Kuhusu kuunganisha mambo yaliyo tofauti, Shari'a imetoa hukumu zinazofanana kwa masuala tofauti, ingawa mantiki ya kulinganisha haikubali hilo. Shari'a imeunganisha maji na mchanga pale iliporuhusu kujitakasa kwa vyote viwili, ingawa maji hutakasa na mchanga huchafua. Imekataza riba al-fadl (ziada ya kiasi) katika dhahabu na ngano, ingawa uhalisia wao ni tofauti. Pia imeweka adhabu ya kifo kwa mwenye kuritadi na kwa mzinifu, ingawa namna ya vitendo hivyo viwili ni tofauti. Imemlinda Mwislamu na Dhimmi, ingawa wote wawili ni tofauti kwa upande wa dini. Imewajibisha viboko themanini kwa mwenye kumzulia mwanamke zina, na kwa mwenye kunywa pombe, ingawa uhalisia wa vitendo hivyo viwili ni tofauti.

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.

Kwa hiyo, kuna kanuni nyingi ambazo hali zake halisi zinatofautiana waziwazi, na hakuna kitu kinachoweza kuzileta pamoja, lakini Shari'a imezipa kanuni ile ile. Kama jambo hilo lingeachiwa akili ifanye qiyas, basi ingekuja na kanuni tofauti, wala isingeweza kutoa kanuni zinazofanana, kutokana na hali zao halisi kutofautiana. Hili pia linaonyesha ubatili wa mbinu hii katika qiyas.

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.

Zaidi ya hayo, Shari'ah imetoa hukumu ambazo akili haina nafasi ndani yake.

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

Sharia imeruhusu biashara lakini imekataza riba, ijapokuwa zote mbili ni biashara na zinafanana. Ilifanya kuwa ushahidi wa zinaa uwe wanaume wanne, lakini kwa kuua mashahidi wawili wanatosha, ijapokuwa kuua ni kitendo kiovu zaidi kuliko zinaa. Katika talaka ya kurejeka, iliweka sharti kwamba shahidi awe Muislamu, lakini ikaruhusu ushahidi wa kafiri katika wasia.

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.

Ulimwengu wa Sharia ulilazimisha kujizuia, yaani kupunguza kutazama, kuhusiana na mwanamke huru mwenye sura mbaya kuhusu nywele zake na ngozi yake, ingawa mtu si kwa asili anaelekea kwake; lakini haukulazimisha hili kuhusiana na jariya (watumwa wa kike warembo) ambao mwelekeo wa mtu unawaelekea. Ulilazimisha kupangusa juu ya khuffain (soksi za ngozi) na si chini yake, ingawa inafaa zaidi kupangusa sehemu ya chini. Kuhusiana na hili, Sayyiduna ‘Ali (Mwenyezi Mungu amtukuze) alisema: "Ikiwa dini ingechukuliwa kwa kulinganisha (yaani kwa akili), basi kupangusa chini ya soksi kungestahili zaidi kuliko kupangusa juu." Hii ndiyo iliyomsukuma mshairi maarufu Abul ‘Ala al-Ma’arri kusema: Mkono hulipwa kwa dinari za dhahabu mamia, Je, hukatwa kwa robo ya dinari?

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?

Kwa maneno mengine, diyya (fidia ya damu) kwa mkono uliojeruhiwa ni dinari 500, sasa mkono unawezaje kukatwa kwa robo dinari?

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?

Akili inaona si sahihi kwa mkono kukatwa kwa sababu ya robo dinari. Kwa hukumu ya akili hii, anapinga hukumu ya Shari'ah. Lau akili ingepewa haki ya kufahamu 'illah (sababu ya kiungu) kutoka katika ukamilifu wa Shari'ah, au kutoka katika maana iliyo wazi zaidi ya matini, au kufahamu kuwepo kwa Qiyas (kipimo cha kulinganisha) kutokana tu na mfanano kati ya hukumu mbili, basi ingekataza mengi ambayo Allah 􀀬 amevihalalisha, na kuruhusu mengi ambayo Allah 􀀬 amevikataza. Kwa hiyo, Qiyas hairuhusiwi isipokuwa kwa mbinu iliyoidhinishwa na Shari'ah. Kwa maneno mengine, Qiyas halali haiwezi kufanyika bila 'illah (sababu ya kiungu).

