The Shar’a has obliged some matters and prohibited some others.

It did not allow people to alter, change or distort them in any way. The All-Wise Legislator has granted rukhsah (dispensation)

where He knows that they will be needed. Wherever He 􀀬 has not given a rukhsah, He 􀀬 did not allow the people to escape from the hukm, even if their desires and Shayateen made this escape attractive to them, under the title of benefit. The one who permits the abandonment of what Allah 􀀬 has made obligatory and allows the violation of what Allah has prohibited etc, without a rukhsah from Allah 􀀬 is a Kaafir or ignorant Faasiq.

Some deduced that maslahah is a proof to allow power sharing.

They quoted the definition of maslahah as being the description of the action from which good or benefit is always or mostly acquired, whether for the public or individuals. They say that the ‘ulema examined the Sharee’ah and through this they were guided to the view that the Sharee’ah has been set down for the interests of the servants in this life and the hereafter.

They cited the example of Masalih Mursalah (undefined interests) and the issues on which it is based. They said that powersharing is not allowed by way of Masaalih Mursalah, because clear texts have indicated in a decisive way that the one who participates in the Jahili rule is sinful.

Rather, the deduction here refers to the preference of the best out of two good things, and recognising which is worse out of two evil things; the acquisition of the greater of two interests by ignoring the lower of them, and avoiding the greater of two harms by accepting the lower of them.

They said that this path in the Sharee’ah has clear features. So Islam has forbidden alcohol and gambling, even after stating that there is benefit in them for the people, but it is a small benefit, outweighed by the great harm in them.

The Shar’a has obliged fighting despite the fact that believers will perish and lose their wealth, because in the fighting there are great benefits dear to The Lord 􀀬 and great benefits for the servants.

In the Islamic history the rulers and scholars used to adhere to this method in proceeding with Islam. Hence, the Messenger 􀁕 abstained from demolishing the Ka’bah and rebuilding it on the foundations of Ibraheem, despite the religious benefits in doing so. This is because the harm that will be entailed will be greater than the benefit in correcting the structure of the Ka’bah. He 􀁕 said to his wife ‘A’ishah 􀁗; “Had it not been for your people, who had just recently (come out of) Jahiliyyah, I would have demolished the Ka’bah and given it two doors.” [Reported by Tirmidhi and Nasa’i]; and they bring many other examples aside from these.

From this perspective they say there is no doubt that participating in a jahhili government has immense harms. These governments implement the rule of Taghut and deviate from His 􀀬 order and dispute His rule; “The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah.” [TMQ 12:40], “And He makes none to share in His Decision and Rule.” [TMQ 18:26].

Despite this, they say the movement may see that power sharing will realise a great benefit for Islam, Muslims and the Islamic movement, in some cases. It may lead to the removal of the Taghut and acknowledgment of the truth. Let us quote some of their statements regarding this, in order to understand their view in its true nature. Then, when their method of thinking and their opinion has been refuted, we will understand the extent to which they have distanced themselves from the Shar’ee method of thinking. They themselves say the following.

- The Muslim’s participation into a jaahili rule will put him in a big contradictory situation. The Muslim is required to fight the states of Taghut, so how is it possible for him to be the one who establishes the rule of Taghut? Allah 􀀬 has given His view of those who claim to believe, and then after that refer to the Taghut for judgement; “Have you seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taghut (false judges, etc), while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaytan (satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [TMQ 4:60] - Obeying the Tawagheet (pl. of Taghut) that legislate contrary to the order of Allah 􀀬 means taking them as lords instead of taking Allah as The Lord, as He 􀀬 has said regarding the people of the Book.

“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah).” [TMQ 9:31]. The Messenger 􀁕 explained to ‘Addi b. Haatim that the meaning of taking them as lords is to obey them when they allowed what Allah 􀀬 had forbidden and prohibited what Allah 􀀬 permitted.

- Nowadays we are accustomed to see the rulers using the upright Muslims, that they appoint, as an ornament to adorn their ugly rule, and to deceive the simple-minded and the masses. Hence the rulers say that if they were on falsehood, then so and so would not have accepted to share power with them.

- What makes things worse is that after they pass unjust and tyrannical laws through the Muslim minister; and the laws have achieved their evil aims, they discard him, in the way one discards a datestone.

- Powersharing is an indication of inclination toward those who commit injustice. Allah 􀀬 has warned us of this when He said; “And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you.” [TMQ 11:113] In addition, powersharing prolongs the life of a jaahili rule.

