Shar’a ba’zi ishlarni farz qilgan va ba’zi boshqa ishlarni harom qilgan.

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

U'zi Hakim Shariat Egasi bu hukmlarni odamlarning ularni o'zgartirishi, almashtirishi yoki qanday bo'lsa, shunday buzib ko'rsatishiga hech qanday yo'l qo'ymagan. Hikmat egasi bo'lgan Shariat Egasi esa rukhsat (yengillik) berdi.

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

...qayerda U (Alloh) ularga kerak bo'lishini bilsa. Qayerda U Alloh (SWT) rukhsat bermagan bo'lsa, odamlarga hukmdan qochishga ruxsat bermagan, hatto ularning nafslari va shayotinlari bu qochishni foyda bahonasi ostida ularga jozibali qilib ko'rsatgan bo'lsa ham. Alloh (SWT) farz qilgan narsani tark etishga ruxsat beruvchi va Alloh taqiqlagan narsani buzishga, Allohdan rukhsat bo'lmagan holda, ijozat beruvchi kishi kofir yoki johil fosiqdir.

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.

Ba'zilar maslahatni hokimiyatni bo'lishish (power sharing) ni joiz deb hisoblashga dalil sifatida chiqarganlar.

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

Ular maslahatning ta'rifini keltirdilar: bu, ko'pincha yoki doimo foyda yoki manfaat olinadigan harakatning tavsifidir, bu foyda jamoat uchun bo'ladimi yoki alohida shaxslar uchun. Ular aytadilarki, ulamolar Shariatni o'rganib chiqdilar va shu orqali Shariat bandalarning bu dunyodagi va oxiratdagi manfaatlari uchun joriy etilgan, degan fikrga kelishdi.

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.

Ular Masolih Mursalah (belgilanmagan manfaatlar) misolini va u asoslanadigan masalalarni keltirdilar. Ular aytdilarki, hokimiyatni bo'lishish Masolih Mursalah yo'li bilan ruxsat etilmaydi, chunki aniq matnlar qat'iy ravishda ko'rsatganki, johiliya hukmiga qatnashuvchi kishi gunohkordir.

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.

Aksincha, bu yerda istidlol ikki yaxshi narsadan eng afzalini tanlash va ikki yomon narsadan eng yomonini aniqlash, ikki manfaatdan kattasini olish uchun kichigini e'tiborsiz qoldirish va ikki zarardan kattasidan qochish uchun kichigini qabul qilish nazarda tutiladi.

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.

Ular bu yo‘lning Shariatda aniq belgilari borligini aytdilar. Shunday qilib, Islom spirtli ichimliklar va qimorni taqiqlagan, garchi ularda odamlar uchun foyda borligini bayon qilgan bo‘lsa ham, lekin bu foyda kichik bo‘lib, ulardagi katta zarar bilan solishtirganda ortda qolади.

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.

Shar’a jihodni farz qilgan, garchi mo‘minlar halok bo‘lsa va mollaridan ayrilsa ham, chunki jihodda Rabbimizga aziz bo‘lgan katta foydalar va bandalar uchun katta manfaatlar bor.

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.

Islam tarixida hukmdorlar va olimlar ishda shu uslubga amal qilib kelganlar. Shu sababli Payg'ambar ﷺ Ka'bani buzib, uni Ibrohim alayhissalomning poydevori asosida qayta qurishdan tiyildilar, garchi bunda diniy foyda bo'lsa ham. Chunki Ka'ba tuzilishini to'g'rilashdagi foydadan ko'ra, undan kelib chiqadigan zarar kattaroq bo'lgan. Payg'ambar ﷺ zavjalari Oisha (roziyallohu anho)ga shunday dedilar: "Agar sizning qavmingiz yaqinda johiliyatdan chiqqan bo'lmasa, Ka'bani buzib, unga ikkita eshik qo'yardim." [Termiziy va Nasoiy rivoyat qilgan]. Bundan tashqari, ular bunga o'xshash boshqa ko'plab misollarni ham keltiradilar.

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.

Shu nuqtai nazardan ular jahiliy hukumatda ishtirok etishning ulkan zararlari borligida shubha yo'q, deydilar. Bunday hukumatlar Toǵut hukmini joriy etadi, Uning 􀀬 amridan chetga chiqadi va Uning hukmronligiga qarshi chiqadi: “Hukm faqat Allohningdir” [TMQ 12:40], “U O'z hukmida va hukmronligida hech kimni sherik qilmaydi” [TMQ 18:26].

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].

Shunga qaramay, ular harakat ba'zi hollarda hokimiyatni bo'lishish Islom, musulmonlar va islomiy harakat uchun katta foyda keltirishini ko'rishi mumkin, deydilar. Bu taƣutning ag'darilishiga va haqiqatning tan olinishiga olib kelishi mumkin. Keling, ularning fikrini haqiqiy mohiyatida tushunish uchun ularning bu borasidagi ba'zi bayonotlarini keltiraylik. Keyin ularning fikrlash usuli va qarashi rad etilgach, ular Shar'iy fikrlash usulidan qay darajada uzoqlashganini tushunamiz. Ular o'zlari quyidagilarni aytadilar.

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.

Muslimning johiliy hukmga qo‘shilishi uni katta ziddiyatli vaziyatga solib qo‘yadi. Musulmon taғutning davlatlariga qarshi kurashishga majburdir, shunday ekan, u qanday qilib taғut hukmronligini o‘rnatuvchi bo‘lishi mumkin? Alloh 􀀬 iymon keltirganini da’vo qiluvchilar va shundan keyin hukm uchun taғutga murojaat qiluvchilar haqida O‘z fikrini bayon etgan: "Sizga nozil qilingan narsaga va sizdan oldin nozil qilingan narsaga iymon keltirgan deb da’vo qiluvchi, lekin nizolarida hukm uchun taғutga (yolg‘on hakamlarga va boshqalarga) murojaat qilishni istagan (munofiqlar)ni ko‘rmadingmi? Holbuki, ularga ularni inkor etish buyurilgan edi. Shayton esa ularni uzoq adashtirishni istaydi." [TMQ 4:60] - Alloh 􀀬 hukmiga zid qonun chiqaradigan tavog‘itlarga (taғutlarga) itoat qilish, Alloh 􀀬 ni Rab sifatida emas, balki ularni Rab sifatida qabul qilish demakdir, xuddi Alloh 􀀬 Kitob ahli haqida aytganidek.

- 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.

“Ular (yahudiylar va nasroniylar) o‘z ravvinlari va rohiblarini Allohdan o‘zga rab qilib oldilar, shuningdek, Maryamning o‘g‘li Masihni ham (rab qilib oldilar), holbuki ularga yagona Ilohga (Alloh) ibodat qilishdan boshqa narsa buyurilmagan edi.” [TMQ 9:31]. Payg‘ambar ﷺ ‘Adiy ibn Hotimga tushuntirdiki, ularni rab qilib olish degani, Alloh haram qilgan narsani ular halol deganlarida va Alloh halol qilgan narsani ular harom deganlarida ularga itoat qilishdir.

“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.

Bugungi kunda hukmdorlarning o'zlari uchun ko'rinish sifatida, ularning zolim hukmronligini bezash va sodda va avom xalqni aldash uchun ularga o'rnatgan solih musulmonlardan foydalanishini ko'rib odatlanib qolganmiz. Shu sababli hukmdorlar: "Agar ular batilda bo'lganlarida, falon kishi ular bilan hokimiyatni bo'lishishga rozi bo'lmagan bo'lardi", deydilar.

- 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.