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. Hakuna Qiyas inayofanywa katika maandishi yasiyokuwa na 'illah ya Shar'i. Hakuna 'illah ya kiakili inayotolewa kwa ajili yake, wala hatutoi kwa ajili yake 'illah ya Shar'i, mradi haijatajwa au kubainishwa. Ndiyo maana Mafaqihi (wanazuoni wa fiqhi) wameeleza njia za kubainisha 'illah kwa kuchunguza maandiko. Wamesema kwamba 'illah imebainishwa na maandiko kwa njia ya saraahatan (wazi), kwa dalaalatan (maana), kwa istinbaatan (istinbati) au kwa qiyasan (kwa kulinganisha). (Tafadhali rejea kitabu cha Usul kuhusu hili.)

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)

Wakati Mjumbe ﷺ alipoidhinisha matumizi ya Qiyas, alibainisha aina yake.

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

Ahmad na An-Nasai wameripoti kutoka kwa ‘Abdullah bin az-Zubayr, aliyesema: "Mtu mmoja kutoka Khath’am alimjia Rasuli wa Allah ﷺ akasema:

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

“Baba yangu amesilimu na ni mzee, hawezi kupanda ngamia, lakini Hijja ni wajibu juu yake. Je, ninaweza kufanya Hijja kwa niaba yake?” Yeye ﷺ akasema: “Je, wewe ndiye mtoto mkubwa?” Akajibu: “Ndiyo.” Yeye ﷺ akasema: “Vipi kama baba yako angekuwa na deni la kulipa, nawe ukamlipia, je, hilo lingemtosheleza?” Akasema: “Ndiyo.” Yeye ﷺ akasema: “Basi unaweza kufanya Hijja kwa niaba yake.” Hijja ni ‘ibadah (ibada).

‘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)

na kukopesha ni muamala (muamala wa kifedha), na mambo haya mawili ni tofauti kati yao. Hata hivyo, kutekeleza wajibu wa Hijja kunafanana na kulipa deni, kwa maana kwamba yote mawili ni madeni. Sababu ya kuruhusu mwana kutekeleza Hijja kwa niaba ya baba yake ni kwamba ni kulipa deni. Mtume ﷺ alilinganisha deni la Allah na deni la wanadamu, kwa upande wa wajibu wa kulilipa na faida yake. Lau Mtume ﷺ asingeliweka sheria hiyo, basi akili zetu zisingeweza kutoa hukumu kama hiyo.

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.

Sababu ya kutoa hukumu (ta'leel) ni dalili inayofafanua jambo ambalo Shari'a imeweka hukumu hiyo kwalo. Hii inamlazimu mtu kufuata 'illah pale inapokuwepo. Hii ndiyo Qiyas. Mtume ﷺ alipoeleza kuhusu paka alisema: "Si najisi (yaani mate ya paka)." Alibainisha 'illah, yaani sababu ya kutoonekana kuwa najisi, aliposema: "Kwa kuwa huzunguka-zunguka kwenu nyumbani (yaani ni wa kufugwa)." [Imepokewa na Bukhari na Muslim]. Kwa hiyo, mnyama yeyote anayezunguka-zunguka nyumbani si najisi, mradi tu hakuna kutengwa kwa dalili nyingine. Kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Kuomba ruhusa (ya kuingia) ni kwa sababu ya kuona." [Imepokewa na Bukhari na Muslim]. Maana yake ni kwamba Mwislamu lazima aombe ruhusa kabla ya kuingia nyumba ya mtu, kwa sababu nyumba ina heshima yake na inachukuliwa kuwa ni 'awrah. Sababu ya kuweka sharti la kuomba ruhusa ni kuzuia kutazama kitu kilichokatazwa. Maneno yake "min ajlin nazar (kwa sababu ya kutazama)" ni 'illah, yaani sababu ya kuwekwa kwa sharti la kuomba ruhusa. Hivyo basi, Mwislamu anayeingia nyumbani kwake hahitaji ruhusa ya kuingia. Hii ni kwa sababu 'illah haipo, na hivyo hukumu nayo haipo. Lakini, ikiwa ana wageni au mambo kama hayo, hukumu itabaki. Kwa hiyo, 'illah inaporudi, hukumu nayo inarudi. Basi hukumu imefungamana na 'illah kwa kuwepo kwake na kutokuwepo kwake.