- It is enough for us to know that the one who participates in this ruling, will be included amongst those about whom Allah 􀀬 said; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kaafirun (disbelievers).” [TMQ 5:44], and; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the zaalimun (unjust, oppressors).” [TMQ 5:45]; and; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Faasiqun (transgressors).” [TMQ 5:47] All of these points are not hidden from the leaders and da’ees of these movements. The clear nature of the ayaat and their indications are not in the least bit hidden from the one who examines them.

Despite all of this that they themselves have said they add that the movement may in some cases take the view that powersharing will realise a great benefit for Islam, Muslims and the Islamic movement. It may even lead to the removal of the taghut and a strengthening of the truth.

We can summarise the benefits arising from the powersharing of the Islamic movement under the following points:

1 - To prevent plots against the Islamic movement by familiarising oneself with what takes place behind closed doors, and working to thwart it.

2 - To give an image of the group that it is able to lead the people and not just a group of dervishes.

3 - To restore confidence in Islam, as being able to organise the public and private affairs of life.

4 - To increase the experience of the group in the ways of administering the rule.

5 - So that the movement becomes familiar with the existing regime so that it can protect itself from its evil.

6 - To train and educate the special Islamic cadres through the scholarships organised by the government.

7 - To produce a collection of individuals from the Islamic group, who will have a high standing amongst people. They will be the people who solve most of the difficulties of the group and its members.

8 - To increase the Islamic centres and fight the centres of kufr.

9 - To train the Islamic cadres in politics and how to repel its games.

1 0- To benefit from the reputation of the authority for the benefit of the group.

11 - If the group abstained from participating, then the other ones who participate may be enemies of Islam, who use all their efforts to attack the Islamic movement and to destroy Islam and the Muslims.

We have addressed their view in some detail, though our address was in respect of refutation and not quotation. This is in order to understand its true nature in a clear manner, and so that one can see the extent to which they have dared to go in their insolence against the deen of Allah 􀀬, when they issue fatawa that anger the Creator of the heavens and earth and incite revulsion amongst the believers, without respect for the right of Allah 􀀬, or abiding to His order. It was also so that the Muslim can see the extent to which their view clashes with the definite Shar’ee rules, which cannot be tampered with in any way, and see how far away they are from adhering to the correct method of Islam in istinbaat (deduction); and to show their invention of a new method - whose signs appeared during the decline of the Muslims and were influence by the western way of thinking - and so that we can follow their thoughts in detail and refute them, and follow their way of thinking and disprove it.

One of the clear and decisive Shar’ee rules - in which Ijtihaad is not allowed - is that it is not allowed to deal in usury. Allah 􀀬 has clearly forbidden it when he said; “Allah has permitted trading and forbidden Riba (usury).” [TMQ 2:275]. These are definite Shar’ee indications that have been roughly worded in the issue, such as when He 􀀬 said; “Allah will destroy Riba (usury) and will give increase for Sadaqaat.” [TMQ 2:276]. Allah 􀀬 also warned those dealing with usury and gave them of a declaration of war. He 􀀬 said:

“O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from Riba (usury) (from now onward), if you are (really) believers. If you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allah and His Messenger...” [TMQ 2:278-279]. He 􀀬 described those who eat usury; “Those who eat Riba (usury) will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaytan leading him to insanity.” [TMQ 2:275]. The Rasool of Allah 􀁕 counted it as one of the grave sins and linked it to making Shirk with Allah, when he said; “Stay away from the seven Mubiqaat (grave sins). They said:

‘What are they O Rasool of Allah?’ He said: ‘Shirk with Allah, magic, killing a soul Allah has forbidden except by right, eating usury, eating the wealth of the orphan, turning back from the battlefield, defamation of believing, honest, chaste women.’” Despite all this, we see them coming out – in accordance with this method - saying that dealing with usury is allowed! What has happened to the explicit and definite prohibition? Where did the warning and threat go? With this method they are altering and changing the rules of Allah 􀀬, blurring the Shar’ee rule, and they are making negligence in matters of the deen a natural thing and a characteristic of the Muslim.

Likewise, ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed is Fard. According to their own testimony it is obligatory to make the rule exclusively for Allah 􀀬. Despite this - according to their innovated method - they have started to allow the Muslim to participate in the rule of kufr. Look at what we have just quoted to see how much those who describe themselves as leaders and scholars of the Islamic movement have deviated from the truth, even though the leaders are not supposed to lie to their people.