Yomon ahvolni yanada og'irlashtiradigan narsa shuki, ular adolatsiz va zolimona qonunlarni musulmon vazir orqali qabul qildirgach, bu qonunlar o'zlarining yomon maqsadlariga erishgach, ularni xuddi xurmo danagini tashlab yuborgandek tashlab yuboradilar.

- 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.

- Hokimiyatni bo'lishish zolimlarga moyillikning belgisidir. Alloh 􀀬 buni ogohlantirib shunday degan: “Zolim bo'lganlarga moyil bo'lmanglar, aks holda sizlarga Do'zax olovi tegadi.” [TMQ 11:113] Bundan tashqari, hokimiyatni bo'lishish johiliy hukmronlikning umrini uzaytiradi.

- 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.

Biz uchun shu narsaning o'zi kifoya qiladi: bu hukmga qatnashgan kishi Alloh 􀀬 aytgan zotlar qatoriga kiradi: "Kim Alloh nozil qilgan narsa bilan hukm qilmasa, ana shular kofirlardir." [TMQ 5:44] va: "Kim Alloh nozil qilgan narsa bilan hukm qilmasa, ana shular zolimlardir." [TMQ 5:45] va: "Kim Alloh nozil qilgan narsa bilan hukm qilmasa, ana shular fosiqlardir." [TMQ 5:47] Bularning barchasi bu harakatlarning yetakchilari va da'vatchilaridan yashirin emas. Oyatlarning ochiq ma'nosi va ularning ishoralari uni tekshirib ko'rgan kishidan sira yashirin emas.

- 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.

Shunga qaramay, ular o‘zlari aytgan bu gaplarga qo‘shimcha qilib, harakat ba’zi hollarda hokimiyatni bo‘lishish Islam, musulmonlar va islomiy harakat uchun katta foyda keltiradi, deb hisoblashi mumkinligini aytadilar. Bu hatto tag‘ut(lar)ning ag‘darilishiga va haqiqatning kuchayishiga olib kelishi mumkin.

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.

Islam harakatining hokimiyatni bo'lishishdan kelib chiqadigan foydalarini quyidagi nuqtalarda jamlash mumkin:

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

1 - Islamiy harakatga qarshi suiqasdlarning oldini olish uchun yopiq eshiklar ortida nima bo‘layotganidan xabardor bo‘lish va ularni barbod qilishga intilish.

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

2 - Guruhning odamlarni boshqara oladigan, shunchaki darvishlar to'plami bo'lmagan guruh ekanligi haqida tasavvur berish uchun.

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

3 - Islomga bo‘lgan ishonchni tiklash, chunki Islom hayotning jamoat va shaxsiy ishlarini tartibga sola olishini ko‘rsatish.

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

4 - Guruhning hukmni qo‘llash yo‘llaridagi tajribasini oshirish.

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

5 - Harakat mavjud tuzumga tanish bo‘lishi uchun, shunda u o‘zini tuzumning yomonligidan himoya qila olishi uchun.

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

6 - Davlat tomonidan tashkil etilgan stipendiyalar orqali maxsus islomiy kadrlarni tayyorlash va ta'lim berish.

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

7 - Islam jamoasidan shunday shaxslar to'plamini tashkil etish, ular odamlar orasida yuqori mavqega ega bo'lsinlar. Ular jamoaning va uning a'zolarining ko'pchilik qiyinchiliklarini hal qiladigan kishilar bo'ladilar.

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 - Islomiy markazlarni ko'paytirish va kufr markazlariga qarshi kurashish.

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

9 - Islomiy kadrlarni siyosatda tarbiyalash va uning o‘yinlariga qarshi tura bilishga o‘rgatish.

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

1 0- Guruh manfaati uchun nufuzli shaxsning obro'-e'tiboridan foydalanish.

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

11 - Agar guruh qatnashishdan tiyilsa, unda qatnashayotgan boshqalar Islomning dushmanlari bo‘lishi mumkin, ular Islom harakatiga hujum qilish va Islom hamda musulmonlarni yo‘q qilish uchun barcha kuchlarini sarflaydilar.

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.

Biz ularning qarashini batafsil ko'rib chiqdik, lekin bizning yondashuvimiz uni keltirish emas, balki rad etish maqsadida edi. Bu ishni ularning haqiqiy mohiyatini aniq tushunish uchun qildik, shuningdek, ular Allohning dini{ } oldida qanchalik takabburlik bilan jur'at qilishganini ko'rish uchun: osmonlar va yerning Yaratuvchisini g'azablantiradigan va mo'minlarda nafrat uyg'otadigan fatvolar berayotganda, Allohning haqqiga hurmat qilmay va Uning amriga bo'ysunmay turib shunday qilishmoqda. Bu ishni musulmon ularning qarashi aniq shar'iy hukmlar bilan qanchalik ziddiyat tashkil etishini ko'rishi, ularning hech qanday tarzda o'zgartirib bo'lmaydigan bu hukmlardan qanchalik uzoq ekanini va istinbot (xulosa chiqarish) borasida Islomning to'g'ri usuliga qanchalik rioya qilmasligini ko'rishi uchun ham qildik. Shuningdek, ularning musulmonlar tanazzulga yuz tutgan davrda paydo bo'lgan va g'arb tafakkuri ta'sirida shakllangan yangi usulni o'ylab topganlarini ko'rsatish uchun, ularning fikrlarini batafsil kuzatib, rad etish va ularning fikrlash tarzini kuzatib, uni yolg'on chiqarish uchun ham qildik.

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.

Shariatning aniq va qat'iy hukmlaridan biri – unda ijtihodga yo‘l qo‘yilmaydi – riboga (foizli muomalaga) shug‘ullanish mumkin emasligidir. Alloh 􀀬 uni aniq taqiqlagan, chunki U shunday degan: “Alloh savdoni halol qildi va riboni (foizni) harom qildi.” [TMQ 2:275]. Bular masalada umumiy ibora bilan kelgan aniq shar’iy dalillardir, masalan, Uning 􀀬 bu so‘zi: “Alloh riboni (foizni) yo‘q qiladi va sadaqalarni ko‘paytiradi.” [TMQ 2:276]. Alloh 􀀬 riboga shug‘ullanuvchilarni ogohlantirib, ularga urush e’lon qilgan. U 􀀬 shunday degan:

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:

“Ey iymon keltirganlar! Agar haqiqatan mo'minlar bo'lsangiz, Allahdan qo'rqing va (endi) ribodan (sudxo'rlikdan) qolgan narsani tark eting. Agar shunday qilmasangiz, Allah va Uning Rasulidan urush xabarini qabul qiling...” [TMQ 2:278-279]. U zot (SWT) riboni yeyuvchilarni ta'riflab dedi: “Ribo yeyuvchilar (Qiyomat kunida) faqat shaytonning urishi bilan aqldan ozgan kishining turishi kabi turadilar.” [TMQ 2:275]. Allahning Rasuli ﷺ uni katta gunohlardan biri deb hisobladi va uni Allah bilan shirk keltirish bilan bog'lab dedi: “Yetti halokatli gunohdan (mubiqot) uzoq bo'linglar.” Ular dedilar:

“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:

“Ey Allohning Rasuli, bular nima?” U zot aytdi: “Allohga shirk keltirish, sehrgarlik, Alloh haq yo‘li bilan bo‘lmasdan taqiqlagan jonni o‘ldirish, riboni yeyish, yetimning molini yeyish, jang maydonidan orqaga qaytish, imonli, poklik-iffatli ayollarga iftiro qilish.” Shunga qaramay, biz ularni shu usulga muvofiq chiqayotganini ko‘ryapmiz – ular ribo bilan muomala qilish halol, deb aytmoqda! Aniq va qat’iy taqiq qayerga ketdi? Ogohlantirish va tahdid qayerda qoldi? Shu usul bilan ular Allohning 􀀬 hukmlarini o‘zgartirmoqda, shar’iy hukmni xiralashtirmoqda va dindagi masalalarda beparvolikni odatiy holga va musulmonning xususiyatiga aylantirmoqda.

