‘Youm al-deen’ means the ‘day of recompense.’ Deen also means the accounting, as in His 􀀬 saying; “The Owner of Youm al-deen.” [TMQ 1:3] Deen also means Sharee’ah and Sultan, as in His 􀀬 saying; “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (persecution) and the deen will in its entirety be for Allah.” [TMQ 8:39]. Deen means humiliation and enslavement, and the ‘madeen’ is the slave, al-madeenah is the possessed nation, as in His 􀀬 saying, “Are we Madeenoon?” [TMQ 37:53], meaning ‘owned’. The same as in His 􀀬 saying, “Then why do you not – if you are not madeeneen – bring it (the soul) back, if you are truthful?” [TMQ 56:86-87]. ‘Madeeneen’ here means owned.

There are other meanings for this word ‘deen’.

So, which of these meanings does Allah 􀀬 intend in this ayah? Selecting any one of these meanings needs a qareena (indication) that makes us take that specific meaning. This exposes the one who takes the meaning that suits him and suits his view; he appoints his whims as a judge over the Shar’a. While the one who takes the meaning that is regulated, and restricted with Shar’ee qara’in (indications) that indicate it, is appointing the Shar’a as a judge, and abides by the command of his Lord. So which of these meanings is intended?

If we say the meaning intended from the word deen is Sharee’ah, we find that the Shar’ee indications prevent this understanding, if it leads to Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) participating (in ruling) with kufr. This is haraam for the Prophets and believers, and in conflict with the nature of the Message, which is established on making worship and servitude for Allah 􀀬 alone, and the right of legislation is only for Him. He 􀀬 says; “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad 􀁕) but We inspired him (saying): Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)], so worship Me (Alone and none else).” [TMQ 21:25]. Hence, it was Yusuf (as), who used to say to the people; “The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40]. It is impossible that he would go against them in this matter and accept the rule of different gods. Similar to this situation, we find Sayyiduna Shu’ayb (as) saying to his people:

“I wish not, in contradiction to you, to do that which I forbid you. I only desire to do good so far as I am able, to the best of my power. And my guidance cannot come except from Allah, in Him I trust and unto Him I repent.” [TMQ 11:88]. The tafseer of this ayah, according to al-Qurtubi, is; I do not forbid you from something I commit myself, just as I do not leave a matter that I have commanded you to do.

If we say that the intended meaning of the word ‘deen’ is enslavement, and his brother would become ‘madeenan’ ie an unowned slave; this meaning would completely conform with what was previously mentioned in the ayah about the statement of Yusuf ’s (as) brothers regarding the fact that a thief is enslaved. Thus, the ayah would mean; He could not take his brother, by being enslaved by the King, ie by making him madeen (an owned slave) to him, except if Allah 􀀬 willed. This meaning is closest to the truth. There is no Shar’ee indication that prevents such a meaning.

Rather it fits with what came before it in the ayah, and it confirms that Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) was one of the muhsineen (those who do good), and mukhliseen (sincere to Allah), as Allah mentioned. It also confirms what the people bore witness to.

Therefore, a tafseer that conflicts with the infallibility of the Prophets, their immunity from sin, or implies that they say what they do not do, is rejected.

As for the tafseer of Sayyiduna Yusuf ’s statement to the King; “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.’” [TMQ 12:55], and taking it to mean that he requested the treasury ministry, or ministry of finance; and that during his appointment to this position, he did not apply the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as), but rather the system of the King, which was not based on justice.

This is a huge aberration and a clear deviation from the truth. It is important that we acquaint ourselves a number of issues in order to shed light on the matter.

* The reality of ruling in that period was that it was monarchical. In history, the monarchical rule has taken two form:

1 - The authoritarian system of monarchy, where the King rules by his own order, and opinion. Whatever he deems fit the people must follow, and no one can change his judgement. The legislative, executive and judicial authorities all come under his control. He appoints his assistants and removes them whenever he wants. He may select them due to their loyalty or closeness to him, or because of their sound judgement or good planning. It is enough for these assistants to be loyal and obedient in order to be given a free reign; so they will rule according to their own orders and be despotic in their opinion. Thus each becomes a King on a reduced scale.

