As regards combining the things that are different, the Shar’a has given the same rules for different issues, even though the rational analogy does not accept this. The Shar’a has combined the water and dust when allowing one to be purified by them, even though water cleanses and dust makes thing dirty. It forbade the riba al-fadl (excess in amount) in gold and wheat even though their reality is different. It has also imposed the death penalty on the apostate and adulterer though the manner differs, despite the difference between the two actions. It has protected the Muslim and the Dhimmi, despite the fact that they are both different in terms of the deen. It obliged eighty lashes for the one who falsely accuses a woman of zina and the one who drinks alcohol, even though the reality of the two actions is different.

Thus there are many rules whose realities clearly differ and nothing can bring them together, yet the Shar’a has given them the same rule. If it were left to the mind to make analogy, then it would have come with a different rule, and it would not have been able to give similar rules, due to their different realities. This also indicates the invalidity of this methodology in analogy.

Furthermore the Shar’a has given rules in which the mind has no role.

The Shar’a has allowed trade but forbidden usury, even though both are a trade and they are similar. It stipulated four male witnesses in fornication, but two are sufficient for murder, even though killing is more vicious than fornication. In the revocable divorce, it stipulated that the witness is a Muslim, but it allowed the testimony of a Kaafir in bequests.

It obliged chastity, ie lowering of the gaze, in relation to a free ugly woman regarding her hair and skin, even though one does not naturally incline towards her, but it did not oblige this in relation to the jariyah (beautiful female slaves) towards whom one’s disposition inclines. It obliged wiping on the top of the khuffain (leather socks) and not under it even though it is more fitting to wipe the underneath. Regarding this, Sayyiduna ‘Ali (May Allah honour him) said; “If the deen were to be taken by analogy (ie rationally), then wiping under the socks would have been more deserving than wiping on the top.” This is what pushed the likes of the famous poet Abul ‘Ala al-Ma’arri to say; A hand is compensated with hundreds of gold dinars, How is it cut off (amputated) for one quarter of a dinar?

In other words, the blood money for a hand that has been damaged is 500 dinar, so how can the hand be amputated for quarter of a dinar?

The mind considers it improper for a hand to be cut off for a quarter of a dinar. With the judgement of the mind, he disapproves the judgement of the Sharee’ah. If the mind was the given the right to understand an ‘illah (divine reason) from the totality of the Sharee’ah, or from the most zaahir an-nas (apparent aspect of the text), or to understand the existence of Qiyas (analogy) from the mere similarity between two ahkam, then it would prohibit much of what Allah 􀀬 has permitted, and permit much of what Allah 􀀬 has forbidden. Thus, Qiyas is not allowed except according to the method approved by the Shar’a. In other words, the legitimate Qiyas cannot take place without an ‘illah (divine reason)

mentioned in the text. No Qiyas is made in the text that contains no Shar’ee ‘illah. No rational ‘illah is given for it and nor do we assign for it a Shar’ee ‘illah, as long as it has not been mentioned or assigned. That is why the Fuqahaa’ (jurists) have defined the ways (of discerning) the ‘illah by examining the texts. They said the ‘illah has either been indicated by the text saraahatan (explicitly), by dalaalatan (meaning), by istinbaatan (deduction) or by qiyasan (analogy). (Please check the book on Usul for this)

When the Messenger 􀁕 approved of the use of Qiyas, he fixed its type.

Ahmad and Nasai reported from ‘Abdullah b. az-Zubayr, who said; “A man from Khath’am came to the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 and said:

‘My father has embraced Islam and he is old and cannot ride a camel, but Hajj is obliged on him. Can I perform the Hajj on his behalf ?’ He 􀁕 said: ‘Are you the eldest son?’ He replied: ‘Yes.’ He 􀁕 said: ‘Suppose your father had a debt to pay and you paid it on his behalf, would this requite him?’ He said: ‘yes.’ He 􀁕 said: ‘Then you can perform Hajj on his behalf.’” Hajj is an ‘ibadah (worship)

and giving a loan is a mu’amalah (transaction) and both are different from each other. However, discharging the obligation of Hajj is similar to payment of the loan, in the sense that both are debts. The reason for allowing the son to perform the Hajj on his father’s behalf is because it is the discharge of a debt. The Messenger 􀁕 linked the debt with Allah to the debt with human beings, in terms of the obligation of its settlement and its benefit. If the Messenger 􀁕 had not legislated that, then our minds would not have been able to make such a judgement.