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.

Ndiyo sababu Qiyas ni miongoni mwa mambo nyeti sana. Inapaswa kujulikana kwamba Qiyas ni kwa watu wenye akili wanaofahamu maandiko, hukumu na matukio. Haifai kwa kila mtu, anayeitumia kwa kufuata matamanio na hawaa zake. Ni lazima iwe kwa watu ambao Allah 􀀬 amewapa busara na ufahamu, la sivyo itakuwa chanzo cha maangamizi na kuondoka kwenye hukumu halisi ya Allah 􀀬. Imaam Shafi'i (Allah amrehemu) alisema: "Haifai kwa yeyote kufanya Qiyas mpaka awe amejua sunnah zilizotangulia, kauli za Salaf na lugha ya Kiarabu. Pia ni lazima awe na akili timamu ili aweze kutofautisha mambo yanayotatanisha (au yanayofanana) na asiharakishe kutoa hukumu; wala asiukatae kumsikiliza anayemkinza, kwani hilo linaweza kumletea kumbukumbu ya jambo alilolisahau au kumwonyesha kosa la alilodhani kuwa sahihi." Matumizi ya Qiyas yanahitaji ufahamu sahihi kabisa. Kutoa hukumu kwa njia ya Qiyas hairuhusiwi kwa mtu yeyote isipokuwa mujtahid.

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.

Katika yote tuliyoyataja hapo awali, tulitaja tu hoja za wale wanaotetea ushiriki katika utawala wa kikafiri, kuzijibu hoja hizo, na kuonyesha kwamba haziwezi kusimama kama dalili katika suala hili. Sasa, ni msimamo gani wa uhakika wa Uislamu, ambao hauhitaji Ijtihaad katika suala hili?

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?

Shari'a, pamoja na 'Aqeedah yake, imejengwa juu ya Imani kwa Allah Mmoja, na kwamba ibada inapaswa kuwa kwake Yeye peke yake. Kauli 'laa ilaaha' (hakuna mungu) maana yake ni kukanusha uungu, ibada na sheria kutoka kwa yeyote mwingine isipokuwa Allah (SWT). Kauli 'illallah' (isipokuwa Allah) maana yake ni kuthibitisha mambo haya kwa Allah (SWT) peke yake. Yeye ndiye Ilah, Haki, Yule pekee anayestahili kuabudiwa na kutunga sheria. Ibada na utiifu kwake (SWT) pamoja na ujuzi wa Shari'a yake hupatikana kupitia Mtume ﷺ. Hii ndiyo maana ya sehemu ya pili ya shahada mbili, ambayo ni kwamba: Muhammad ﷺ ni Rasuli wa Allah. Hivyo basi, ni Mtume ﷺ pekee anayepaswa kufuatwa na kuigwa katika kutunga sheria.

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.

Hata Usul al-Fiqh yenyewe imejengwa juu ya kubainisha vyanzo vya Wahyi, ili sheria isichukuliwe kutoka kwa vyanzo vingine isipokuwa hivi. Inalenga kudhibiti kanuni za istinbaat (kuchota hukumu), ili lolote lisilotoka katika Shariah lisiingie ndani yake. Ndiyo maana mjadala wa kwanza ambao Usul al-Fiqh unaufanya ni kwamba Al-Haakim (Mtawala Mkuu) ni Allah ﷻ, hukumu ni Kwake Yeye pekee, na hakuna hukm kabla ya kuteremshwa kwa Wahyi kuhusu jambo fulani, wala nje ya Shariah.

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.

Kisha inakuja Fiqh, ikiwakilisha maelezo ya kivitendo ya ibada kwa Allah 􀀬 peke yake, na unyenyekevu kwa Yeye peke yake, na kukataa sheria yoyote kutoka kwa mtu yeyote mwingine isipokuwa Yeye, pamoja na kwamba marejeo ya hukumu ni kwa Sheria Yake pekee.