2 - Monarchy with restricted authority. The King in this system became an image rather than a real King; this is where his absolute powers have been stripped from him. The sovereignty in this system lies with the constitution and canons, and not the King. Legislative bodies undertake the enactment of laws, instead of the King. There are also executive bodies, which implement the constitution and canons instead of the King. There are also judicial bodies, which settle disputes and resolve conflicts between people, instead of the King. This form of monarchy became prevalent after the idea of Democracy spread. This is the restricted (constitutional) monarchy. Which of these two forms was the monarchy system adopted in Egypt, in the time of Yusuf (as)?

No one can imagine that the King of Egypt at the time of Yusuf (as)

was bound to a constitution and system. The expression ‘deen al-malik’ does not mean what they claim, that is the law of the King. The opinion that sees an analogy between the system of monarchy at the time of Yusuf (as) with the systems of today that control the actions of the rulers, is an opinion that deviated from the correct opinion, and it is an erroneous analogy.

Sayyiduna Yusuf ’s request to the King to put him in charge of the storehouses, and the King’s acceptance of his request does not mean this request had anything to do with ruling. What was mentioned by the Qur’an was restricted to the subject of dreams and not to anything else.

It relates to the production of crops, the years of harvest and the years of drought and what should be done regarding them. Thus, he ordered Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) to take up the responsibility of storing the flour, and organise the distribution in the years of harvest so as to accommodate for the years of drought, without committing excess in his task or betraying the trust that had been given to him. This is a difficult task, which cannot be done except by someone competent, trustworthy, careful and knowledgeable, like Yusuf (as). What took place between Yusuf (as) and his brothers was specifically related to this subject. We are not allowed to deviate from this context or expand the scope Sayyidina Yusuf ’s responsibility. We are not entitled to say that his task related to seizing wealth and spending it on the King’s entourage, family, army or citizens, and that this must have taken place according to the system of the King and not the Shar’eeah of Ya’qub (as). The expansion of the text to encompass such details requires a daleel.

It seems that the King was impressed by the sound judgment of Yusuf (as) and his ability to outweigh things and his integrity. This is what made the King draw Yusuf (as) close to him and give him the authority to manage the great task, that had preoccupied his mind ever since he saw his dream. So it was important that Yusuf (as) be given the opportunity to do this without interference from anyone else.

One can see that Sayyiduna Yusuf did not just interpret the dream of the King. Rather he offered him the solution and the necessary organisation. This allowed the King to gain confidence in Yusuf ’s ability to look after the stores, and to give him a free reign in doing this. The King did not say to Yusuf (as) that he had a Sharee’ah or a system according to which Yusuf (as) must proceed. Rather the King accepted Yusuf ’s (as) interpretation of his dream and his solution. Consequently the King gave him the job of storing and distributing the harvest as he saw fit.

It was inevitable that after the years of drought, Yusuf (as) would be the person to whom the people would turn to save them from hunger. It was also inevitable that his fame would spread far and wide, due to his justice and fair distribution. This strengthened his position with the King and made him even closer to him. Perhaps this is what enabled him to move from being the Aziz, as his brothers addressed him; “O ruler of the land (O Aziz).” [TMQ 12:88], to being the King after his parents came from the desert. He made du’a to his Lord and said; “My Lord! You have indeed bestowed on me of the sovereignty…” [TMQ 12:101]; and then Allah 􀀬 said; “And he raised his parents to the throne…” [TMQ 12:100], which means that the authority was given to him eventually.

The only law the Qur’an mentions that Yusuf (as) implemented, was to take his brother as a slave according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as). So why did he not take from the system of the King for the violation, if the King had a fixed and specific system?

