A discussion on the ruling of those who permit entering parliament for the sake of change
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh: All right, who are you representing?
The student: And the brothers there, the Salafi brothers.
The Shaykh: Who represents them.
The student: We do not belong to any parties or organizations.
The Shaykh: Because there are many like you, my brother, who go and meet with the Shaykh ... .
The questioner : I heard.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner: I have listened to all the tapes with the brothers, and with you, may Allah reward you with good, but in matters that were not raised, I even spoke to the brother Abu Abd al-Rahman yesterday ... meaning the Shaykh here spoke about this issue, seeking his permission regarding the issue of parliament, meaning the Shaykh's reasoning regarding parliament, meaning what is clear in the book ... that you published, may Allah reward you with good ... when you mentioned in the answer, you mentioned, meaning the reasoning is that a person might fall into or follow the laws, and might, meaning, adorn himself with a dress ... we disagree with you on the reasoning.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: We disagree with you on the reasoning. The reasoning for the prohibition here is not merely that a person might follow the laws and might wear clothing that is not [appropriate], but we say the reasoning, as Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book ... Tawhid: The reasoning for the prohibition here is that legislation has been made for other than Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). And if legislation is for other than Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), then the saying of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is applied:[Ash-Shuraa 42:21], and these are matters of creed. And as you mentioned, may Allah reward you with good, in the issue of whether it is permissible, it is not permissible to be nominated, but it is permissible to vote, because this is actually because there is disagreement on the reasoning here. We say it is not permissible to vote and it is not permissible to be nominated, because the issue is a matter of creed, which necessitates abandoning it and disavowing all these matters. And Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab mentioned in the book Tawhid, in the seventh letter, in the issues of, meaning, the taghut and the types of taghut, Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: [Al-Baqarah 2:256] He said (may Allah have mercy on him): "The taghut are many, and their heads are five."
The Shaykh: Do you imagine that there is a fundamental disagreement between what we say and what you said?
The student : I did not understand the question.
The Shaykh: I repeat, I say, do you think there is a fundamental disagreement between what we say and what you say? Or, in a more concise and clearer phrase, between what we ascribe to Allah and what you ascribe to Allah regarding the parliaments existing today, do you think there is a disagreement between us and you?
The student: There is no disagreement in the ruling, but the disagreement is in the reasoning.
The Shaykh: All right, that is one thing. The other, have you raised this with our brother Abd al-Rahman?
The student: Yes, and he refused.
The Shaykh: And he refused.
The student: I spoke to him in his mosque after the Friday prayer, to have a public discussion, and I was speaking, the recorder was recording, and he was listening, if Allah wills, and he refused for the discussion to be public.
The Shaykh: Very good. Can we define the point of disagreement between what you believe and what we believe?
The student: The point of disagreement and the origin of the disagreement ... is that the reasoning for the prohibition of entering legislative councils, you said in this fatwa, we read it, you said.
The Shaykh: No, no, do not read. You said, say what you have, say what you understood.
The student: This is what I understood, that a person might support, might support these laws, or might adorn himself with a dress, imitate them, so we say the reasoning is not just this, but the reasoning is more severe than this, which is that a person enters, originally, even if he is not affected by the laws, we say, hypothetically, a person entered and was not affected by his dress or his beard, he was not affected, we say to him, you entered, originally, into the authority of legislation, and legislation is an action of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), and from the actions of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), like the actions of providing sustenance, giving life, and causing death, it is an action of lordship, and legislation is a specific action, a specific action for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).
The Shaykh: This statement ... Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Khaliq does not oppose you in that?
The student: ... the view. The theoretical statement is correct, but the reality, you tell him, why did you enter the legislative authority.
The Shaykh: Not only theoretically, but also creedally, and I do not think, meaning, the difference between theoretically and creedally is hidden from you.
The student: Creed obligates us ... or not?
The Shaykh: Be patient, let us proceed step by step. Now we want to clarify the difference between theoretically and creedally. I think there is an apparent difference between the two, correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The student: Theoretical, I mean here, the opposite of reality is creedal.
