Summary of the concepts held by the people of the Sunnah
What is meant by judgment and ruling (hukm)
Allah's judgment is of three types:
First, universal decree (qadari),
which the servant must accept with contentment and bear with patience;
and that is divine decree and predestination (al-qada' wal-qadar).
Second, legislative ruling (shar'i),
which the servant must comply with and obey;
thus, the entire religion, with all its legislations, falls under it.
And the Noble Qur'an has indicated,
across several verses,
that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, possesses exclusivity
over both of these types of ruling.
Regarding universal decree—predestination and fate—
Jacob, peace be upon him, said:
“And he said: O my sons! Go not in by one gate; go in by different gates. I can naught avail you as against Allah. Lo! the decision rests with Allah only. In Him do I put my trust, and in Him let all the trusting put their trust.” (12:67)
"Judgment rests only with Allah;
in Him I have put my trust, and in Him let all who trust place their reliance."
And regarding the legislative ruling,
Joseph, peace be upon him, said:
"Judgment rests only with Allah;
He has commanded that you worship none but Him.
That is the upright religion,
but most people do not know."
And the Exalted said:
“Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.” (6:114)
And He said: "And whoever does not judge
by what Allah has revealed—such
are the disbelievers."
Third, retributive judgment in the Hereafter,
and it belongs to Allah alone.
The Exalted said: "Master of the Day of Judgment."
The connection of ruling and judgment
to Tawhid (monotheism).
Just as Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, is transcendent above
having any partner
that is worshipped alongside Him,
He is likewise transcendent above having alongside Him
any judge or legislator
who rules by other than His ruling.
For just as the Exalted said:
“Say: I am only a mortal like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your Allah is only One Allah. And whoever hopeth for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work, and make none sharer of the worship due unto his Lord.” (18:110)
"So let him do righteous deeds,"
“Say: I am only a mortal like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your Allah is only One Allah. And whoever hopeth for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work, and make none sharer of the worship due unto his Lord.” (18:110)
and according to the recitation of Ibn 'Amir:
"and do not associate," in the prohibitive form.
Thus, His judgment is like His worship:
worship belongs to Him alone,
and ruling belongs to Him alone.
This is the requirement of His magnificence and supreme greatness
over all of His creation.
“(It is said unto them): This is (your plight) because, when Allah only was invoked, ye disbelieved, but when some partner was ascribed to Him ye were believing. But the command belongeth only to Allah, the Sublime, the Majestic.” (40:12)
And the saying of Allah the Exalted
points to Allah's exclusivity in both
the rulings of universal decree and divine legislation.
For His saying, "Unquestionably, His is the creation,"
means He is the Creator of all created things,
and that encompasses His
universal, decreed determinations;
while His saying, "and the command,"
encompasses His religious, legislative rulings.
Indeed, Allah is the Supreme Arbiter (Al-Hakam).
Allah's name "Al-Hakam" is mentioned
in the Noble Qur'an once.
The Exalted said:
“Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.” (6:114)
meaning, "as an arbiter and judge."
Thus, al-hakam and al-hakim
share the same or very close meanings,
and its root meaning denotes restraint and prevention;
for a ruler is called hakim because he prevents injustice.
However, the term al-hakam
is more profound in describing Allah the Exalted
than the term al-hakim,
because the Arabs hardly ever apply the word al-hakam
except to one who is completely equitable and just in his judgment,
unlike al-hakim,
whose judgment may be just,
or it may be tyrannical.
The Sunnah has also transmitted the name al-Hakam:
"Indeed, Allah is the Arbiter (Al-Hakam),
and to Him belongs all judgment."
Narrated by Abu Dawud and authenticated by al-Albani.
As for the term al-hakim,
it only occurs in the Qur'an in the superlative form.
The Exalted said:
"And He is the Best of judges."
And the Exalted said:
"And You are the Most Just of judges."
And Allah said: "Is not Allah the Most Just of judges?"
Which corroborates the view that al-hakam
is the judge
whose judgment entails nothing but absolute justice
and equity.
Opposing Allah's judgment is polytheism (shirk).
Once it becomes evident that ruling by what Allah has revealed
is an indispensable pillar among the pillars of Tawhid,
it follows as a consequence that whoever claims a right
to legislate, permit, and prohibit,
has indeed committed shirk against Allah, the Mighty and Majestic,
in the Tawhid of Lordship (Rububiyyah);
because he has ascribed partners to Allah in His divine actions,
among which are judgment and legislation.