The ta’leel (reasoning) behind rules is an evidence to clarify the matter for which the Shar’a has legislated the rule. This obliges that one follows the ‘illah where it is present. This is Qiyas. When the Messenger 􀁕 said about the cat; “It is not najas (impure) (ie the cat’s saliva).” He clarified the ‘illah ie the reason for not considering it impure when he said; “For they are usually around you in the homes (ie domesticated).” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]. Accordingly, any animal that is usually around the home is not impure, as long as there is no exception made by a daleel (evidence). The saying of the Messenger 􀁕; “Permission (to enter) is required because of sight.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim] This means the Muslim must seek permission before entering a house, because the house has its sacredness and is considered an ‘awrah. The reason for legislating the requirement of seeking permission is to prevent looking at a prohibited thing. His words “min ajlin nazar (because of viewing)” is the ‘illah ie the reason for legislating the seeking of permission. Thus, a Muslim who enters his home does not require a permission to enter. This is because the ‘illah is absent and hence the rule becomes absent. Otherwise the rule will remain if he has guests around and the like. So when the ‘illah returns, so does the hukm. Thus, the hukm is linked to the ‘illah in terms of presence and absence.

That is why Qiyas is one of the very delicate issues. It should be known that Qiyas is for the intelligent people who understand the texts, rules and incidents. It is not valid for just any person, who uses it according to his whims and desires. It must be for those people to whom Allah 􀀬 has granted insight and understanding, otherwise it would become a means of destruction and departure from the true rule of Allah 􀀬. Imaam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said; “It is not valid for anybody to make Qiyas until he became knowledgeable of the previous sunan (ways), the statements of the Salaf and the Arabic language. He must also be of sound mind so as to distinguish between the doubtful (or similar) matters and not rush to judge; and he should not resist listening to the one who disagrees with him, because this might draw his attention to something he forgot or point out to him the error of what he thought to be correct.” Use of Qiyas requires precise understanding. The use of Qiyas to derive a rule is not allowed for anyone other than the mujtahid.

In everything we have mentioned previously, we only quoted the evidences of those who advocate participation in kufr rule, their refutation, and showing that they cannot stand up as evidences for this subject. Now, what is the definite opinion of Islam, which doesn’t require Ijtihaad in this subject?

The Shar’a, along with its ‘Aqeedah, is established on the Imaan in Allah the One, and that worship should be solely for Him. The statement ‘laa ilaaha’ (There is no god) means the negation of divinity, worship and legislation from anyone other than Allah 􀀬. The statement ‘ilallah’ (except Allah) means confirming these matters for Allah 􀀬 only. He is the Ilah, the Truth, the only one who deserves to be worshipped and to legislate.Worship and submission to Him 􀀬 and knowledge of His Shar’a comes via the Messenger 􀁕. This is what the second part of the two shahadas means, which is that; Muhammad is the Rasool of Allah. Hence only the Messenger should be followed, and emulated in legislation.

Even Usul al-Fiqh is built on defining the sources of revelation so that legislation is not taken from other than these sources. It seeks to regulate the principles of istinbaat (deduction), so that anything that isn’t from the Shar’a can not enter it. That is why the first discussion that Usul al- Fiqh undertakes is that the Haakim (Sovereign) is Allah 􀀬, the judgement is only for Him, and there is no hukm before the revelation of the Shar’a on a subject or outside of the Shar’a.

Then comes the Fiqh to represent the practical explanation of the worship to Allah 􀀬 alone, and the subjugation to Him alone and the rejection of any legislation from anyone other than Him, beside reference for judgement is to His Law only.