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.

Kushiriki katika mifumo ya kufr kunamaanisha kwamba anayeitisha kwayo anakubali sheria za kibinadamu pamoja na sheria za Mwenyezi Mungu. Kwa hiyo, anakubali uwepo wa mtunga sheria wa kanuni zisizo za Shari'ah sambamba na mtunga sheria wa kanuni za Shari'ah. Hii pia inamaanisha kukubali wingi wa vyanzo vya kutunga sheria. Basi wapi kuna umoja wa Mungu anayeabudiwa (wahdaniyyah al-ma'bud) unaohitaji umoja wa ibada, waziwazi na kwa siri?

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?

Katazo la kufanya shirki pamoja na Allah 􀀬 linahitaji katazo la kushirikiana Naye katika utawala Wake.

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

Hivyo basi, Shari'a kwa ujumla wake inaonyesha katazo la kushiriki katika mifumo ya kijahili.

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

Sira ya Mtume ﷺ katika da'wah yake inaonyesha, bila shaka yoyote, kwamba mbinu yake ilikuwa ya msingi kabisa na haikuathiriwa na hali halisi iliyokuwepo. Kazi inayoathiri hali halisi ndiyo itakayoleta mabadiliko yanayohitajika. Mtume ﷺ katika da'wah yake, hakutoa umakini wowote kwa hali halisi ya shirki ya makafiri wa Makka. Hakujali desturi zao na mila zao; wala hakujali kukubaliwa au kukataliwa kwake na watu. Hakuwasifu wenye mamlaka, ingawa hali ya Mtume ﷺ na da'wah yake huko Makka ilikuwa ngumu sana. Alitangaza hadharani, 'Hakuna mungu isipokuwa Allah, na Muhammad ni Mtume wake', ambalo ndilo kiini chote cha Uislamu, na kukataa kabisa itikadi au Shari'a nyingine yoyote isipokuwa hiyo. Kwa msingi huu Shahada ilikataliwa na Abu Jahl, pamoja na viongozi wengine wa ukafiri huko Makka. Pia kwa msingi huu, Mtume ﷺ alitangaza Shahada hadharani mbele ya weusi na weupe, huru na mtumwa, tajiri na maskini, Mwarabu na asiye Mwarabu, na mwabudu sanamu na watu wa kitabu. Aliwakabili, akawapinga na kuwapa changamoto kwa kutaja miungu yao; nao wakajibu kwa uadui, wakajaribu kumfanyia biashara, na kumwomba anyamaze kuhusu miungu hiyo ili nao wanyamaze kumhusu yeye. Walitamani kwamba kama Mtume ﷺ angekubali maelewano, nao wangeafikiana naye. Yeye ﷺ hakukubali hili na alisubiri kwa subira kuhusu unyanyasaji wao wa da'wah na mateso yao kwa masahaba wake; waumini nao walisubiri kwa subira. Subira ya wote hao ilikuwa miongoni mwa dalili za ukweli wa da'wah na msimamo wao, kiasi kwamba yeye ﷺ alikataa sharti la Banu Sa'sa'ah alipowaendea kuwaalika kumuunga mkono katika dini yake, wakati wa ugumu zaidi wa da'wah na kukosekana kwa mtu yeyote wa kumsaidia. Walikuwa tayari kumpa Nusrah kwa sharti kwamba baada yake mamlaka yapelekwe kwao. Hakusema kwamba fursa ilijitokeza kwake ambayo angeweza kunufaika nayo, baada ya milango yote mbele yake kufungwa. Badala yake aliwaambia, na sisi tukaambiwa baada yao, kama mwalimu, kiongozi, daa'ee na muongozaji: "Mamlaka ni ya Allah, naye huyaweka mahali apendapo." Anamaanisha kwa hili kwamba mamlaka ni ya Allah (SWT) peke yake, na hakuna awezaye kushiriki na Allah (SWT) katika hili. Ni Allah (SWT) pekee anayeyatoa kwa amtakaye, na hakuna mwingine mwenye usemi katika jambo hili. Mtume ﷺ aliendelea na da'wah yake bila kutegemea kitu chochote isipokuwa nguvu ya fikra na msaada wa Allah. Da'wah ilitimiza lengo lake kwa kuanzishwa kwa Dar al-Islam huko Madina, baada ya Allah (SWT) kuzifungua nyoyo na akili za wale waliomuunga mkono Muhammad ﷺ na kumsaidia. Hivyo, mafanikio yanatoka kwa Allah (SWT). Ni kwa yule anayemtegemea Yeye, anayetafuta msaada Wake, na kudumisha usafi wa fikra, uwazi wa ufahamu, usahihi wa njia na usahihi wa kazi.