It has already been explained that Jewish rabbis
and Christian monks,
by permitting the forbidden and forbidding the lawful,
were effectively setting themselves up as lords,
just as the Exalted said:
"They took their rabbis and monks
as lords besides Allah."
And whoever obeys another besides Allah and concurs with him,
knowingly, in making the forbidden lawful
or making the lawful forbidden, or seeks judgment,
knowingly and willingly, from other than Allah's law,
has committed shirk in Divinity (Uluhiyyah), just like committing shirk
in acts of worship; because he directed
his compliance toward other than Allah,
the sole possessor of all judgment.
And the Exalted has said:
“And eat not of that whereon Allah's name hath not been mentioned, for lo! it is abomination. Lo! the devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if ye obey them, ye will be in truth idolaters.” (6:121)
And He said:
“But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.” (4:65)
"in whatever dispute arises among them."
“But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.” (4:65)
“But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.” (4:65)
Any leader or ruler who rejects the judgment of Allah
and His legislation and opposes it,
is a taghut (false authority) and a legislator committing shirk with Allah—
whether that legislator be
an individual, a regime,
a constitution, a parliament,
or a national assembly;
wherein they arrogate to themselves supreme sovereignty
and executive authority.
And this is manifest disbelief and major polytheism,
from the perpetrator of which Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, accepts
neither obligatory deed nor voluntary ransom.
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr has related
a consensus on the disbelief of anyone who rejects anything
that Allah has revealed.
The legislation of usury (riba) and its relation to divine governance.
Permitting usurious banks
is among the general legislations that violate divine law;
for just as nothing is obligatory
except what Allah and His Messenger have made obligatory,
likewise nothing is forbidden except what
Allah and His Messenger have forbidden.
And Allah has prohibited usury,
so no one has the right to make it lawful.
Legalizing what is forbidden is shirk in Lordship
and a fabrication of falsehood against Allah the Exalted;
for fabrication is not restricted to false claims of revelation,
but rather includes declaring lawful that which He did not make lawful.
And the Exalted has said:
“Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin.” (4:48)
"a tremendous sin."
And usury is among the grave sins
that warrant a declaration of war from Allah against its perpetrator;
and all the more so against the one who legislates it.
The Exalted said:
"O you who have believed, fear Allah
“O ye who believe! Observe your duty to Allah, and give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury, if ye are (in truth) believers.” (2:278)
but if you do not do so,
“And if ye do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger. And if ye repent, then ye have your principal (without interest). Wrong not, and ye shall not be wronged.” (2:279)
then know of a war from Allah and His Messenger." Thus, establishing usurious banks
and granting them operational licenses
is considered an act of shirk in governance and legislation,
and it is not made permissible by deceiving people
with labels such as "Islamic branches"
and the like, unless
the bank is truly free from usury in reality;
for the standard lies in substance,
not in external form.
Among the greatest usurers in the world today
are the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund;
and none can overlook the consequences of their lending
to impoverished nations with interest,
in compounding their poverty and destroying their economies.
Such institutions do not lose their status as taghut simply by
presenting the ruling of Allah and His Messenger
before legislative assemblies,
while making its enactment contingent upon the approval of these assemblies.
For it is human-made positive law that grants them
absolute legislative authority,
and this is precisely what characterizes these councils
with the label of taghut;
because in doing so, they dispute with Allah the Exalted,
even if they happen to agree with Allah's law.
For that ruling at that point
derives its legal validity in the state
from the council's approval of it,
not from its conformity with the judgment of Allah.
And if a new legislative council were to emerge
and abrogate the enactment of the preceding council,
legislating something else instead,
then the new law would become the binding statute;
and this is sheer polytheism in Lordship.
For Allah, the Mighty and Majestic,
according to such people,
does not have the inherent right to legislate by Himself,
nor does His judgment inherently deserve
binding authority on its own;
rather, His rulings are merely selected and cherry-picked
based on the endorsement of these assemblies,
which are hailed as the ultimate source of authority
possessing the right to legislate.
Exalted is Allah far above what the wrongdoers say,
high and supreme!
Such is the true reality of these people,
regardless of whatever claims they make about loving Allah
and His Messenger. And we say to these
misguided people: If we were to assume
that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,
were alive among us today,
and he decreed a certain matter,
would we be obligated to obey him outright,
or should we submit his words to those representative councils?
If they claim it is obligatory to refer his word
to their councils,
they have directly opposed the ruling of Allah and His Messenger,
and this constitutes blatant disbelief and polytheism.
