Issue: The ruling on secretly bringing food to a person in i'tikaf (spiritual retreat) in al-Masjid al-Haram, evading the guards at the gates of the Makkah Haram.

The Shaykh : One point that requires attention: It is well known that bringing food into al-Masjid al-Haram is prohibited. Some people resort to deception to bring food in, as they believe it is not permissible for the person in i'tikaf to leave the mosque to eat or drink. This is also an error. We say: Whatever the authorities command that does not contradict the command of Allah and His Messenger, obeying it is obedience to Allah and His Messenger. The evidence for this is the saying of Allah the Exalted: . The authorities must exist among the people, and their command must be obeyed. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded travelers, if there are three of them, to appoint one of them as their leader so that affairs do not become chaotic. If we were to say that every person can do whatever he pleases without regard for the command of the authorities, people would fall into chaos, because everyone would want to do what he wants. Therefore, I say: It is not permissible to deceive regarding a prohibition established by the authorities, because obedience to them in matters other than sin is obedience to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), as Allah has commanded. Some people say, "I will bring in food and place it on a tray from which nothing leaks into the mosque, and I will protect the mosque completely from any food scraps falling." The ruling revolves with its cause, in its existence and its absence. He has become a jurist in this aspect, but not a jurist in his statement regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted: . He says, "We know that the authorities prohibited food from entering the mosque out of fear that food scraps would leak into the mosque and be defiled by feet, trampled by people, and burden the cleaners. If this is the cause, then I will protect the mosque completely." "The ruling revolves with its cause, in its existence and its absence". Then he asserts this and asks us: Is the ruling not revolving with its cause, in its existence and its absence? What do we say to him? No? Or yes? We say: Yes, the ruling revolves with its cause, in its existence and its absence. But you are one of thousands of people. Even if we assume that you protect the mosque completely, others do not. We have an established principle against the principle you are citing, which is "that the rare case has no ruling". Therefore, the reference is to what the Qur'an indicates regarding the obligation to obey the authorities in matters other than sin. However, if the authority commands a sin, it is well known that obedience to Allah takes precedence over obedience to him. I think the time has come to receive questions.