Ikki xil narsalarni birlashtirish masalasida: Shariat aqliy qiyos qabul qilmaydigan bo‘lsa ham, turli masalalarga bir xil hukmlar bergan. Shariat suv bilan tuproqni birlashtirgan, ular bilan poklanishga ruxsat bergan, holbuki suv poklaydi, tuproq esa narsani iflos qiladi. U oltin va bug‘doyda riboʻl-fadl (miqdordagi ortiqchalik)ni harom qilgan, holbuki ularning mohiyati turlicha. U murtad va zino qiluvchiga o‘lim jazosini belgilagan, garchi ish usuli farq qilsa va ikki amal o‘rtasida tafovut bo‘lsa ham. U musulmon va zimmiyni himoya qilgan, garchi ular din jihatidan farq qilsalar ham. Ayolni zinoda ayblagan, lekin buni isbotlay olmagan kishiga va sharob ichgan kishiga sakson qamchi urishni vojib qilgan, holbuki ikki amalning haqiqati turlicha.

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.

Shunday qoidalar ko'pki bor, ularning haqiqatlari aniq farq qiladi va hech narsa ularni bir-biriga yaqinlashtira olmaydi, ammo Shar' ularga bir xil hukm bergan. Agar qiyos qilish aqlga topshirilganida, u boshqacha hukm bilan kelgan bo'lar edi va haqiqatlari turlicha bo'lgani uchun o'xshash hukmlar bera olmagan bo'lar edi. Bu ham qiyosdagi bu usulning noto'g'riligini ko'rsatadi.

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.

Bundan tashqari, Shar'a aqlning hech qanday roli bo'lmagan hukmlarni bergan.

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

Shar’a savdoni halol qilgan, ammo foizxo‘rlikni (riboni) taqiqlagan, holbuki ikkalasi ham bir xil savdo bo‘lib, o‘xshash. U zinoda to‘rt nafar erkak guvohni talab qilgan, qotillikda esa ikki nafar guvoh kifoya qiladi, holbuki qotillik zinodan ko‘ra vahshiyroqdir. Qaytarib olinadigan taloqda guvohning musulmon bo‘lishini shart qilgan, ammo vasiyatlarda kofirning guvohligini ruxsat etgan.

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.

U unga ayollarga nisbatan, ya'ni erkin, xunuk ayol soch va teri jihatidan, ko'zni pastga tushirish, ya'ni iffatni saqlashni majbur qildi, garchi inson tabiatan unga moyil bo'lmasa ham. Lekin bu majburiyatni, insonning moyilligi tortadigan joriyalar (go'zal cho'ri ayollar) jihatidan qo'ymadi. Xuffayn (charm paypoqlar) ustiga mash qilishni majbur qildi, ostiga emas, garchi ostini mash qilish ko'proq munosib bo'lsa ham. Bu haqda Sayyidina 'Ali (Alloh uni sharaflasin) shunday degan: "Agar din qiyos bilan, ya'ni aql bilan olinadigan bo'lganida, paypoqning ostini mash qilish ustini mash qilishdan ko'ra ko'proq loyiq bo'lardi." Mashhur shoir Abul 'Ola al-Ma'arriy kabilarni ham shunga undagan narsa shu bo'ldi; u shunday degan: Bir qo'l yuzlab oltin dinorga badal bo'ladi, Qanday qilib u chorak dinor uchun kesiladi?

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?

Boshqacha aytganda, shikastlangan qo'l uchun diya 500 dinor bo'lsa, unda chorak dinor uchun qo'lni qanday qilib kesish mumkin?

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?

Aql bir chorakdinor uchun qo'lni kesish noo'rin deb hisoblaydi. Aql hukmi bilan u Shariat hukmini noma'qul deb biladi. Agar aqlga Shariatning umumiy mazmunidan yoki eng ochiq ma'nodagi matnidan illat (ilohiy sabab) tushunish, yoki ikki hukm o'rtasidagi oddiygina o'xshashlikdan qiyos (analogiya) mavjudligini anglash huquqi berilganida, u Alloh (SWT) ruxsat bergan ko'p narsalarni man qilar, Alloh (SWT) man qilgan ko'p narsalarni esa ruxsat etar edi. Shu sababli qiyos faqat Shar'at tomonidan ma'qullangan usul bo'yicha ishlatilishi mumkin. Boshqacha aytganda, to'g'ri qiyos illatsiz amalga oshmaydi.