‘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.

Xuddi shunday, Alloh 􀀬 nozil qilgan narsa bilan hukm qilish farzdir. Ularning o'zlarining e'tirofiga ko'ra, hukmronlikni faqat Alloh 􀀬 uchun amalga oshirish vojibdir. Shunga qaramay, ular o'zlarining bid'atga asoslangan usullariga ko'ra, musulmonga kufr hukmronligida ishtirok etishga ruxsat bera boshladilar. Yuqorida keltirganimizga qarang: o'zlarini islomiy harakatning yetakchilari va olimlari deb atayotganlar haqiqatdan qanchalik uzoqlashganini ko'rasiz, holbuki yetakchilar o'z xalqiga yolg'on gapirmasligi kerak.

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.

Ular o'zlari shunday deganlar:

They themselves have said:

Jaholiy hukumatda ishtirok etishning katta zararlari borligida shubha yo'q. Bunday hukumatlar Toǵut hukmini joriy etadi, Alloh 􀀬 ning amridan chetga chiqadi va Uning Hukmiga qarshi turadi.

- 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.

Musulmonning johiliya hukmida ishtirok etishi uni katta ziddiyatga solib qo'yadi. Musulmon tağut davlatlariga qarshi kurashishga majbur, shunday ekan u qanday qilib tağut hukmini o'rnatuvchi bo'lishi mumkin?

- 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?

- Allohning buyrug'iga zid qonunlar chiqaradigan taƙovitlarga itoat qilish, Allohni Rab qilib olish o'rniga ularni rab qilib olish demakdir.

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

Bugungi hukmdorlar, o'zlari tayinlagan solih musulmonlardan o'z zolim hukmronliklarini bezash uchun ziynat sifatida foydalanadilar.

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

Bugungi hukmdorlar musulmon vazirlari orqali adolatsiz va zolimona qonunlarni o'tkazmoqda.

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

Bugungi hukmdorlar musulmon vazirdan o‘z yovuz maqsadlariga erishgach, uni xurmo danagidek tashlab yuborishadi.

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

Hokimiyatni bo'lishishda zulm qiluvchilarga moyillik ham shunga kiradi.

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

Hokimiyatni bo'lishib olishda johiliya hukmining umri uzayadi.

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

- Hukmda ishtirok etgan kishi ular haqida Alloh aytgan kishilar qatoriga kiradi: "…kofirlar (kofirun)." [TMQ 5:44].

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

“…zolimlar (adolatsiz, zulm qiluvchilar)” [TMQ 5:45].

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

“…fosiqlar (itoatsizlar).” [TMQ 5:47] Ular yuqorida zikr qilingan barcha narsalarga qaramay, shunday fikr bilan chiqmoqdalar. Bu odamlar Allohning dini oldida qanday dadillik ko‘rsatmoqdalar! Vaziyatni yanada og‘irlashtirgani shundaki, ular nafaqat Allohning amriga xilof ish qilmoqdalar, balki odamlarni ham Allohning amriga xilof ish qilishga da’vat etmoqdalar 􀀬. Bu, albatta, katta gunohdir.

“…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.

Barcha bu shar'iy buzilishlarni keltirib bo'lgach, biz so'raymiz: ular kufr hukmida ishtirok etsalar, nimaga erishmoqchi bo'lishadi? Biz o'ylagan edikki, ular bu da'vatga qarshi ehtiyot choralarini bayon qilgach, Shariat tomonidan e'tiborsiz qoldirilgan ulkan manfaatlarni eslatib o'tadilar. Lekin ular bu masalada, o'zlarining rad etilgan mantig'i va samarasiz fikrlash usuliga ko'ra, Shariat buzilishi va Allohning dushmanlarini qo'llashga loyiq bo'lgan narsani sezishda zukkolik ko'rsatdilar. Bu masalada qonun chiqarish vazifasiga ega bo'lgan ularning "o'ziga xos" fikri musulmonlarga da'vatga foyda keltirmaydigan, ularni haqiqatga yoki g'alabaga yaqinlashtirmaydigan va voqelikni sal ham o'zgartirmaydigan natijalar keltirdi. Aksincha, natijalar teskari bo'lishi mumkin. Voqelik bu haqiqatga guvoh bo'lib keldi.

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.

Ular 11 ta moddani sanab o'tishdi va ularni johiliy hukmga qatnashish orqali erishilgan ulkan manfaatlar deb atashdi. Allohga qasamki! Bularga qarang va ular qanchalik arzimas ekanligini, sodir etilgan og'ir gunohlar bilan solishtirganda, o'ylab ko'ring. Keling, ulardan ba'zilarini tekshirib, ularga izoh beraylik.

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.

Guruhning hukmni boshqarish yo'llaridagi tajribasining oshishi.

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

Siyosatda islomiy kadrlarni tayyorlash va uning o'yinlariga qarshi tura olishga o'rgatish.

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

Davlat tomonidan tashkil etilgan stipendiyalar orqali ixtisoslashgan islomiy kadrlarni tayyorlash va ta'lim berish.

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

Uch maqola bir mavzuga taalluqli. Agar kishi o‘z qarashini ko‘plab dalillar bilan asoslamoqchi bo‘lmasa, ularni bitta maqolada yozish ma’qulroqdir. Bu esa, masalaning mohiyati ko‘p gapirishda emas, balki qarashning to‘g‘riligidadir, degan bilimga zid emas.

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 ﷺ, 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:

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:

Islom harakatining o'zini mavjud tuzumning yovuzligidan himoya qilish maqsadida unga moslashtirilishi.

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

Islam harakatiga qarshi qilinayotgan rejalarni, ularning yashirin tarzda amalga oshirilayotgan ishlari bilan tanishtirish orqali qaytarish va ularni barbod etish uchun harakat qilish.

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

Agar guruh ishtirok etishdan o‘zini tiyganida, unda muqobil holat shu bo‘lishi mumkinki, ishtirok etuvchilar islomiy harakatga hujum qilish yoki Islom va musulmonlarni yo‘q qilish uchun barcha kuchlarini sarflaydigan dushmanlar bo‘ladi.

- 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.

Bu yerda bir-biriga bog'liq bo'lgan uchta maqola bor, ularning mavzusi bir: rejimlarning yovuzligidan o'zini himoya qilish va Islom hamda musulmonlarga qarshi rejalarni qaytarish. Biz ularning o'zlari keltirgan haqiqatni - ularga qo'shilmasdan - taqdim etishimiz mumkin va ularning o'z tamoyillari bilan hukm qilish uchun so'raymiz: ular haqiqatan ham Allohning nozil qilmagan narsasi bilan hukm qilishda ishtirok etish orqali ummatdan va o'zlaridan xavfni qaytardilarmi? O'z so'zlari bilan aytganda, hukmdor musulmonni vazir etib tayinlaydi, rejimning umrini uzaytirish, uning rejalarini o'tkazish va xalq oldida uning obro'sini yaxshilash uchun.

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.

U'ziga erishgach, u ularni xuddi xurmo danagidek tupurib tashlaydi.

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

Yomonlik va fitnalardan himoya qayerda? Musulmonlar kiradigan tuzum obro'si yaxshilanmaydi. Aksincha, ularning o'zlarining obro'si buziladi, xalq esa tuzum va unda ishtirok etganlar haqida xuddi shunday hukm chiqaradi.

