The Response to the Doubt of Those Who Say That Conveying the Truth Is Only Achieved by Entering Legislative Councils or Engaging in Strikes

Al-Hawini: Our Shaykh, our Shaykh, your opinion regarding entering legislative councils and people's councils, and the permissibility of demonstrations and hunger strikes in prisons and the like, is well known. However, they say that the current governments have reached a point where the truth cannot be obtained except by adopting such measures. For example, I cannot confront the President of the Republic with a word of truth and say to him: "Fear Allah and apply the Shari'ah," unless I am a member of parliament. They say that conveying this word is obligatory for the ruler or anyone else, and that governments fear demonstrations and the unrest of the people, so they respond to their demands. They claim that these things are obligatory, for what is necessary to complete an obligatory act is itself obligatory, and therefore these things are permissible from this angle. What is your opinion? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : First: We do not accept their claim that there is no way to convey the word of truth to rulers who do not judge by what Allah has revealed except for a man to be a member of parliament, especially if it is added that women should also be members of parliament. I do not accept the validity of this claim, for it is possible for a person to speak the word of truth through newspapers, magazines, media, and so on...
The means of conveying the word of truth to those in charge, especially since the King or the President of the Republic or those similar to them among the heads of state hide behind those below them, the ministers, and then these ministers hide behind those below them, the members of parliament. We know in this parliamentary life we live in many Islamic countries that—this is an oath by Allah, and I rarely swear—these are layers and veils they rely on to carry out their violations of the Shari'ah rulings. The presence of these people in parliaments benefits them in no way, and history and experience over the past half-century are the greatest proof that the presence of good and righteous Muslims in these parliaments achieves nothing; rather, it may harm them first of all themselves, because they enter to reform others, only to find that the others have corrupted them. This is observed in many manifestations. For example, a pious, righteous, committed Muslim who adheres to the Islamic appearance and conduct, with a dignified beard, wearing a thobe, and not imitating the disbelievers by wearing a jacket and trousers and the like. But after a month, months, a year, or two years, you see that his appearance has changed. Why? Because he could not maintain his Muslim identity in the face of these personalities, the least of which can be said is that their appearances are not Islamic. So he enters on the path of reform, only to find that he has corrupted himself, let alone that he was unable to reform others. I do not want to digress on this, but I want to say that this argument is first of all a refuted argument, for the zealous Muslim who is eager to convey the word of truth to those in charge in parliament can do so by any means of publication, and there are many means of publication in the modern age. Second: The method of elections and choosing members of parliament is not an Islamic method at all. These are European, disbelieving parliamentary methods. If we assume that an Islamic rule were to be established on earth overnight—and perhaps that will be near by the effort of the Muslims, not by their laziness in action—if the Islamic rule were established, do you think this Islamic rule would approve these parliaments that open the field for the nomination of the good and the bad? Not only that, but also the Muslim and the disbeliever who has a religion? Not only that, but also the disbelievers from the People of the Book who have a specific ruling in some matters in Islam, and the atheists, the heretics, and the communists? All these are given the freedom to nominate themselves and to be elected by whomever they wish from the individuals of the Ummah. Is this an Islamic system? No, by Allah, it is not a path of Islam. Rather, this is a system of those who do not submit to the saying of the Lord of the Worlds: .