It is not possible to imagine that Sayyidina Yusuf (as) would commit any violation of the Sharee’ah. That is because he is ma’sum (infallible) and his Lord has described him as muhsin (good), sincere and pious. He is the one who preferred prison to seduction. He was the one who used to give da’wah in prison. He was the one who refused to leave prison without proving his innocence. He was the one who, due to his honesty and integrity, won the admiration of the kuffar of his society, from the wife of the Aziz, to the women of the town, his two companions in prison, the King, and even his brothers, before they discovered his identity.

It is worth noting that the tafseer of the situation of Sayyidina Yusuf (as)

and the State of the King are all tafseer zanni (speculative interpretation).

This is regardless of whatever angle they may have come from. So whether the King embraced Islam or remained a disbeliever, or whether the authority had been passed onto Yusuf owing to the death of the King or his resignation, or if Yusuf (as) became Aziz after the removal or death of the previous Aziz; the explanation of His 􀀬 saying, “He could not have taken his brother according to the King’s law.” [TMQ 12:76], or the interpretation of His 􀀬 saying, “Set me over the store houses of the land…” [TMQ 12:55]; the answers to all of these are speculative interpretations only. This is because the Qur’an did not provide us with the necessary details to answer them definitively.

Furthermore, their details are not necessary for us to follow as legislation.

What we have mentioned is also no exception to this, since it is speculative like the other explanations. However, it is different from other opinions in the sense that it is in harmony with what befits the Prophets in terms of Taqwa and Imaan, and does not contradict the infallibility of the Prophets that is established in the fundamentals of the deen. How much further can an explanation be from the truth when it contradicts a definite statement uttered by the tongue of Yusuf (as) himself, when he rejected others to follow the ‘Aqeedah of shirk, and to leave the exclusive reference to Allah 􀀬 for judgment, as we have seen previously? By proceeding in this manner, where we clarify the situation of Yusuf (as), we do not wish to bring another opinion to support the prohibition of participating in kufr systems. Our view is the Hukm of the Shar’a and not a speculative Shar’a rule. It is definite in meaning and authenticity.

Someone might say that Yusuf (as) used to rule by the law of the King by permission of Allah 􀀬 and so did not go against his Lord. The answer is that either this permission was for Sayyiduna Yusuf specifically, or it was a general permission for all, i.e. ruling by kufr laws was lawful at the time.

If it is a specific permission for Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), then it is not allowed for anyone else to act upon this permission. Therefore, it is not for us to follow or cite this as proof.

In the second case, if it had been lawful for their time, then it would come to us being the law (Shar’a) of those who came before us. So the question becomes, can the Shar’a of those who came before us be a Shar’a for us? A group of scholars of Fiqh and Usul have laid down the following principle; “the Shar’a before us is not a Shar’a for us”, citing as proof many texts that show that what Muhammad 􀁕 brought has completely abrogated the previous laws and abrogated some parts of it in the details to emphasize this point. If we adopt the opinion of this group of scholars, then it would not be allowed for us to follow or cite as proof the situation of Yusuf (as) or any other Prophet. Another group of scholars of Fiqh and Usul have laid down another principle; “the Shar’a of before us is a Shar’a for us as long as it has not been abrogated.” Those scholars also have their juristic reasoning. They say that if the previous laws are not to have any use for us, then the Qur’an would not have mentioned them. Those scholars say that what Muhammad 􀁕 brought did not abrogate everything that came before us all at once.

They say that what is mentioned of the laws of the previous Prophets in the Qur’an and the Sunnah are recognized as a law for us; except what the Qur’an abrogated from these laws, and replaced with new ones.

When we apply this principle on this subject matter, what do we find?

In our Sharee’ah, are there texts that prohibit ruling by other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed? Has anything been mentioned in what the Sharee’ah of Muhammad 􀁕 or the Sharee’ah that the Qur’an brought, which warns us of deviating a hairbreadth from this Sharee’ah of Muhammad 􀁕?