The Shaykh: ... because we need to build on something, a first step we agree on, we want to proceed from it to a second step, and so on, and a third. So, since it has become clear to you the difference between theoretically and creedally, can we now say about our brother Abd al-Rahman that he is only theoretically, and not creedally.
The student: No, we do not say theoretical. I mean here, I mean by theoretical, creedal, but ... the reality.
The Shaykh: My brother, may Allah guide you. We agreed that there is a difference between theoretically and creedally. We agreed on this.
The student : Correct.
The Shaykh: Now you return and say, I mean.
The student: I correct my statement. I made a mistake in speaking. Creedal, yes.
The Shaykh: Then the matter is over. The matter is over. So we remove the word theoretically and put in its place creedally.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh: Do you believe, regarding our brother Abd al-Rahman and those like him from the students of knowledge, that they permit ruling by other than what Allah has revealed?
The student: They do not permit it.
The Shaykh: Then, therefore, it is not correct to say that he is creedally, meaning ... as he said before, theoretically.
The student: No, I did not say ... .
The Shaykh: Theoretically, my brother.
The student: No, he believes that legislation is for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), but we say here, creed and faith.
The Shaykh: My brother, it is not correct to investigate in this way. You said theoretically, did you say it or not.
The student: I said, I withdraw it, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: My brother, allow me, may Allah guide you.
The student: I withdraw it. It is creedally, yes.
The Shaykh: All right. Creedally, we say, our brother Abd al-Rahman, it is impossible to attribute to him that he says it is permissible to rule by other than what Allah has revealed.
The student: ... He creedally believes that legislation is for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). He believes this.
The Shaykh: All right.
The student: And we do not suspect him of evil in this.
The Shaykh: All right.
The student: But we say, linking creed with reality. How do you believe that legislation is for Allah and enter a secular state that made legislation for humans, and enter with them and legislate, and may Allah protect us, even if you legislate Islam, your name is a legislator, and legislation is for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). So we say here, the Shaykh Abd al-Rahman believes that legislation is for Allah, but in reality he did not apply this. He issues a fatwa for entering the legislative authority, because the parliamentary state, Shaykh, has three pillars, it has three powers: first, the legislative power, the executive power, and the judicial power. So these states and their systems, meaning, these systems that came from Britain and France, made legislation for humans, so the making lawful and the making forbidden is through humans, and democracy means that the people rule themselves, and you know this, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Shaykh, may Allah guide you. Abd al-Rahman does not disagree with you in all of this.
The student: As a creed, but as a reality.
The Shaykh: As a reality, he does not perceive the reality, and in his claim, he wants to change this reality, and in that, he is mistaken. And this is the disagreement between us and him. There is no disagreement between him and [us] in terms of creed, and praise be to Allah. He forbids what Allah has forbidden and permits what He has permitted, and he rebukes the rulers who do not rule by what Allah has revealed. But in his assumption, he thinks that in his entering parliament, he or any of our brothers tries to change this ruling that is established contrary to the ruling of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The student : ... .
The Shaykh: And this is said to someone like me. I am telling you.
The student: Shaykh, is the mistake here secondary or fundamental? Is this innovation that he brought secondary or fundamental?
The Shaykh: Professor, may Allah bless you. Heat in scientific research ruins it. We agreed just now to proceed step by step, and this method benefited us greatly, even in terms of wording and expression. We are now disagreeing about Abd al-Rahman, is he creedal - be patient, my speech is not over - I want to tell you this story that we joke about in the Levant.
The student: Later, our Shaykh, later, after the food, after the food. This research is truly beautiful and good, and we ... but after the food, please.
The student: After the destructive war, or he would have been buried alive in the ground, because Abd al-Rahman is actually isolated, meaning, he was isolated, meaning, practically, only a group remained around him, while most of our young brothers on the correct methodology ... .
Another student: ...
The student : The legal ruling or permissibility of entering ... then he mentioned at the end of the chapter: The opinions of the scholars regarding the permissibility of entering parliamentary sessions ... he quoted the fatwa of Ibn Baz, he quoted the fatwa of Ibn Uthaymeen.
