SOME REFUTATIONS ON SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS AND FALLACIES THAT PROMOTE DEMOCRACY
Allah said: " He has sent down this book which contains some verses that are categorical and basic to the Book, and others allegorical. But those who are twisted of mind look for verses metaphorical, seeking dissension's by giving explanations to them of their own, but none knows their meaning except Allah, and those who are steeped in knowledge affirm: “We believe in them as all of them are from the Lord". But only those who have wisdom understand. “Let us not go astray, O Lord, having guided us already. Bestow on us your blessings for you are the benevolent". 37
Allah shows to us through these verses that people of His decree are divided into two categories: People of science and stability: They take it and believe in all of it. They combine the ordinary with the extraordinary, and the unlimited with the limited, and the summarized with the detailed. If they do not know something, they return it to the strengthened principles and the stable bases that agree with the guidance of the decree.
People of deviation and error: They follow the obscure (unclearly intelligible passages in the Quran). They take it to spread chaos. They do not follow the detailed, the obvious. And a perfect example is in those who take the path of democracy and establish parliamentary councils. Its' people follow the road of deviation and are people who err. They follow some verses and surahs, and take them alone without combining them with the detailed, interpreted, limited principles of the religion's basis, to mix the Truth with the Falsehood, and the Darkness with the Light.
To proceed; we will discuss some of these arguments, to refute them and to reply regarding them, with the help of the Sovereign, the Creator, the Resurrector, and the Defeater of the cliques.
The First Irrational Argument:
YUSUF'S WORKING FOR THE KING OF EGYPT
You should know that this argument was put forward by the sectarians who had very little other evidences for democracy. They said: Did not Yusuf work as a minister with a disbelieving King, who did not apply Allah’s decree?
So, according to them, participation in the disbelieving governments is permitted, as well as participation in parliament councils, voting for such people, and so on. To this, we reply, and any good is from Allah alone, and all evil is from my own self:
Firstly: the argument used by these people to justify participation in the legislative parliaments, is untrue and void, because these polytheistic parliaments depend on a religion that isn’t Allah’s religion, but the religion of democracy, which makes a godhood of the legislation, and the forbidding and permitting of actions for the sake of people, not for the sake of Allah, alone.
Allah said: "And whoever seeks a way other than submission to Allah, it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the world to come." 38 So, can anyone pretend that Yusuf followed a religion that was not Allah’s religion? Or a religion that was not of his monotheist fathers? Or that he swore to respect it? Or legislated according to it? As is done nowadays by those who are fascinated by these parliaments? 39
He declared this at his time of weakness, saying: "I have given up the religion of those who don’t believe in Allah and deny the life to come. I follow the faith of my fathers, of Ibrahim and Ishaac and Yaqub. We cannot associate anyone with Allah". 40 And he said: O, fellow prisoners, are a number of gods better, or One God? What you worship besides Him are nothing but names that you and your fathers have assigned for which no sanction has been sent down by Allah. Authority belongs to Allah alone. He commands that you worship none but Him. This is the right way, but most men are ignorant". 41
How would he say this openly at a time of weakness and then hide or contradict this at the time of the strengthening? Answer us, o believers of the false claims!
Then, do you not know, O political leaders -that the ministry (i.e. where the Prime Minister and his ministers have their cabinet) is an executive authority, and that the Parliament is a legislative authority, and that there are many differences between them. The comparison can not be made here at all. 42
Now, you can be sure that Yusuf’s story can not be used as a viable argument to enter into and participate in the parliaments. However, let us carry this a bit further and say that it also can not be used as an excuse to participate in a ministry either, because both of them, parliament and ministry, participate in the disbelief.
Secondly: The there can be no comparison of the participation of many people, who are enthralled with democracy, in a ministry of those fake countries which legislate with Allah and fight Allah’s followers, and help His enemies, against the work of Yusuf (peace be upon him). This is a void and nonviable comparison, for these reasons:
1 -Anyone who participates in a ministry in these governments, which do not apply Allah’s decree, must respect their positive constitutions and show the loyalty and the sincerity to the deity. The deity which Allah has commanded him to disbelieve in, in the first place! Allah said: "...yet desire to turn for judgement to taghut, even though they have been commanded to disbelieve in them.." 43
They also must swear to uphold this disbelief, before they may enter this ministry directly, just as it is expressed in the parliament 44. Anyone who pretends that Yusufthis was so that We may avert both evil and lechery from him , for he was one of Our chosen devotees." 45, he will be a disbeliever, he will be one of the worst people, and will be free from the religion of Islam.
He will be worse than Iblees, who assented to Allah when he swore, saying: "By your power, I will lead them astray other than the chosen ones among your creatures”. 46 Yusuf (peace be upon him) really is one of God’s chosen servants, and he is one of their masters.
2 -Anyone who participates in a ministry in these governments, whether he swore the constitutional oath or not, is forced to adhere to the positive disbelief law, and to agree to it absolutely. He is just a sincere slave, an obedient servant to the ideology of the people who appoint him, the truth mixed with the falsehood, the impiety, the injustice, and the disbelief. Was Yusuf, the credible, like that? To compare his work with the participation in the ranks of the disbelievers? Any one who accuses Allah’s prophet, the son of Allah’s Prophet, the grandson of Allah’s prophet, in any part of that we do not doubt in his disbelief, and he will be free from Islam. He will be an atheist, because Allah said: "To every community We have sent an apostle (saying) “Worship Allah and keep away from all other deities." 47 And this is the greatest duty in the world for Yusuf (peace be upon him) and all of the Prophets (peace be upon them all).