Participating in kufr systems means that the one who calls to it accepts human legislation in addition to the divine legislation. Consequently, he accepts the presence of a legislator of non-Shar’ee rules alongside the legislator of Shar’ee rules. This also means the acceptance of the plurality of sources of legislation. So where is the unity of the deity (wahdaniyyah al-ma’bud) that necessitates the unity of worship, openly and secretly?

The prohibition of making shirk with Allah 􀀬 necessitates the prohibition of partnership in His rule.

Thus the Shar’a, in its totality, indicates the prohibition of participating in jaahili systems.

The Sirah of the Messenger 􀁕 in his da’wah indicates, without a shadow of a doubt, that the approach was radical and free from any effect of the reality. The work that affects the reality is what will create the necessary change. The Messenger 􀁕 in his da’wah, did not give any attention to the reality of shirk in the Kuffar of Makkah. He did not care about their customs and traditions; nor did he give any regard to people’s acceptance or rejection of him. He did not flatter those in authority, even though the situation of the Messenger 􀁕 and his da’wah in Makkah was severe. He publicly proclaimed, ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’, which is the whole of Islam in its essence, and the complete rejection of every creed or Shar’a other than it. On this basis the Shahadah was rejected by Abu Jahl, along with the other leaders of kufr in Makkah. On this basis as well, the Messenger 􀁕 publicly proclaimed the Shahadah before the black and the white, the free and the slave, the rich and the poor, the Arab and the non-Arab, and the idol-worshipper and the people of the scripture. He confronted them, opposed them and challenged them by mentioning their gods; and so they responded with hostility, tried to bargain with him, and asked him to be silent about them so that they will be silent about him. They wished that if the Messenger 􀁕 had compromised, then they would compromise. He 􀁕 did not accept this and was patient regarding their harassment of the da’wah and their torture of his companions; the believers were patient with them. The patience of all of them was one of the signs of the truthfulness of the da’wah and of their tone, to the extent that he 􀁕 rejected the condition of Banu Sa’sa’ah when he approached them inviting them to support his deen, in the most difficult time of the da’wah and the lack of any supporter. They were ready to give him the Nusrah on condition that after him the authority should go to them. He did not say that an opportunity occurred to him from which he could benefit, after all the gates before him have been shut. Rather he told them and told us after them as a teacher, leader, da’ee and a guide; “The authority belongs to Allah and He places it where He wills.” He means by this that authority belongs to Allah 􀀬 only, and no one can share with Allah 􀀬 in this. Only Allah 􀀬 gives it to whom He wills, and no one else has a say in this matter. The Messenger 􀁕 continued in his da’wah without relying on anything other than the strength of the fikrah (idea) and the help of Allah. The da’wah realised its aim by the establishment of dar al-Islam in Madinah, after Allah 􀀬 opened up the hearts and minds of those who supported Muhammad 􀁕 and helped him. Thus, the success is from Allah 􀀬. It is for the one who depends on Him, seeks His Help and maintains the purity of the idea, the clarity of the understanding, the soundness of the path and the correctness of the activity.

Now, at the end of this discussion about participating in the regimes that rule by other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed, we shall present the reality of ruling in the current regimes and how the participation takes place. Then we shall present the ayaat and ahadith that prohibit the following of this path, and put an end to any justification or interpretation, because the ayaat are definite in their meanings.

The constitution in any state must be established on a specific intellectual basis. It may be democratic or Islamic, such that there can be no rule that has not emanated from its creed and basis.

Thus, in the democratic systems, the rules have to be in harmony with the basis, which says that the sovereignty is for the people, ie it is the people who enact laws through an assembly, which they select for this purpose and this is called the parliament. When it rules, the executive authority applies what has been legislated by the legislative authority in the name of the people. In order to keep the government restricted to the rule of the people, the parliament has been given the power to give the government a vote of confidence, such that it does not become legitimate except after the vote of confidence has been given. It has been given the power to monitor, examine and account the actions of government.