Indeed, the Sharee’ah of Muhammad 􀁕 has forbidden us from referring to anything other than it for solving our disputes. It forbade us, in a definite manner, to take any rule from the rules of kufr and jahiliyyah.

If it is claimed that this was lawful in the time of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), we say to those who claim it that even if you assume that it was lawful then, it is certainly forbidden (abrogated) in the Sharee’ah of the Qur’an now.

The view that ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed is from the Usul (principles) and not from the branches, is an incorrect view. That is because the place of the beliefs is the heart, and the place of the Sharee’ah rules is the limbs. The ‘Aqeedah represents the basis of the Sharee’ah rules whilst the rules are the fruits of the ‘Aqeedah.

The Shar’ee rule related to the actions of the servant has two aspects.

1 - The intellectual and creedal aspect which must be accepted.

In this aspect it is related to the ‘Aqeedah. Non-acceptance of it may lead to disbelief or sin according to whether it is qat’i (decisive) or zanni (speculative).

2 - The aspect that is practical, relating to execution.

Thus, the Salah is fard and must be accepted as fard. Not accepting it as a fard leads to kufr (disbelief).

The Salah is fard and must be undertaken as a fard; not undertaking it as a fard leads to sin.

Alcohol is haraam and its prohibition must be accepted; saying it is permissible will lead to kufr.

Alcohol is haraam and drinking it is forbidden. Drinking alcohol will lead to sin.

In the same way, ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed is fard. Its acceptance is linked to Imaan owing to the definite text that deals with this subject. As for its execution, it is Taa’ah (obedience) and not to execute it is a ma’siyah (sin). So the one who does not rule by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed is charged with kufr if he does not believe in ruling by Allah’s revelations or if he rejects it. He will be committing a sin (which excludes kufr) if he accepts it but does not apply it. Therefore, the statement that ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed is from the agreed Usul refers to the first aspect. This is correct. As for the second aspect (the practical aspect) it is related to the Sharee’ah and its application. In other words, it relates to the furoo’ (branches) and not the Usul (the foundations). So from this perspective it becomes part of the issue of whether it is from the Shar’a before us or not.

From this angle we have established that Sayyiduna Yusuf did not participate in ruling, and it is not allowed to explain this situation in this way. The statements of the people who claim otherwise are rejected, even from their own arguments. This is because the ‘ulema had two opinions regarding the principle of Shar’a man qablana (Shar’a that came before us). One opinion says that the Shar’a before us is not a Shar’a for us. So according to this understanding, the permission to participate in the jaahili system is rejected. The second opinion says that the Shar’a of those before us is a Shar’a for us as long as it has not been abrogated.

Many ayaat, the ‘Aqeedah, the actions of the Messenger 􀁕—who showed us the method of how to establish the ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed—and all of the principles of ruling, indicated that it is not allowed to participate in kufr systems. Rather, Islam in its totality rejects such an understanding. In other words, if participating in jaahili systems was lawful in the Shar’a before us, then it is something our Shar’a has abrogated, due to the numerous evidences that prohibit it.

The view that everything mentioned from the lives of the Prophets and their guidance, is meant to be emulated and followed, needs explanation.

All the Prophets share in the matter of the ‘Aqeedah. All of them invited people to the belief in Allah, al-Waahid (the One), al-Khaaliq (the Creator) and al-Mudabbir (the organizer of affairs). They invited people to the belief in the angels, books, messengers and the Last Day.