They themselves have said:

- There is no doubt that participating in a jaahili government has immense harms. These governments implement the rule of Taghut and deviate from the order of Allah 􀀬 and oppose His Rule.

- The Muslim’s participation in a jaahili rule will place him in a big contradiction. The Muslim is required to fight the states of Taghut, so how is it possible for him to be the one who establishes the rule of Taghut?

- Obeying the Taghaweet that legislate contrary to the order of Allah 􀀬 means taking them as lords instead of taking Allah 􀀬 as Lord.

- The rulers today, use those whom they appoint from the upright Muslims as an ornament to adorn their ugly rule.

- The rulers today, they pass through the Muslim minister, unjust and tyrannical laws.

- The rulers today, after they achieve from the Muslim minister their wicked aims, they throw him like the date seed.

- In power sharing is then inclination toward those who commit injustice.

- In power sharing, the life of a jaahili rule is prolonged.

- The one who participates in ruling will be included amongst those about who Allah said that they are; “…the Kaafirun (disbelievers).” [TMQ 5:44].

“…the zaalimun (unjust, oppressors)” [TMQ 5:45].

“…the faasiqun (transgressors).” [TMQ 5:47] Despite all that they have mentioned they come with an opinion such as this. What insolence these people show against the deen of Allah! What makes things worse is that they are not only violating the order of Allah, but inviting people to violate the order of Allah 􀀬. This indeed is a great sin.

After presenting of all these Shar’ee violations, we ask; what will they achieve if they participate in kufr rule? We thought that after their presentation of the precautions against this da’wah, they would mention enormous interests that have been ignored by the Sharee’ah, but they were clever enough to notice the thing that - according to their rejected logic and unproductive way of thinking - deserve this violation of the Sharee’ah and the support of the enemies of Allah 􀀬. Their “unique” thought, which has the role of legislating in this issue has brought the Muslims results that do not benefit the da’wah, nor do they draw the Muslims closer to the truth, or the victory, and they do not change reality in the least. Rather the yields may be the opposite. The reality has come as a testimony to this fact.

They named 11 articles, and said they were great benefits realised through participation in jaahili rule. By Allah! Look at these and ponder how trivial they are when compared to the grave sins committed. Let us examine some and comment on them.

- Increase in the group’s experience in the ways of administering the rule.

- Training the Islamic cadres in politics and to repel its games.

- Train and educate the specialised Islamic cadres via scholarships organised by the government.

Three articles that relate to one subject. It was more fitting that they are written in one article unless one wants to cite many supporting arguments for one’s view. This is despite the knowledge that the matter is not related to how much one can talk, but rather the actual correctness of the view.

Do these articles warrant that Muslims disobey the order of their Lord for the sake of benefits realised? Is there not another path by which one does not incur the wrath of Allah through which the movement can train its Shabab and increase their experience? Does the Shar’ee method lack such preparation? The Islamic movement that plunges into the political work in a lawful manner, adhering to the methodology of the Messenger 􀁕, increases their experience and familiarity with the reality of the rulers, and the extent of the rulers links with the Kaafir states, games and cunning styles. Is the da’ee not able to call the one who drinks alcohol to leave drinking, except if the da’ee himself enters a pub, drinks alcohol in front of the drinker and then after that leaves it as a method to convince him that the drinker can also leave it? By Allah, how weak are the minds that have come up with such thoughts! How can they allow themselves to change the Law of Allah! They also mentioned the following three articles:

- Familiarisation of the Islamic movement with the existing regime to protect itself against its evil.

- To repel the plots against the Islamic movement by acquainting it with what takes place in secret, and work to foil it.

- If the group abstained from participating, then the alternative may be that the ones who participate are the enemies who use all their efforts to attack the Islamic movement, or to destroy Islam and the Muslims.

Here we have another three articles that revolve around one subject, which is to protect oneself from the evil of the regimes and repel the plots against Islam and the Muslims. So we may present the reality that they themselves mention - without agreeing with them - and to judge them by their own principles, we ask; did they really repel the danger from the Ummah and from themselves by participation in ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has not revealed? In their own words, they say that the ruler appoints the Muslim as a minister to prolong the life of the regime, in order to pass its plans and improve its image in front of the people.

Then after achieving what it wants, it will spit them out like a date stone.