Another student: As for one who responded to him, meaning he nominated him.
Another student: In a book.
The student : Yes, indeed, Karim ibn Husayn ibn ... Saudi or Kuwaiti, and I swear by Allah, I do not know.
Another student: Shaykh Mubarak, we went to him and asked him about this issue, and the tape is available. He said, "If we did not know ... the religion and we knew that they are interpreting [it], we would have declared them disbelievers." He says, he says, "If it were not that they ... the religion, interpreting ... ."
The student : Welcome, and welcome to everyone.
The Shaykh : Welcome to each one.
The student : Welcome.
Another student: Our brother 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Samad, when our Salafi brothers entered ... he was still alive.
The student : No, no ... they were scrupulous about playing football. Now, in the Society for the Revival of Heritage, there are football fields.
Another student: ... in the parliament ... .
The Shaykh : 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Samad did not live to see the fitnah.
The student : Our brothers, since when ... the parliaments ... .
Another student: Since 1991, was it the mufti, or since 1990.
The student : No ... 'Abd al-Samad.
Another student: 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Samad.
The student : No, my brother, it was 1986.
Another student: 1986, do you have proof of this?
The student: Yes.
Another student: Yes, in the eighties.
The student : Eighty! No, in the nineties.
The student : In 1987, 1988. I was in the Emirates when he passed away. He passed away in 1988.
Another student: 1988, 1989.
The student : I was in the Emirates in 1988, and the news of his death came.
Another student: Allahu Akbar, how time passes, it seems like yesterday!
The student : Jasim al-Awn, when did he enter the People's Council?
The student : The National Assembly.
The Shaykh : ... .
The student : Before ... before, before.
Another student: I heard that he shortened his beard and let his garment hang below the ankles.
The student : Even, subhan Allah, in one of the newspapers, it mentions that a woman journalist is mocking Jasim al-Awni regarding his manner. She says, "I wanted to go to him, but I hesitated: should I shake his hand, extend my hand, or not? Because he is an Islamic man." Then she says, "I was brave enough to extend my hand to shake his hand, but he did not respond to me." She says, "So I encourage every Muslim to be like him."
Another student: Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace...
The student : By Allah, my Shaykh, I was yesterday ... .
The student: And the brothers there, the Salafi brothers.
The Shaykh: Who represents them.
The student: We do not belong to any parties or organizations.
The Shaykh: Because there are many like you, my brother, who go and meet with the Shaykh ... .
The questioner : I heard.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner: I have listened to all the tapes with the brothers, and with you, may Allah reward you with good, but in matters that were not raised, I even spoke to the brother Abu Abd al-Rahman yesterday ... meaning the Shaykh here spoke about this issue, seeking his permission regarding the issue of parliament, meaning the Shaykh's reasoning regarding parliament, meaning what is clear in the book ... that you published, may Allah reward you with good ... when you mentioned in the answer, you mentioned, meaning the reasoning is that a person might fall into or follow the laws, and might, meaning, adorn himself with a dress ... we disagree with you on the reasoning.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: We disagree with you on the reasoning. The reasoning for the prohibition here is not merely that a person might follow the laws and might wear clothing that is not [appropriate], but we say the reasoning, as Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book ... Tawhid: The reasoning for the prohibition here is that legislation has been made for other than Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). And if legislation is for other than Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), then the saying of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is applied:
Or have they other deities who have ordained for them a religion to which Allah has not consented?
أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَنْ بِهِ اللَّهُSo whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold
فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىThe Shaykh: Do you imagine that there is a fundamental disagreement between what we say and what you said?
The student : I did not understand the question.
The Shaykh: I repeat, I say, do you think there is a fundamental disagreement between what we say and what you say? Or, in a more concise and clearer phrase, between what we ascribe to Allah and what you ascribe to Allah regarding the parliaments existing today, do you think there is a disagreement between us and you?
The student: There is no disagreement in the ruling, but the disagreement is in the reasoning.