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.

Ular, shuningdek, quyidagi ikki maqolani ham tilga oldilar, ularni bitta maqolada joylashtirish yanada ma'qul bo'lardi:

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

- Guruhning odamlarni qanday boshqara olishiga misol keltirish uchun.

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

Islomga bo'lgan ishonchni mustahkamlash, ya'ni Islom shaxsiy va jamoat hayotining ishlarini tartibga sola olishiga bo'lgan ishonchni berish.

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

Guruh bunday tasvirni bera olmaydi. Aksincha, u yomon namuna va amal qilib bo‘lmaydigan model berdi. Haqiqat buning eng yaxshi dalilidir. Agar hukumatlarni qo‘llab-quvvatlab, bunday qarashlarni targ‘ib qiluvchilar tufayli insonlarning qalbidan Islom ketib qolmasligi uchun, bunga qarshi chiqadigan ixlosli va ongli islomiy harakatlar hamda samimiy qayg‘uradigan musulmon ulamolar bo‘lmaganida edi, Islom odamlarning qalbidan ketgan bo‘lardi. Allohning 􀀬 nazarida va Uning bandalarining nazarida, hukumatlarning rohatida, ularning soxta rahbarligi shuhratida yashab, ular bilan birga manmanlik havosini nafas olayotgan harakat yoki olim bilan, hech kimning malomatidan qo‘rqmasdan, faqat Allohning 􀀬 roziligi uchun haqni e’lon qilib, uni o‘z zimmasiga olgan harakat yoki olim o‘rtasida qanchalik katta farq bor! Hatto u hukmdorning zindonlariga tashlangan bo‘lsa ham, Allohning 􀀬 so‘zlarini eslab: “Bas, sabr qil (ey Muhammad), xuddi qat’iy irodali payg‘ambarlar sabr qilganidek.” [TMQ 46:35] “Bas, Rabbingning hukmini sabr bilan kutgin (ey Muhammad 􀁕), albatta, sen Bizning ko‘z o‘ngimizdasan.” [TMQ 52:48] “Bas, sabr qil (ey Muhammad 􀁕). Albatta, Allohning va’dasi haqdir” [TMQ 40:55]. Bu ikkisining namunasi bir xilmi?

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?

Ular, shuningdek, yana to'rtta moddani zikr qilishdi, ularni ham bitta moddaga jamlash mumkin. Ular dedilar:

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

Islomiy guruh vakillaridan, odamlar orasida yuqori mavqega ega bo'ladigan shaxslardan iborat jamoa tayyorlash. Ular guruh va uning a'zolarining ko'pchilik qiyinchiliklarini hal qiladigan kishilar bo'ladi.

- 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.

- Islom markazlarini ko'paytirish va kufr markazlariga hujum qilish.

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

Siyosatda islomiy kadrlarni tayyorlash va uning o‘yinlariga qarshi turish yo‘llarini o‘rgatish.

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

– Guruh manfaati uchun nufuzli shaxs obro'sidan foydalanish.

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

Bunday maqolalar bunday qarashlarni ilgari suruvchilarning umidlari naqadar arzimas ekanini ko‘rsatadi. Bunday natijalar Allahning roziligini qo‘lga kiritmaslik xavfiga, shuningdek, zolim (zolimlar), fosiqlar (buzuqlar) deb atalish va zolimlarning tarafdori bo‘lib qolish xavfiga arziydimi? Harakat nega bu holatga tushib qolmasdan, qo‘lidan kelganini qilmaydi? Biz harakat Allah 􀀬 ga itoatsizlik qilib, johiliy hokimiyatda ishtirok etsa, bu natijalarga erishadi, deb hisoblamaymiz. Aksincha, bunday qadam guruh uchun, da’vat uchun va umuman Islom uchun teskari natija beradi.

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.

Agar bu qarashning tarafdorlari o'zlarini shunday tutishga undagan 11 ta maqola yoki sababni keltira olsalar, unda biz ular tutgan taqiqlangan fikrlash yo'liga muvofiq, bunday harakatlar uchun xavf va to'siq bo'ladigan yana ko'p jihatlarni keltira olamiz. Masalan:

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:

Shu usulga amal qilgan holda, harakat rahbarlari va shabablar ikkiyuzlamachilikni o‘rganadilar. Ular hukmdorlar huzurida, ya’ni hokimiyatda ishtirok etishga ruxsat bergan kishilar oldida, ularni xursand qiladigan gaplarni aytadilar. Xalq bilan yolg‘iz qolganda esa boshqacha gapiradilar va ularni ishontirishga harakat qiladilar, go‘yo ular hukmdorga va hokimiyatga yaqinlashayotgandek, shunda hokimiyatni qo‘lga kiritib, hukmdordan tashabbusni tortib olish uchun.

- 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.

Guruhning yondashuvlari suyultiriladi, befarq va yumshoq bo‘lib qoladi, radikal yondashuv va radikal o‘zgarish hisobiga.

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

Rejim harakatning sonini va tarafdorlarini sanashga, ularning yashirin ishlarini fosh qilishga va sirlarini aniqlashga haqli. Rejim guruh a'zolari o'rtasidagi kelishmovchiliklarni topishi mumkin va shuning uchun bu ayirmachiliklarni kuchaytirish va rag'batlantirishga harakat qiladi, shunda guruhni osongina nazorat qilish va zarurat tug'ilganda uni bo'lib tashlash mumkin bo'ladi.

- 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.

Shunday guruhning da'vati faqat rejimga xavf tug'dirmaydigan hukmlar bilan cheklanadi va hayotiy masalalar yuzasidan jim turadi, shu tariqa da'vat va Islom haqida noto'g'ri tasavvur beradi.

- 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.

- Rejim o'zi ichida faoliyat yuritayotgan islomiy harakatga, guruh o'z ishini olib borishi uchun muassasalar ochishga ruxsat berganida, guruh o'sha muassasalarning asiri bo'lib qoladi va rejim ularni qo'lga kiritib, musodara qilishidan qo'rqadi.

- 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.

Demak, ular hukumatni xafa qiladigan narsalar haqida hech qanday hukm chiqarmaydilar va shuning uchun undan ajralib chiqish fikriga ham bormaydilar.

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.

- Islom harakati jaohiliya tizimida ishtirok etishga rozi bo'lganda, u rejimlarga Payg'ambar 􀁕 usuli bo'yicha o'zgarish uchun ishlayotgan islomiy harakatlarni bostirish uchun asos beradi: rejimga qarshi ishlayotganlarni aqidaparast va ekstremistlar deb hisoblashadi. Rejim bilan hamkorlik qilayotganlar esa, aksincha, mo''tadil va ma'rifatli deb qaraladi. Bu g'alati hol bo'lib, bunday yumshoq yondashuv tarafdorlari o'z metodologiyalari tufayli rejimlar hamkorlik qila oladigan mo''tadillar, boshqalari esa aqidaparastlar ekanligini ko'rsatuvchi tadqiqotlar yozganlar.

- 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.

- Ushbu islomiy guruhlarning tushunchalari hozirgi sharoitga moslashtirilgan holda o‘zgargan. Masalan, zimmiy g‘ayrimusulmonlardan jizya olmaslik yoki ularni zimmiylar deb atamaslik, ularning noroziligini qo‘zg‘atmaslik uchun. Bundan tashqari, ularning demokratiyani o‘zlariga qaytarilgan o‘z mulki deb hisoblashlari yoki ribo (foiz) bilan muomala qilishning joizligi. Allohning nozil qilgani bilan emas, balki boshqa narsa bilan hukm qilishda ishtirok etish ham yana bir misoldir.

