The Response to Those Who Cite the Story of Abu Basir in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as Evidence for the Permissibility of Entering Parliaments

The questioner : May Allah reward you. I met with some officials of some groups in the city of Riyadh, and the discussion turned to entering parliaments and the permissibility of entering them. They permit entering them, so I opposed them and said to him, "This is not permissible and is not justified in Islam." He took the microphone and said with intensity, "This is regression," and he spoke to me in a manner that should not be said. The point—may Allah reward you—is that among the things he cited as evidence for the permissibility of entering parliaments was the story of, meaning

The Shaykh : Yusuf

The questioner : No, Abu Basir, and meaning the return of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of them

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar.

The questioner : And that, meaning this is what is cited as evidence. The argument is that he was compelled, and that this matter of the treaty occurred, which a person must accept, and he describes the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) as being in a state of compulsion, returning the Companions to the polytheists. And we, in our current situation, accept entering parliaments until we reach the seat of governance. What is your answer to this? May Allah reward you?

The Shaykh : What Allah willed. My answer is: "Sa'd brought them in, and Sa'd was wrapped in his cloak / This is not, O Sa'd, how camels are brought in." We know our line. This person mentions the way of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in a general manner, and this is not what we need now to enter into detail. Then it is said to him, secondly, you attribute to the Messenger (peace be upon him) that he committed an act contrary to the Shari'ah out of compulsion, and this is a lie against Allah and His Messenger. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do that except in obedience to Allah the Exalted, because he had made a covenant with them, as is known in the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. So he returned this believing fugitive with his religion and handed him over to the polytheists in execution of the text of the Qur'an . So the Messenger (peace be upon him) kept the covenant here. And it is said, and this is actually due to their ignorance of Islam, when they interpret some events and occurrences contrary to their correct interpretation. Then we say, where is your compulsion to enter the parliament that rules by other than what Allah has revealed? This is imagination within imagination. As you all know, dire necessity is estimated by its amount. What are they aiming at with this claimed dire necessity, which is entering the parliament? Establishing the rule of Islam. Well, is establishing the rule of Islam done by violating the rulings of Islam? Then there is no difference between you and those whom you want to replace and take the place of, because they rule by other than what Allah has revealed, and you claim to rule by what Allah has revealed, yet you begin by justifying ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. So this is a refuted argument, or rather, it is a place of absurdity to say that we want to reach governance by the way of entering the parliament. First, this is not a religious reason. Participating with the disbelievers or the misguided, at least in their rule, is not a religious reason. Second, it is not a natural reason. The Muslims have tried for more than half a century to reach governance by the way of participating with the open sinners or the wicked or those who rule by other than what Allah has revealed, with whatever intention that was, and they did not benefit from anything. Because everyone who deviates from the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and does not take the means of victory that Allah Blessed and Exalted has legislated for the Muslims will never reach the desired goal, because they did not support Allah the Exalted as He commanded in the Noble Qur'an, but they let themselves down by participating with others who differ from the Shari'ah of Islam. So such speech is so clear in its misguidance that it does not need much talk. Perhaps Professor Abu Malik will treat us with something.
Abu Malik: By Allah, the last thing, but I really want to say or ask our Shaykh. The story of Abu Basir, as is known, was in execution of the conditions of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

The Shaykh : This is what we mentioned.
Abu Malik: Yes, but of course the conditions of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah ended and were severed by the violation committed by the polytheists.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Abu Malik: And it was the cause of breaking the entire covenant.

The Shaykh : You are correct.
Abu Malik: And the matter ended with the Conquest of Makkah. Do you think that this condition which was violated or executed by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is valid for people until the Day of Resurrection, or was it abrogated?

The Shaykh : Far from that.
Abu Malik: It is this.

The Shaykh : Far from that.
Abu Malik: And therefore, the response to these people is that this condition cannot be cited as evidence for establishing an argument or a religious ruling.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The matter is more serious. If he held to the condition, if he held to the condition and refuted what you mentioned.
Abu Malik: Yes.

The Shaykh : But he forgot the whole story.
Abu Malik: Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : And ignored it.
Abu Malik: Yes.

The Shaykh : And said that the Messenger did this out of compulsion.
Abu Malik: I seek refuge in Allah

The Shaykh : That is it.
Abu Malik: This is a calamity.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Abu Malik: Therefore, I really say here, and I always sing about this issue and follow our Shaykh (may Allah reward him) in it, that precision in learning is the cause of safety from getting entangled in religious violations.

The Shaykh : Indeed, by Allah
Abu Malik: So if he had precision of sight and vision in this matter, he would not have cited it or used it as evidence at all. But there are also other catastrophes by which they perhaps make such matters permissible, and they do not agree even with sound reason. They rely only on opinion and nothing else. Also, here I point the brothers to a linguistic issue, perhaps Brother Abu Jabir mentioned it, so I wanted to highlight it. It is that when we say "we met," we do not say "we met with him" or "with him," but rather the verb is transitive by itself here, so we say "we met him" or "we met them" or similar.

The Shaykh : Good.