The Shaykh’s return to discussing the author of the article on the issue of combining zakah.

The Shaykh : An example from our reality today, in the context of discussing this article: the collection of zakah is demanded, and this demand is religiously valid, there is no debate about it. But in exchange for this demand, there are taxes. Why were these taxes imposed? They say: to achieve the benefit of the people. We say: This is not prescribed (mashru') until you apply the means that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has legislated to achieve well-being for the Muslim society, both the rich and the poor. Among these means is zakah, and among them are other things that cannot be explained in detail now. After the means and causes that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has legislated to achieve this goal—which all peoples today seek, whether Muslim or disbeliever—are applied, if these means do not succeed in achieving what the Shari'ah aims for due to temporary circumstances, then Islam permits, and indeed obligates, us to adopt new means to complete the realization of what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) intended, using the means He legislated for this temporary matter. I say: for this temporary matter. It is not permissible to adopt the imposition of taxes as a permanent system. We say, for example, that price controls in Islam are not prescribed (mashru'). The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked to set prices for them, and he said: . This means that it is part of the Islamic system not to impose a specific price on people as a standing rule. However, if it appears to the Muslim ruler—and I mean by Muslim the one who rules by the Book and the Sunnah, and I emphasize this—if it appears to such a ruler that there is an immediate benefit at this moment due to the arrogance of some merchants, for example, and their non-cooperation with Islamic directives, and he imposes a price temporarily; then there is no objection to addressing this temporary matter.
I return to discuss this statement. Who collects the zakah? In Salafi Islam, the state collected the zakah. So, we must demand that the state collect the zakah. Now, the previous discussion returns: we demand that they collect the zakah, which is one of the rulings of Islam. Do we remain silent about it, or do we demand that they apply Islam entirely, all at once? I say: There is no person who demands that a state, especially states like those today, apply Islam entirely, indivisibly. Rather, we demand what can be achieved. So, it is reasonable to demand that all Muslim states collect the zakah and distribute it to the poor, even if the criminal law, for example, contains things that contradict the Shari'ah, and the personal status laws are the same.
So, we must distinguish between the obligation to adopt Islam entirely, indivisibly, as a creed and principle, and the application of Islam to what is feasible for the Muslim community, to what is feasible. Now, since there are Islamic groups demanding the change of the personal status law to make it conform to the Islamic Shari'ah, why do we say that the entire Muslim society is corrupt and wait until we prepare it to accept this ruling? Then, when we say "the Muslim society," my brothers, what do we mean? Do we mean the Muslim society as eight hundred million Muslims?! This is impossible. So, we do not think in terms of defining the area in which we must apply Islam completely, without a single issue deviating from it. Rather, we strive with what we can to apply what is possible of the Islamic rulings that the individual does not possess. We do not ask the state to intervene in our homes and raise our children and descendants; this is the duty of every Muslim individual. As for the rulings that the state possesses and the individuals do not, we demand that they apply what they can.
I believe that if an Islamic rule were to be established now, hypothetically, in a moonless night as some imagine, what would these people be able to apply from Islam? By Allah, they would not be able to apply but a very small amount. Do we accept that, or do we say: No, we want Islam entirely, indivisibly? Is there one among us who applies Islam entirely, indivisibly, so that we can demand the entire community to have an indivisible Islam? This is impossible.
In conclusion: To understand the purpose of this introduction, know that the limit of theft—for example—cannot be applied unless we provide the individual with suitable work.
This is, in reality, logic that is not Islamic. In my belief, this is socialist logic. This is what has entered the Muslims today because of the hammers of Europe and its writers and its atheists, to the extent that we prepare for the individual what? Suitable work. Is it the duty of the Muslim state to take over the Ministry of Economy and prepare suitable work for every Muslim individual? My brother, this work should be achieved by the individual. As for the duty of the state, it is greater than what writers like these think; because they proceed from a thought that is not purely Islamic thought, but rather the thought of a material state, as if it was established on the face of the earth or in governance solely to secure material goods for every individual of the state. Whereas Islam was established for what? For the word of Allah to be the highest and the word of those who disbelieved to be the lowest. Islam came to achieve the purpose of the creation of the entire universe, as He (Mighty and Majestic) said: , to achieve the worship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone, governance by Islam was established.
Finally: He says: "Patching between the rulings of Islam and others is a matter that Islam does not approve of and does not accept."
This is correct, but this is intentional patching that Islam does not accept. As for now, ten percent of Islam is applied, you do not accept applying eleven or twelve percent, and you are not satisfied with this shortcoming as he says at the end of his speech!! But listen now to the end of the matter: "What has preceded of facts falls within the framework of faith in this religion which Allah wanted to be the methodology of our entire life, its small and large, its private and public." Look at this reservation!! "And we hope that it is not understood from what preceded that we reject the Personal Status Law, but rather we wanted to clarify the vital field in which this law exercises its supremacy and authority and bears its fruit, and if this desired goal is not achieved in the required form; then we accept the Personal Status Law, and we demand its continuation and we defend this continuation in its form."
What do you think of this statement? This is the result of the request, because we do not accept Islam, and it is not permissible for us to adopt it except as a whole that is not divisible. So when will Islam be achieved as a whole that is not divisible? In one leap or in stages? This came first from two things, in my belief: First, from not studying the Sunnah; because when a person studies the Sunnah and understands the society in which the Companions were, and in which the rulings and the limits of the Shari'ah were applied, he cannot write such words and say that we must prepare the climate before establishing the limits, and this is what the Messenger (peace 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, Abu Talhah al-Ansari on some days; even when he performed Hajj with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Farewell Pilgrimage, one hundred thousand performed Hajj with him, and none of them brought the sacrificial animals except a few individuals of wealth among them. And these individuals are the ones who remained with their intention of Qiran; because they brought the sacrificial animals. And he (peace be upon him) said: , one hundred thousand of the Companions, among them were very, very few individuals of wealth!!
And from here you also understand the call of some Islamic writers, unfortunately, and this is an effect of the socialism that invaded the Islamic lands, that it is necessary to bring the rich and the poor closer together at the expense of what? The wealth of the rich. So we say: Did the Messenger (peace be upon him) do this bringing closer or did he not do it? The answer: He certainly did not do it. The question derived from the previous fiqh of Ibn Taymiyyah returns: Was the condition present in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) for bringing these rich people, who are excessively rich as they say, and whose number is small, closer to the many poor people? Was the condition for bringing these few and those many closer present? We see that it was present. Why did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) not do that? Because Allah does not want to compel people with more than what Allah has obligated upon them. He obligated zakah on their wealth, and then from another aspect, He encouraged them to give charity and to volunteer. So we obligate what Allah has obligated, and we encourage what Allah has encouraged, and we do not mix this with that.
So this person came to the error from two sides:
The first side: It is that he did not perhaps recall, maybe he read and passed by these events lightly, but he did not saturate himself with knowledge of the social situation that was in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), in which these limits of the Shari'ah were applied.
The second error: That he imagines the achievement of Islam in one blow, and this is impossible. He is now calling for the full adoption of Islam, this is correct, but how is it applied like this? It must be done in stages.
This side clarifies for you the importance of understanding Islam on the methodology of the righteous Salaf, and the other side 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 rulings of the Shari'ah, but the second direction—and it is the error—is delaying the reform of some rulings that contradict the Shari'ah until this full application of Islam is achieved. This is a matter that completely contradicts the true matter.