So where is the protection from evil and conspiracies? The regime, in which the Muslims enter, would not have its image improved. Rather their own image will be distorted, and the people will pass the same judgement on the regime and those who participated in it.

They also mentioned the following two articles, which would have been better placed in one article:

- To give an example of how the group is able to lead the people.

- To give the confidence in Islam that it is able to organise the private and public life affairs.

The group will not be able to give such an image. Rather it has given a bad example and a model that cannot be followed. The reality is the greatest evidence of this. Had there not been sincere and aware Islamic movements that opposed such calls, and sincerely-concerned Muslim scholars, Islam would have fallen from the souls of the people, owing to the ones who advocate these views in support of the regimes. In the sight of Allah 􀀬 and the sight of His servants, how great is the difference between the movement or scholar who lives in the comfort of the regimes, surrounded by the glory of their false leadership; breathing the air of boastful arrogance with them, and a movement or scholar who proclaims the truth and undertakes it, fearing the blame of nobody; all for the sake of Allah 􀀬. Even if he was placed in the ruler’s prisons, remembering the sayings of Allah 􀀬; “Therefore, be patient (O Muhammad) as did the Messengers of strong will.” [TMQ 46:35] “So wait patiently (O Muhammad 􀁕) for the Decision of your Lord, for verily, you are under Our Eyes.” [TMQ 52:48] “So be patient (O Muhammad 􀁕). Verily, the Promise of Allah is true” [TMQ 40:55]. Are the example of these two the same?

They also mentioned four other articles, which can also be summarised into one article. They said:

- To produce a collection of individuals from the Islamic group who will have a high standing amongst people. They will be the people who solve most of the difficulties of the group and its members.

- To increase the Islamic centres and attack the centres of kufr.

- To train the Islamic cadres in politics and how to repel its games.

- To benefit from the reputation of the authority for the benefit of the group.

Such articles demonstrate the triviality of the hopes of those who advocate such views. Do such results deserve the risk of not gaining the pleasure of Allah 􀀬 and being described as Zaalimoon (unjust), Faasiqoon (transgressors) and supporters of the oppressors? Why doesn’t the movement do what it can without falling into this situation? We do not agree that the movement will achieve these results, if it disobeyed Allah 􀀬 and participated in a jaahili rule, rather the result will be the opposite for the group, and also for the da’wah and Islam generally.

If the advocates of this view can mention 11 articles or reasons that have pushed them to behave in this way then we can - in accordance with their prohibited way of thinking - mention many more points that form risks and obstacles to such actions. For example:

- Following this method, those responsible for the movement and the shabab, learn hypocrisy. When they are in the presence of the rulers who accept them to participate in ruling, they say to them what will please them. When they are alone with the people, they say something else, and they try to convince them that they are drawing closer to the ruler and the rule, so as to seize the rule and take the initiative from ruler.

- The approaches of the group become diluted, complacent and leniant at the expense of the radical approach and radical change.

- The regime is allowed to count the numbers and supporters of the movement and expose their hidden things and find out their secrets. The regime may discover differences between the members of the group, and so it will work to strengthen and encourage these differences, so as to easily control the group, and split it up when the need arises.

- The da’wah of such a group will be limited to the rules that do not represent a danger to the regime, and remain silent over the vital issues, thus giving an incorrect view of the da’wah and Islam.

- When the regime grants permission to the Islamic movement that is working within it, to establish institutions through which the group can undertake their work, the group becomes a captive of the institutions, and will fear that the regime may get its hands on them and confiscate them.

So they will not pass any judgement on things that will upset the regime, and consequently they do not think of breaking away from it.

- When the Islamic movement accepts to participate in a jaahili system, it gives justification to the regimes to clamp down on the Islamic movements that are working for change according to the method of the Messenger 􀁕, by considering those working against the regime as fundamentalists and zealots. Those cooperating with the regime, on the other hand are considered moderate and enlightened. It is a strange matter, and the advocates of these leniant approaches have written studies in which they have indicated that, due to their methodology, they are the moderates with whom the regimes can cooperate whilst the others are zealots.

- The concepts of such Islamic groups have changed, so as to suit the existing circumstances. For example, not taking Jizyah from the non- Muslim Dhimmis, or not calling them people of Dhimmah so as not to incite their resentment. In addition their view that Democracy is their own commodity that has been returned back to them, or the permissibility of dealing in usury. Participating in ruling with other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed is another example itself.

- It prolongs the life of the regime.

- It gives a beautiful image of the regime.