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. Qiyas is not made in a text that contains no Shar’i ‘illah. No rational ‘illah is given for it, and we do not assign a Shar’i ‘illah to it as long as it has not been mentioned or assigned. That is why the Fuqaha’ (jurists) have defined the ways of discerning the ‘illah by examining the texts. They said the ‘illah has either been indicated by the text explicitly (sarahatan), by meaning (dalalatan), by deduction (istinbatan), or by analogy (qiyasan). (Please check the book on Usul for this.)

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)

Rasulullah ﷺ qiyosdan foydalanishni ma'qullaganlarida, uning turini belgilab berdilar.

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

Ahmad va Nasoiy Abdulloh ibn az-Zubayrdan rivoyat qilishadi, u aytdi: "Xas'am qabilasidan bir kishi Allohning Rasuli ﷺ huzuriga kelib dedi:

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

“Otam Islomni qabul qilgan, u keksa va tuyaga minolmaydi, lekin unga haj farz. Men uning o‘rnidan haj qila olamanmi?” U ﷺ so‘radilar: “Sen katta o‘g‘ilmisan?” U javob berdi: “Ha.” U ﷺ dedilar: “Faraz qil, otangning qarzi bor edi va sen uni uning o‘rnidan to‘lading, bu uning ustidan ado bo‘larmidi?” U dedi: “Ha.” U ﷺ dedilar: “Unda sen uning o‘rnidan haj qilishing mumkin.” Haj – ibodatdir.

‘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)

va qarz berish muomala (bitim) bo‘lib, ikkalasi bir-biridan farq qiladi. Biroq, haj farzini ado etish qarzni to‘lashga o‘xshaydi, chunki ikkalasi ham qarzdir. O‘g‘ilning otasi nomidan haj qilishiga ruxsat berilganining sababi shuki, bu qarzni ado etishdir. Rasulullah ﷺ Allohga bo‘lgan qarzni insonlarga bo‘lgan qarz bilan, uni ado etish majburiyati va foydasi jihatidan bog‘ladilar. Agar Rasulullah ﷺ buni shariat qilib belgilamaganlarida, aql bunday hukmni chiqara olmas edi.

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.

Hukmlarning sababi (ta’lil) ularni Shar’ qonuniylashtirgan masalani aniqlashtiruvchi dalildir. Bu esa illat mavjud bo‘lgan joyda unga amal qilishni talab qiladi. Bu qiyosdir. Rasululloh ﷺ mushuk haqida: “U najas emas (ya’ni mushukning tupuki)”, deganlarida, u najas hisoblanmasligining illatini bayon qildilar, ya’ni: “Chunki ular odatda sizlar atrofingizda, uylarda yuradilar (ya’ni uy hayvonlari)”, dedilar. [Buxoriy va Muslim rivoyat qilgan]. Shunga ko‘ra, uy atrofida odatda yuradigan har qanday hayvon, agar dalil bilan istisno qilinmagan bo‘lsa, najas emas. Rasululloh ﷺ ning: “Izn so‘rash ko‘z tufayli lozim qilingan”, degan so‘zlari [Buxoriy va Muslim rivoyat qilgan]. Bu shuni anglatadiki, musulmon uyga kirishdan oldin izn so‘rashi kerak, chunki uyning o‘z hurmati bor va u avrat hisoblanadi. Izn so‘rashni farz qilishning sababi harom narsaga qarashning oldini olishdir. Rasulullohning ﷺ “min ajlin nazar (ko‘z tufayli)” degan so‘zlari izn so‘rashni qonuniylashtirishning illatidir. Shunday ekan, o‘z uyiga kirgan musulmonga kirish uchun izn kerak emas. Chunki illat yo‘q, demak hukm ham yo‘qdir. Aks holda, agar uyda mehmonlar va shunga o‘xshash kishilar bo‘lsa, hukm saqlanib qoladi. Demak, illat qaytganda hukm ham qaytadi. Shunday qilib, hukm illatga uning mavjudligi va yo‘qligi jihatidan bog‘liqdir.

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.