Accordingly, it can withdraw the confidence from the whole government or a certain minister, if he commits a violation or does not adhere to the rules of the constitution.

Thus, the basis of the actions that result from the government is Democracy and not Islam. As we have explained in a previous discussion, Islam does not accept any action that is not based on a spiritual basis, which is the basis of Imaan in Allah 􀀬.

The systems have an integrated structure, just as they have a single basis, and the policy they want to execute is one, and they work to apply it through all the ministries. The policy of each ministry must be in harmony with the policy of the other ministries. What formulates this policy is the government together. The voice of the single Muslim minister will be nothing but a single voice from the collection of voices, with which its president formulates the policy, in the light of the constitution and the basis on which it is established. This is from the legal perspective. However, there is a huge difference between this idea and its practical application. The country’s leader and his team will already have drawn up the policy of the government when the minister is chosen for the cabinet. The minister has no choice, except to join the cabinet on the basis of the drawn up policy or to refuse it. He has no right to lay down the policy for his ministry.

Moreover, the responsibility of the ministers is a joint responsibility.

This means that when the government wishes to implement the planned policy and take the necessary decisions, the decisions of the majority are taken. This means that every minister interferes in the affairs of other ministries, and puts forward his views regarding the government’s decisions. This makes the Muslim minister responsible for everything that originates from or relates to his ministry, or that of others. In such a situation, he is obliged to defend the policy and decisions of the government outside and in front of people, even though inside the ministry he might oppose it. Here one might assume that the Muslim minister will take the position of opposition to everything proposed that contradicts Islam. Such talk indicates shallow thinking. The minister is different from the MP. Thus, in terms of the law and not application, the MP represents those who have elected him. He may represent the Muslims in a democratic system, or he may represent the leftists in capitalist systems. As for the minister, he is not brought into the government to oppose, otherwise he will remain outside due to his opposition. Thus, in the democratic systems, the one who opposes the government or the rule will remain outside and not be allowed to enter it. If he enters by mistake, then he is expelled by insistence. The government comes to rule and implement. It has a policy that it wants to implement. It has not come to gather contradictions. Anyone who goes against its policy will leave it by the invitation of the prime minister or the ministers together. The MPs will withhold the confidence from him personally, and the government will continue functioning.

Here it is imperative to mention that the mere acceptance of the Muslim minister to participate in ruling means that he has accepted the existing constitution in the country and the basis on which it is established. The opposition that we mention here is not the opposition to the basis of the system but opposition within the system, which is an opposition that indicates disagreement in the branches, whilst everyone accepts their basis.

Moreover, any decree adopted and related to any ministry does not come into force and effect, until approved by three sides and provided with their signatures. They are; the head of state, the prime minister, and the relevant minister. This also means that the Muslim minister is not free in running the affairs of his ministry and issuing the practical decrees by himself.

This makes the following points clear:

- The rules, with which the government governs, are not established on a spiritual basis (which is the belief in Allah) but on the basis of Democracy, in which legislation is for the people and not for Allah 􀀬.

- The government is the executive authority. It is an authority of ruling and execution of the rules of the constitution. The government, along with its Premier and ministers, every single one of them, are not entitled to go against the rules of the constitution, otherwise they will be accused of violating it.

- No single minister, including the minister who is a Muslim, draws up the policy of his department. Rather he applies the policy drawn up by the state as a whole, including its head.

- Every single minister is responsible for all the decisions and actions issued by the government. This is because the law states that the responsibility of the cabinet is a collective and joint responsibility.

In short, the issue is regulated in these systems, such that no one has the right to act in isolation of the cabinet, and in his own way.

This is the reality of these governments. Many ayaat bear witness to the prohibition of a Muslim to participating in them.