Therefore, is it reasonable that he invokes people to follow Allah’s decree in the time of affluence and the ailment, at the time of weakness and strengthening, and then he contradicts Him, to be one of the polytheist people at the time that Allah described Him as one His purified, chosen servants? Some of the interpreters said that this verse (for under the law of the king, he couldn’t detain his brother) 48, is an evidence that Yusuf (Peace be upon him) did not apply the law and the system of the king, and he wasn’t forced to follow it, or to apply it.
Do the deities ministries or their parliaments behave like that nowadays? Is the minister’s situation like (a country within a country)? If it does not exist, no comparison can be made here.
3 -Yusuf (peace be up on him) participated in the ministry by the strengthening of Allah. Allah said: "Thus We gave Yusuf authority in the land" 49 So, it is the strengthening of Allah, with neither the king or anyone else having the ability (or the authority) to hurt him or to dismiss him from his office, even though he contradicted the king and his judgement or his jurisdiction. So, how can these vile, depraved people who are in evil positions, and ranks in the deities’ governments, and are just like puppets in the deities’ hands, possibly be compared to Yusuf, who worshipped Allah -even when he was given position and ruling authority?
4 -Yusuf (peace be upon him) participated in the ministry with the complete authority from the king. Allah said: "... when he had talked to him, he said.. “Today you are established in a rank of trust with us" 50
He was given an unrestricted hand to rule at his ministry. (Thus We gave Yusuf authority in the land, so that he lived wherever he liked ... ) 51. He had no opponent, no one could ask him about his work, or actions.
Do the deities’ ministries have anything which can be used in comparison? If the minister does anything that disagrees with the Prince’s or the king’s religion, he will be discharged from his office. The minister, according to them, is just a servant to the king’s or the Prince’s policies, and he has to obey them. He is not allowed to disobey or disagree with any of the king’s orders or that of the constitution, even if it contradicts with Allah’s decree and his religion.
Anyone who pretends that this is similar to Yusuf’s situation, he will get a great unprecedented thing. He will be considered a disbeliever in Allah, and a disbeliever in Allah's purification of Yusuf (Peace be upon him).
If you know that Yusuf’s situation does not exist in the deities’ ministries nowadays, you wouldn’t have a comparison. So, the deities have to leave their nonsense, and senselessness here.
Thirdly: One of the destructive refutations of this fallacy, is what some interpreters mentioned, that the king embraced Islam. Mujahid, the student of Ibn Abbas, narrated this. So, this would cancel and disprove any argumentation using this story.
We believe in Allah, and believe that it is worthier to follow the literal meaning of any verse in the Quran than to believe in the creature’s speech, or interpretations which have no evidence, and no proof. This is a certainty established by Allah’s saying about Yusufpeace be upon him: " So, We firmly established Yusuf in the land". 52
There is a summary that Allah showed in another place in the Quran. He described the situation of the believers to whom He gives authority in the land. Allah said:"Those who would be firm in devotion, pay the Zakat, and enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong, if We gave them authority in the land. But the result of things rests with Allah".53
We have no doubt that Yusuf is one of these, he is one of their masters, that to whom if Allah gave them authority in the land, they would enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil and wrong. Everyone who knows Islam does not doubt that the greatest good of it is the monotheism, which was the principle origin in the call of Yusuf (peace be upon him and his fathers), and that the greatest evil is the polytheism, which Yusuf warned of, and hated, and attacked its lords, and gods. There was an obvious indication, that after Allah had given Yusuf authority, he followed the religion of his fathers, Yaqub and Ibrahim, calling people to it, and attacking everything that contradicted or disagreed with it. He didn’t avoid the judgement of Allah’s decree. He didn’t help anyone in not applying Allah's decree. He did not help the legislators or the worshipped deities. He did not aid them as the people who are enthralled by their ranks do today.
He also did not participate with them in their legislation, as the fascinated people in the parliaments do today. He denied and rejected their behaviour and work. He changed their evils. He called for monotheism and attacked anyone who disagreed with it, as Allah mentioned. Anyone who describes the credible, the noble, the son of the nobles, with any description that is different from that, he will be an impure disbeliever free from the pure religion.
Another evidence of that is the interpretation of Allah’s saying: "when the king heard this he said: “ Bring him to me, I shall take him in my special service”, when he had talked to him, he said: “ Today you are established in a rank of trust with us"54
What can anyone think about the speech, with which Yusuf talked to the king, to love him, to give him authority, and to believe and trust him?
Did he talk about the story of the minister’s wife (Al-aziz’s wife), which ended with the truth being made known? Or might he talk about the national unity and the economic problem, or what?