And if they reply,
"Rather, we would comply with his command, peace be upon him,"
we ask: Is the mere physical absence of His Messenger
the reason for your turning away from Allah's law,
even though his religion remains as fresh and pristine
as the day it was revealed to him, peace be upon him?
This is truly astonishing!
How has the Ummah deviated
from the true concept of ruling by divine law?
The Muslims became oblivious to the words of Allah Almighty:
“(Saying): Follow that which is sent down unto you from your Lord, and follow no protecting friends beside Him. Little do ye recollect!” (7:3)
“(Saying): Follow that which is sent down unto you from your Lord, and follow no protecting friends beside Him. Little do ye recollect!” (7:3)
"...allies besides Him;
little do you remember!"
and they neglected the paramount foundation of Tawhid:
"There is no obedience to any created being
in disobedience to the Creator."
Thus, they diverted the worship of obedience and following,
or parts thereof, toward rulers and governors,
and toward biased, sectarian scholars,
in addition to the hypocrites,
for whom the atmosphere became ripe
due to the prevailing ignorance across the Ummah
and widespread naivety.
We can point to four major causes
behind this deviation from ruling by divine law.
First:
intellectual stagnation and the closure of the gates of legal ijtihad
since the fourth century of the Hijrah,
which prevented issuing judgments on unprecedented contemporary issues.
Second: the erroneous understanding of worship,
which confines it strictly to ritual acts
of devotion such as prayer, fasting,
and pilgrimage, and the like,
while stripping away the worship of obedience and submission
to all that Allah has revealed.
Consequently, in the minds of most Muslims, the divine law became detached
from the broader affairs of life,
severing religion from life, and religion from the state.
Third:
Western imperialism,
which aggressively promoted governance through its secular systems,
claiming they represent advancement
and the sole cause of its alleged civilizational superiority,
and installed over Muslim peoples
puppet regimes subservient to its institutional systems.
Fourth: the lackeys of imperialism,
who aided their foreign masters
by propagating the doctrine of separating religion
from the state,
asserting that worship should be confined strictly to the mosques
and has no place in organizing people's lives
and public affairs.
Three primary empires had partitioned
the Islamic world
during the period spanning the tenth
to the eighteenth centuries CE:
the Safavid Empire in Persia,
the Mughal Empire in India,
and the Ottoman Empire around the Mediterranean basin.
As for the Safavid Empire,
its affiliation with Islam
was merely nominal and superficial,
for it was an extremist Twelver Rafidi state,
governed by the sectarian whims and doctrines of Shi'ite clerics,
whose paramount ambition was waging war against
the Sunni Ottoman Empire.
As for the Mughal Empire,
it arose during a period of acute weakness in the Islamic Ummah
toward the end of the Abbasid era,
an era rife with misguided notions
and deviant intellectual sects.
The Mughals did not embrace pure Islam;
rather, they entered into it in an adulterated form.
This profound ignorance of Islam,
coupled with the minority status of Muslims in India
relative to the Hindu population,
facilitated the British colonial abolition of governance
under Islamic Sharia,
without encountering any notable resistance.
As for the Ottoman Empire,
despite its laudable efforts in championing and spreading Sunni Islam
in general,
and in addition to its valor in resisting
the Byzantine West and the Mongol-Tatar East,
it was nevertheless unable
to entirely eradicate the intellectual deviation
and backwardness it had inherited from its predecessors.
Furthermore, its rigid partisanship toward the Hanafi school of fiqh
led it to oppose reopening the gate of independent reasoning (ijtihad),
which had remained shuttered since the fourth
century of the Hijrah,
paralyzing the role of legal deduction
from keeping pace with contemporary developments.
Consequently, foreign legal codes were imported,
and ruling by other than Allah's law crept gradually
into the state through naive intentions
and without heed to its imminent peril,
until the situation culminated in the rise of secularists
who clamored for the separation of religion
from the state,
bolstered by Western colonial powers.
Thus, the majority of the Ummah fell
into the wilderness of ruling by other than what Allah
revealed, and into its deep misguidance.
We may therefore affirm
that the Muslims' deviation due to their ignorance
of the reality of their religion and the Sunnah of Allah in creation,
along with their failure to address emerging realities,
served as the primary conduit for the infiltration of secularism
and for establishing governance upon other than what Allah revealed.