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.

Sasa, mwishoni mwa mjadala huu kuhusu kushiriki katika tawala zinazotawala kwa kinyume na alichokiteremsha Allah 􀀬, tutawasilisha hali halisi ya utawala katika tawala za sasa na jinsi ushiriki huo unavyofanyika. Kisha tutawasilisha aya na hadithi zinazokataza kufuata njia hii, na tutakomesha kila udhuru au tafsiri, kwa kuwa aya zina maana zilizo wazi na thabiti.

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.

Katiba ya taifa lolote lazima iwe imejengwa juu ya msingi maalum wa kifikra. Inaweza kuwa ya kidemokrasia au ya Kiislamu, kwa namna ambayo hakuna sheria yoyote isiyotokana na itikadi yake na msingi wake.

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.

Hivyo, katika mifumo ya kidemokrasia, sheria lazima ziwiane na msingi unaosema kwamba mamlaka kuu ni ya wananchi, yaani ni wananchi wanaotunga sheria kupitia bunge wanaloliteua kwa kusudi hilo, na hili ndilo linaloitwa bunge. Bunge linapotawala, mamlaka ya utendaji hutekeleza yale yaliyotungwa na mamlaka ya kutunga sheria kwa jina la wananchi. Ili kuiweka serikali ndani ya mipaka ya utawala wa wananchi, bunge limepewa uwezo wa kuipa serikali kura ya imani, kiasi kwamba serikali haiwi halali isipokuwa baada ya kupewa kura ya imani. Pia limepewa uwezo wa kufuatilia, kuchunguza na kuwajibisha vitendo vya serikali.

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.

Kwa hiyo, linaweza kuondoa imani kutoka kwa serikali nzima au kwa waziri fulani, ikiwa atafanya ukiukaji au hafuati kanuni za katiba.

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.

Kwa hiyo, msingi wa vitendo vinavyotokana na serikali ni Demokrasia na si Uislamu. Kama tulivyoeleza katika mjadala uliopita, Uislamu hauikubali hatua yoyote isiyojengwa juu ya msingi wa kiroho, ambao ndio msingi wa Imani kwa Allah (SWT).

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 􀀬.

Mifumo hii ina muundo jumuishi, pamoja na msingi mmoja, na sera wanayotaka kuitekeleza ni moja; wanafanya kazi kuitekeleza kupitia wizara zote. Sera ya kila wizara lazima ilingane na sera ya wizara nyingine. Sera hii inaundwa na serikali kwa pamoja. Sauti ya waziri mmoja wa Kiislamu haitakuwa kitu zaidi ya sauti moja kati ya sauti nyingi, ambazo kwazo rais wake anaunda sera, kwa kuzingatia katiba na msingi ambao serikali imeanzishwa juu yake. Hii ni kwa mtazamo wa kisheria. Hata hivyo, kuna tofauti kubwa kati ya wazo hili na utekelezaji wake wa vitendo. Kiongozi wa nchi na timu yake watakuwa tayari wameshaandaa sera ya serikali wakati waziri anapochaguliwa kuingia baraza la mawaziri. Waziri hana chaguo, isipokuwa kujiunga na baraza la mawaziri kwa msingi wa sera iliyoandaliwa, au kukataa. Hana haki ya kuweka sera ya wizara yake.

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.

Aidha, uwajibikaji wa mawaziri ni uwajibikaji wa pamoja.