No one can pretend to have knowledge of the unseen, or to say any thing without proof. If he does that, he will be a liar. But the interpretation of this verse "... when he had talked to him …" is shown in this statement :" To every community, We have sent an apostle (saying) : “ worship Allah, and keep a way from all other deities"55. And Allah’s saying: "surely you have been commanded, as those before you were: “If you associate (any one with God), wasted will be all your deeds, and you will perish." 56
And through His saying the description of the most important functions of Yusuf’s call (Peace be upon him): " …. I have given up the religion of those who do not believe in Allah and deny the life to come. I follow the faith of my fathers, of Ibrahim, Ishaac and Yaqub. We can not associate anyone with Allah." 57 and His saying: "... are a number of gods better, or one God? What you worship besides Him are nothing but names that you and your fathers have assigned for which no sanction has been sent down by Allah. Authority belongs to Allah alone. He commands that you worship none but Him This is the right way, but most men are ignorant." 58
Therefore, there is no doubt that this is the greatest speech of Yusuf (Peace be upon him), because it is the valuable religion, and the basis of his call, his religion and the religion of his fathers. If he forbade an evil, he would not have worse than the evil that contradicted with this principle. If this is decided to be true, and the King’s reply to him is: "Today you are established in a rank of trust with us." Then this is an obvious evidence that the king followed him, agreed with him, left the polytheistic religion, and followed the religion of Ibrahim, Ishaac, Yaqub, and Yusuf (peace be upon them all).
Let’s say, for example, that at least the king agreed with him on the monotheism and the religion of his fathers. He gave him the freedom of speech, allowed him to call to his religion, and to attack anyone who disagreed with it. And the king did not prevent him from doing all of that. And neither did he order him to do any thing to contradict with it. There is then, a big difference between Yusuf’s situation and the situation of those who are fascinated with the deities and their helpers in the ministries today, along with the participants in the parliamentary legislation.59
Fourthly: If you know all of that, then you are sure that the participation of Yusuf (peace be upon him) in the ministry did not disagree with monotheism, and did not contradict with Ibrahim’s religion, as does the participation in it today.
Just suppose that the king did not embrace Islam and remained as a disbeliever. The matter of Yusuf’s ruling would still be a marginal issue, it would not be a main issue, because it would not disagree with the religion’s purpose, because Yusuf did not show any disbelief or any polytheism. He did not follow the disbelievers, or any legislation other then Allah’s legislation.
He called people to monotheism. Allah said through the judges’ branches: " To each of you We have given a law and a way and a pattern of life." 60 Even though the prophets’ laws may differentiate in the regulatory branches, they will be united in the matter of monotheism . The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:" we (the prophets), are brothers who are sons of a man by different mothers (Wives), our religion is one." 61
He means that they agree with the monotheistic origin and with the variety in the religion’s branches and its regulations. So, a thing may be illicit according to us in another law, but it will be licit in our law, such as the booty, or the opposite may be true, or it may be restrictive upon the previous people, but not upon us. So, not everybranches and its regulations. So, a thing may be illicit according to us in another law, but it will be licit in our law, such as the booty, or the opposite may be true, or it may be restrictive upon the previous people, but not upon us. So, not every former law is a law for us, especially if it conflicts with or contradicts an evidence from our law.
The evidence of a contradiction to what was allowed for Yusuf, is shown in our religion, and its forbiddance is an obvious matter to us. Ibn Hibban in his book and Abu Ya’la and At-Tabarani narrated that Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: "Mentally deficient rulers will come to you, and make the most evil, worst people near to them, and delay the prayer (not pray it at the fixed time). Every one of you, who realizes that, must not be a senior or an officer or a collector, or a treasurer with them." What is likely to be meant by this, is that these rulers are not disbelievers, but they are libertine and imbecilic ones. A warner usually mentions the greatest mischievous and vile actions. So, if they were disbelievers, the prophet Muhammad (saw) would state that. But their greatest crimes that the Prophet (saw) mentions here, are making the worst people near to them and delaying the prayer. Because of that, the prophet Muhammad (saw) did not allow any one to work as a treasurer for them. Therefore if working as a treasurer with the unjust rulers is forbidden and illicit in our law, how can working as the minister of treasury, with the disbelieving kings and the polytheistic rulers be allowed? "Appoint me over the granaries of the land”, (he said) I Shall be a knowledgeable keeper.” 62
This is a true evidence and an obvious proof that it concerns the religion of the previous people, and that it is abrogated in our law, and Allah knows best. This should be sufficient to any one who wants the guidance, but he who prefers his reclamation and cultivation, and the men’s speech and talk, to the proofs and evidences -will absolutely not get the guidance "…you cannot intercede with Allah for him whom Allah wouldn’t show the way". 63
Finally, before we finish talking about this irrational argument, we want to point out some of the fascinated people, who prove the polytheism and the disbelief, through their actions in the participation of the disbelieving ministries and the polytheistic parliaments. They mix their arguments and pretexts with a speech from Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah about the participation of Yusuf in the ministry. This is in fact a mixture of truth with falsehood. This is a slander upon the Shaykh and an evil word. He did not mention this story to prove the participation in the legislation and the disbelief or to not apply Allah’s decree. No, we trust that this Muslim Shaykh and his religion, and his mind are free from this evil claim, and that no one could say it except those vile people in later times. We say that, even though we have not read his speech on this topic, because no sensible Muslim person would make such a statement.