Shuning uchun qiyos juda nozik masalalardan biridir. Shuni bilish kerakki, qiyos matnlarni, hukmlarni va voqealarni tushunadigan aqlli kishilar uchundir. U har bir kishi uchun joiz emas, ya'ni o'z xohish-istaklariga ko'ra uni ishlatadigan kishi uchun emas. Qiyos Alloh {SWT} tomonidan ularga tushuncha va idrok ato etilgan kishilar uchun bo'lishi kerak, aks holda u halokat vositasiga va Allohning haqiqiy hukmidan chetga chiqish vositasiga aylanib qolar edi. Imom Shofe'iy (Alloh ularga rahm qilsin) shunday degan: "Kishi avvalgi sunnatlarni (yo'llarni), salaflarning so'zlarini va arab tilini bilmaguncha qiyos qilishi joiz emas. U, shuningdek, shubhali (yoki o'xshash) masalalarni ajrata oladigan sog'lom aqlli bo'lishi kerak va shoshilib hukm chiqarmasligi lozim; shuningdek, unga qarshi fikr bildiruvchini tinglashdan o'zini tiymasligi kerak, chunki bu uning e'tiborini unutgan narsasiga tortishi yoki to'g'ri deb o'ylagan narsasining xatosini unga ko'rsatishi mumkin." Qiyosni qo'llash aniq tushunishni talab qiladi. Hukmni chiqarish uchun qiyosni mujtahiddan boshqa hech kimga qo'llashi joiz emas.

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.

Barcha oldin aytganlarimizda biz faqat kufr hokimiyatida ishtirok etishni ma'qullovchilarning dalillarini, ularning raddiyasini va bu masalada ularning dalil bo'la olmasligini ko'rsatdik. Endi, bu masalada ijtihod talab qilmaydigan, Islomning aniq hukmi qanday?

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?

Shariat, uning Aqidasi bilan birga, Allohga yagona deb ishonishga (imonga) asoslangan bo‘lib, ibodat faqat Unga qilinishi kerak. «Laa ilaaha» (Hech qanday iloh yo‘q) degan jumla ilohiylik, ibodat va qonun chiqarish huquqini Allohdan boshqa har kimdan inkor etishni anglatadi. «Illallah» (Allohdan boshqa) degan jumla esa bu narsalarni faqat Alloh uchun tasdiqlashni anglatadi. U — Ilohdir, Haqdir, faqat Unga ibodat qilinishi va faqat U qonun chiqarishga haqlidir. Unga bo‘ysunish va ibodat qilish, Uning shariatini bilish esa Rasul ﷺ orqali keladi. Bu ikki kalimai shahodatning ikkinchi qismining ma’nosi shudir: Muhammad ﷺ — Allohning Rasulidir. Shu sababli faqat Rasulga ergashish va qonun chiqarishda faqat unga ittiboa qilish kerak.

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.

Hatto Usul al-fiqh ham vahiyning manbalarini belgilashga asoslangan, shunda qonunchilik bu manbalardan tashqari boshqa yerdan olinmaydi. U istinbot (xulosa chiqarish) qoidalarini tartibga solishni maqsad qilgan, shunda Shar'dan bo'lmagan hech narsa unga kira olmaydi. Shuning uchun Usul al-fiqh ko'rib chiqadigan birinchi masala shundan iboratki, Hokim (Hukmdor) Allohdir (SWT), hukm faqat Unga xosdir va biror masala bo'yicha Shar' vahiy qilinmagunicha yoki Shar'dan tashqarida hech qanday hukm yo'q.

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.

Shundan so'ng fiqh keladi, u Allohga — faqat Unga — ibodat qilishning amaliy bayoni, faqat Unga bo'ysunish va Undan boshqa birovning qonun chiqarishini rad etish, hukm chiqarish uchun murojaat esa faqat Uning Shariatiga qilinishini ifodalash uchun keladi.

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.

Qatnashish kufr tizimlarida shuni anglatadiki, unga da'vat qiluvchi inson kishi tomonidan qonun chiqarishni ilohiy qonunchilikka qo'shimcha ravishda qabul qiladi. Natijada u Shar'iy qoidalarning qonun chiquvchisi bilan birga, Shar'iy bo'lmagan qoidalarning boshqa qonun chiquvchisi mavjudligini tan oladi. Bu, shuningdek, qonun chiqarish manbalarining ko'pligini qabul qilishni bildiradi. Unday bo'lsa, ochiq va yashirin ibodatning yagonaligini talab qiladigan ma'bud birligi (wahdaniyyat al-ma'bud) qayerda?

