The issue of sovereignty belonging to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and that religious innovation contradicts the belief that judgment belongs to Allah alone, with no partner.

The Shaykh : I do not wish to bring up such evidence; we have spoken extensively on this matter. However, I want to focus my remarks now on the previous question:
Many of the Muslims whom we are afflicted with in our present era, whom we describe as Islamists; for there are among the Muslims those who are not Islamists. Those who oppose these are the Islamists. Therefore, I say: there are among the Islamists those who call to the truth, which is that sovereignty belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone. This is, of course, part of the perfection of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) to which we, the Salafis, call, and who divide tawhid into three categories:
Tawhid al-rububiyyah (oneness of lordship), which the polytheists used to believe in, and many non-Muslims still believe that this universe has a great Creator. The second is tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship), or tawhid of worship, which is that none is worshipped except Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). The third is tawhid al-asma' wa al-sifat (oneness of the names and attributes).
Just as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is One in His essence, He is One in His divinity; it is obligatory that none other be worshipped with Him. Likewise, He is One in His attributes, and it is not permissible to associate anyone with Him in His attributes.
These are facts known by the callers to the Book and the Sunnah. But some of the Islamists today are preoccupied today with a type of what is among the rights of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), namely legislation. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: So judgment belongs to Allah alone, not to anyone other than Him. All Muslims today agree on this. But those who are preoccupied with the call and rightly emphasize that sovereignty belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone overlook—and I do not say they ignore—that what is related to this right, which is that judgment belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), is that it is not permissible for a Muslim with this correct belief to innovate in the religion what is not from it. For innovation in the religion is legislation, or—to use the correct expression—it is part of legislation. If we call for the fact that judgment belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone, we must not forget that among the rulings is that it is said: this matter has reward and virtue, while he knows that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) did not legislate it. Who legislates this matter? Who dares to say: this is better, while he knows that the Lord of good did not legislate it on the tongue of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: ?!
I say: I do not wish to raise the issue with new details, but it is a reminder. We must remember that innovation in the religion contradicts the belief that judgment belongs to Allah and that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, with no partner. It contradicts it. So if we are sincere and pure in our call to the fact that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, we must not forget that often we destroy our own houses with our own hands. It has happened that some of these Islamists deliver a sermon—as they say today—fiery; with heat, with zeal for Islam. He speaks about this type of tawhid; which is that the right of sovereignty belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone, and no one should share in it with Him. Then it becomes clear in his sermon or in his prayer that he contradicted the Sunnah. There is no strangeness in this contradiction; for perfection is not expected of a person. Especially since many of the youth today have not studied the Sunnah in a detailed and comprehensive manner such that they are able to know the Sunnahs and distinguish them from innovations. He may attend a sermon and contradict the Sunnah in it. He may pray the Friday prayer and contradict the Sunnah in it. When he finishes and some callers to the Sunnah point it out to him, he destroys all that fiery sermon with one word, which was at the height of enthusiasm. He says: My brother, this is my madhhab (school of jurisprudence), and this is the saying of such-and-such a madhhab or such-and-such a shaykh (scholar)! Well, this research and this sermon which I dedicated entirely to the fact that the Sovereign is Allah alone, with no partner; where do you go to say that my madhhab says this, while we are reminding you of the Sunnah?
Here is a matter that seems hidden from those who do not know of tawhid except that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone. They think that the legislation that contradicts the sovereignty of Allah alone is what comes to us from the East or the West. As for what originated from us, even if it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, and even if it is not from the legislation of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); this seems to them to be fine. It is as if they classify people into two groups: people for whom legislation is permissible, and people for whom legislation is not permissible. Those for whom legislation is not permissible are the disbelievers. Therefore, we fight all earthly laws that come to us from the disbelievers. But if a law is established by some of the previous scholars, and it matches the Shari'ah fifty, sixty, seventy percent, etc., but it contains ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) that contradicts the Sunnah; yes, there is no harm. This ijtihad is fine, even if it contradicts the Sunnah, and even if it contradicts the Noble Qur'an. Why? Because the one who brought this legislation is a Muslim, and he is a scholar. So it is as if they imagined the matter inverted or incorrectly. They imagined that those for whom legislation is not permissible are the disbelievers, and they imagined that those from whose guidance we should not take a system and constitution are the disbelievers. But if there are some shaykhs who brought some legislations and it became clear that they contradict the Book and the Sunnah, there is no harm in that; because the source of these legislations is from Muslims, not from disbelievers. This distinction is the point of research at this moment. This distinction is wrong and dangerous; because at the time they fight shirk (associating partners with Allah) from one side, they adopt this shirk. There is no difference with Allah (Mighty and Majestic); whether the one who legislated a law that contradicts the Book and the Sunnah is a Muslim or a disbeliever, because the 'illah (operative cause) is sharing with Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in His right, which is that He is the sole legislator, .
This fact; I mean their distinction between the law when it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, whether it is from a disbeliever and is rejected, or from a Muslim scholar and is not rejected; this distinction is among the innovations of the last days. And this is not a deduction from me or an ijtihad either; no, some Islamic parties have explicitly stated that every ruling and every ijtihad issued by a Muslim scholar is an Islamic opinion. They stated this explicitly, and they did not write it among themselves as they might do in other matters, but they published it openly. Every statement made by a speaker, as long as he is a Muslim scholar, is an Islamic opinion!
