A summary of the concepts held by the Ahl al-Sunnah.
Forming alliances with tyrannical regimes and the danger this poses to steadfastness.
Some preachers or Islamic groups believe,
due to the pressures and trials faced by the youth of the Islamic awakening and its figures, and the delay in seeing results,
that they should build bridges with regimes that have abandoned ruling by the law of Allah, the Almighty and Majestic.
And that alliances should be formed with nationalist or secular parties for joint action in the interest of the Ummah and the nation, and to fight a common enemy.
Based on this, the Muslim preacher stands side-by-side with the secularist, the nationalist, or the Rafidi,
in the same assemblies, known as parliamentary, popular, or national councils.
In these councils, concessions regarding the truth and its fundamental principles begin, the first of which is,
acknowledging and consenting to enter these councils that legislate laws other than those of Allah.
Those who enter them swear an oath to respect them.
Here, the goal of the preachers shifts from striving to dismantle these disbelieving councils to becoming pillars of them.
This is sufficient as a form of misguidance and humiliation for the people.
The most dangerous aspect of these practices is the destruction of the doctrine of loyalty and disavowal (al-wala' wa al-bara') and the dilution of the fundamental principles of this religion.
The fact that preachers fall into these errors brings joy to the heads of the tyrants and the icons of ignorance (jahiliyyah).
When they grow weary of methods of oppression, brutality, and imprisonment—which often only solidify adherence to the call—
they offer the preachers something even more dangerous.
It is an attempt to contain them through enticement and false promises.
The jahiliyyah announces to the Islamists:
"Go ahead, work for Islam through the state's institutions and its councils."
And here, the nets ensnare those who are susceptible,
those who attempt to cover these concessions with some pseudo-legal justifications,
such as their claim of preserving the concepts of Sharia,
or at times by arguing that legal rulings (fatwas) change with changing circumstances,
or by citing necessity and the removal of hardship,
or by saying, "We want to pull the rug out from under the feet of the jahiliyyah."
They justify all of this by claiming wisdom and consideration of reality and surrounding circumstances.
Yet, the Almighty and Majestic said to His Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
“And (O Muhammad) follow that which is inspired in thee, and forbear until Allah give judgment. And He is the Best of Judges.” (10:109)
And the Almighty and Majestic said: "So be patient for the decision of your Lord and do not obey from among them a sinner or ungrateful disbeliever."
And the Almighty and Majestic said: "So be patient; indeed, the promise of Allah is truth."
“So have patience (O Muhammad)! Allah's promise is the very truth, and let not those who have no certainty make thee impatient.” (30:60)
When the proponents of democracy and entering into alliances with the enemies of the religion were confronted,
they began searching the Sharia for dubious evidence to justify their actions,
such as citing the Prophet's, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, alliance with the tribe of Khuza'ah while they were polytheists,
or his alliance in the document he wrote upon his arrival in Medina with the Jews for mutual defense.
They also cited Joseph, peace be upon him, taking charge of the storehouses of wealth in the government of the King of Egypt,
which was a disbelieving government, and he even became a high-ranking official within it.
All of these pieces of evidence are fallacious and unsuitable for argumentation because the contexts are completely different.
In the cases they cited, the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was the leader whose command was obeyed.
Those who allied with him from among the Jews or polytheists were under his command, and he was the stronger party.
Whereas those who form alliances with them today do so from a position of weakness, and the same applies to the case of Joseph, peace be upon him.
For he was the one who commanded, forbade, and held authority.
Whereas in the contemporary situations they cite,
the strong party consists of the tyrants and the disbelieving regimes,
while the Islamists are the weak party that possesses neither command nor prohibition.
Thus, the analogy here is corrupt and lacks its fundamental pillars.