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?

Allohga shirk keltirishning taqiqlanishi, Uning hukmronligida sherik bo'lishning ham taqiqlanishini talab qiladi.

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

Shunday qilib, Shar'iy hukmlar butunligicha jaholiyat tizimlarida ishtirok etishning harom ekanligini ko'rsatadi.

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

Payg‘ambarimiz ﷺ ning da’vatidagi siyrat (siyrat) aniq ko‘rsatadiki, bu yondashuv shubhasiz radikal bo‘lib, haqiqatning har qanday ta’siridan xoli edi. Haqiqatga ta’sir qiladigan ish zarur o‘zgarishni yuzaga keltiradi. Payg‘ambar ﷺ da’vatida Makkadagi kofirlarning shirk haqiqatiga hech qanday e’tibor bermadi. U ularning odatlari va an’analarini e’tiborsiz qoldirdi; odamlarning uni qabul qilishi yoki rad etishi ham unga ahamiyat bermadi. Hokimiyat egalariga xushomad qilmadi, garchi Makkada payg‘ambar ﷺ va uning da’vatining ahvoli og‘ir bo‘lsa-da. U ochiqdan-ochiq e’lon qildi: "Allohdan o‘zga iloh yo‘q, Muhammad Uning elchisidir", bu esa Islomning mohiyatidir hamda undan boshqa har qanday e’tiqod yoki shariatni to‘liq rad etishdir. Shu asosda Abu Jahl va Makkadagi kufr yetakchilari shahodatni rad etdilar. Shu asosda ham Payg‘ambar ﷺ shahodatni qora va oq, erkin va qul, boy va kambag‘al, arab va arab bo‘lmagan, butparast va kitob ahli oldida ochiqdan-ochiq e’lon qildi. U ularga qarshi chiqdi, ularni rad etdi va ularning xudolarini tilga olib, ularga e’tiroz bildirdi; shuning uchun ular dushmanlik bilan javob berdilar, u bilan savdolashishga urinib, uni ular haqida jim turishga da’vat qildilar, shunda ular ham uning haqida jim turishlarini istadilar. Ular, agar Payg‘ambar ﷺ murosaga kelsa, ular ham murosaga kelishlarini xohlardilar. U ﷺ buni qabul qilmadi va da’vatga qilingan ta’qib hamda uning sahobalariga nisbatan qilingan azoblarga sabr qildi; mo‘minlar ham sabr qildilar. Ularning barchasining sabri da’vatning haqiqatgo‘yligi va ularning ohangining belgilaridan biri edi, hatto da’vatning eng og‘ir paytida, hech qanday yordamchi bo‘lmagan vaqtda, Banu Sa’sa’ah ularni o‘z dinini qo‘llashga chaqirganida, u ﷺ ularning shartini rad etdi. Ular unga yordam berishga tayyor edilar, ammo uning vafotidan so‘ng hokimiyat ularga o‘tishi sharti bilan. U ayni vaqtda bu imkoniyat unga foyda keltirishi mumkin bo'lgan paytda, unga oldidagi barcha eshiklar yopilgandan keyin, bu gapni aytmagan. Balki u ularga va biz ortlaridan o'qituvchi, rahbar, da'iy va yo'lboshchi sifatida aytgan: "Hokimiyat Allohniki, U uni xohlagan kishisiga beradi." Bu bilan u hokimiyatning faqat Allohga tegishli ekanligini, bu ishda hech kim Allohga sherik bo'la olmasligini nazarda tutgan. Faqat Alloh uni xohlagan kishisiga beradi va bu masalada boshqa hech kimning so'zi yo'q. Rasulullah ﷺ da'vatini fikrning (g'oyaning) kuchi va Allohning yordamidan boshqa narsaga tayanmasdan davom ettirdi. Alloh Muhammad ﷺ ni qo'llab-quvvatlagan va unga yordam bergan kishilarning qalbi va aqlini ochgandan keyin, da'vat Madinada Islom diyorining qaror topishi bilan o'z maqsadiga erishdi. Demak, muvaffaqiyat Allohdandir. U Unga tayanadigan, Uning yordamini so'raydigan va g'oyaning sofligini, tushunchaning aniqligini, yo'lning to'g'riligini va faoliyatning to'g'riligini saqlaydigan kishiga tegishlidir.