- Islam vanishes from the people’s minds when they see that Islam has not given them anything through these regimes, especially after the advocates of such views promised them with al-mann wa salwa (manna and quails), meaning all sorts of riches. It shows that they are unable to solve their problems in the correct manner. Hence, the movement cannot put itself forward as an example to be emulated, rather it gives a bad example.

- Its shabab become corrupted when their sole concern in da’wah becomes defending the practises of their group, if not the practices of the regimes and justification of their actions.

- The movement turns silent regarding the ruler’s clamping down and arrest of the other da’wah carriers, or even attacks them, in order to please the rulers or in accordance with their request, as happened in Egypt recently.

- This approach makes benefit the criterion for the actions of the group, instead of the adherence to the Shar’ee rule. Whatever action produces a benefit will be undertaken, even if it clearly contradicts the Shar’a. The benefit in the view of the Muslim becomes dearer than the Shar’a. So, there are many other reasons, which cause destruction to the deen and the da’wah.

We have addressed all of this through the reality and not the Shar’ee evidences, so that we can say to them, their way of thinking, even according to their school of thought, does not bring anything but evil fruits for Islam and the da’wah. It is an unproductive way of thinking of which the Shar’a does not approve.

It is not our practice, according to what we have learned from the Shar’a, to explain the corruption of an idea from the reality, or to reject a Shar’ee rule rationally. We began the discussion according to their methodology, so as to criticise them with what came from their own mouths, and disprove what they have said, by using their own criteria.

However, we know, and so do all the aware and sincere Muslim workers, that the only factor in the acceptance or rejection of a statement or action is the Shar’a. Since this is the case, the Shar’ee evidences they have mentioned - and they say they know them and that they are not hidden from others - are alone considered sufficient to refute their opinion and understanding, even if they had more examples to cite. The issue is not to do with more examples, but about the way of thinking.

We will not listen to them saying that they know it. There is no need to remind them of it. Despite having knowledge of these Shar’ee evidences, they did not take them owing to the reasons they mentioned. This is not allowed; besides, it is insolence against the deen and neglect of its definite and correct rules. As for their quotations from some scholars that they use to support their idea; beside the fact that they are examples that do not apply to the reality of what they call for, the statements of men are not a Shar’ee proof. What counts is the evidence and correctness of the istidlaal (deduction). If they say ‘so and so scholar said’, we say to them that Allah 􀀬 and His Messenger 􀁕 have said something that is correct, definite and Muhkam (clear and unabrogated). Is it allowed for us to abrogate the saying of Allah 􀀬 and His Messenger 􀁕 with the statements of just any individual? The idea of benefit dominated the advocates of this approach to the extent that it would be correct to call them, ‘traders in the da’wah’. However, the trader does business in order to make a profit, not to make a loss.

The corruption of their thinking appears from another angle, that is when they rely on the unlawful Qiyas, which depends on the reasoning of the Shar’ee text, rationally, based on making preference by interest. This leads them to come out with a new istinbaat (deduction), which was not known by the Islamic Ummah or its scholars before. They abandoned the correct method of istinbaat (deduction) shown by the Messenger 􀁕, and followed by all the Ulama’ of the Ummah from the Salaf as-saalih (pious predecessors) and all those who followed them in ihsaan (goodness).

There is no trace of this regulated, correct Shar’ee method, in any of their discussions. They followed the way of The West, in rational analogy and seeking benefit. The following hadith genuinely applies to them; “The one amongst you who lives (long) will see many differences.

Beware of the new matters, for every new thing is a bid’ah (innovation) and every innovation will be in the Fire.” [Reported by at-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud] They say; Islam prohibited alcohol and gambling despite stating that they are of benefit to the people, though it may be only a small benefit.

Thus, the great harm was weightier in alcohol and gambling.

The Shar’a has obliged fighting despite a loss in the life of believers and a loss in their wealth. This is because fighting has great interests dear to the Lord (blessed and exalted be He) and great interests for mankind.

The Messenger 􀁕 left the matter of demolishing the Ka’bah and rebuilding it on the foundations of Ibraheem (as), despite the religious interests in doing so. This is because the harm that would be incurred was greater than the interest attained from rectifying the structure of the Ka’bah.

Based on this they say that there is no doubt that participating in a jaahili rule has great harms. However the movement may deem, in some circumstances, that power sharing achieves a great benefit for Islam, the Muslims and the Islamic movement. It may even lead to the removal of the Taghut and the establishment of the truth.