Since ruling by other than what Allah revealed
has become prevalent across most Muslim lands,
elucidating the truth regarding this critical issue
has become of paramount importance,
and it is incumbent upon the scholars and callers of the Ummah
to clarify it plainly.
For Allah has indeed taken a binding covenant
upon the people of knowledge to make the truth clear
to humankind and not to conceal it.
Allah Almighty said:
“And (remember) when Allah laid a charge on those who had received the Scripture (He said): Ye are to expound it to mankind and not to hide it. But they flung it behind their backs and bought thereby a little gain. Verily evil is that which they have gained thereby.” (3:187)
"You must make it clear to the people
and not conceal it."
Disseminating sound knowledge regarding this issue
is an urgent necessity,
so that the Ummah may awaken
after having long succumbed to distorted concepts
which falsely depicted to it, among other fallacies,
that implementing the Sharia is a secondary matter
bearing no connection to the legitimacy of the governing regime.
Rather, according to these corrupted notions, legitimacy
is supposedly attained through
secular elections, parliaments,
and honeyed slogans;
yet in truth, that is sheer polytheism
and disbelief in what Allah has revealed.
And since this proclamation never pleases tyrants,
they invariably—and unsurprisingly—
launch fierce attacks against anyone who proclaims it with strength and resolve,
subjecting them to all manner of tribulation
and persecution,
and smearing, through falsehood and slander,
the reputation of the callers to truth who explain it,
branding them as ignorant terrorists.
Therefore, the callers to truth must
arm themselves with steadfast patience in the face of this falsehood,
and discipline their souls to remain firm upon the truth,
out of sincere counsel to Allah and His Messenger,
and as a warning against the shirk of human legislation and its grave peril.
Two misconceptions are commonly raised against the truth
regarding the issue of ruling by divine law.
First:
some argue that one should keep silent
regarding the exposure of this blatant disbelief,
alleging fear of fitnah (discord)
and citing the supposed harms
that might result from declaring it.
In their view, the best course is patience and silence
until the reformers gain strength
and become capable of speaking out and confronting the tyrants.
To this we reply:
there is an essential difference between clarification and physical change.
What we are calling for at present
is clarification through the tongue and the pen,
not forceful change with the hand and the sword.
For forceful change through armed jihad and confrontation
is what requires prerequisite capability
and takes into account harms and benefits.
As for clarifying Tawhid
and exposing major shirk—
this is the fundamental duty with which major shirk must be confronted,
and its delay is impermissible under any circumstance,
because major shirk itself is the supreme fitnah
mentioned in the words of Allah Almighty:
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.” (2:191)
And the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,
when Allah Almighty revealed unto him:
"Arise and warn!"
in Mecca,
while his Companions were still concealing their Islam,
stood up and proclaimed the truth openly,
exposing polytheism and warning against it.
Yet he deferred forceful change
until he possessed the requisite strength to carry it out;
hence, the idols were not removed from around the Ka'bah
until the Conquest of Mecca in the eighth year of the Hijrah.
This means that that evil remained physically standing
for twenty-one years:
the entire Meccan period,
plus eight years of the Medinan period.
Whereas warning against it and clarifying the truth
have been openly proclaimed from the very beginning of the mission of the Messenger,
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
The second misconception
is summarized in what has recently emerged
from some evil callers
who delve into this issue
to downplay its gravity
and defend whichever rulers fall into it,
by claiming that it is merely an act of disobedience
and not major shirk,
as long as the one legislating by other than the law of Allah
does not deny Allah's ruling,
does not deem his own act permissible,
and is among those who say, "There is no god but Allah."
They cite what was reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father,
regarding the Tafsir of the words of Allah Almighty:
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—
then it is those who are the disbelievers."
He said: "It is disbelief less than disbelief."
Yet this understanding of theirs
is clear misguidance
and an astonishing conflation of matters.
For the mere act of replacing the legislation of Allah
and ruling by other, human-made laws instead
is in itself major disbelief,
whether one deems it permissible (istihlal) or not.
For the texts have never made istihlal a prerequisite—
the texts indicating the disbelief of whoever replaces the Shariah
and rules by other than the law of the Most Merciful—
and this is a baseless claim
fabricated by these people from their own imagination.
Rather, the prerequisite for ruling
contrary to the Shariah being deemed mere disobedience
and not disbelief lies in the following conditions
and constraints:
First: that sovereignty belongs to the Islamic
Shariah, and the foundational basis of judgment
is established upon the Book and the Sunnah
and actively implemented in people's real lives.
