Commentary on a paragraph in the article, namely his statement: "Islam is a whole that cannot be divided, and it is obligatory for Muslims to adopt Islam as a whole that cannot be divided."

The Shaykh : He says, "Islam is a whole that cannot be divided, and it is obligatory for Muslims to adopt Islam as a whole that cannot be divided". This is a correct call, and it is not permissible for any Muslim to doubt it. However, there is something that must be noted: there is intellectual adoption and there is practical adoption. What it is not permissible to hesitate about, and what must be adopted in its entirety, is intellectual adoption; of course, it is not permissible to believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part. As for practice, it is like the religious obligations related to every Muslim who is accountable: he does what he is able to do, and Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. The same applies to the nation, for the nation is, as is well known, nothing but a group of individuals. Just as every individual is obligated to do what he is able to do, so the nation is obligated to do what it is able to do. Once we understand this fact, which is a self-evident truth beyond doubt, it becomes clear to you that this writer has confused thought with action, which should correspond to thought. He is as if he is seeking an Islamic society in which Islam is applied in its entirety, with no part of it, whether small or large, lagging behind in application. This is, of course, impossible to achieve, especially for later Muslims. He should say explicitly: "It is too heavy for us to return the Personal Status Law to conformity with the Book and the Sunnah, removing from it what contradicts Islam and putting in it what Islam commands." Before all of this, we must reform society; we must reform this society and prepare it to accept these rulings and laws. This is beautiful speech in reality, and this preparation is what we call for before focusing on things that are beyond our reach. This is not because if we were able to do it, we would not do it. This is a very big difference between what we call people to do, which is to act according to our ability, and resuming Islamic life. There is no doubt that this will happen step by step, to the extent that a person, or a nation, is able. For example, if Islam consists of a hundred rulings, and we are currently living in a practical application of ten of them, there is no harm in adding one, then another, then a third, until the number becomes twenty, thirty, and so on. As for waiting until the nation resumes its complete Islamic life in its entirety, both collectively and individually, while we leave the ruling to proceed in contradiction to the Book and the Sunnah, when we are able to amend and change this ruling without any hardship or effort, as is clear now from the movement taking place in Kuwait.
So, riba is present in these laws on the pretext that society is not a complete Islamic society. This means that the Islamic society will remain incomplete, because there is no doubt that the efforts of individuals in reform are less than the efforts of governments. It was said, or rather, it is more accurate to say it was narrated from Uthman, that he said, "Indeed, Allah restrains by the authority what He does not restrain by the Qur'an". If the authority agrees to change a law in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah, why do we refuse and stand in the way of this reform on the pretext that our Islamic reality does not accept this reform? This is a very strange matter.
A few years ago, it was known in the Personal Status Law that if a Muslim divorces his wife three times in one session with one phrase, his wife becomes divorced from him with a final divorce, as the Exalted said, . Then some of those engaged in Islamic jurisprudence saw that adopting this opinion or this ruling as the opinion of the four schools of jurisprudence, which the masses of Muslims are keen to preserve and do not allow anyone to deviate from, no matter what path they find for such deviation, was problematic. Nevertheless, when these people saw the bad effect of adopting this opinion, which is that divorce with the phrase "three, three" is considered three divorces, they returned and adopted an opinion that, until recently, was considered an anomalous and rejected opinion: the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who returned to the Sunnah in this issue about a century ago, saying that divorce with the phrase of three is only one divorce. Some jurists adopted this and introduced this correct Islamic ruling into the Personal Status Law. There are, without doubt, many rulings like this that contradict the Islamic Shari'ah, whether the Book, the Sunnah, or both. I am not a lawyer and have not studied the Personal Status Law, but I know for certain that there are many such rulings. What harm did the Islamic society suffer, which has not advanced at all since recently, when this ruling was changed to conform to the Sunnah? It did not harm anything, it did not destabilize society, and society did not reject it, as the writer of this article suggests.