The Shaykh: All right, that is one thing. The other, have you raised this with our brother Abd al-Rahman?
The student: Yes, and he refused.
The Shaykh: And he refused.
The student: I spoke to him in his mosque after the Friday prayer, to have a public discussion, and I was speaking, the recorder was recording, and he was listening, if Allah wills, and he refused for the discussion to be public.
The Shaykh: Very good. Can we define the point of disagreement between what you believe and what we believe?
The student: The point of disagreement and the origin of the disagreement ... is that the reasoning for the prohibition of entering legislative councils, you said in this fatwa, we read it, you said.
The Shaykh: No, no, do not read. You said, say what you have, say what you understood.
The student: This is what I understood, that a person might support, might support these laws, or might adorn himself with a dress, imitate them, so we say the reasoning is not just this, but the reasoning is more severe than this, which is that a person enters, originally, even if he is not affected by the laws, we say, hypothetically, a person entered and was not affected by his dress or his beard, he was not affected, we say to him, you entered, originally, into the authority of legislation, and legislation is an action of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), and from the actions of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), like the actions of providing sustenance, giving life, and causing death, it is an action of lordship, and legislation is a specific action, a specific action for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).
The Shaykh: This statement ... Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Khaliq does not oppose you in that?
The student: ... the view. The theoretical statement is correct, but the reality, you tell him, why did you enter the legislative authority.
The Shaykh: Not only theoretically, but also creedally, and I do not think, meaning, the difference between theoretically and creedally is hidden from you.
The student: Creed obligates us ... or not?
The Shaykh: Be patient, let us proceed step by step. Now we want to clarify the difference between theoretically and creedally. I think there is an apparent difference between the two, correct.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The student: Theoretical, I mean here, the opposite of reality is creedal.
The Shaykh: ... because we need to build on something, a first step we agree on, we want to proceed from it to a second step, and so on, and a third. So, since it has become clear to you the difference between theoretically and creedally, can we now say about our brother Abd al-Rahman that he is only theoretically, and not creedally.
The student: No, we do not say theoretical. I mean here, I mean by theoretical, creedal, but ... the reality.
The Shaykh: My brother, may Allah guide you. We agreed that there is a difference between theoretically and creedally. We agreed on this.
The student : Correct.
The Shaykh: Now you return and say, I mean.
The student: I correct my statement. I made a mistake in speaking. Creedal, yes.
The Shaykh: Then the matter is over. The matter is over. So we remove the word theoretically and put in its place creedally.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh: Do you believe, regarding our brother Abd al-Rahman and those like him from the students of knowledge, that they permit ruling by other than what Allah has revealed?
The student: They do not permit it.
The Shaykh: Then, therefore, it is not correct to say that he is creedally, meaning ... as he said before, theoretically.
The student: No, I did not say ... .
The Shaykh: Theoretically, my brother.
The student: No, he believes that legislation is for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), but we say here, creed and faith.
The Shaykh: My brother, it is not correct to investigate in this way. You said theoretically, did you say it or not.
The student: I said, I withdraw it, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: My brother, allow me, may Allah guide you.
The student: I withdraw it. It is creedally, yes.
The Shaykh: All right. Creedally, we say, our brother Abd al-Rahman, it is impossible to attribute to him that he says it is permissible to rule by other than what Allah has revealed.
The student: ... He creedally believes that legislation is for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). He believes this.
The Shaykh: All right.
The student: And we do not suspect him of evil in this.
The Shaykh: All right.
The student: But we say, linking creed with reality. How do you believe that legislation is for Allah and enter a secular state that made legislation for humans, and enter with them and legislate, and may Allah protect us, even if you legislate Islam, your name is a legislator, and legislation is for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). So we say here, the Shaykh Abd al-Rahman believes that legislation is for Allah, but in reality he did not apply this. He issues a fatwa for entering the legislative authority, because the parliamentary state, Shaykh, has three pillars, it has three powers: first, the legislative power, the executive power, and the judicial power. So these states and their systems, meaning, these systems that came from Britain and France, made legislation for humans, so the making lawful and the making forbidden is through humans, and democracy means that the people rule themselves, and you know this, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Shaykh, may Allah guide you. Abd al-Rahman does not disagree with you in all of this.