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.

Ushbu munozaraning oxirida, Alloh 􀀬 nozil qilgan hukmdan boshqasi bilan hukm qiladigan tuzumlarda ishtirok etish masalasi bo'yicha, hozirgi tuzumlarda hukmronlikning haqiqati va ishtirokning qanday amalga oshirilishini bayon qilamiz. So'ngra bu yo'lga ergashishni man etuvchi oyatlar va hadislarni keltiramiz hamda har qanday e'tiroz yoki ta'vilga barham beramiz, chunki oyatlarning ma'nolari qat'iydir.

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.

Har qanday davlatning konstitutsiyasi aniq fikriy asosga tayangan holda o‘rnatilishi kerak. U demokratik bo‘lishi mumkin yoki islomiy bo‘lishi mumkin, shunday ekanki, uning e’tiqodi va asosidan kelib chiqmagan hech qanday qoida bo‘lishi mumkin emas.

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.

Shunday qilib, demokratik tizimlarda qonunlar asos bilan uyg'un bo'lishi kerak, ya'ni hokimiyat xalqniki, ya'ni qonunlarni xalq o'zi shu maqsadda saylagan assambleya orqali chiqaradi va bu parlament deb ataladi. U hukm chiqarganda, ijro etuvchi hokimiyat qonunchilik hokimiyati tomonidan qabul qilingan qonunni xalq nomidan qo'llaydi. Hukumatni xalq hukmronligi doirasida cheklab turish uchun parlamentga hukumatga ishonch bildirish vakolati berilgan, shunda hukumat ishonch bildirilmaguncha qonuniy hisoblanmaydi. Unga hukumat faoliyatini nazorat qilish, tekshirish va hisobga tortish vakolati berilgan.

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.

Shunga ko'ra, u agar biror vazir qonunbuzarlik qilsa yoki konstitutsiya qoidalariga rioya qilmasa, butun hukumatdan yoki alohida bir vazirdan ishonchni qaytarib olishi mumkin.

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.

Demak, hukumatdan kelib chiqadigan harakatlarning asosi Demokratiya bo'lib, Islom emas. Biz oldingi suhbatda tushuntirganimizdek, Islom ruhiy asosga ega bo'lmagan hech qanday harakatni qabul qilmaydi, bu asos esa Allohga bo'lgan iymondir (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 􀀬.

Tizimlar yagona asosga ega bo‘lgani kabi, yaxlit tuzilmaga ham ega, va ular amalga oshirmoqchi bo‘lgan siyosat bitta bo‘lib, uni barcha vazirliklar orqali qo‘llashga intiladilar. Har bir vazirlikning siyosati boshqa vazirliklarning siyosati bilan uyg‘un bo‘lishi kerak. Bu siyosatni hukumat birgalikda shakllantiradi. Musulmon vazirning ovozi esa, konstitutsiya va unga asos bo‘lgan tamoyillar nuri ostida, prezident siyosatni shakllantiradigan ovozlar majmuidan bitta ovozdan boshqa narsa bo‘lmaydi. Bu huquqiy nuqtayi nazardan shunday. Biroq, bu g‘oya bilan uning amaliy qo‘llanilishi o‘rtasida katta farq bor. Vazir hukumat tarkibiga tayinlanganida, mamlakat rahbari va uning jamoasi hukumat siyosatini allaqachon ishlab chiqqan bo‘ladi. Vazirning tanlovi yo‘q: u tuzilgan siyosat asosida hukumatga qo‘shilishi yoki uni rad etishi mumkin, xolos. Uning o‘z vazirligi uchun siyosat belgilash huquqi yo‘q.

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.

Shuningdek, vazirlarning mas'uliyati jamoaviy mas'uliyatdir.

