Commentary on a paragraph that appeared in the article, namely his statement: "Patching together the rulings of Islam with those of other systems is a matter that Islam does not approve of and does not accept..."

The Shaykh : Finally, he says: "Therefore, patching together the rulings of Islam with those of other systems is a matter that Islam does not approve of and does not accept". This is correct, but the patching he refers to is the kind that Islam does not accept. As for now, if one applies ten percent of Islam, one is not satisfied with applying eleven or twelve percent, and one is not pleased with this shortcoming, as he says in this statement. But listen, in the end, he says: "The truths mentioned above fall within the framework of faith in this religion, which Allah willed to be the methodology for our entire life, its small and large matters, its private and public affairs". Look at this reservation: "We hope that it is not understood from what has preceded that we reject the Personal Status Law. We only intended to clarify the vital field in which this law exercises its supremacy and authority and bears fruit. If this desired outcome is not achieved in the required form, we accept the Personal Status Law, we demand its continuation, and we defend this continuation in its current form". What is your opinion of this statement? This is the result of the demand that we do not accept Islam, and it is not permissible for us to adopt it except as a whole that cannot be divided. So when will Islam be realized as a whole that cannot be divided? In one step or in stages? In my belief, this stems from two things. First, from not studying the Sunnah, because when a person studies the Sunnah and understands the society in which the Companions lived, in which the rulings and the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) were applied, he cannot write such a statement and say that we must prepare the climate before establishing the hudud, and this is what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do.
We know that there were, for example, very few wealthy individuals: 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf, 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, and Abu Talhah al-Ansari. On some days, even when he performed Hajj with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) during the Farewell Pilgrimage, one hundred thousand people performed Hajj with him. None of them brought the sacrificial animals (hady) except a few of the wealthy among them. These individuals are the ones who remained in Makkah because they had brought the sacrificial animals. And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . One hundred thousand of the Companions, among whom there were very, very few wealthy individuals. From this, you also understand the call of some Islamic writers, unfortunately, which is an effect of socialism that has invaded the Islamic lands: that the gap between the rich and the poor must be closed. At whose expense? The wealth of the rich. So we say: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) do this closing of the gap or not? The answer is: He certainly did not. The question derived from the jurisprudence of Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned earlier is: Was the condition present in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) for closing the gap between these rich people, who had excessive wealth as they say, and whose number was small, and the many poor people? Was the condition for closing the gap between these few and those many present? The answer is: It was present. Why did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) not do it? Because Allah does not want to compel people to more than what Allah has obligated upon them. He obligated zakah (the obligatory alms) on their wealth, and on the other hand, He encouraged them to give voluntary charity and to do voluntary acts of worship. So we obligate what Allah has obligated and encourage what Allah has encouraged, and we do not mix the two.
So this person’s error came from two sides. The first side is that he perhaps read about these events and passed them by casually, but he did not saturate himself with knowledge of the social situation that existed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), in which these hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) were applied.
The second error is that he imagines the realization of Islam in one step, and this is impossible. He is now calling for the full adoption of Islam, which is correct, but how is it to be applied like that? It must be done in stages. This aspect clarifies for you the importance of understanding Islam according to the methodology of the righteous Salaf (the earliest generations). And there is another aspect that opposes this direction. This direction has two parts. The first part is correct, and it is a call to resume Islamic life and apply it in all aspects of the Sharia rulings. But the second direction, which is the error, is delaying the reform of some rulings that contradict the Sharia until this full Islamic application is achieved.
This is a matter that completely contradicts the truth. We now come to.