- 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.

U bu rejimning umrini uzaytiradi.

- It prolongs the life of the regime.

Bu rejimning go‘zal tasvirini beradi.

- It gives a beautiful image of the regime.

Islom odamlarning ongidan o‘chib ketadi, qachonki ular bu tuzumlar orqali Islom ularga hech narsa bermaganini ko‘rsa, ayniqsa bunday qarashlarning tarafdorlari ularga al-mann va salva (man va bedana), ya’ni har xil boylik va’da qilganidan keyin. Bu ularning muammolarini to‘g‘ri yo‘l bilan hal qila olmasliklarini ko‘rsatadi. Shu sababli, bu harakat o‘zini taqlid qilishga loyiq namuna sifatida ko‘rsata olmaydi, aksincha, yomon namuna beradi.

- 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.

Ularning da'vatdagi yagona maqsadi o'z guruhining amallarini himoya qilishga aylanib qolganda, agar hukumatlarning amallari va ularning harakatlarini oqlashga aylanmasa ham, yoshlar buzilib ketadi.

- 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.

Harakat ushbu da'vat tashuvchilarining boshqa hukmdorlar tomonidan qattiq bosim o'tkazilishi va hibsga olinishi, hatto ularga hujum qilinishi haqida jim turadi — hukmdorlarni xursand qilish uchun yoki ularning talabiga binoan, xuddi yaqinda Misrda sodir bo'lganidek.

- 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.

- Bu yondashuv amalning mezoni sifatida Shar’iy hukmga rioya qilishni emas, balki foydani qo‘yadi. Qaysi ish foyda keltirsa, u bajariladi, garchi u Shar’ga aniq zid bo‘lsa ham. Musulmonning nazarida foyda Shar’dan ham qadrliroq bo‘lib qoladi. Shu sababli dinga va da’vatga halokat keltiradigan boshqa ko‘plab sabablar mavjud.

- 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.

Biz bularning barchasiga Shar'iy dalillar bilan emas, balki voqelik orqali yondashdik, shunda ularga shunday deya olamiz: ularning fikrlash tarzi, hatto o'z maktabining qarashlariga ko'ra ham, Islomga va da'vatga yomon mevalardan boshqa hech narsa keltirmaydi. Bu samarasiz fikrlash usuli bo'lib, Shar'at uni ma'qullamaydi.

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.

Shar’iy ilmdan o‘rganganimizga ko‘ra, fikrning haqiqatdan chetga og‘ganini tushuntirish yoki shar’iy hukmni aql bilan rad etish bizning odatimiz emas. Biz muhokamani ularning uslubi asosida boshladik, shunda ularni o‘z og‘zlaridan chiqqan so‘zlar bilan tanqid qilish va ularning o‘z mezonlaridan foydalanib, aytganlarini rad etish uchun.

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.

Biz esa, va barcha xabardor va samimiy musulmon da'vatchilari ham bilamizki, biror so'z yoki amalning qabul qilinishi yoki rad etilishidagi yagona omil Shar'dir. Shunday ekan, ular keltirgan shar'iy dalillar – ular bu dalillarni bilishlarini va ular boshqalardan yashirin emasligini aytadilar – ularning fikri va tushunchasini rad etish uchun o'zi yetarli hisoblanadi, garchi ular yana ko'proq misollar keltirgan bo'lsalar ham. Masala ko'proq misollarda emas, balki fikrlash tarzidadir.

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.

Biz ularning bilganliklarini aytishlariga quloq solmaymiz. Ularga bu haqda eslatishning hojati yo‘q. Bu shar’iy dalillarni bilishlariga qaramay, ular o‘zlari zikr qilgan sabablarga ko‘ra ularni olmadilar. Bu joiz emas; bundan tashqari, bu dinga nisbatan bo‘ysunmaslik va uning aniq hamda to‘g‘ri qoidalariga e’tiborsizlikdir. Ularning o‘z fikrlarini qo‘llab-quvvatlash uchun ba’zi olimlardan keltirgan iqtiboslariga kelsak: ular haqiqatda da’vat qilayotgan narsaning voqeligiga tegishli bo‘lmagan misollar ekanligidan tashqari, odamlarning so‘zlari shar’iy dalil emas. Muhim bo‘lgan narsa dalil va istidlolning (xulosa chiqarishning) to‘g‘riligidir. Agar ular "falon olim shunday degan", desalar, biz ularga aytamizki, Alloh 􀀬 va Uning Rasuli 􀁕 to‘g‘ri, aniq va Muhkam (ravshan va mansux bo‘lmagan) narsani aytganlar. Alloh 􀀬 va Uning Rasuli 􀁕 ning so‘zini ixtiyoriy bir kishining so‘zi bilan bekor qilish bizga joizmi? Bu yondashuv tarafdorlarini manfaat g‘oyasi shu darajada egallab olganki, ularni "da’vatdagi savdogarlar" deb atash to‘g‘ri bo‘lardi. Biroq savdogar foyda olish uchun savdo qiladi, zarar ko‘rish uchun emas.

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.

Ularning fikrlashidagi buzuqlik yana bir jihatdan namoyon bo‘ladi: ular noqonuniy qiyosga tayanadilar, ya’ni shar’iy matnning illatini aql bilan izlab, manfaatni ustun qo‘yish asosida hukm chiqaradilar. Bu esa ular Ummat va uning ulamolari orasida avval ma’lum bo‘lmagan yangi istinbot (xulosa chiqarish)ga olib keladi. Ular Payg‘ambar ﷺ ko‘rsatgan to‘g‘ri istinbot usulini tark etdilar, holbuki unga Ummatning barcha ulamolari — salaf as-solihlar va ularga ehson (yaxshilik) bilan ergashgan barcha kishilar amal qilganlar.

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).

Bu tartibga solingan, to‘g‘ri shar’iy uslubning ularning hech bir muhokamasida izi yo‘q. Ular G‘arb yo‘lini tutdilar: aqliy qiyos va manfaatni izlash. Quyidagi hadis ularga haqiqatan ham to‘g‘ri keladi: “Sizlardan kim (uzoq) umr ko‘rsa, ko‘p ixtiloflarni ko‘radi.”

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.

"Yangi narsalardan ehtiyot bo'linglar, chunki har bir yangilik bid'atdir va har bir bid'at do'zaxdadir." [at-Tirmiziy va Abu Dovud rivoyat qilgan] Ular aytadilar: Islom ichkilik va qimorni taqiqladi, garchi ular odamlar uchun foydali bo'lsa ham, ammo bu foyda ozgina bo'lishi mumkin.

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.

Shunday qilib, alkogol va qimorbozlikdagi katta zarar ularning foydasidan og'irroqdir.

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

Shar’at jihodni mo‘minlarning jonida va molida yo‘qotish bo‘lishiga qaramay farz qilgan. Buning sababi shuki, jihodda Parvardigorga (Uning sha’ni buyuk va ulug‘dir) yoqimli bo‘lgan va insoniyat uchun katta manfaatlar bor.

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.

Payg'ambar ﷺ Ka'bani buzib, Ibrohim (alayhissalom) poydevorlari ustiga qayta qurish ishini, bunda diniy manfaat bo'lishiga qaramay, tark etdilar. Chunki Ka'bani to'g'rilashdan olinadigan manfaatdan ko'ra, undan yetadigan zarar kattaroq edi.

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.