Second: that the ruling contrary
to the Shariah be an exception in isolated, individual cases,
and not imposed upon the people as
a general, binding law;
rather, it occurs due to the ruler's personal desire
in a specific case for personal gain
or favoritism toward a relative, for example, of the one
falsely judged in favor of.
Even so, the ruler in this scenario is in grave danger
and has committed a major sin,
even if it does not reach the level of disbelief.
Third: that the judge or ruler does not believe
that what he did was lawful.
For if he believes it to be lawful, he has disbelieved by consensus.
And this is precisely what Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) intended
by his saying: "disbelief less than disbelief."
For he said it in the context of debating
the Kharijites, who declared takfir
on the basis of mere sin and wished
to force the scholars into agreeing with them in declaring takfir upon
those who judged in certain legal disputes
contrary to the Shariah
out of personal desire or ignorance of the ruling,
in order to justify, through that agreement,
their armed rebellion against them with the sword.
What further indicates that this was the intended meaning of
Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him)
is that the scenario of universally replacing the Shariah
did not exist at all during the time of Ibn Abbas,
nor did it ever cross anyone's mind.
No one would have even harbored the mere
thought that it was permissible for him to rule over
Muslims by other than the legislation of Allah,
or to enact a law contrary to the Book and the Sunnah
and then compel people to seek arbitration through it.
Rather, this only emerged during the era of the Tatars,
when Genghis Khan compiled
the book al-Yasaq
as the reference point for judgment among the people.
In it, he mixed between rulings of the Muslims,
others from the religions of the People of the Book and others,
some prevailing customs and traditions,
and whatever he himself deemed appropriate of laws
and legislation.
Consequently, Shaykh al-Islam issued a fatwa regarding his disbelief
and that of his supporters who aided him—
a disbelief that expels one from the fold of Islam.
Comprehensive and eloquent sayings regarding governance:
The following are some
comprehensive, wise sayings
on the subject of ruling by the Shariah:
First: There is nothing in the rulings of the Shariah
except sheer good;
thus, one should never feel constrained by any part of it,
nor abandon the implementation of some of its rulings
under the pretext of not alienating people from the Shariah
or making them love the religion of Islam,
as some mistakenly imagine.
For that only leads to abandonment
and a lack of divine guidance.
Allah Almighty said to His Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"A Book revealed to you—so let there not be in your breast distress therefrom."
“(It is) a Scripture that is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) - so let there be no heaviness in thy heart therefrom - that thou mayst warn thereby, and (it is) a Reminder unto believers.” (7:2)
“(It is) a Scripture that is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) - so let there be no heaviness in thy heart therefrom - that thou mayst warn thereby, and (it is) a Reminder unto believers.” (7:2)
Second: To defame
the judgment of Allah
is to defame the Legislator Himself.
Third:
Allah has cursed the one who alters the boundary markers of the earth,
which are the guideposts along the traveler's road,
in order to preserve people's rights;
so what then of the one who alters the religion
and diverts people from guidance to the path of truth?
Fourth:
Their laws may suit one era
yet fail to suit another, corrupting it instead.
For this reason, Allah took upon Himself the governance of mankind;
His judgment is suited to every era
and every place.
Fifth: Resorting to false deities (taghut)
and abandoning the judgment of Allah and His Messenger
is hypocrisy itself.
For Allah Almighty said regarding the hypocrites and the People of the Book:
"They claim they wish to refer for judgment to taghut."
“Hast thou not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which is revealed unto thee and that which was revealed before thee, how they would go for judgment (in their disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to abjure them? Satan would mislead them far astray.” (4:60)
Sixth: Ruling by the Shariah
protects people from the whims of rulers and politicians.
Allah Almighty said:
"So judge between them by what Allah has revealed,
and do not follow their desires
away from what has come to you of the truth."
Comprehensive sayings regarding rulers:
Among the eloquent, comprehensive sayings concerning rulers:
First:
The righteous ruler
is the one who venerates the command of Allah and His Messenger,
protects His Shariah, and submits to it—
not the one who makes obedience to himself a religion
prioritized over obedience to Allah and His Messenger.
Second: The Ummah that gives precedence to obedience to the sultan
over obedience to the Most Merciful
is not a religious Ummah;
it is forsaken and unassisted.
Third:
Advising the ruler is not done secretly or openly
in all circumstances;
rather, it depends on the public interest and what the situation demands,
and moderation in this
is the methodology of the salaf (early generations).