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

Bu shuni anglatadiki, hukumat rejalashtirilgan siyosatni amalga oshirmoqchi bo'lib, zarur qarorlarni qabul qilmoqchi bo'lganda, ko'pchilikning qarorlari qabul qilinadi. Bu shuni anglatadiki, har bir vazir boshqa vazirliklarning ishlariga aralashadi va hukumat qarorlari yuzasidan o'z fikrlarini ilgari suradi. Bu esa musulmon vazirni o'z vazirligidan yoki boshqalarnikidan kelib chiqqan yoki ularga aloqador bo'lgan barcha narsalar uchun javobgar qiladi. Bunday vaziyatda u, vazirlik ichida unga qarshi bo'lsa ham, xalq oldida va tashqarida hukumat siyosatini va qarorlarini himoya qilishga majburdir. Bu yerda, musulmon vazir Islomga zid bo'lgan har bir taklifga qarshi turadi, deb o'ylash mumkin. Ammo bunday fikr sayoz fikrlashdan dalolat beradi. Vazir deputatdan farq qiladi. Qonun jihatidan, amaliyotdan emas, deputat o'zini saylagan kishilarning vakilidir. U demokratik tizimda musulmonlarning, yoki kapitalistik tizimlarda chap qanot tarafdorlarining vakili bo'lishi mumkin. Vazir esa hukumatga muxolifat qilish uchun kiritilmaydi, aks holda u muxolifati tufayli tashqarida qolib ketadi. Shunday qilib, demokratik tizimlarda hukumatga yoki hokimiyatga qarshi chiqqan kishi tashqarida qoladi va unga kirishga ruxsat berilmaydi. Agar u adashib kirib qolsa, qat'iy talab bilan chiqarib yuboriladi. Hukumat hukmronlik qilish va amalga oshirish uchun keladi. Uning amalga oshirmoqchi bo'lgan siyosati bor. U ziddiyatlarni yig'ish uchun kelmagan. Uning siyosatiga qarshi chiqqan har kim bosh vazirning yoki vazirlarning birgalikdagi taklifi bilan hukumatni tark etadi. Deputatlar unga shaxsan ishonchsizlik bildiradi, hukumat esa faoliyatini davom ettiradi.

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.

Bu yerda shuni ta'kidlash lozimki, musulmon vazirning hukmronlikda ishtirok etishga rozi bo'lishi o'zi uning mamlakatdagi mavjud konstitutsiyani va u asos qilib olingan tamoyillarni qabul qilganini anglatadi. Biz bu yerda zikr qilayotgan muxolifat tizim asoslariga qarshi muxolifat emas, balki tizim ichidagi muxolifatdir. Bu tarmoqlardagi kelishmovchilikni ko'rsatadigan muxolifat bo'lib, unda hamma uning asoslarini qabul qiladi.

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.

Bundan tashqari, har qanday ministrlikka tegishli qabul qilingan qaror uch tomon tomonidan tasdiqlanmaguncha va ularning imzolari bilan ta'minlanmaguncha kuchga kirmaydi va amalga oshmaydi. Ular: davlat rahbari, bosh vazir va tegishli vazir. Bu, shuningdek, musulmon vazir o'z ministrligi ishlarini boshqarishda va amaliy qarorlarni o'z xohishiga ko'ra chiqarishda erkin emasligini anglatadi.

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.

Bu quyidagi fikrlarni aniq qiladi:

This makes the following points clear:

Hukumat boshqaradigan qoidalar ruhiy asosga (ya'ni Allohga bo'lgan ishonchga) emas, balki demokratiyaga asoslangan bo'lib, unda qonunchilik Alloh uchun emas, balki xalq uchun amalga oshiriladi (SWT).

- 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 􀀬.

- Hukumat ijro etuvchi hokimiyat hisoblanadi. U konstitutsiya qoidalarini boshqarish va ijro etish vakolatiga ega hokimiyatdir. Hukumat, uning Bosh vaziri va vazirlarning har biri konstitutsiya qoidalariga zid harakat qilishga haqli emas, aks holda ular konstitutsiyani buzishda ayblanadi.

- 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.

Hech bir vazir, jumladan musulmon vazir ham, o'z vazirligining siyosatini belgilamaydi. Aksincha, u davlatning umumiy siyosatini, shu jumladan uning rahbarini ham o'z ichiga olgan holda, amalga oshiradi.

- 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.

Har bir vazir hukumat tomonidan qabul qilingan barcha qaror va harakatlar uchun mas'uldir. Buning sababi shundaki, qonunga ko'ra, vazirlar mahkamasining mas'uliyati jamoaviy va birgalikdagi mas'uliyatdir.

- 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.

Qisqasi, bu masala shunday tartibga solinganki, hech kimga vazirlar mahkamasidan mustaqil ravishda va o‘z xohishicha ish tutish huquqi berilmagan.