They presented their idea from another angle, which indicates that their way of thinking is entrenched in their minds.

Understanding the texts in this manner and coming out with rules that contradict Islam is a painful matter.We have seen the pain increase in the present age, the age of the influence of the western culture, based on the analogy of interest. The early scholars used to follow the regulated principles of Islam imposed by its nature, which is based on the adherence to the Law of Allah 􀀬 in every matter, without the slightest interference of man in legislation, which we shall explain shortly, insha’Allah. On the other hand, we find the Muslims, according to this new and innovated methodology opened a gateway to legislation and they entered through it. They permitted their whims and desires to evaluate the benefits and harms pertaining to any action, which they wished to undertake. From a rational angle, when the benefits outweighed the harms, the order was to do the action. When the harms were outweighed the benefits, then they are required to leave the action.

According to this new and innovated method the Muslim became a legislator because, based on his whims and his own mind, he evaluated the interest.

In order to reach the rule on the action, they relied upon reasoning the texts in the aforementioned way. This is the same method utilised in The West. The West depends on such a mentality.

However this method makes benefit the thing that is worshipped by the Muslim, not the order of Allah 􀀬. This is made evident in the situation where the interest clashes with the Shar’ee rule that is clear in meaning; the Shar’ee rule is deserted and is replaced by the rule based on benefit.

Use of the Shar’ee texts is regulated by defined principles. The Muslim who follows these remains a servant of Allah 􀀬 and obedient to His command. The rule that he deduces, according to the correct method of deduction, is the rule of Allah 􀀬. That will not be possible unless, in his Qiyas, he depends on the ‘illah (divine reason) stated in the Shar’a.

Defining the good, and the bad, the attractive action and the unattractive one, and the halaal and haraam, is for Allah 􀀬 only. This has never been given to man. If man had the right, then he would have been given the power of legislation from the beginning. The Sharee’ah would not have interfered in the details of rules. The Muslim would have been required only to believe that Allah 􀀬 is the Creator, without having to believe that He is the Controller of his affairs and Organiser of his life.

Indeed, thousands of books that have been written throughout the Muslim ages, rely on the Shar’a method of istinbaat (deduction). Our foremost Jurists were able to solve all their problems according to this method. It is a practical and easy method for the one who has been granted its knowledge and has restricted himself to its principles.

The corruption of this innovated method is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that it produced rules that are in conflict with the clear rules of the Shar’a. If the method were correct, its rules would have agreed with the rules of the Shar’a. This, in itself, indicates that it is an erroneous method, as does the effect that it creates. Perhaps some of the following examples will help to clarify the issue.

- Carrying the da’wah according to the legal manner requires frankness, courage, strength and thought. It requires one to challenge all that contradicts Islam and to confront it, so as to clarify its falseness without any regard for the consequences or the circumstances. It requires that the absolute sovereignty be for the Islamic ideology, irrespective of whether or not it agrees with the majority of the people and their customs, and whether they accept, reject or oppose it. The da’wah carrier does not flatter the people and nor does he flatter those in authority. This is how the Messenger 􀁕 was in his da’wah, believing in the truth to which he was calling, and challenging the whole world without giving any regard for the customs and traditions, beliefs, religions, rulers or masses. He did not give attention to anything except the Message of Islam. Ibn Hisham reported that when the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 challenged the Quraysh, he mentioned their gods and denounced them, and disgraced their minds and considered their forefathers to be misguided. They (as a consequence) rejected him and united in their opposition and hostility.

This is how the da’wah of the Muslims today should be. The one who wishes to emulate the Noble Messenger 􀁕 in order to comply with the saying of Allah 􀀬; “Say (O Muhammad 􀁕 ): This is my way: ‘I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me.’” [TMQ 12:108], and the saying of the Messenger 􀁕; “I have left amongst you something which, if you hold onto it, you will never go astray. A matter that is clear: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.” [Sira of Ibn Hisham]; and who follows the way of the Salaf as-Salih and their saying; “The end of this matter will not be bettered except by that with which its beginning was bettered.”, must engage in this type of da’wah.