So, how would a scholar such as the Shaykh say that, even though his speech in this topic was clear and well understood, all of it concentrated on the prevention of the most heinous act of the two, and to get the best of the two interests when they are contradicted by one another. You know that the greatest interest in this world is the monotheistic interest and that the most heinous act is polytheism. It was mentioned that Yusuf (peace be upon him) did the best of the justice and the doing of good, as in Al-Hisbah, 64 which means the complete supervision over the execution of the various works. It is known in the Islamic system -He said, through the description of Yusuf’s work: " He did his best in the justice and the good. He called them to the belief as much as he could", He also said: "But he did the possible of the justice and the doing of good" 65. Allah absolutely did not mention, that Yusuf (peace be upon him) legislated with Allah, or participated in the judgement of any decree, except Allah’s decree, or that he followed the democracy or any other religion that contradicts with God’s religion. The bewitched people of today mix his speech with their vile evidences, and false arguments to lead astray the common people. They mix the truth with the falsehood, and the light with the darkness.
Our leader, and guide to whom we return, when we have a difference of opinions is just the inspiration, the revelation -The speech of Allah and the Prophet (saw), and the speech of any one after the Prophet of Allah (saw) can be accepted or rejected. Therefore, if this speech -as they assert -refers to the Shaykh -Allah forbid -or any scholar who is greater than him, we will not accept it, until he shows the proof as Allah says: "…Say: “ Bring the proof, if you are truthful”. 66
So, be careful of that, hold by your monotheism. Take no heed of the misleading and false rumors of the supporters of polytheism and the enemies of monotheism. Take no heed of the incongruity between them.
Be one of the people who follow Allah’s religion, the people of whom the Prophet Muhammad (saw) described by saying: "They will not be affected by those who disagree with them, or abandoned them, till God’s predestination comes, at the time when they are on this road". 67
The Second Irrational Argument:
ALTHOUGH THE NEGUS DID NOT APPLY ALLAH’S DECREE, HE WAS MUSLIM
The sectarians used the story of the Negus as a proof, to legitimize the work of their legislator deities, regardless of whether they were rulers or representatives in the parliament.
They said: The Negus didn’t apply Allah’s decree after he had embraced Islam until he died, and in spite of that the prophet (saw) called him a righteous servant, performed a funeral prayer for him, and asked his companions to do that also. We say, regarding this, and success is granted by Allah:
Firstly: The holder of this deceptive argument before anything, must prove with a verifiable text, and a clear proof that the Negus did not apply Allah’s decree after he had embraced Islam. I have studied their sayings, but I have found only vain allegations, and discoveries, which are not supported by any true evidence, or verifiable proof, and Allah said: "Say: “ Bring the proof if you are truthful". 68
If they can not bring the proof of that, they are not sincere or truthful. They are liars. Secondly: According to us and our opponents, it is a fact that the Negus died before the completion of the legislation, he died before the descent of this verse: "… Today I have perfected your system of belief and bestowed My favours upon you in full, and have chosen submission (Al-Islam) as the creed for you ". 69
The descent of this verse was during the Farewell pilgrimage, but the Negus died before that, as Al-Haafidh Ibn Kathir, and others mentioned 70.
So, the application of Allah’s decree at that time was to judge, follow, and work according to what was known of the religion to him. The warning in these topics concerns the reaching of the Quran to a people. Allah said: "This Qur’an has been revealed to me that I may warn you on its strength and those whom it reaches". 71
The means of transportation and communication at that time were not as they are nowadays. Some laws could not be made known to anyone before some years had passed, and sometimes he could not have known something at all unless he came to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself.
So, the religion at that time was still new and the Quran was still being revealed. Therefore the legislation was not completed yet. This is obviously clear by what Al-Bukhari narrated through Abd'Allah bin Mas’ud that he said: "We used to greet the Prophet (saw) in the prayer, and he used to reply, but after we had returned from the Negus, we greeted him, but he didn’t reply. He said: a prayer has a purpose".
The companions who were in Ethiopia near the Negus, who were native Arabic speakers, were following the Prophet’s news, but they did not know about the abrogation of the speaking and greeting during the prayer - even though the Prayer is an obvious matter, and the Prophet (saw) was leading people in a prayer five times in every day, and night.
Can any one of those, who believe in democracy polytheism nowadays, pretend that the Quran, Islam or the religion has not reached him, to compare his falsehood with the situation of the Negus, before the completion of the legislation?
Thirdly: If we agreed with that it must be known that the Negus applied what he had known of Allah’s decree and anyone who pretends that he did not, has no way to be believed or to make his statement acceptable without a proof, then all of the evidences of history show that he was applying what he knew of Allah’s decree at that time.
1 -One of the things that he had to follow of Allah’s decree, at that time was: "The realization of the monotheism and the belief in Muhammad’s prophecy, and to believe that Isa was Allah’s servant and His Messenger". He did that, but do you see that in their evidences? They use the Negus’s letter which he sent to the Prophet (saw) as an evidence.
Omar Sulayman Al-Ashqar mentioned this in his booklet The Councils Judgement of the Participation in the Ministry and the Parliament.72
2 -His pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (saw), and the migration. In the previous letter which was pointed to, the Negus said: "that he gave the pledge of allegiance to the prophet", and that his son gave the pledge of allegiance to Ja’far and his friend, and that he embraced Islam with the his help. This letter included that he had sent his son (Areiha bin Al-Ashram Ibn Abjar), it also included his saying: "If you want me to come, I will do that, Allah’s Messenger, because, I testify that your saying is true". So directly after that he died, or the Prophet (saw) may not have wanted him to do that, at that time. All of these matters are unclear, and the story has no real proof, no clear sign. So, such a judgment of anything and taking it as an evidence are nonviable. Moreover, that will oppose the monotheism and the religion’s principle.
