He was asked about the statement of Mustafa al-Zarqa in his book *Al-Madkhal al-Fiqhi al-'Amm* regarding the topic of ijtihad for rulers: “The rule is that rulings change with the change of times.”

The questioner : Professor Mustafa al-Zarqa said in his book *Al-Madkhal al-Fiqhi al-'Amm*, in the first volume, page 191: “And Islamic ijtihad has approved for the general authority, whether a caliph or otherwise, to limit the scope of some of the Shari'ah rulings and their application, or to order acting upon a weak opinion if the temporal public benefit requires it. In that case, it is valid and is the stronger position that must be acted upon. Our jurists explicitly stated this in accordance with the rule of unrestricted public benefit and the rule that rulings change with the change of times.” So what is the extent of the correctness of this statement?

The Shaykh : I say, may Allah guide us and Shaykh Mustafa al-Zarqa... the knowledgeable Muslim, and not that it is said to the caliph or the like, as I mentioned. Otherwise, what is the conjoined phrase?

The questioner : Or otherwise.

The Shaykh : Or otherwise. What is “otherwise”? By this phrase, they give the rulers of the end of times, who are mostly characterized by not ruling by what Allah has revealed, the authority to change the rulings with their ignorance... The ruler who knows how to derive the rulings and knows when unrestricted public benefit is prescribed and when it is not prescribed, and so on. So this phrase is a phrase from one who is not a jurist but claims to be a jurist, and he has no fiqh; rather, he is a carrier of fiqh, not a jurist. Is the answer clear?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.