He 􀀬 said; “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad 􀁕) but We inspired him (saying): ‘Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)]’, so worship Me (alone and none else).” [TMQ 21:25] They also share in the matter of conveyance, suffering for the sake of the da’wah, its harms and hardships, having sabr (patience) for Allah’s sake and sacrifice in His Path. He 􀀬 said:

“Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad 􀁕), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words (Decisions) of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before) you.” [6:34]. He 􀀬 said; “Nothing is said to you (O Muhammad 􀁕) except what was said to the Messengers before you.” [TMQ 41:43] They shared in inviting their people to adherence and obedience. He 􀀬 said:

“We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave.” [TMQ 4:64] They shared in being rejected by their people and the ridiculing of their da’wah. He 􀀬 said; “Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at him.” [TMQ 36:30]. And He 􀀬 said; “And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: ‘Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to our religion.’ so their Lord inspired them: ‘Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimoon (disbelievers, wrongdoers). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection) and also fears My Threat.’” [TMQ 14:13-14] They share in the fact that Allah 􀀬 has given them the victory in the end. He 􀀬 said; “(They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimoon (criminals, disobedient to Allah).” [TMQ 12:110] In this manner all of the da’waat (messages) used have many things in common, some of which we have mentioned. The position assumed by those before has been mentioned. Allah 􀀬 mentioned them to us so that we may learn from them, reflect and take admonition from those things that strengthen our Imaan, strengthen our resolve, increase us in patience.

They also assure us that the chain of the da’wah is the same in its ‘Aqeedah, its call to adhere to the minhaj (way) of the All-Knowing and All-Informed, and its outcome. The ayaat have come to illuminate the path of the da’wah for the Muslims and to inform them about the nature of people’s opposition, the intensification of hostilities between kufr and Imaan, and the struggle that will never stop. It also reminded us of the walaa’ (loyalty) to Allah 􀀬 and being baraa’ (free) from shirk, the divine intervention after the test of Imaan and many other matters apart from those we have mentioned.

However, the lives of the Prophets are followed in the stances they assumed. They are not followed in legislation. This is because Allah 􀀬 has given a different system for every Prophet. He 􀀬 said; “For each (prophet), We made a Shar’a and a minhaj (way).” [TMQ 5:48].

This is because every prophet was sent to his people whilst the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to all of the people. His Message was the final message. Allah 􀀬 ordered the followers of other religions to follow it and to leave what they had been following. He 􀀬 said; “Truly, the deen with Allah is Islam.” [TMQ 3:19], and He 􀀬 said; “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” [TMQ 3:85], and He 􀀬 said; “And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad 􀁕) the Book (this Qur’an) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it (old Scriptures) and dominating over it.” [TMQ 5:48] Furthermore, the nature of the Message revealed to Sayyiduna Muhammad differs from others, in that it is final and comprehensive.

The Islamic State represents one of its most important parts, since it is considered the Shar’eeah method to protect, apply and propagate Islam.

With the other Prophets we find that their da’wah was specific to a people and came specifically for their people, to the exclusion of others. This means their da’wah was restricted to a specific time and place. This is contrary to Islam whose Shar’eeah rules are suitable for all times and places. This difference does not permit analogy between Islam and anything else. This leaves the Muslims to restrict themselves to adopting from Islam only, because its rules are interlinked in a manner that fits to its nature. Let us take for example the Message of Sayyiduna ‘Isa. It is clearly different from the Message of Sayyiduna Muhammad, since it is a moral and spiritual message, which does not contain any call for the establishment of a State. It is also specific to Bani Israel. So how can the Shar’eeah rules be compared?

We regret that we have to discuss matters that are obvious in the deen.

It indicates the level to which the du’aa today have descended. All we can say is what the Noble Qur’an said to Sayyiduna Muhammad 􀁕; “Say: ‘This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me…’” [TMQ 12:108] “He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76] “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.’” [TMQ 12:55] “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad 􀁕) but We inspired him (saying):’Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)] worship Me (Alone an none else).’” [TMQ 21:25] “Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad 􀁕), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news)

about the Messengers (before) you.” [TMQ 6:34] “We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave.” [TMQ 4:64] “Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at them.” [TMQ 36:30] “And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: ‘Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to your religion.’ so their Lord inspired them: ‘Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimoon (disbelievers, wrongdoers). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection) and also fears My Threat.’” [TMQ 14:13-14] “(They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimoon (criminals, disobedient to Allah.)” [TMQ 12:110]