3 -The helping of the Prophet (saw), and his religion, and the following of him. The Negus helped the emigrants who had emigrated to him, and received them as guests. He provided security and protection for them. He did not abandon them. He did not give them up to Quraish. He did not allow Ethiopia’s Christians to hurt them, although they had shown their true doctrine about Isa. There was also another letter which the Negus sent to the Prophet (saw) (Omar Al-Ashqar mentioned it also through his previous booklet), which included that he sent his son with sixty men of the Ethiopian people, to the Prophet (saw) and all of that meant helping, following and corroboration to the Prophet (saw).
Even with all this, Omar Al-Ashqar was hasty when he said through his previously mentioned booklet that the Negus did not apply Allah’s decree, which is a lie, and a deceitful calumny upon that monotheist. But the truth is to say, that he applied what he knew of Allah’s decree at that time.
And anyone who says anything other than that, will not be believed unless he shows an obvious proof. Otherwise, he will be a liar: "say: “ Bring the proof if you are truthful". He did not bring an obvious proof, as an evidence for his claim, but he followed the history’s books to show some evidence -or so he thought -and we all know the situation of these histories. That it is uncertainty at best.
Fourthly: The situation in the Negus’ story was that of a ruler who had been a disbeliever, and then embraced Islam at the time of his reign. He showed the truth of that, through the complete submission to the Prophet’s (saw) orders, which included the sending of his son, with some of his men to the Prophet (saw) and enlisted them to ask of him the permission for the immigration to the Prophet (saw). It also included the showing of his helping the Prophet (saw), his religion, and his followers. It also showed the apparent leaving of everything that contradicted with his doctrine, and followers, and fathers’ doctrine. He tried to get the truth and to learn the religion till his death -which was before the completion of the legislation and before the reaching of it completely to him. This is the fact that is proved by the Prophet’s (saw) sayings, and the true traditions that concern him. We challenge everyone, who doesn’t agree with us, to prove what he says, but he has to have an overt proof, because histories cannot be evidences alone.
The situation which they compare it to, is a completely incorrect and different one. It is an illustration of a group of people, who consider themselves Muslims, yet do not leave what contradicts with Islam. They affiliate to Islam and at the same time, to what contradicts with it, and they boast about this.
They did not leave the democracy religion as the Negus left the Christian religion. No. They were fascinated by the commendation of it and by the proving of it before the people, and they called people to embrace this untrue religion. They made themselves gods that legislate for people in what Allah did not allow. They also participate with anyone who agrees with them in their religion, like the representatives of parliaments or their ministers. They join them in the disbelievers legislation which is done according to the constitution’s texts. They follow it and hate everyone who attacks or refutes it.
All of that was done after the completion of the religion, and the reaching of the Quran and the Traditions (Sunnah) to them.
I adjure you, whoever you are, is it fair to compare this untrue, dark, malodorous situation with what I gathered of the many differences, with the situation of a man who is not long accustomed to Islam, who asks for the truth and helps it before the completion of the legislation and the reaching of all of it to him? How different they are!
Yes, they may mean that they are be equal, but not in the balance of the truth! They may be equal in the balance of the (dealers in fraud), in whom Allah did erase their perception, because of their belief in the religion of democracy which contradicts the monotheism of Islam. "Woe to those who give short measure. Who insist on being given full when they take from Others. Whilst when they measure or weigh from them, give less. Do they not think they will be raised (to life) again, on a grievous day".
The Third Irrational Argument:
NAMING DEMOCRACY WITH CONSULTATION TO PROVE IT
Some ignorant people took Allah’s saying about the monotheist believers: "… whose affairs are settled by mutual consultation" and His saying to the Prophet (saw): "…And seek their counsel in all affairs", as a support for their false religion (democracy). They called their putrid democracy a consultation (i.e. they are saying that democracy is the same as a Shura' -the Islamic method of consultation) -to show and imbue a legitimate religious tinge upon this fake religion -to approve it and to make it permitted.
We say, regarding this and may success be granted by Allah:
Firstly: there is no value in changing the names, because the facts cannot be changed. Some preaching groups that believe in this disbelievers religion say: (we mean by Democracy -when we call to it, encourage it, do for and by it -the freedom of the word and the call) and other such nonsense.
We say to them: the important thing isn’t what you mean, or imagine, but what Democracy is, which the deity applies and calls to, and which the elections are made in the name of, and the legislation and judgement that you partake in, will be according to it? You may deceive people, but you can never deceive Allah. "The hypocrites only try to deceive Allah, but Allah will deceive them" and " They (try to) deceive Allah and those who believe, yet deceive none but themselves although they do not know ".
So, changing the name of a thing does not change it's laws. It does not permit the illicit things, and does not forbid the licit things. The Prophet says: "A group of my people will permit the wine by naming it with a different name".
The scholars, and jurists consider everyone who insults monotheism or attacks it a disbeliever. They consider anyone who proves the polytheism or does that at the time he calls it by a different name, a disbeliever. Such as those, who call the religion of the polytheism, disbelief i.e. democracy by “consultation” to permit, prove, and to call people to it.