Today, according to this new and innovated method, which the Shar’a does not approve of, we find those who say; the preponderant interest indicates that it is more fitting and better that we approach issues with hikmah (wisdom), and we invite with that which is best. This is according to their method, and not the Shar’ee method. They say; what is the benefit of the da’wah if we challenge everything that goes against it? By doing this, will we open the hearts of others or will we close them? Why show that what we have fundamentally contradicts what others have? Is it not more fitting that we show that we are sharing with others in matters, which may act as keys to entering their hearts and minds, especially when the matters appear as if there is not a great difference between them and us? Is it in the interest of the da’wah that you oppose the rulers, expose their conspiracies to the Ummah, and disclose their plans? Thereby inciting them and attracting their evil; or is it better that we try to draw closer to them and befriend them? Perhaps they will draw nearer to us and put us in positions that will benefit the da’wah, and the benefit may even reach everyone. Perhaps we can reach power in this way. That is why we have to confirm to them, that there is no cause for them to fear us, and there is no fear in allowing us to get closer to them. From here begins the journey of flattery, and statements that are far from the method of truth. In addition, this is the start of pleasing the ruler, and giving false testimony for his actions, staying silent over falsehood, preoccupation with and talking about small matters that do not incite the anger of the ruler, and neglecting the vital issues about which the Ummah should be warned, and many other statements and actions that compromise the truth. Behind all of this change is the change in the way of thinking.

- It is also the right of Allah 􀀬 upon the scholar, who has inherited the knowledge from the Prophet 􀁕, from him to undertake his right and be in the front lines of the Mujaahideen, speaking the truth, holding onto it and confronting the rulers and exposing their plans. In other words, he must be an imaam of knowledge, of mihraab (prayer niche) and of war.

This is what the Salaf as-Salih were upon. We can see that from this innovated method, an innovated understanding has arisen, which contradicts with what our early scholars were accustomed to. Their understanding is reflected in their saying that if the scholar spoke the word of truth and then got arrested or killed, who will then take his place? The harm that the Ummah will incur from his arrest or murder is many times more than the benefit he achieves from that. So why do we deprive the Ummah from the goodness of this scholar?

- As well, with regards to participation in the parliamentary elections, this is allowed though there are conditions: The candidate should be Muslim and adhering to the rules of Islam. He should not accept the legislation of kufr, rather he should refute it and present the Shar’ee rule as the alternative. He is not allowed to elect a non-Muslim president, or a government based on non-Islam. It is not allowed for him to give the government a vote of confidence, rather he should prevent confidence in it, because the government is not established on the basis of Islam.

This is the clear Shar’ee rule.

However we have seen them come out, according to this innovated method, with an opinion that allows the Muslim to elect a candidate who does not adhere to the Shar’a in legislation, and in accounting and electing the ruler. Rather they allow the election of Christian candidates, and accept entering with them in election lists, under the pretext that the law has fixed the number of MPs in every area. Hence the Christian candidate will win, whether the Muslims elected him or not. Thus it is better in this situation to elect someone who, in our view, will be more beneficial to the Muslims, than to allow his people to elect him while he is of our opponents.

Thus the advocates of this mentality proceed in their approaches which, the more they are, the more distant they themselves become from the truth.

Let the advocates of this innovated and new mentality, and the approaches that are far from the correct understanding of Islam, be aware that their mentality and approaches are nothing to do with Islam.

What they establish, requires true repentance from them. The da’wah to Islam needs them, but without this mentality, and without these approaches, so that they become supporters of Islam, not of the regimes that rule by other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed.

The decisive definition of benefit or harm is for Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Nobody knows what brings us benefits or repels harm from us, except Allah 􀀬. If that was possible for a man to do, then he would have become a legislator, and there would not have been any need for a deen from Allah 􀀬 that manages life’s affairs for man. That is why Islam considers it obligatory on the Muslim to adhere to the Shar’a of his Lord.

Whatever the Shar’a orders us to do is an interest for us, and whatever the Shar’a ordered us to leave is harm for us. We do not know whether a thing is an interest or harm until a law is revealed regarding it. Before that, it is not within our ability to find it out ourselves. This is because the mind lacks a criterion on whose basis it can distinguish between the khayr (good) and sharr (bad), and between the husn (pretty) and qubh (reprehensible). Hence we have the Shar’ee principle: ‘Wherever we find the law of Allah (Shar’a), that is the benefit.’ Accordingly the principle that says: ‘Wherever is the interest, that is the law of Allah’ is wrong.