Shuningdek, ular shubhasiz aytadiki, johiliy hukmda ishtirok etishning katta zararlari bor. Harakat ba'zi holatlarda hokimiyatni bo'lishish Islom, musulmonlar va islom harakati uchun katta foyda keltiradi, deb hisoblashi mumkin. Bu hatto Toǵutning ag'darilishiga va haqiqatning o'rnatilishiga olib kelishi ham mumkin.

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.

Ular o‘z fikrlarini boshqa bir tomondan taqdim etdilar, bu esa ularning fikrlash tarzi ongida mustahkam o‘rnashib qolganini ko‘rsatadi.

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

Bu matnlarni shunday tushunib, Islomga zid qoidalar chiqarish og‘riqli masaladir. Hozirgi zamonda, g‘arb madaniyatining ta’siri ostida va foizga o‘xshatish asosida bu og‘riqning ortib borayotganini ko‘ramiz. Salaf olimlari Islomning o‘z tabiatidan kelib chiqqan tartibga solingan qoidalariga amal qilar edilar, ya’ni har bir masalada Allohning Shariati (SWT) hukmiga tayanib, qonunchilikka insonning hech qanday aralashuvisiz yondashar edilar, buni inshaAllah keyinroq tushuntiramiz. Boshqa tomondan, biz yangi va bid’at metodologiyasiga ko‘ra, musulmonlar qonunchilikka kirish eshigini ochib, unga kirib olganlarini ko‘ramiz. Ular o‘z xohish-istaklariga yo‘l berib, qilmoqchi bo‘lgan har qanday ishning foydasi va zararini baholay boshladilar. Aqliy nuqtai nazardan qaraganda, foyda zararidan ustun kelganda, ishni qilish buyurilar edi. Zarar foydadan ustun kelganda esa, o‘sha ishni tark etish lozim bo‘lardi.

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.

Ushbu yangi va bid'at usulga ko'ra, musulmon qonun chiqaruvchiga aylanib qoldi, chunki u o'z xohishlari va o'z aqli asosida manfaatni baholadi.

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.

Hukmni (amaldagi) hukm chiqarishga yetish uchun ular matnlarni yuqorida zikr etilgan usulda mantiqiy asoslashga tayandilar. Bu G'arbda qo'llaniladigan usulning o'zidir. G'arb ham aynan shunday fikrlashga tayanadi.

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.

Lekin bu usul foydani Allohning amri emas, balki musulmon ibodat qiladigan narsaga aylantiradi. Buning aniq ko'rinishi shundaki, manfaat ravshan ma'noli shar'iy hukmga zid kelganda, shar'iy hukm tark etiladi va o'rniga manfaatga asoslangan hukm qo'yiladi.

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.

Shar’iy matnlardan foydalanish belgilangan tamoyillar bilan tartibga solinadi. Ularga amal qilgan musulmon Allohning bandasi bo‘lib qoladi va Uning amriga itoat etadi. U to‘g‘ri usul bilan chiqargan hukm Allohning hukmidir. Biroq bu faqat o‘zining qiyosida Shar’da bayon etilgan ‘illatga (ilohiy sababga) tayangandagina mumkin bo‘ladi.

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.

Yaxshilik va yomonlikni, go'zal amal va xunuk amalni, halol va harомni belgilash faqat Allohga 􀀬 xosdir. Bu huquq hech qachon insonga berilmagan. Agar insonda bunday huquq bo'lganida, boshidanoq qonun chiqarish qudrati unga berilgan bo'lardi. Shariat hukmlarning tafsilotlariga aralashmagan bo'lardi. Musulmondan faqat Allohning Yaratuvchi ekanligiga ishonish talab qilinardi, Uning uning ishlarini boshqaruvchisi va hayotini tartibga soluvchisi ekaniga ishonish talab qilinmasdi.

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.

Darhaqiqat, Musulmon asrlar davomida yozilgan minglab kitoblar Shar'iy istinboT (xulosa chiqarish) usuliga tayanadi. Bizning eng yetakchi faqihlarimiz barcha muammolarini shu usul asosida hal qila olganlar. Bu usul, uning bilimi berilgan va uning qoidalariga o'zini bog'lagan kishi uchun amaliy va oson usuldir.

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.

Ushbu bidʼat qilingan usulning buzuqligi uning Shariʼat aniq hukmlariga zid bo‘lgan hukmlarni keltirib chiqarganidan yetarlicha ko‘rinadi. Agar usul to‘g‘ri bo‘lganida, uning hukmlari Shariʼat hukmlari bilan mos kelardi. Bu o‘zi-o‘zidan usulning xato ekanini ko‘rsatadi, xuddi uning keltirib chiqargan natijasi kabi. Ehtimol, quyidagi misollar masalani aniqlashtirishga yordam berar.

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.

Da'vatni huquqiy usul bo'yicha olib borish ochiqlik, jasorat, kuch va fikrlashni talab qiladi. Islomga zid bo'lgan barcha narsalarga qarshi chiqish va ularga yuzma-yuz kelish, ularning soxtaligini oqibatlar yoki sharoitlarga qaramasdan ochib berish talab etiladi. Islom mafkurasiga mutlaq hokimiyat berilishi kerak, u ko'pchilik odamlar va ularning urf-odatlariga mos keladimi yoki yo'qmi, ular uni qabul qiladimi, rad etadimi yoki unga qarshi chiqadimi - bundan qat'i nazar. Da'vat tashuvchisi odamlarga ham, hokimiyat egalariga ham xushomad qilmaydi. Payg'ambar ﷺ da'vatida aynan shunday edi: u o'zi chaqirayotgan haqiqatga ishonardi va urf-odatlar, an'analar, e'tiqodlar, dinlar, hukmdorlar yoki omma e'tibor bermasdan butun dunyoga qarshi chiqardi. U Islom xabaridan boshqa hech narsaga e'tibor bermasdi. Ibn Hishom rivoyat qilishicha, Allohning Rasuli ﷺ Quraysh bilan bahslashganda, ularning xudolarini eslab, ularni qoraladi, ularning aqllarini xo'rladi va ota-bobolarini adashgan deb hisobladi. Natijada ular uni rad etdilar va o'z qarshiliklari va dushmanligida birlashdilar.

- 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.

Muslimlarning bugungi da’vati aynan shunday bo‘lishi kerak. Noble Payg‘ambar 􀁕 ga ergashishni istagan, Allohning 􀀬 quyidagi so‘zi bilan amal qilmoqchi bo‘lgan kishi shu turdagi da’vat bilan shug‘ullanishi lozim: “Ayting (ey Muhammad ﷺ): Mening yo‘lim shudir: men va menga ergashgan kishilar Allohga ishonch bilan da’vat qilaman” [TMQ 12:108]. Shuningdek, Rasulullohning 􀁕 so‘zi bilan: “Orangizda shunday narsani qoldirdimki, uni mahkam tutsangiz, hech qachon adashmaysiz: Allohning Kitobi va Uning Payg‘ambarining Sunnati — aniq bir masala” [Ibn Hishomning “Sira”si]. Va Salaf as-Solihlarning yo‘lidan boradigan, ularning “Bu ishning oxiri faqat uning boshlanishini yaxshilagan narsa bilan yaxshilanadi” degan so‘ziga amal qiladigan kishi ham shunday da’vat bilan shug‘ullanishi shart.

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.