Secondly: The comparison of the democracy of polytheist people with the monotheists consultation (i.e. Shura), and the similitude of the consultation council, with the disbeliever's, sinful, disobedient councils is a vile similitude and false comparison. You know that the parliamentary council is one of the palaces of idolatry and a castle of polytheism, which has the democrats’ god, and their disparate lords and partners, who legislate what Allah does not allow, according to their constitutions and laws. Allah said: "…are a number of gods better, or one God. What you worship besides Him are nothing but names that you and your fathers have assigned, for which no sanction has been sent down by Allah. Authority belongs to Allah alone. He commands that you worship none but Him. This is the right way, but most men are ignorant." and He said "Have they other associates who have prescribed another law for them which has not been dispensed by Allah?" So, this comparison is like the comparison of polytheism with monotheism and disbelief with belief (in Allah). It is a falsity upon God’s religion, and a lie upon God. It is a mixture of the true with the untrue and the darkness with the light. As we have shown. A Muslim must know that the obvious differences between the consultation that Allah legislated for His servants and the putrid democracy is like the difference between the heaven and the land or you can say, as the difference between the Creator and the created. So, the consultation is a divine method, and system … and democracy is made by the human who has corruptions and desires.
The consultation is from Allah’s decree, His religion, but democracy is a disbelief in Allah’s decree and His religion. It contradicts with that. The consultation must be in the matter that has no judgement, but when we have a text, an evidence, or a judgement, then there will be no consultation. Allah said: "NO believing men and women have any choice in a matter God and His Apostle have decided it ". Democracy is a gamble on each side. And there will be no consultation for the decree’s judgements, and God’s judgements. The whole consideration on democracy is for the people’s judgement, the people’s legislation in each side. So, they identified it through their constitution saying: "The people are the source of all authority". Democracy considers that the highest authority in existence, is that of people. It is the judgement of the majority, the legislation of the majority, and the religion of the majority. The majority permits and forbids, so, the majority is the god and lord in Democracy. But in a consultation, people, or the majority is that who is under the obligation, commissioned to obey Allah and His Prophet (saw) than to the Muslims’ leader. And the leader is not forced to accept the majority’s opinion, or Judgement . The majority is forced to obey the leader even if he is wrong, unless he calls to the disobedience of Allah.
Democracy and it’s callers deny the surrender to Allah’s judgement, to Allah’s decree. They resist saying: (The judgement is for the majority), to Hell with whoever follows them and rejoice for their Democracy, whatever it may be. We say that in this world, when they may still turn back. This will be better than hearing it on the Great Day, when people rise to hear the Judgement when they go toward the Prophet’s (saw) basin and the Angels will prevent them. It will be said that: "They changed", then the Prophet (saw) will say: "To Hell, to Hell, with whoever changed after me".
So, democracy originated in the land of the disbelief and the apostasy. It grew in the hotbeds of polytheism and corruption in Europe, where there was a separation between the religion and the life. Through this expression was established an atmosphere that carried all of its poisons and imperfections, whose routes have no relation with the belief’s earth or the irrigation of the doctrine and the good-will. It could have existed in the Western world before the separation of the religion from life (i.e. secularism). Because of that, it permitted the sodomy, the wine, and many other scandals. Therefore anyone who praises it or equates it with the consultation must be either a disbelieving democrat, or ignorant and stupid. At this time, there is a mixture of expressions and a meeting of the contrasts. No wonder that the followers of Shaytan are fascinated by these disbelievers ideologies, but the wonder is about those who say that they are Muslims, and still encourage this democracy and give it a legal colour!
Last time, when people were ensnared by Socialism, some people talked about what is called Islamic Socialism, and before that, Nationalism and Arabism. Nowadays, many of them are proud and enthralled with the constitutions... they are not shy to call and name the slaves of these constitutions as 'the law jurists' to compare them with 'the jurisprundents of the Islamic law'. They use the same expressions which are used in the Islamic law, such as …, the legislator, the divine law, the licit, the illicit, the permissible, the prohibited, and with all of that, they think that they are on right path, guided. So, there is no power and no strength except with Allah. This is just the loss of the science and scientists, and the authorization of unqualified people to be in charge of difficult work. They leave every work, everything to the vile people. What a pity upon the science and scholars, what a pity upon the religion and its pure callers. I swear before Allah that it is stranger, not among the general people, but among many people who pretend to be Muslims, that they do not know the meaning of Laa ila ha il'allah (No god but Allah). They do not know its conditions and it's requirements. Many of them contradict with it all of the time, and are stained by the polytheism of today. They pretend that they are monotheistic ones, and that they are the callers to monotheism.
They must sit in the scholarly circles, to learn the meaning and the fact of (No god but Allah), because the first thing that Allah ordained upon Adam’s people is to learn it. To learn its conditions and its contradictions before the nullification of the ablution or the prayer, because no ablution, or prayer will be accepted with its contradiction. If they become arrogant, they will be of the losers.
I’ll finish with a very important speech of the jurist and scholar, Ahmad Shakir, replying to the deceivers like those who pervert Allah’s speech and invent a lie against Him through their citation of His saying: "Whose affairs are settled by mutual consultation", to support and apply the disbelievers democracy.
Ahmad Shakir said in the margin of Umdat-at-Tafseer, when he interpreted Allah’s saying: "and seek their counsel in all affairs". And the verse: "whose affairs are settled by mutual consultation": "the mockers of the religion at this time -scientists and others -took them (the verses) as means of misleading others in the symbolic interpretation to agree with the Europeans on the constitutional system method, which they claim, and cheat people by naming it the democratic system ". So, these mockers took these two verses as a motto, or slogan, to cheat the Islamic nations, people, and everyone who returns to Islam. They say a right word but they intend a falsehood. They say: Islam calls to a consultation, and other such expressions.