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

Hii ina maana kwamba serikali inapotaka kutekeleza sera iliyopangwa na kuchukua maamuzi muhimu, maamuzi ya wengi ndiyo yanayochukuliwa. Hii ina maana kwamba kila waziri anaingilia mambo ya wizara nyingine, na kutoa maoni yake kuhusu maamuzi ya serikali. Hali hii inamfanya waziri Mwislamu kuwajibika kwa kila kinachotokana na wizara yake, au kinachohusiana nayo, au cha wizara za wengine. Katika hali kama hii, analazimika kutetea sera na maamuzi ya serikali nje na mbele ya watu, ingawa ndani ya wizara yake huenda anaipinga. Hapa mtu anaweza kudhani kwamba waziri Mwislamu atasimama upande wa upinzani dhidi ya kila pendekezo linalopingana na Uislamu. Mawazo kama haya yanaonyesha fikra zisizo za kina. Waziri ni tofauti na mbunge. Kwa mujibu wa sheria, si utekelezaji, mbunge anawakilisha wale waliomchagua. Anaweza kuwakilisha Waislamu katika mfumo wa kidemokrasia, au anaweza kuwakilisha wanaoegemea mrengo wa kushoto katika mifumo ya kibepari. Kwa upande wa waziri, hakuingizwa serikalini ili kupinga. La sivyo atabaki nje kwa sababu ya upinzani wake. Hivyo, katika mifumo ya kidemokrasia, yule anayepinga serikali au utawala atabaki nje na hataruhusiwa kuingia ndani yake. Akiingia kwa makosa, atatolewa kwa msisitizo. Serikali inakuja kutawala na kutekeleza. Ina sera inayotaka kuitekeleza. Haijaja kukusanya mgongano. Yeyote anayepinga sera yake ataondoka kwa mwaliko wa waziri mkuu au mawaziri kwa pamoja. Wabunge watamnyima imani yake binafsi, na serikali itaendelea kufanya kazi.

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.

Hapa ni muhimu kutaja kwamba kukubali kwa waziri Mwislamu kushiriki katika utawala kunamaanisha kwamba amekubali katiba iliyopo nchini na msingi ambao imejengwa juu yake. Upinzani tunaouzungumzia hapa si upinzani dhidi ya msingi wa mfumo, bali ni upinzani ndani ya mfumo, ambao ni upinzani unaoonyesha kutokubaliana katika matawi, ilhali kila mtu anakubali msingi wake.

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.

Zaidi ya hayo, amri yoyote iliyopitishwa na inayohusiana na wizara yoyote haianzi kutumika wala kuwa na nguvu hadi ipitishwe na pande tatu na kuwekwa sahihi zao. Pande hizo ni: mkuu wa nchi, waziri mkuu, na waziri husika. Hii pia ina maana kwamba waziri Mwislamu hana uhuru wa kuendesha mambo ya wizara yake na kutoa amri za kiutendaji peke yake.

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.

Hii inaweka wazi mambo yafuatayo:

This makes the following points clear:

Kanuni zinazotumiwa na serikali kutawala hazijajengwa juu ya msingi wa kiroho (ambao ni imani kwa Allah) bali juu ya msingi wa Demokrasia, ambapo sheria hutungwa kwa ajili ya watu na si kwa ajili ya Allah 􀀬.

- 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 􀀬.

- Serikali ni mamlaka ya utendaji. Ni mamlaka ya kutawala na kutekeleza kanuni za katiba. Serikali, pamoja na Waziri Mkuu wake na mawaziri, kila mmoja wao, hawana haki ya kwenda kinyume na kanuni za katiba, vinginevyo watashtakiwa kwa kuivunja.

- 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.

- Hakuna waziri mmoja, ikiwa ni pamoja na waziri ambaye ni Muislamu, anayeandaa sera ya wizara yake. Badala yake, yeye hutekeleza sera iliyoandaliwa na serikali kwa ujumla, ikiwa ni pamoja na kiongozi wake mkuu.

- 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.

Kila waziri anawajibika kwa maamuzi na vitendo vyote vinavyotolewa na serikali. Hii ni kwa sababu sheria inasema kwamba uwajibikaji wa baraza la mawaziri ni wa pamoja na wa kushirikiana.

- 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.

