Commentary on the book by 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Khalq on the permissibility of entering parliaments and engaging in political work.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: All right, our Shaykh, here he says.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: He addresses some doubts regarding this.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner: In the field of political work, he says: "First: If the caller enters the political arena, he is not safe from some violations of the Shari'ah."
The Shaykh: So, he admits to this, all right.
The questioner: ... based on this.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: He says: "Many callers hesitate to enter the political arena, which we have explained earlier. It is necessary for one who enters this field to commit some violations of the Shari'ah, such as mixing with those who differ and participating with sinners. This is a mistaken conception of Islamic political work, because the reality of it is calling to Allah, enjoining good and forbidding evil."
The Shaykh: Be patient a moment. He also gave an example that is not a matter for discussion.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Was not the Messenger mixing with the polytheists and attending their clubs?!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: But he was calling them to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), and this is not the evil. But the evil, for example, especially in the state where he lives now, is that he is required to swear to support the constitution, and I do not know what the oath is, and what the oath is, and so on. Did he address these violations and provide evidence for their permissibility, or what?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: He said: "Indeed, good does not exist purely in such a society as the one we live in. Therefore, a Muslim cannot practice trade, agriculture, industry, or any work without committing some of the forbidden that the reality contrary to the religion has imposed. And the Muslim in this society we live in must not stand firm against the forbidden in a way that leads to destruction, nor seek it for its own sake, such as engaging in usury or interest, or gambling, or cheating, or taking bribes. But if he trades, a tax and duty are imposed on him, and he deals with an interest-based bank, and he has no choice but to deal with it. And if he studies, he has no escape from universities where there is free mixing of men and women and a mixture between the teachings of Islam and the teachings of disbelief. And if he takes on a job among the Muslims, some evil that is necessary and from which there is no escape is imposed on him. Then such a thing is, without doubt, among what is forgiven—if Allah wills—by lifting the hardship."
The Shaykh: If Allah wills, what is the evidence?
The questioner: He will say, meaning, for example.
The Shaykh: Bring it, let us see. Give me the evidence that it is permissible for a Muslim to expose himself to falling into the forbidden. Do you think, do you think, did the Companions expose themselves to falling into the forbidden by their own choice during the time of the rule of the disbelieving polytheists? Did they expose themselves?!
The questioner: No, they did not expose themselves.
The Shaykh: All right, so why do we expose ourselves, by our own choice, more than they did? And why is it that we cannot establish the state of Islam except by disobeying our Lord? What is the evidence for that?! Hold me to the evidence, yes.
The questioner: Here he brings the doubt: He said: "There is no doubt that if we return to the texts of the Shari'ah, the policy of the Prophethood, and the Rightly Guided Caliphate, we will find that it is obligatory to repel the great harm with the lesser harm."
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: "And this is from the category of 'committing the lesser of two harms.'"
The Shaykh: What is his example?
The questioner : That is it.
The Shaykh: This is a claim, my brother. We return to say: "And claims, unless you establish proofs for them." Where in the policy of the Rightly Guided Caliphs did they commit forbidden acts in the path of establishing the state of Islam?
The questioner: The example of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah! All right, what is in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah?!
The questioner: That in its appearance there are violations.
The Shaykh: No, give me one of them. Where is the violation?
The questioner: His saying: "One who comes from Mecca and embraces Islam with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is returned to Mecca again and tortured."
The Shaykh: Was this by the choice of the Messenger (peace be upon him), or was he forced?!
The questioner: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was pleased with this and signed it.
The Shaykh: He signed this because he was able not to sign?
The questioner: He was able not to sign.
The Shaykh: He was able not to sign?!
The questioner: He could leave the treaty in its entirety and in detail. He was able to do this.
The Shaykh: No, he was not able, because he was working on the principle:[Al-Baqarah 2:286] So he is able to do one thing and not able to do another—may Allah have mercy on you. No, this does not fit this example at all. Here, look at what he said earlier regarding transactions. What did he say? "And some of the modern methods of da'wah." Methods of da'wah do not mean matters imposed on a person. No, he enters them as methods among the methods of da'wah. "It is not free from committing violations of the Shari'ah. If we assume this for the sake of argument, then this is among what is forgiven—if Allah wills—because good does not exist purely."
The questioner: Does not exist purely.
The Shaykh: This is "absolutely in such a society as the one we live in, so a Muslim cannot practice trade, agriculture, industry, or any work without committing some of the forbidden." Is this correct?
The questioner: If we interpret it with our opinion, we say.
The Shaykh: No, no, I say: Is this correct in the Shari'ah and in the evidence?
The questioner: We consider this not permissible.
The Shaykh: It is correct, but he claims this. So where is the evidence for this statement? And I asked earlier, did the Muslims in the first instance fall into such a matter? Of course, I believe it did not happen. So he is using some matters as evidence for what is broader than da'wah. The incident you mentioned earlier is a correct incident, but it does not indicate that every individual in the people is permitted to commit some forbidden acts in the path of obtaining his livelihood, industry, and agriculture. And I give you an example from myself. One of the things by which Muslims are afflicted today is dealing in open usury and hidden usury. We are not talking about open usury, but we are talking about the sale of 'inah first. And I think you are aware of the nature of the sale of 'inah and that it is forbidden in Islam. So let us leave this image to bring what is more precise than it, which is: installment sales: that a person sells a need for two prices, the cash price being lower and the installment price being higher. You hardly find a merchant who does not deal in this transaction. He will say now, this example: "It is not possible for a person to work in industry or agriculture without committing some forbidden acts from that." He has a beneficial treatise explaining the prohibition of installment sales with an increase. Have you seen this treatise?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: And we published it also in Sudan.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And we published it also in response in the magazine.