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.

Bu hukumatlarning haqiqati shunday. Ko'plab oyatlar musulmonning ularda ishtirok etishi man etilganiga guvohlik beradi.

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

Shunday qilib, Alloh 􀀬 hukm chiqarish Allohga tegishli bo'lishini farz qildi, chunki qonunlar Undan kelib chiqadigan asosdir. U 􀀬 aytdi: "Yo'q, Robbingiz nomi bilan qasam, ular o'rtalarida yuzaga kelgan barcha nizolarda seni hakam qilmagunlaricha va sen hukm qilganingdan ko'ngillarida hech qanday norozilik topmay, to'liq taslim bo'lmagunlaricha imonli bo'lmaydilar." [TMQ 4:65]. U 􀀬 aytdi: "Alloh va Uning Rasuli biror ishni hal qilganda, mo'min erkak yoki mo'min ayol uchun o'z ishlarida boshqa ixtiyor bo'lishi joiz emas." [TMQ 33:36] - Alloh 􀀬 hukmdor musulmon bo'lishini farz qildi. U 􀀬 aytdi: "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Allohga itoat qilinglar, Rasulga ﷺ va o'zlaringizdan bo'lgan hukm egalariga itoat qilinglar." [TMQ 4:59] - Alloh 􀀬 musulmon hukmdorni Islom bilan hukm qilishga majbur qildi. U 􀀬 aytdi: "Shuning uchun ular orasida Alloh nozil qilgan narsa bilan hukm qil..." [TMQ 5:49]. Alloh 􀀬 musulmon hukmdorni Islomning bir qismidan, hatto bitta hukmdan ham yuz o'girishdan ogohlantirdi. Shunday deb aytdi: "Ehtiyot bo'ling, Alloh sizga nozil qilgan narsalarning ba'zisidan ular sizni chalg'itib qo'ymasliklari uchun." [TMQ 5:49]. U 􀀬 kufr suroh (ochiq kufr) bilan hukm qiluvchiga qarshi qilichlarimizni yalang'ochlashimizni buyurdi. Bu Rasulullohning ﷺ fojir hukmdor haqidagi so'zi sababli bo'ldi. U so'raldi: "Ey Allohning Rasuli, uni qilich bilan urushmaymizmi?" U dedi: "Agar Alloh tomonidan dalilga ega bo'lgan aniq va ochiq kufr buwah (ochiq kufr)ni ko'rmasangiz, yo'q." [Muslim rivoyat qilgan] - U 􀀬 hukmdorning maslahatchilari va atrofidagilarining Islomdan boshqa narsada bo'lishini man qildi.

- 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.

"Ey iymon keltirganlar! Siz (o'zingizga) Bitona (maslahatchi, yordamchi, himoyachi) qilib olmanglar"

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

…boshqalardan do'st tutmang."" [TMQ 3:118] — Alloh 􀀬 musulmonlarga hukm chiqarish uchun Islomga murojaat qilishni buyurdi va Toƙutga murojaat qilishni taqiqladi. U 􀀬 bunday qilgan kishining iymoni shunchaki da'vo bo'lib, haqiqiy emasligini aniqladi. U 􀀬 aytdi: “Sizga nozil qilingan narsaga va sizdan oldin nozil qilingan narsaga iymon keltirdik, deb da'vo qiladigan, ammo ularni Toƙutga (soxta hakamlarga va boshqalarga) hakamlikka murojaat qilishni xohlaydiganlarni ko'rdingizmi? Holbuki, ularga uni inkor etish buyurilgan edi. Shayton esa ularni chuqur adashtirishni xohlaydi.” [TMQ 4:60] — Alloh 􀀬 musulmonlarga o'zlaridan boshqalarni do'st va yordamchi qilib olishni taqiqladi: “Ey iymon keltirganlar! Alloh g'azabiga uchragan qavmni do'st tutmanglar.

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.