The student: As a creed, but as a reality.
The Shaykh: As a reality, he does not perceive the reality, and in his claim, he wants to change this reality, and in that, he is mistaken. And this is the disagreement between us and him. There is no disagreement between him and [us] in terms of creed, and praise be to Allah. He forbids what Allah has forbidden and permits what He has permitted, and he rebukes the rulers who do not rule by what Allah has revealed. But in his assumption, he thinks that in his entering parliament, he or any of our brothers tries to change this ruling that is established contrary to the ruling of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The student : ... .
The Shaykh: And this is said to someone like me. I am telling you.
The student: Shaykh, is the mistake here secondary or fundamental? Is this innovation that he brought secondary or fundamental?
The Shaykh: Professor, may Allah bless you. Heat in scientific research ruins it. We agreed just now to proceed step by step, and this method benefited us greatly, even in terms of wording and expression. We are now disagreeing about Abd al-Rahman, is he creedal - be patient, my speech is not over - I want to tell you this story that we joke about in the Levant.
The student: Later, our Shaykh, later, after the food, after the food. This research is truly beautiful and good, and we ... but after the food, please.
The student: After the destructive war, or he would have been buried alive in the ground, because Abd al-Rahman is actually isolated, meaning, he was isolated, meaning, practically, only a group remained around him, while most of our young brothers on the correct methodology ... .
Another student: ...
The student : The legal ruling or permissibility of entering ... then he mentioned at the end of the chapter: The opinions of the scholars regarding the permissibility of entering parliamentary sessions ... he quoted the fatwa of Ibn Baz, he quoted the fatwa of Ibn Uthaymeen.
Another student: As for one who responded to him, meaning he nominated him.
Another student: In a book.
The student : Yes, indeed, Karim ibn Husayn ibn ... Saudi or Kuwaiti, and I swear by Allah, I do not know.
Another student: Shaykh Mubarak, we went to him and asked him about this issue, and the tape is available. He said, "If we did not know ... the religion and we knew that they are interpreting [it], we would have declared them disbelievers." He says, he says, "If it were not that they ... the religion, interpreting ... ."
The student : Welcome, and welcome to everyone.
The Shaykh : Welcome to each one.
The student : Welcome.
Another student: Our brother 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Samad, when our Salafi brothers entered ... he was still alive.
The student : No, no ... they were scrupulous about playing football. Now, in the Society for the Revival of Heritage, there are football fields.
Another student: ... in the parliament ... .
The Shaykh : 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Samad did not live to see the fitnah.
The student : Our brothers, since when ... the parliaments ... .
Another student: Since 1991, was it the mufti, or since 1990.
The student : No ... 'Abd al-Samad.
Another student: 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Samad.
The student : No, my brother, it was 1986.
Another student: 1986, do you have proof of this?
The student: Yes.
Another student: Yes, in the eighties.
The student : Eighty! No, in the nineties.
The student : In 1987, 1988. I was in the Emirates when he passed away. He passed away in 1988.
Another student: 1988, 1989.
The student : I was in the Emirates in 1988, and the news of his death came.
Another student: Allahu Akbar, how time passes, it seems like yesterday!
The student : Jasim al-Awn, when did he enter the People's Council?
The student : The National Assembly.
The Shaykh : ... .
The student : Before ... before, before.
Another student: I heard that he shortened his beard and let his garment hang below the ankles.
The student : Even, subhan Allah, in one of the newspapers, it mentions that a woman journalist is mocking Jasim al-Awni regarding his manner. She says, "I wanted to go to him, but I hesitated: should I shake his hand, extend my hand, or not? Because he is an Islamic man." Then she says, "I was brave enough to extend my hand to shake his hand, but he did not respond to me." She says, "So I encourage every Muslim to be like him."
Another student: Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace...
The student : By Allah, my Shaykh, I was yesterday ... .
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.