- Thus, Allah 􀀬 obliged that the judgement should be for Allah 􀀬, as a basis from which the laws originate. 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 􀀬 said; “It is not (fitting) for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.” [TMQ 33:36] - Allah 􀀬 has obliged that the ruler be a Muslim. He 􀀬 said; “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger 􀁕 and those in authority from amongst you.” [TMQ 4:59] - Allah 􀀬 has obliged the Muslim ruler to rule by Islam. He 􀀬 said; “And so judge between them by what Allah has revealed...” [TMQ 5:49]. Allah 􀀬 warned the Muslim ruler of turning away from some of Islam, even if it is a single rule. Thus He said; “And beware of them lest they turn you away from some of that which Allah has sent down to you.” [TMQ 5:49]. He 􀀬 ordered that we draw our swords in the face of the one who rules by kufr suraah (explicit kufr). This is owing to the Messenger’s 􀁕 statement regarding the Faajir ruler when he was asked: “Shall we not fight him with the sword, O Rasool of Allah? He said; “Unless you see clear and kufr buwah (explicit kufr) regarding which you have a burhaan (proof) from Allah.” [Reported by Muslim] -He 􀀬 forbade the advisors and entourage of the ruler to be on anything other than Islam.

“O You who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, helpers, protectors)

those outside your religion.” [TMQ 3:118] - Allah 􀀬 ordered the Muslims to refer to Islam for judgement and He forbade them to refer to the Taghut. He 􀀬 clarified that the one who does that, his Imaan is a mere claim and not true. He 􀀬 said; “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 it. But Shaytan wishes to lead them far astray.” [TMQ 4:60] - Allah 􀀬 has forbidden the Muslims from taking as friends and helpers anyone other than them; “O you who believe! Take not as friends the people on whom is the Wrath of Allah.

Surely, they are in despair of the Hereafter, just as they are in despair about those (buried) in graves (that they will not be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection).” [TMQ 60:13]. And He 􀀬 said; “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliya (friends, protectors); they are but Awliya to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Awliya, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (unjust). And you see those in whose hearts there is a disease (of hypocrisy), they hurry to their friendship, saying: ‘We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us.’ Perhaps Allah may bring a victory or a decision according to His Will. Then they will become regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves.” [TMQ 5:51-52] Here the question may arise that the rulers today are not Jews or Christians. The truth is they are loyal to the Jews and Christians. The loyalty of the one who is loyal to the rulers, will be for the one those rulers are loyal to.

And He 􀀬 said; “And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you do not do so (ie.

become allies, as one united block with one Khilafah), there will be Fitnah (wars, battles) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).” [TMQ 8:73] Here it is worth mentioning that the intention from not allying oneself with the Jews and Christians is not that one should be loyal to other than them. Rather what is intended is that it is forbidden to be loyal to anything and anyone that contradicts Islam. The prohibition of showing loyalty to them necessitates that one detaches oneself from them, in terms of ideas and behaviour, and doesn’t accept any matter from them, as long as their basis is established on kufr. He 􀀬 said, on the tongue of Ibraheem; “Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever, - until you believe…” [TMQ 60:4] The walaa’ (loyalty) should be for Allah, His Messenger and the believers. He 􀀬 said; “And whosoever takes Allah, His Messenger and those who have believed as Protectors, then the party of Allah will be the victorious.” [TMQ 5:56] Another question that may arise here is that by accepting to participate in ruling we do not mean to be loyal to them. We only show loyalty following the model (we show our submissiveness until we gain influence)

but our hearts reject what they do. The truth is that loyalty is a matter in which the organs (action) and heart share. We are obliged to reject by hand, tongue and heart what the ruler does, when he rules by other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed. The least one can do is to reject with the heart and there is no Imaan after this, as informed by al-Mustafah 􀁕.

Those who take the position of the weaskest of Imaan, their actions and statements should not agree or support the rule by non-Islam. Those who do that, they are disobeying Allah 􀀬 and committing sin, even if their hearts reject it. They are accused with kufr if their hearts approve it. The least that one can say about the one who participates in ruling by other than what Allah 􀀬 has revealed, is that he is a Faasiq (transgressor), Zaalim (oppressor) and ‘aasi (disobedient) to Allah 􀀬.