What are the objections to political parties in the scale of the Shari'ah?

The questioner : The fourth question: Is the objection to contemporary Islamic parties in their initial establishment? Or in their methodologies? Or in their partisanship and loyalty and disavowal based on that? Or does all of what we mentioned combine?

The Shaykh : In my belief, all of what you mentioned combines, and most of it is included. The root of this is that these groupings, and this is what we constantly draw attention to, even if a purely Salafi grouping were to form, it must be based on knowledge. These groupings were not established on knowledge and awareness of what came in the Book and the Sunnah, at least regarding their specific methodology and grouping. Therefore, their grouping was partisan, dividing the Ummah, or it increased the division of the Ummah upon its division. Therefore, it was said long ago: So it is not permissible for us, in our turn, if a Salafi organization forms, within the limits and restrictions previously mentioned, except that it be established on the Book and the Sunnah. This requires scholars. I believe the problem of any grouping that forms in the Islamic world is its lack of them.

Another questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. For the many scholars, one or two or three or five or ten is not sufficient; rather, there must be dozens of scholars and those with different specializations. The defect of these groups or these parties is that they were not established on a basis of knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, and of what they are working and grouping around. And among the effects of this is that they oppose those who are not in their grouping and their methodology, even if he is a righteous Muslim brother. They oppose him because he did not organize himself into this specific grouping, or this specific partisanship. In fact, the matter reached the point with one of the known parties that among their principles is that they impose on every individual of their party to adopt any opinion the party adopts, no matter how little value that opinion has from the Islamic perspective, but the value of this opinion is from the partisan organizational perspective. So if that individual from that party is not convinced by an opinion of that party, he is expelled and not considered part of this party which they claim is an Islamic party. And this means that these people return to what resembles the Christians in their following of their rabbis in their prohibition and permission. Those regarding whom it was revealed, the saying of Blessed and Exalted is He: It is necessary for any correct Islamic grouping to give individuals their scientific freedom. There is no harm if there are two people in that Islamic grouping, one of whom differs from the other. Because we believe, as was said long ago, "Every good is in following the Salaf, and every evil is in the innovation of the Khalaf." As we know, there was a type of disagreement among the earliest Salaf in some legal issues. That did not oblige the Muslim ruler to impose his opinion on every Muslim, to adopt it even if it contradicted the opinion of that individual. And it is good to mention on this occasion the opinion of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), who is the Rightly Guided Caliph, and regarding whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) testified by saying: He had adopted some opinions, and yet he was contradicted in them, even though some of those who came after him followed him in that. For example, his prohibition of people from combining 'Umrah with Hajj, knowing that this is mentioned in the Book and in the authentic Sunnah: But he saw, for a benefit that appeared to him, that he should prevent people from combining 'Umrah and Hajj. And the third Rightly Guided Caliph, 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), received this from him and also prevented people during his caliphate from combining Hajj and 'Umrah. When he performed Hajj and announced that to the people, and here is the point, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) stood against him and said to him: "What is the matter with you that you prohibit something we did with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?" And he raised his voice saying, "Labbaik Allah with 'Umrah and Hajj." The point is that if these righteous Salaf did not take the position that one of the parties in the modern era takes, when they do not adopt an opinion, the best that can be said about it is that it is an ijtihad with no explicit text, yet they impose on individuals to adopt it, or else they are expelled and removed from that grouping. This undoubtedly comes from ignorance, first of the Book and the Sunnah, and of what our righteous Salaf were upon. I refer to the Party of Liberation, which adopts, for example, from the political perspective, that it is permissible for the Muslim woman to vote and to be elected. This is an opinion which, from our perspective, contradicts what our Salaf were upon. But suppose it is a perspective, meaning it has its value. Does the matter reach the point where it is said to every person from this party: if you do not adopt this opinion, you are not one of us? This is the consequence of ignorance of the Book and the Sunnah and of what our righteous Salaf were upon. This is also the answer to what you asked.