Therefore, our joining these parliaments, which are established on a non-Islamic system, is like the example that says: "The example of so-and-so is like one who builds a palace and demolishes a fortress." These people are demolishing a palace and a fortress at the same time, because they achieve nothing with such affiliation to parliaments. And the truth, and the truth I say, is that the self has a great role here, because the self loves distinction, elevation, and employment in high chairs, so that it is said: so-and-so is a minister, so-and-so is a deputy minister, and so on. So the self suggests to its owner such interpretations that they enter to convey the word of truth to the ruler, to whom we have no access except through the parliament. The answer is that this speech is first of all not accepted, and second, those who enter parliaments in any Islamic country cannot change anything in the existing system, because this existing system is what will hinder the individuals who have joined under this system. They may be able to do some formalities, but as for substantive change, there is no way to reach it through joining as members in these parliaments. Finally, I want to draw attention to something I have been going around and around on, a great deal: Is this the way to restore Islamic rule and achieve the Islamic society, that we join under a constitution that does not judge by what Allah has revealed?—and he who lacks a thing cannot give it. No, I believe that the way to achieve the Islamic society, and thereby establish the Muslim state, is only by the method of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who laid down for us a general methodology and expressed it in a concise word: . Did the Messenger (peace be upon him) join the disbelievers of Makkah to reform them by the soft, gentle method as these people who want to join parliaments do? Or did he proclaim the word of truth, especially the word of tawhid (the oneness of Allah): ? As you all know, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) continued for thirteen years calling people to tawhid, and during these years he was raising them (peace and blessings be upon him) on his knowledge of Islamic morals, by making them prefer the Hereafter over this worldly life. Have we followed this path? The answer is: Those who want reform through affiliation to parliaments have forgotten the path of truth, which is purification and upbringing. These are two words I call upon Muslims to stand by, understand well, and work to apply. Purification: We are now in the first century of the fifteenth Hijri era, and between us and the purest, brightest, and most luminous Prophetic era are fourteen centuries. What is not of Islam has entered into Islam, not only in behaviors and morals, and not only in acts of worship, but also in 'aqidah (creed). Where are the guides and where are the educators who raise Islamic groups, numbering in the thousands, on purification and upbringing? Therefore, I never hope that a group of Muslims will rise and have power and state except by the method that the Messenger (peace and upon him) came with. And the summary of that is beneficial knowledge and righteous action. Beneficial knowledge today has severe, difficult obstacles between us and reaching it, so they must be removed and this beneficial knowledge brought close to the minds of people through this word I call purification, accompanied by upbringing. We find now that many Islamic callers are not themselves raised on the correct Islam, nor are their families, their children, and their women. So if we do not achieve the Islamic society on this correct foundation of purification and upbringing, the state of Islam will never be established through parliaments. Rather, this is a hindrance to the Islamic journey that we must walk upon, if Allah wills. Yes.
Al-Huwaini: Our Shaykh, they also say in this regard that the inner circle and the entourage prevent the newspapers that alert the ruler and command him to fear Allah (Mighty and Majestic) from reaching him, so this word does not reach the ruler. They also say, grant us that there is no way to convey the Shari'ah of Allah to the ruler except through direct confrontation. Does this also justify entering parliaments based on the previous principle?

The Shaykh : Before anything else, one must achieve what I mentioned earlier regarding purification and education. When there is a group numbered in the thousands, educate them and teach them, and when they are united as one man, then the so-called confrontation can be realized. This day is far from being realized, as evidenced by the events that occurred here, for example, in the Hijaz, and what happened in your Egypt, and what happened in our Syria, and what may happen, God forbid, in other countries due to these Islamic uprisings that were not established on a foundation of purification and education. The outcome of that will be bad and unsatisfactory; rather, it will be a cause for hindering the continuation of the Islamic call. Therefore, we advise our brothers who share our concern to return to the Book and the Sunnah, not to rush matters, to educate themselves and their families in this correct Islam, and to leave the rulers to do as they please, for we have no way to reach them. Let us consider the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his life in Makkah, and what he and his Companions suffered from the disbelievers. They did not stand before him to confront and face them for two reasons: First, the education that should have been realized in the Muslims had not yet been realized in them. Second, our Lord says: to the end of the verse... The Muslims at that time were not in a position to confront the enemy, first with their strong faith, and second with their material readiness.
Therefore, we advise these people not to be overcome by enthusiasm and hatred for these rulers, and they have the right to that, for they rule by other than what Allah has revealed. Rather, they should be patient and educate themselves and those around them in the correct Islam. Otherwise, it was said long ago: "Whoever hastens a matter before its time is afflicted with its deprivation." And now they are occupied with preparing food. This is sufficient for us in this speech.