Albatta, ular qabrlarda yotganlar haqida (ularning Qiyomat kunida tirilmasliklari haqida) umidsizlikka tushganlari kabi, oxiratdan ham umidsizlikka tushgandirlar”, deb [TMQ 60:13] aytilgan. Va U 􀀬 aytdi: “Ey iymon keltirganlar! Yahudiy va nasroniylarni Avliyo (do'stlar, himoyachilar) qilib olmanglar; ular faqat bir-birlarining avliyolaridir. Sizlardan kim ularni avliyo qilib olsa, albatta, u ularning biridir. Darhaqiqat, Alloh zolim qavmni hidoyat qilmaydi. Ko'rasiz, qalbida kasallik (nifoq) bor kimselar ularning do'stligiga shoshiladilar va: “Bizga biror musibat yoki falokat yetishidan qo'rqamiz”, deyishadi. Ehtimol, Alloh G'alabani yoki Iroda qilgan ishini keltirar. Shunda ular o'zlarida yashirib yurgan narsalaridan pushaymon bo'ladilar.” [TMQ 5:51-52] Bu yerda shunday savol tug'ilishi mumkinki, bugungi hukmdorlar yahudiy yoki nasroniy emas. Haqiqatda esa ular yahudiylar va nasroniylarga sadoqatlidirlar. Hukmdorlarga sadoqatli bo'lgan kishining sadoqati, o'sha hukmdorlar sadoqatli bo'lgan kishilarga bo'ladi.

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.

Va U (SWT) aytdi: «Va kofir bo‘lganlar bir-birining do‘stlaridir; agar siz shunday qilmasangiz (ya’ni...

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

...(TMQ 8:73)-ayat bilan ta'kidlanganidek, Yer yuzida fitna (urushlar, janglar) va zulm, shuningdek, katta fasod va buzg'unchilik (shirkning zohir bo'lishi) yuz beradi.” Shuni alohida ta'kidlash kerakki, yahudiy va nasroniylar bilan do'stlashmaslikdan maqsad ularga nisbatan sadoqat ko'rsatish emas. Balki maqsad shuki, Islomga zid bo'lgan har qanday narsa va har qanday kimsaga sadoqat ko'rsatish man etiladi. Ularga sadoqat ko'rsatishning taqiqlanishi shuni taqozo qiladiki, inson fikr va xulq jihatidan ulardan uzoqlashsin hamda asosi kufrga qurilgan har qanday masalani ulardan qabul qilmasin. U zot (SWT) Ibrohim (a.s.) tilidan shunday degan: “Albatta, biz sizlardan va Allohdan boshqa sig'inganlaringizdan uzoqmiz, biz sizlarni inkor etdik. To siz imon keltirmaguningizcha, biz bilan sizlar o'rtasida abadiy adovat va nafrat boshlandi...” [TMQ 60:4] Valo' (sadoqat) Allohga, Uning Rasuliga va mo'minlarga bo'lishi kerak. U zot (SWT) shunday degan: “Kimki Allohni, Uning Rasulini va iymon keltirganlarni do'st tutsa, bas, Allohning jamoasi g'olib bo'lur.” [TMQ 5:56] Bu yerda yana shunday savol tug'ilishi mumkin: hokimiyatda ishtirok etishga rozilik bildirish orqali biz ularga sadoqat ko'rsatishni nazarda tutmaymizmi? Biz faqat namunaga ergashgan holda itoat ko'rsatamiz (ta'sir kuchiga ega bo'lguncha bo'ysunamiz).

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)

"Lekin qalblarimiz ular qilayotgan ishni rad etadi. Haqiqat shuki, sadoqat amallar va qalb birgalikda ishtirok etadigan masala. Hokim Alloh 􀀬 nozil qilganidan boshqa narsa bilan hukm qilganida, biz uning qilayotgan ishini qo'l bilan, til bilan va qalb bilan rad etishga majburmiz. Eng kam darajada qalb bilan rad etish mumkin, va bundan keyin iymon yo'q, deb xabar bergan al-Mustafo 􀁕."

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 􀁕.

Iymonning eng zaif darajasida turganlarning xatti-harakatlari va so'zlari kofirlar hukmronligini ma'qullamasligi va qo'llamasligi kerak. Bunday qiladiganlar Allohga {itoat etmaslik} qilmoqda va gunoh sodir etmoqda, garchi qalblari uni rad etsa ham. Agar qalblari uni ma'qullasa, ular kufr bilan ayblanadilar. Allohning nozil qilganidan boshqasi bilan hukm qilishda qatnashgan kishi haqida aytiladigan eng kam narsa shuki, u fosiq (gunohkor), zolim (zolim) va Allohga nisbatan ‘osiy (itoatsiz)dir.

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 􀀬.