Bugungi kunda, Shar'iy usul tasdiqlamagan ushbu yangi va bid'at usulga ko'ra, ba'zilar shunday deyishmoqda: ustun manfaat shuni ko'rsatadiki, masalalarga hikmat bilan yondashish va eng yaxshi usul bilan da'vat qilish afzalroqdir. Bu ularning usuli bo'lib, Shar'iy usul emas. Ular aytadi: agar biz unga zid bo'lgan hamma narsaga qarshi chiqsak, da'vatning foydasi nima? Shunday qilganimizda, boshqalarning qalbini ochamizmi yoki yopamizmi? Nima uchun biz bilan boshqalar o'rtasida asosiy ziddiyat borligini ko'rsatamiz? Ular bilan qalb va ong eshiklariga kalit bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan masalalarda birgalikda ekanligimizni ko'rsatish afzalroq emasmi, ayniqsa o'sha masalalar bizning va ularning o'rtasida katta farq yo'qdek ko'ringanda? Hokimlarga qarshi chiqish, ularning fitnalarini ummatga fosh qilish va rejalarini oshkor etish da'vat manfaatigami? Shunda ular g'azablanib, yomonligini o'ziga tortadi-ku; yoki ularga yaqinlashish va do'st bo'lishga harakat qilish yaxshiroqmi? Ehtimol, ular bizga yaqinlashar va da'vatga foyda keltiradigan lavozimlarga qo'yarlar, va bu foyda hammaga yetishi mumkin. Ehtimol, shu yo'l bilan hokimiyatga erisharmiz. Shu sababli, ularga bizdan qo'rqishlariga hech qanday sabab yo'qligini tasdiqlashimiz kerak, va bizning ularga yaqinlashishimizdan qo'rqish yo'q. Bu yerdan xushomad yo'li va haqiqat usulidan uzoq bo'lgan gaplar boshlanadi. Bundan tashqari, bu hokimni xursand qilishning, uning harakatlari uchun yolg'on guvohlik berishning, botil ustida jim turishning, hokimning g'azabini qo'zg'amaydigan mayda masalalar bilan shug'ullanib gaplashishning, ummat ogohlantirilishi kerak bo'lgan hayotiy masalalarni e'tiborsiz qoldirishning va haqiqatni buzadigan boshqa ko'plab gap va amallarning boshlanishidir. Bu o'zgarishning ortida tafakkur tarzidagi o'zgarish yotadi.

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.

Olimning zimmasidagi Allohning haqi ham shuki, u Payg'ambar ﷺ dan ilmni meros qilib olgan bo'lsa, o'sha haqni ado etishi, mujohidlar saflarining oldida bo'lishi, haqni so'zlashi, unga mahkam yopishishi, hukmdorlarga qarshi turishi va ularning rejalarini fosh etishi kerak. Boshqacha aytganda, u ilm, mihrob (ibodat joyi) va jang imomi bo'lishi lozim.

- 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.

Bu, salaf as-solihlar amal qilgan yo'l edi. Biz bu bid'at usuldan ko'ramizki, ulamolarimizning odatlariga zid keladigan bid'at tushuncha paydo bo'ldi. Ularning tushunchasi shuni aks ettiradi: agar olim haqiqat so'zini aytib, keyin hibsga olinsa yoki o'ldirilsa, uning o'rnini kim egallaydi? Ummat uning hibsga olinishi yoki o'ldirilishidan ko'radigan zarar, u olimdan olishi mumkin bo'lgan foydadan ko'p marta ortiqdir. Unday bo'lsa, nega ummatni bu olimning yaxshiligidan mahrum qilamiz?

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?

Shuningdek, parlament saylovlarida ishtirok etish masalasiga kelsak, bu ruxsat etilgan, ammo shartlari bor: nomzod musulmon bo‘lishi va Islom qoidalariga rioya qiluvchi bo‘lishi kerak. U kufr qonunchiligini qabul qilmasligi, aksincha, uni rad etishi va uning o‘rniga Shar’iy hukmni taklif qilishi lozim. U g‘ayrimusulmon prezidentni yoki Islomga asoslanmagan hukumatni saylashga haqli emas. Uning hukumatga ishonch bildirishi ham joiz emas, balki hukumatga ishonchsizlik bildirishi kerak, chunki hukumat Islom asosida tashkil etilmagan.

- 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.

Bu aniq shar'iy qoida.

This is the clear Shar’ee rule.

Biroq biz ularning ushbu yangi uslub bo‘yicha chiqqan fikrini ko‘rdik: unga ko‘ra musulmon qonunchilikda va hisob-kitobda hamda hokimni saylashda Shar’aga amal qilmaydigan nomzodni saylashi mumkin. Balki ular nasroniy nomzodlarni saylashga ruxsat beradilar va u bilan saylov ro‘yxatlarida birga qatnashishni qabul qiladilar, bunga bahona qilib, qonun har bir hududdagi deputatlar sonini belgilab qo‘ygan, deydilar. Shunday bo‘lgach, nasroniy nomzod musulmonlar uni saylagan yoki saylamaganidan qat’i nazar g‘olib chiqadi. Shu sababli bunday vaziyatda, bizning nazarimizda musulmonlarga foydaliroq bo‘lgan kishini saylash, uning qavmiga esa uni saylashga ruxsat berib, u bizning raqiblarimizdan bo‘lganida, afzalroqdir.

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.

Shunday qilib, bu fikr tarafdorlari o'z yondashuvlarida shunday yo'l tutadilarki, ular qancha ko'p bo'lsa, o'zlari haqiqatdan shuncha uzoqlashib boradilar.

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

Ushbu bid'at va yangi fikrlash tarzini, shuningdek Islomning to'g'ri tushunchasidan uzoq bo'lgan yondashuvlarni targ'ib qilayotganlar shuni bilib qo'ysinlarki, ularning fikrlash tarzi va yondashuvlarining Islom bilan hech qanday aloqasi yo'q.

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.

Ular qaror qilgan narsa haqiqiy tavba qilishlarini talab qiladi. Islomga da'vat ularga muhtoj, lekin bu fikrlash tarzisiz va bu yondashuvlarsiz — ular Islomning tarafdori bo'lishlari uchun, Allah 􀀬 nozil qilgan narsadan boshqasi bilan hukm qiladigan tuzumlarning emas.

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.

Foydali yoki zararli narsani hal qiluvchi ta'rif olamlar Robbisi Allohga tegishlidir. Allohdan boshqa hech kim nima foyda keltirishini yoki bizdan qanday zararni qaytarishini bilmaydi. Agar bu insonning qo'lidan kelganida edi, u qonun chiquvchi bo'lib qolardi va insonning hayot ishlarini boshqaruvchi Allohdan kelgan dinga ehtiyoj bo'lmasdi. Shu sababli Islom musulmonga Robbisining shariatiga amal qilishni farz deb hisoblaydi.

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.

Shariat bizga buyurgan narsa biz uchun manfaatdir, shariat bizni tiyilishga buyurgan narsa esa biz uchun zarardir. Biror narsa haqida qonun nozil bo‘lmaguncha, u manfaatmi yoki zararmi ekanini bilmaymiz. Bundan oldin buni o‘zimiz aniqlash bizning qo‘limizdan kelmaydi. Sababi shundaki, aql khayr (yaxshilik) bilan sharr (yomonlik) va husn (go‘zallik) bilan qubh (qoralanadigan narsa)ni ajratish uchun asos bo‘ladigan mezonga ega emas. Shuning uchun shar’iy qoida mavjud: «Qayerda Allohning hukmi (shariat) topilsa, o‘sha manfaatdir.» Shunga ko‘ra, «Qayerda manfaat bo‘lsa, o‘sha Allohning hukmidir» degan qoida noto‘g‘ridir.

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.