This is what the following noble ayah guides us to; “Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it; and it may be that you dislike a thing that is good for you, and you love a thing that is bad for you. Allah knows and you know not.” [TMQ 2:216] From this perspective we are able to understand the saying of Allah; “And he makes the Tayyebaat (good things) halaal for them, and he makes the Khabeeth (bad things) haraam upon them” [TMQ 7:157]. The tayyib (good) is what Allah has made halaal, and we did not know it was good except after Allah 􀀬 allowed it. The khabeeth (bad) is that which Allah made haraam, and we did not know it was bad except after it was forbidden for us. It does not mean that our minds define what is good and so they made it halaal, or our minds determine what is an evil and so they forbade it.

This is what they meant when they said:Weighing up the best from two good things and the worse from two evil things, and gaining the greatest of two interests by leaving the one that is lesser, and repelling the greater of two harms by allowing the one that is lesser. This statement is wrong and it constitutes a danger to the Sharee’ah. It is graver than the opinion of Masaalih Mursalah. That is because the masaalih requires that one resort to them when the reality is devoid of a Shar’ee text; while we see them, according to this statement, permitting themselves to change the rules of Allah 􀀬, and permitting their minds to abrogate them. With this they are permitting the haraam and forbidding the halaal. This is detrimental to the deen and it is a very dangerous methodology. This is the reason why their opinions and views are so far from the truth.

Through what we have already presented, we see that their Usool are in harmony with each other, and agree to interference in the legislation of Allah 􀀬, since they allow their minds and whims to put rational - rather than Shar’ee principles - and a rational - instead of Shar’ee - way of thinking, to conclude whatever they want; not what the Shar’a wants.

That is why the rational analogy based on benefit was their guiding principle in every discussion. This is despite the fact that rational analogy is one of the most important things that the Legislator has rejected for the Muslims, because it contains opposition to Allah 􀀬 and participation in ruling, and because it is deviation from what is right and what is the truth, and it is following one’s whims and inclinations. Their discussion is based on giving arbitration to the Taghut, which we have been ordered to reject. This is because Taghut is arbitrating with other that what Allah 􀀬 has revealed.

In conclusion, we must turn towards clarifying the difference between the rational analogy and the Shar’ee analogy, so as to explain the corruption of the rational analogy and the importance of refering to the Shar’ee analogy, so that we can save ourselves, the Ummah and the whole of mankind.

Those Muslims proceeded on the method of rational outweghing of the interest regarding the Shar’ee rule itself. They compared between the interests secured by the Shar’ee rule and the harms that resulted from it, from a rational perspective. In their view, if the harms were greater then they would leave the Shar’ee rule - that is the rule of Allah 􀀬 on the issue - for the benefit of the rational rule whose interests were greater. If the interests were greater in the Shar’ee rule they acted upon it, not because Allah 􀀬 ordered them to do so, but because the mind agreed to accept it. This is a dangerous course about which one cannot be silent.

This is because it gives guardianship to the mind and whims, over the Sharee’ah, and gives the mind the role of an arbitrator over the Law of Allah 􀀬, and it places the mind above the Shar’a. This is exactly what we call man-made law. This is what explains their coming out with opinions that contradict the Shar’ee rules, especially in this subject. Hence the difference is not over the opinion of whether it is allowed or not to participate in ruling by other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed. Rather the dispute is over the way of thinking through which they arrive at the non- Shar’ee rule, at the rational rule, at the ruling with other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed, and the rule of Taghut, which they have been ordered to reject.

That is why we say this way of understanding eludes and disagrees with the correct understanding. Its reality indicates its falsehood. It is not correct to depend on it or to take rules according to it. That is because the decisive definition of the benefits and harms is for Allah, the Lord of the worlds. What will bring the benefits to us or repel the harm from us is not known to anyone except Allah 􀀬. This is because if that were possible for man, then man would have been the legislator. Due to the need for a divine religion that manages life’s affairs for man, Islam has considered that the Muslim is obliged to adhere to the Shar’a of his Lord.

Hence what the Shar’a has ordered us to do is considered to be an interest for us, and what the Shar’a has ordered us to leave is a harm for us. We do not know that a thing is an interest or harm, except after a law has been revealed about it. Before that, we are unable to define that by ourselves.

When man legislates, he follows the way of the rational analogy, which requires the bringing together of similar matters and giving them similar rules. It also requires differentiating between different matters and giving them different rulings. When we look at the Islamic Sharee’ah that has been legislated by the All-Knowing and All-Informed, we find that it has given different rules for many similar matters, and has given similar rules for many different matters. This is contrary to the rational analogy. It has also given rules in which the mind plays no role. This alone is enough to refute this innovated method that those people have initiated.