Kwa ufupi, suala hili limedhibitiwa katika mifumo hii, kwa namna ambayo hakuna mtu mwenye haki ya kutenda kwa kujitenga na baraza la mawaziri, na kwa njia yake mwenyewe.

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.

Hii ndiyo hali halisi ya serikali hizi. Aya nyingi zinashuhudia katazo kwa Muislamu kushiriki ndani yake.

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

Hivyo, Allah 􀀬 ameamuru kwamba hukumu iwe ni ya Allah 􀀬, kama msingi ambao sheria zinatokana nao. Alisema: “Lakini hapana, kwa Mola wako Mlezi, hawataamini kikweli mpaka wakufanye hakimu katika mizozo yao yote, kisha wasijione ndani ya nafsi zao kuwa na upinzani dhidi ya hukumu zako, na wazikubali kwa unyenyekevu kamili.” [TMQ 4:65]. Alisema: “Haifai kwa muumini, mwanamume au mwanamke, Allah na Mtume wake wanapokwisha kuamua jambo, kuwa na hiari yoyote katika uamuzi wao.” [TMQ 33:36] - Allah 􀀬 ameamuru kwamba mtawala awe Muislamu. Alisema: “Enyi mlioamini! Mtiini Allah na mtiini Mtume 􀁕 pamoja na wenye mamlaka miongoni mwenu.” [TMQ 4:59] - Allah 􀀬 ameamuru mtawala Muislamu atawale kwa Uislamu. Alisema: “Basi hukumu baina yao kwa yale aliyoteremsha Allah...” [TMQ 5:49]. Allah 􀀬 alimwonya mtawala Muislamu dhidi ya kugeuka kutoka baadhi ya Uislamu, hata kama ni hukumu moja tu. Hivyo alisema: “Na jihadhari nao wasije wakakugeuza kutoka baadhi ya yale aliyokuteremshia Allah.” [TMQ 5:49]. Aliamuru kwamba tuchomoe panga zetu mbele ya yule anayetawala kwa kufuru ya wazi (kufuru suraah). Hii ni kwa sababu ya kauli ya Mtume 􀁕 kuhusu mtawala Faajir alipoulizwa: “Je, hatutapigana naye kwa upanga, Ee Rasuli wa Allah?” Akasema: “Isipokuwa mkiona kufuru iliyo wazi (kufuru buwah) ambayo mna burhaan (dalili) kutoka kwa Allah.” [Imepokewa na Muslim] - Aliharamisha washauri na wasaidizi wa mtawala kuwa juu ya jambo lolote lisilokuwa Uislamu.

- 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.

Enyi mlioamini! Msichukue kuwa (wandani) Bitanah (washauri, wasaidizi, walinzi) wenu

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

“...wale walio nje ya dini yenu.” [TMQ 3:118] - Allah 􀀬 aliwaamuru Waislamu warejee kwenye Uislamu kwa ajili ya hukumu, na akawakataza kurejea kwa Twaghut. Alifafanua 􀀬 kwamba anayefanya hivyo, imani yake ni dai tu wala si kweli. Alisema 􀀬: “Je, humwoni yule (wanafiki) wanaodai kwamba wanaamini yale yaliyoteremshwa kwako, na yale yaliyoteremshwa kabla yako, na wanataka kwenda kuhukumiwa (katika migogoro yao) kwa Twaghut (mahakimu wa uongo, n.k.) ilhali wameamrishwa kuyakataa? Lakini Shaytani anataka kuwapoteza mbali sana.” [TMQ 4:60] - Allah 􀀬 amewakataza Waislamu kuwachukua kama marafiki na wasaidizi wasiokuwa wao; “Enyi mlioamini! Msiwafanye marafiki watu ambao Allah amewaghadhibikia.

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.

