The Shaykh’s discourse on the Prophetic methodology in reforming societies and the warning against the prohibition of entering parliaments.

The Shaykh : My friend puts a stick in the wheel so the wheel doesn’t move; it stops. The prevailing situation now, in any country, is it the reform of the people or their destruction? Do you have any doubt about this? Since you said regarding Algeria that it was saved, well, now the question arises: what is the Prophetic methodology? Is it attempting to reform this society and turn it around so that it is called a righteous society, so that the bitter truth becomes the sweet truth? The bitter truth is that this society, whether small, large, or great, is corrupt. The Syrian society is corrupt, the Egyptian society is corrupt, the Kuwaiti society is corrupt, the Algerian society is corrupt, and so on, until you reach the holiest land, where a hadith was reported: Did you hear this hadith?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : This is a fabricated hadith with no basis, but it is a hadith: Hahaha, may Allah reward you. The issue now is: any society, some of its elites say that it is prescribed, indeed obligatory, indeed that the Muslim state cannot stand unless the Muslim elites enter these parliaments. These people, first: they are not nominated by the people, because the people are corrupt. And this corrupt people, as you said, may nominate those who support their idea, their idea that things remain as they are, living like animals, freedom, supporting democracy, and so on. But when they realize that there are young men who want to enforce the hijab on women, who want to enforce the banning of bars and the like, and the open and hidden immorality and sin, and so on. Yes, yes. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)—now we say this is a response to the nomination of righteous people for themselves; they may succeed or they may not. But if they persist in calling the people of the society to Islam, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did, is their persistence in this calling in accordance with the Messenger’s methodology in his calling, or is it contrary to it?

The questioner : In accordance.

The Shaykh : In accordance. Is their entering parliament in accordance?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, but I ask because I know the point of disagreement: is entering a parliament that declares it rules based on a constitution not established on Islam permissible? Yes...

The questioner : You are Al-Albani.

Another questioner : You are Al-Albani.

The Shaykh: Yes ... .

The questioner : You are Al-Albani.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : What do you want?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : What do you want?

The questioner : Matam...

The Shaykh : No, this...

The questioner : Matam.

The Shaykh : What?
The student : Matam... you are wrong.

The Shaykh : You are wrong...

The questioner : Matam...

The Shaykh : ... The entry of righteous Muslims and sincere scholars into parliaments seems to me exactly like if the Messenger (peace be upon him) had entered the clubs of the polytheists and accommodated them in some of their shirk (associating partners with Allah) and misguidance. This is what Allah rebuked him for in the previous verse: Although experience has proven that when Islamists enter parliaments, they gain absolutely nothing, because as it was said: "Do the shadow and the crooked stick compare?" We now deny entering parliaments for two reasons: First: it is contrary to the Prophetic and Messengership methodology. The Messenger did not begin by reforming society by accommodating the rulers who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. Rather, he began by calling to the worship of Allah alone, having no partner, in the broad sense known to every Muslim monotheist, which includes tawhid al-rububiyyah (oneness of lordship), tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship), and tawhid al-asma' wa al-sifat (oneness of the names and attributes). And naturally included in that is: Therefore, entering parliament before reforming the society in which the true Muslim da'iyah (caller) lives is premature. And so the Messenger remained steadfast in the call in Makkah, as you know, for thirteen years, then he migrated to Madinah, where he found the core upon which he built their upbringing, teaching them their religion and raising them on the rulings of that Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) that had been revealed on that day. So we took, may Allah reward you all, Algeria and the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that arose there, and we are still complaining of the harms resulting from it due to the intensification of the tyranny of the ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed. How, then, can these young men enter a parliament and change its system? This is the outcome of their affair, and they do not have a thousand scholars, nor five hundred scholars, nor even one scholar. These matters are, in truth, self-evident in their invalidity. Nevertheless, we still see many da'iyah in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who think that what some of our brothers did—those we thought were Salafis with us—is jihad in the path of Allah. No, this is not jihad; this is throwing oneself into destruction. And whoever believes otherwise, let him act on his claim of jihad before preparing for it.