Really! Islam calls to consultation, but what is the consultation that Islam calls to? Allah says to His Prophet (saw):"and seek their counsel in all affairs. And when you have come to a decision place your trust in Allah alone". The meaning of this verse is very clear, and obvious. It does not need any interpretation, or any symbolic interpretation. It is an order to the Prophet (saw), then to the Khalifah after him: That is, to examine the opinions of his companions, who are the knowledgeable persons, men of intelligence -to examine their opinions on the issues and matters which can be argued and the matters in which they can exercise a judgement. He then chooses what he thinks to be right, or in the best or most interest, useful, then to resolve on doing it, unlimited, unrestricted by the opinions of any group, or any limited number, or the majority, or the minority. When he resolves, he trusts in Allah alone. If he resolves, he will trust in Allah, then do what he determines.
It does not need any evidence or proof that the people who the Prophet (saw) ordered them to consult -and to be models to the khalifahs after him -are the righteous men who apply Allah’s decree, perform Prayer, and pay the Zakat. The fighters, for the sake of Allah, that the Prophet (saw) said about them: "The men of gentleness, and of intelligence from you, must come after me ". They are not atheists, or fighters against Allah’s decree, and religion. They are not the wicked who do every evil deed. They are not the people who pretend to have the right to legislate, or to put laws that do not agree with Allah’s religion, and destroy the Islamic divine law. The right place of these and those disbelievers is under the sword or the whip, not in the situation of consultation or the exchange of views. And yet another verse -the ayah in surat ash-Shura -has the same clarity, clearness, and unambiguousness: "who obey the commands of their Lord and fulfil their devotional obligations, whose affairs are settled by mutual consultation, who spend of what We have given them".
The Fourth Irrational Argument:
THE PARTICIPATION OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (saw) IN AL-FODHOUL ALLIANCE
Some foolish people lean against the participation of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) in Al-Fodhoul Alliance before he was assigned the mission, to permit and approve the participation in the polytheistic legislative parliaments.
We say, regarding this, and success is granted by Allah.
The one who pretends by this deceptive argument, either does not know what Al-Fodhoul alliance is, and talks about what he does not know. Or he knows the facts and mixes the truth with the falsehood upon the creation, to mix darkness with light and polytheism with Islam.
Because Al-fodhoul alliance -as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi mentioned -was formed when some tribes of Quraish met in the house of Abd'Allah bin Jad’an - because of his honor and lineage. They agreed and contracted to help any Oppressed person in Mecca until the oppressor retracts his oppression. So, Quraish called the alliance Al-Fodhoul alliance, meaning the alliance of the virtues.
Ibn Kathir also says: "Al-Fodhoul alliance was the noblest and the most honorable alliance that the Arab knew. The first one who talked about and called to it was Al-Zubair bin Abd'Al-Muttalib. The reason for this alliance was that a man from Zubaid, came to Mecca with some merchandise. He was attacked by Al Aas bin Wa'el, who stole his merchandise. Al-Zubaidi then asked some people of Al-Ahlaf to help him, but they refused to attack Al-Aas bin Wa’el, and insulted Al-Zubaidi. When Al-Zubaidi wanted recompense for the crime against him, he went to Abe-Qubais mountain at the sunrise, when the people of Quraish were at their meetings around Al-Ka’ba. He called for them to help him and recited some poetry. Al-Zubair bin Abd'Al-Muttalib then stood up and said: "Does that man not have an equalizer"? So Hashim, Zuhrah, and Team bin Murrah met in the house of Abd'Allah bin Jad’an and he made some food for them. Then they allied at Thul ge’dah in a sacred month, and contracted, swearing by Allah, to be as one hand with the oppressed, upon the oppressor, till he gives the oppressed his right. Whenever or until a sea wets a wool, and whenever or until Thabear and Hear' stand at their place. And they said: "These people had a bounty of the matter." Then they went to Al-Aas bin Wa’el and took Al-Zubaidi’s merchandise and gave it to him. Qasim bin Thabet mentioned in an unfamiliar tradition, that a man from Khath’am came to Mecca as a pilgrim so as to perform the umra with his daughter, called Al-Qatoul. She was a very beautiful girl. Nabeah bin Al-Hajjaj kidnapped, raped, and hid her. So, Al-Kath’ami said: "Who can help me?" Some one said: "you have to go to Al-Fodhoul alliance, then he called: "Oh, Al-Fodhoul alliance." After that, the men circled him from each side with their swords saying: "you have the succor, why are you complaining?".
He said: "Nabeah raped my daughter and took her compulsorily." Then they went with him till they reached Nabeah’s house. He went out to them, and they said: "Bring the slavegirl! You know what we are and what we have contracted to do". He said: "I will do that, but leave her with me just this night". They said: "No, not even for the time of milking a she-camel." then he brought her to them.
This is a translation of a poem by Al-Zubair about Al-Fodhoul alliance:
Al-Fodhoul contracted and allied
Not to leave an oppressor at Mecca.
They contracted and agreed this matter
So, the neighbour, and the poor were safe with them.