Quyidagi ulug' oyat bizni shunga yo'naltiradi: "Sizlarga jihod farz qilindi, holbuki u sizlarga yoqimsiz. Ehtimol, siz bir narsani yoqtirmasangiz-da, u sizlar uchun yaxshidir va bir narsani yaxshi ko'rasiz-da, u sizlar uchun yomondir. Alloh biladi, siz esa bilmaysiz." [TMQ 2:216] Shu nuqtai nazardan biz Allohning: "U ularga pokiza narsalarni halol qiladi va ularga nopok narsalarni harom qiladi", [TMQ 7:157] degan so'zini tushunishimiz mumkin. Tayyib (pokiza) narsa — Alloh halol qilgan narsadir, va Alloh uni ruxsat bergandan keyingina biz uning yaxshi ekanini bildik. Xabiys (nopok) narsa esa — Alloh harom qilgan narsadir, va u biz uchun man etilgandan keyingina biz uning yomon ekanini bildik. Bu, bizning aqlimiz yaxshi narsani belgilaydi va shuning uchun uni halol qildi, yoki aqlimiz yomonlikni aniqlaydi va shuning uchun uni man qildi, degani emas.

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.

Bu so'zlar bilan ular nimani nazarda tutgan edilar: ikki yaxshi narsaning eng yaxshisini va ikki yomon narsaning eng yomonini tortib ko'rish, kichikroq foydani tark etib, kattaroq foydani qo'lga kiritish va kichikroq zararga yo'l qo'yib, kattaroq zararni daf etish. Bu so'z noto'g'ri va Shariat uchun xavf tug'diradi. U "masolih mursala" qarashidan ham og'irroqdir. Chunki masolihga faqat voqelikda Shar'iy nass bo'lmagan taqdirdagina murojaat qilinadi. Bu so'zga ko'ra esa, ular Allohning hukmlarini o'zgartirishga, aql-fikrlarini ularni bekor qilishga ruxsat berayotganini ko'ramiz. Shu bilan ular haromni halol, halolni harom qilishga yo'l ochmoqdalar. Bu din uchun zararli va juda xavfli uslubdir. Shu sababli ularning fikrlari va qarashlari haqiqatdan shunchalik uzoqdir.

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.

Yuqorida keltirganlarimizdan ko‘rinadiki, ularning usullari bir-biriga mos keladi va Alloh 􀀬ning hukmiga aralashishga rozi bo‘ladilar, chunki ular o‘z aql-idroklari va havoyi istaklariga shar’iy qoidalar o‘rniga aqliy qoidalarni, shar’iy tafakkur o‘rniga aqliy tafakkurni qo‘llashga ruxsat berib, shariat nimani istasa emas, balki o‘zlari istagan narsani xulosa qilib chiqaradilar.

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.

Shu sababli, ularning har bir munozarasida asosiy yo‘nalish sifatida foydaga asoslangan aqliy qiyos bo‘lgan. Holbuki, aqliy qiyos Shoriy' tomonidan musulmonlar uchun rad etilgan eng muhim narsalardan biridir, chunki u Allohga (SWT) qarshilik va hukmda sherik bo‘lishni o‘z ichiga oladi, u haqdan va haqiqatdan chetga chiqishdir hamda shahvat va xohishlarga ergashishdir. Ularning munozarasi esa bizga rad etish buyurilgan Toƣutga hakamlikni topshirishga asoslangan. Chunki Toƣut Alloh (SWT) nozil qilganidan boshqasi bilan hukm qiladi.

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.

Xulosa qilib aytganda, aqliy qiyos bilan shar'iy qiyos o'rtasidagi farqni aniqlashga o'tishimiz kerak, shunda aqliy qiyosning buzilganligini va shar'iy qiyosga murojaat qilishning muhimligini tushuntirish mumkin bo'ladi, shunda biz o'zimizni, ummatni va butun insoniyatni qutqarishimiz mumkin.

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.

Ўша мусулмонлар шаръий ҳукмнинг ўзидаги манфаатни ақлий тарзда тортиб кўриш усулига таянганлар. Улар шаръий ҳукм таъминлаган манфаатлар билан ундан келиб чиққан зararлarni ақлий нуқтаи назардан солиштирганлар. Уларнинг фикрича, агар зararлар кўпроқ бўлса, улар Аллоҳнинг ўша масалададаги ҳукмини — манфаати каттароқ бўлган ақлий ҳукм фойдаси учун тарк этардилар. Агар шаръий ҳукмда манфаат каттароқ бўлса, улар унга амал қилардилар, Аллоҳ буюргани учун эмас, балки ақл уни қабул қилишга рози бўлгани учун. Бу хавфли йўл бўлиб, у ҳақда жим туриб бўлмайди.

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.

Bu esa aqlni nafs va xohishlar ustidan, Shariat ustidan homiylik beradi va aqlga Allohning Qonuni ustidan hakamlik roli beradi hamda aqlni Shar'iy qonundan ustun qo'yadi. Aynan shuni biz odamlar tomonidan yaratilgan qonun deb ataymiz. Aynan shu narsa ularning Shar'iy hukmlarga zid fikrlar bildirishini izohlaydi, ayniqsa bu masalada. Shuning uchun ixtilof Allohning nozil qilgan narsasidan boshqasi bilan hukm qilishda ishtirok etish joizmi yoki yo'qmi degan fikrda emas. Balki ixtilof ularning Shar'iy bo'lmagan hukmga, aqliy hukmga, Allohning nozil qilgan narsasidan boshqasi bilan hukm qilishga va ular rad etishga buyurilgan taog'ut hukmiga qanday fikrlash orqali kelishlari haqidadir.

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.

Shuning uchun biz aytamizki, bu tushunish yo‘li to‘g‘ri tushunishdan chetga chiqadi va unga zid keladi. Uning haqiqati uning yolg‘onligini ko‘rsatadi. Unga tayanish yoki unga ko‘ra hukmlar chiqarish to‘g‘ri emas. Sababi, foyda va zararning qat’iy belgilanishi butun olamlarning Rabbi bo‘lgan Allohga tegishlidir. Bizga foyda keltiradigan yoki bizdan zararni qaytaradigan narsani Allohdan boshqa hech kim bilmaydi. Agar bu inson uchun mumkin bo‘lganida, inson qonun chiqaruvchi bo‘lib qolgan bo‘lardi. Hayot ishlarini inson uchun boshqaradigan ilohiy dinga bo‘lgan ehtiyoj tufayli Islom musulmonni o‘z Rabbisining Shari’atiga amal qilishga majbur deb hisoblagan.

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.

Demak, Shar'a bizga qilishni buyurgan narsa biz uchun manfaat hisoblanadi, Shar'a bizga tark etishni buyurgan narsa esa biz uchun zarar hisoblanadi. Biz biror narsaning manfaat yoki zarar ekanligini, u haqida hukm nozil qilinmaguncha bilmaymiz. Undan oldin buni o'zimiz mustaqil ravishda belgilay olmaymiz.

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.

Inson qonun chiqarganda aql-mantiqqa asoslangan qiyos yo'lini tutadi. Bu yo'l o'xshash masalalarni bir joyga jamlab, ularga o'xshash hukm berishni, shuningdek, turli masalalarni ajratib, ularga turli hukm berishni talab qiladi. Biz esa Hammani biluvchi va Hammasidan xabardor Zot tomonidan joriy qilingan islomiy Shariatga nazar solsak, unda ko'plab o'xshash masalalarga turlicha hukmlar, ko'plab turli masalalarga esa bir xil hukmlar berilganini ko'ramiz. Bu esa aql-mantiqqa asoslangan qiyosga zid. Shuningdek, u aqlning o'rni bo'lmagan hukmlarni ham bergan. Faqat shuning o'zi ham o'sha odamlar ixtiro qilgan bu bid'at yo'lini rad etish uchun kifoyadir.

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.