Fourth: The tyrannical ruler seeks validation
or support from his entourage and the people.
Pharaoh said to his people:
"Leave me to kill Moses."
Fifth:
An evil entourage is not what implants wickedness
within the tyrannical ruler;
rather, the evil is already rooted within him,
and he is the one who chose this entourage
and banished the righteous companions.
Therefore, Allah punishes the oppressor
and his entourage alike.
Sixth:
The evil entourage is keen to discern the whims of the ruler
and his desires;
thus they incite him toward them, even without personal conviction,
to draw close to him and win his favor.
Allah Almighty said:
“The chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: (O King), wilt thou suffer Moses and his people to make mischief in the land, and flout thee and thy gods? He said: We will slay their sons and spare their women, for lo! we are in power over them.” (7:127)
“The chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: (O King), wilt thou suffer Moses and his people to make mischief in the land, and flout thee and thy gods? He said: We will slay their sons and spare their women, for lo! we are in power over them.” (7:127)
Seventh:
Among the signs of ruin for a ruler
is that Allah subjects him to an evil entourage
or an evil companion who makes his bad deeds pleasing to him.
Allah Almighty said:
"And We appointed for them companions
“And We assigned them comrades (in the world), who made their present and their past fairseeming unto them. And the Word concerning nations of the jinn and humankind who passed away before them hath effect for them. Lo! they were ever losers.” (41:25)
who made attractive to them what was before them and what was behind them."
For tyranny is produced by the people.
Allah Almighty said regarding Pharaoh and his people:
"So he bluffed his people, and they obeyed him.
Indeed, they were a defiantly disobedient people."
Ninth:
Whenever a tyrannical ruler wants to crush someone,
he invents false excuses and flimsy accusations
to justify his action.
When Pharaoh wanted to crush the magicians
after their belief in the Lord of Moses and his humiliation before the public,
he said:
"You believed him before I gave you permission.
Indeed, he is your chief who taught you magic.
So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet
on opposite sides, and I will surely crucify you
upon the trunks of palm trees,
“(Pharaoh) said: Ye put faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he is your chief who taught you magic. Now surely I shall cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and I shall crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and ye shall know for certain which of us hath sterner and more lasting punishment.” (20:71)
and you will surely know which of us is more severe in punishment and more enduring."
As if they required his permission to have faith!
And he accused Moses, peace be upon him,
of changing the religion and causing corruption in the land.
Allah Almighty said:
“And Pharaoh said: Suffer me to kill Moses, and let him cry unto his Lord. Lo! I fear that he will alter your religion or that he will cause confusion in the land.” (40:26)
"Let him call upon his Lord."
“And Pharaoh said: Suffer me to kill Moses, and let him cry unto his Lord. Lo! I fear that he will alter your religion or that he will cause confusion in the land.” (40:26)
“And Pharaoh said: Suffer me to kill Moses, and let him cry unto his Lord. Lo! I fear that he will alter your religion or that he will cause confusion in the land.” (40:26)
Tenth: No era is devoid of corrupt
rulers.
Eleventh:
Whoever disparages the scholars, callers, and mujahideen,
tracking down their missteps,
while turning a blind eye to the grave transgressions of rulers,
is driven purely by whim, not by religion.
Twelfth:
The right that nations have over their rulers is momentous—
taking precedence even over the rights of their own parents.
For Joseph, peace be upon him, did not travel to his parents
after such a prolonged absence; rather, he said:
"And bring to me all your family."
He only did this
out of the obligation he owed to his subjects.
Thus, this duty ought to be made just as clear
as the right of the ruler over his subjects.
Thirteenth:
[A ruler must not] judge among the people according to his personal opinion,
but solely by what his Lord shows him.
Allah the Almighty said:
"Indeed, We have sent down to you the Book in truth [that you may judge between people by that which Allah has shown you]."
“Lo! We reveal unto thee the Scripture with the truth, that thou mayst judge between mankind by that which Allah showeth thee. And be not thou a pleader for the treacherous;” (4:105)
If this applied to the Messenger of Allah, how much more so to those beneath him,
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him?
Fourteenth:
Whoever deems the forbidden to be permissible, or declares the permissible to be forbidden,
is not a legitimate ruler,
nor is he an authority over the Muslims.
But as for the one who upholds what is lawful and what is unlawful,
submits to the Sharia of the Most Merciful,
yet contravenes it through his personal actions,
he remains a legitimate ruler
whose rectification is sought, and whose authority is not contested.