From here, some of the shaykhs of al-Azhar said to some of the khedives: You choose whatever opinions and laws you wish, and it is upon me to support them from the books of Muslims. This is his reasoning, which I explained to you. Legislation from non-Muslims is shirk to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), but legislation from a Muslim is fine and permissible. From here you know the danger of what I quoted in the introduction of my book "The Description of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)" from the commentator of "Al-Jami' al-Saghir," al-Manawi, that the four madhahib are like the four shari'ahs; the four madhahib are like the four shari'ahs; so you take from whichever shari'ah you wish. Even though the Shari'ah is one for us, and before it there were shari'ahs that were all abrogated, and they were from the revelation of the sky. And here we are, not satisfied to follow the previous heavenly shari'ahs; because we—praise be to Allah—have all known that they are abrogated. So we replace them with shari'ahs that we place with our own hands and our ijtihad, even with good intention. This is another research. But the followers take it as if they are four shari'ahs that descended from the sky; so whichever shari'ah you adopt and follow, you are on the right path.
All these statements and all these texts confirm the danger of understanding that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone in the broadest of meanings; there is no difference between a wrong ruling issued by a Muslim through independent legal reasoning for which he is rewarded, or one issued by a disbeliever ruler for which he is punished; all of this is wrong, and it is not permissible to adopt it.
Therefore, we must verify the adoption of Islam in reality theoretically, to have a correct, comprehensive, and inclusive understanding on one hand, and we must make that our life, not just talk and then not apply. For example, if I say that sovereignty belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone, even in the narrow, partial sense; that is, the laws established by disbelievers are not permissible for us to rule by; I say this, explain it, and preach, and then I find myself ruling practically by these systems; this falls under His saying (Mighty and Majestic): Yes? .
Likewise, if I am sincere in my belief that sovereignty belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone, why, when you, O Muslim, are reminded that the action you performed is a violation of the Book and the Sunnah, is the answer that "this is my school of jurisprudence"? Then you have made your school of jurisprudence a law; because you do not follow what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said, which is the entire Shari'ah, and you oppose it with your school of jurisprudence; and this is what was revealed regarding those like you, I do not say about you specifically, this is what was revealed regarding those like you, the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) concerning the Christians: Some of the Companions did not understand the intended meaning at that time, among those who had become Christians in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, so he said: O Messenger of Allah, how is this? We did not take them as lords besides Allah? He said to him (peace be upon him): . He said: As for this, it used to happen. He said: .
Therefore, the one who sets up a school of jurisprudence against the Book and the Sunnah and follows it, even if it becomes clear to him that it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, is like what "Al-Fakhr al-Razi" says in his "Tafsir": "He has a resemblance to those who took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah"; and therefore we distinguish between the masses of people, each of whom follows a specific school of jurisprudence, and we excuse these people; because they were not given the opportunity to know the rulings of the Shari'ah from their two pure sources, the Book and the Sunnah, but we never excuse people from among the students of knowledge, let alone those who claim to be from the people of knowledge, when the Sunnah becomes clear to them contrary to issues in their school of jurisprudence, and then they remain followers of the school, turning away from what they learned from the Book and the Sunnah. The one who does not know is excused for his ignorance; especially when he lives among scholars who are in need of someone to teach them, but if the issue is that this scholar has become clear to him that the Sunnah is contrary to the school of jurisprudence, and then he persists in following it while turning away from the Sunnah of his Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); then this is an exaggeration in following a scholar without knowing his evidence and turning away from following the Master of the Messengers (may the best of prayers and perfect peace be upon him).
If the Messenger (peace be upon him) rebuked 'Umar ibn al-Khattab when he saw him one day reading from a paper, and when he asked him about it, he said: This is a paper from the Torah that a man from the Jews wrote for me. He said (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him), and he was angry: , Moses, the one who spoke to Allah, if he were alive, it would not be possible for him except to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him); so what is our situation today, turning away from following the Messenger (peace be upon him)?! I return to say: after the Sunnah has become clear; so let no objector object that we are misleading and declaring people disbelievers as they fabricate; no, we are arguing now and establishing the proof against those who know, those who have spent a portion of their time studying Islamic jurisprudence, and due to the necessity of this study, even if unintentionally, many issues contrary to the Book and the Sunnah became clear to them, and then they continue in their old following of a scholar without knowing his evidence; we say to them: if Moses were alive, it would not be possible for him except to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him); so how is it possible for you not to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him), and you do not even follow Moses and Jesus, and they are among the protected ones, but you follow distinguished scholars who have their knowledge and their independent legal reasoning? It has been established for you, not just for others, but for you as well, that they contradicted the Book and the Sunnah in an issue, whether in five or ten, that does not concern us; because every person may become clear to him something that may not become clear to another, for example: the Hanafi becomes clear to him that raising the hands in the bowing and prostration is a recommended practice; so how does he continue to say: raising the hands is forbiddenly disliked? Forbiddenly disliked, and he finds dozens of hadiths in the authentic books that explicitly state that the Messenger used to raise his hands in the bowing and prostration.
And so say about al-Shafi'i and about al-Maliki and al-Hanbali, Malik who, for example, continues to say Allahu Akbar; there is no difference here, whether in Medina or in Mecca or in Mecca or in Algeria or in Egypt; wherever you go, you know that he is a fanatic Maliki, wherever you go, you know that he is a fanatic Hanafi, from their practices that they adopted contrary to the Sunnah; those to whom the Sunnah has become clear, how is it permissible for them to contradict the Messenger (peace be upon him) and follow those who are below Moses in ranks and degrees that only Allah can count? .
From this, it becomes clear to you the danger of believing that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone only in what contradicts the statements of the polytheists or disbelievers, as for what contradicts this sovereignty from the statements of Muslims, their Islam intercedes for us to take them as followers besides the Messenger (peace be upon him); this is a negation of the belief that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone.
Perhaps in this amount is an explanation and an answer to the question that some of our brothers direct to us, and perhaps the time has run out; so we suffice with this amount, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.