Hakika, wao wamekata tamaa ya Akhera, kama vile walivyokata tamaa kuhusu wale waliozikwa makaburini (kwamba hawatafufuliwa Siku ya Kiyama).” [TMQ 60:13]. Na Yeye (SWT) alisema: “Enyi mlioamini! Msiwafanye Mayahudi na Manaswara kuwa Awliya (marafiki, walinzi); wao ni Awliya kwa wenzao tu. Na atakayewafanya kuwa Awliya miongoni mwenu, basi yeye hakika ni miongoni mwao. Hakika Allah haongoi watu madhalimu. Na utawaona wale ambao mioyoni mwao mna ugonjwa (wa unafiki), wanakimbilia urafiki wao, wakisema: ‘Tunaogopa kwamba msiba fulani au janga linaweza kutupata.’ Huenda Allah akaleta ushindi au uamuzi kwa mapenzi Yake. Kisha watajuta kwa yale waliyokuwa wakiyaficha nafsini mwao.” [TMQ 5:51-52] Hapa swali linaweza kuibuka kwamba watawala wa leo si Mayahudi wala Manaswara. Ukweli ni kwamba wao ni waaminifu kwa Mayahudi na Manaswara. Uaminifu wa anayewaunga mkono watawala, utakuwa kwa yule ambaye watawala hao wanamuunga mkono.

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.

Na Yeye 􀀬 alisema: "Na wale waliokufuru ni washirika wa wao kwa wao; na msipofanya hivyo (yaani)."

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

...kuwa kitu kimoja cha umoja, chini ya Khilafah moja), kutakuwa na Fitnah (vita, mapigano) na dhulma duniani, na fujo kubwa na ufisadi (kuenea kwa ushirikina).” [TMQ 8:73] Hapa inafaa kutaja kwamba lengo la kutojiunga na Mayahudi na Wakristo si kwamba mtu awe mwaminifu kwa wasio wao. Badala yake, lengo ni kwamba ni haramu kuwa mwaminifu kwa chochote na yeyote anayepingana na Uislamu. Katazo la kuonyesha uaminifu kwao linamlazimu mtu ajitenge nao, kwa mtazamo na kwa mwenendo, asikubali jambo lolote kutoka kwao, mradi msingi wao umejengwa juu ya ukafiri. Alisema, Yeye 􀀬, kwa ulimi wa Ibrahim; “Hakika sisi tumejitenga nanyi na yale mnayoabudu badala ya Allah, tumewakataa, na kimeanza kati yetu na nyinyi uadui na chuki milele, - mpaka mtakapoamini…” [TMQ 60:4] Walaa’ (uaminifu) inapaswa kuwa kwa ajili ya Allah, Mtume Wake na Waumini. Alisema Yeye 􀀬; “Na yeyote atakayemchukua Allah, Mtume Wake na wale walioamini kuwa marafiki wa karibu, basi kundi la Allah ndilo litakalo shinda.” [TMQ 5:56] Swali jingine linaloweza kujitokeza hapa ni kwamba kwa kukubali kushiriki katika utawala, hatumaanishi kuwa waaminifu kwao. Tunaonyesha uaminifu kwa kufuata mfano (tunaonyesha unyenyekevu wetu mpaka tupate ushawishi)

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)

lakini nyoyo zetu zinakataa wanachofanya. Ukweli ni kwamba utiifu ni jambo ambalo vitendo vya viungo na moyo vinashiriki ndani yake. Tuna wajibu wa kukataa kwa mkono, kwa ulimi na kwa moyo kile ambacho mtawala anafanya, anapotawala kwa kinyume na kile ambacho Allah 􀀬 ameteremsha. Kiwango cha chini kabisa mtu anachoweza kufanya ni kukataa kwa moyo, na hakuna Imani baada ya hapo, kama alivyoeleza al-Mustafah ﷺ.

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 􀁕.

Wale wanaochukua msimamo wa imani dhaifu kabisa, vitendo vyao na kauli zao hazipaswi kukubaliana wala kuunga mkono utawala wa kisio la Kiislamu. Wale wanaofanya hivyo wanamuasi Allah 􀀬 na wanatenda dhambi, hata kama mioyo yao inaukataa. Wanashtakiwa kwa kufuru ikiwa mioyo yao inaukubali. Angalau kinachoweza kusemwa kuhusu yule anayeshiriki katika kutawala kwa yasiyo yale ambayo Allah 􀀬 ameteremsha, ni kwamba yeye ni Faasiq (mwasi), Zaalim (dhalimu) na ‘aasi (mwasi dhidi ya Allah 􀀬).

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 􀀬.