The Shaykh : Yes, very good.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: He addresses some doubts regarding this.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner: In the field of political work, he says: "First: If the caller enters the political arena, he is not safe from some violations of the Shari'ah."
The Shaykh: So, he admits to this, all right.
The questioner: ... based on this.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: He says: "Many callers hesitate to enter the political arena, which we have explained earlier. It is necessary for one who enters this field to commit some violations of the Shari'ah, such as mixing with those who differ and participating with sinners. This is a mistaken conception of Islamic political work, because the reality of it is calling to Allah, enjoining good and forbidding evil."
The Shaykh: Be patient a moment. He also gave an example that is not a matter for discussion.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Was not the Messenger mixing with the polytheists and attending their clubs?!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: But he was calling them to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), and this is not the evil. But the evil, for example, especially in the state where he lives now, is that he is required to swear to support the constitution, and I do not know what the oath is, and what the oath is, and so on. Did he address these violations and provide evidence for their permissibility, or what?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: He said: "Indeed, good does not exist purely in such a society as the one we live in. Therefore, a Muslim cannot practice trade, agriculture, industry, or any work without committing some of the forbidden that the reality contrary to the religion has imposed. And the Muslim in this society we live in must not stand firm against the forbidden in a way that leads to destruction, nor seek it for its own sake, such as engaging in usury or interest, or gambling, or cheating, or taking bribes. But if he trades, a tax and duty are imposed on him, and he deals with an interest-based bank, and he has no choice but to deal with it. And if he studies, he has no escape from universities where there is free mixing of men and women and a mixture between the teachings of Islam and the teachings of disbelief. And if he takes on a job among the Muslims, some evil that is necessary and from which there is no escape is imposed on him. Then such a thing is, without doubt, among what is forgiven—if Allah wills—by lifting the hardship."
The Shaykh: If Allah wills, what is the evidence?
The questioner: He will say, meaning, for example.
The Shaykh: Bring it, let us see. Give me the evidence that it is permissible for a Muslim to expose himself to falling into the forbidden. Do you think, do you think, did the Companions expose themselves to falling into the forbidden by their own choice during the time of the rule of the disbelieving polytheists? Did they expose themselves?!
The questioner: No, they did not expose themselves.
The Shaykh: All right, so why do we expose ourselves, by our own choice, more than they did? And why is it that we cannot establish the state of Islam except by disobeying our Lord? What is the evidence for that?! Hold me to the evidence, yes.
The questioner: Here he brings the doubt: He said: "There is no doubt that if we return to the texts of the Shari'ah, the policy of the Prophethood, and the Rightly Guided Caliphate, we will find that it is obligatory to repel the great harm with the lesser harm."
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: "And this is from the category of 'committing the lesser of two harms.'"
The Shaykh: What is his example?
The questioner : That is it.
The Shaykh: This is a claim, my brother. We return to say: "And claims, unless you establish proofs for them." Where in the policy of the Rightly Guided Caliphs did they commit forbidden acts in the path of establishing the state of Islam?
The questioner: The example of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah! All right, what is in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah?!
The questioner: That in its appearance there are violations.
The Shaykh: No, give me one of them. Where is the violation?
The questioner: His saying: "One who comes from Mecca and embraces Islam with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is returned to Mecca again and tortured."
The Shaykh: Was this by the choice of the Messenger (peace be upon him), or was he forced?!
The questioner: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was pleased with this and signed it.
The Shaykh: He signed this because he was able not to sign?
The questioner: He was able not to sign.
The Shaykh: He was able not to sign?!
The questioner: He could leave the treaty in its entirety and in detail. He was able to do this.
The Shaykh: No, he was not able, because he was working on the principle:
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity
لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَاThe questioner: Does not exist purely.
The Shaykh: This is "absolutely in such a society as the one we live in, so a Muslim cannot practice trade, agriculture, industry, or any work without committing some of the forbidden." Is this correct?
The questioner: If we interpret it with our opinion, we say.
The Shaykh: No, no, I say: Is this correct in the Shari'ah and in the evidence?
The questioner: We consider this not permissible.
The Shaykh: It is correct, but he claims this. So where is the evidence for this statement? And I asked earlier, did the Muslims in the first instance fall into such a matter? Of course, I believe it did not happen. So he is using some matters as evidence for what is broader than da'wah. The incident you mentioned earlier is a correct incident, but it does not indicate that every individual in the people is permitted to commit some forbidden acts in the path of obtaining his livelihood, industry, and agriculture. And I give you an example from myself. One of the things by which Muslims are afflicted today is dealing in open usury and hidden usury. We are not talking about open usury, but we are talking about the sale of 'inah first. And I think you are aware of the nature of the sale of 'inah and that it is forbidden in Islam. So let us leave this image to bring what is more precise than it, which is: installment sales: that a person sells a need for two prices, the cash price being lower and the installment price being higher. You hardly find a merchant who does not deal in this transaction. He will say now, this example: "It is not possible for a person to work in industry or agriculture without committing some forbidden acts from that." He has a beneficial treatise explaining the prohibition of installment sales with an increase. Have you seen this treatise?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: And we published it also in Sudan.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And we published it also in response in the magazine.
The Shaykh : Yes, very good.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.