At this alliance, and around these purposes, there is what these people show as an evidence. Al-Baihaqi and Al-Hameadi narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: "I experienced personally in Abd Allah bin Jadan’s house Al-Fodhoul alliance. I prefer it to Humr Al-Ne’am, and if I am invited to it in Islam, I will agree to that." and so, Al-Hameadi added, they allied to return Al-Fodhoul to its people and not to hurt an oppressed by an oppressor.
So, we will ask these people now, saying: "What is the guidance in this alliance of virtues that it had to participate in a council that legislates with Allah according to Shaytan’s constitution? And the people of this council will begin their council with the Oath to respect the constitution of the disbelief, and its laws, and the loyalty to its slaves and deities, who attack and fight against Allah’s religion and His followers, and who help and follow Allah’s enemies and their disbelief.
Did Al-Fodhoul alliance have a disbelief, a polytheism, a legislation with Allah, and a respect of any religion except Allah’s religion? If you say yes you will pretend that the Prophet (saw) participated in the disbelief and legislation and followed a religion that was not Allah’s religion, and if he was called to it in Islam he would agree! Anyone who claims or pretends such a thing, he will show his disbelief and apostasy and atheism to the humans and the Jinns. If you say: It had no disbelief or legislation nor even any evils. It was just to help the oppressed and the troubled. So, how can you compare it with the councils of the disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience?
Then we ask them an obvious question and we want a pure, clear testimony for the Prophet Muhammad (saw) through the answer of this question "their testimony will be written, then they will be asked". The question is: If the participant in Al-Fodhoul alliance doesn’t participate unless he swears to respect the gods Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat and swears loyalty to the disbelievers religion of Quraish, and its idols, graven images and its ignorance. Then to help the oppressed and the troubled, and the like, if the situation was like that, would the Prophet (saw) participate in it, or would he agree with it, if he was invited to something like it in Islam?
If they say: "Yes, he would agree and participate in it … and this is what was done", the Islamic nation will be cleared from him and he from them and they will show their disbelief, even to the creation of Allah. But if they say: "No, he would not do that", we will say: "give up these false arguments, irrational thinking and ignorance and learn how the argument should be".
The Fifth Irrational Argument:
THE INTEREST OF THE CALL
They said that participation in these councils has many interests. And some of them also pretend that the council is in the best interest, they said: "it is the call to Allah, the saying of the right word", and they mentioned: "the change of some evils, reducing some of the pressures upon the call and callers to Allah". They mentioned: "not to leave these places and councils for the Christians, the communists and others". And some of them exaggerated saying: "We are doing this in the interest of applying Allah’s decree through the council. And the other dreams and desires of them travel around that interest".
We say, regarding this and success is granted by Allah:
We ask them firstly saying: Who limits the interests of His servants and knows it completely? Allah, the Aware, or you , with your reclamation’s and approvals?
If they say: "we -who know … ". We say: "you have your religion, and we have our religion, we do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what we worship". Because Allah says: "There is nothing that We have left out from recording". And Allah says, denying these democrats and ones similar to them: "Does man think that he will be left to himself, alone?", and He also said: "Do you think We created you for nothing ".
This is in our religion, but in the religion of democracy, there is no consideration for these strengthened verses, because according to them, a human is the legislator for himself. They say: "yes, man is left in vain, for nothing. He is free to choose and decide, and to accept or not accept what he wants of the legislation and religion. It is not important if this invented legislation agrees with God’s Book or not. The important thing is to be in agreement with the constitution and the law, and not to contradict them. "Curse on you and those you worship besides Allah! Will not you understand?"
If they say: "Allah limits the boundaries and He estimates the interests with the best estimation, because He creates the creature and Knows their interests completely; " and He knows all the mysteries, for He is all-knowing".
We will ask them: "What is the greatest interest in existence that Allah decided in His Book, and sent the Messengers to call to it, and because of it, descended the Books and ordained the Jihad and the martyrdom? The Islamic country is established for the sake of it. What is it? O, the propagandists of the khalifah?"
If they pretend secondary interests and change the religions principle basis we say: "Give up this madness, hallucination, and sit to learn the origin of your religion. Learn the meaning of (no god but Allah) without the realization or knowledge of which no call, Jihad or martyrdom, will be accepted." If they say: "The greatest interest in the existence is monotheism, and avoiding what contradicts it, like polytheism." We will say: "Is it reasonable to destroy this great interest and agree with the deities’ religion that is not God’s religion i.e. (democracy), to accept, and respect a decree that is not God’s decree i.e.(the constitution), and to follow disparate legislator lords who legislate with Allah , the One, the Subduer? So you will destroy the greatest interest in existence which is monotheism and the disbelief in the deities, for the sake of secondary, supposed interests."
Which balance, which mind, which decree, which religion can agree to that, except the disbeliever's religion of democracy?
Which call, and which right, that you pretend to have at these polytheistic councils at the time when you buried the origin of the Islamic call and the principles of the manifest truth? Can this origin and this greatest interest be buried to discuss secondary things and minor issues of the religion? When you discuss these minor issues and secondary things such as 'Who wants to forbid the wine?'-what do you depend on through your call, and what are your evidences?
If you say: "Allah says, … the Prophet (saw) says…?", you will lie, because this has no consideration in the religion of democracy, and the constitution decrees just what the constitution considers and controls . You’ll say: the second article includes … and article (24)… article (25)… and the other legislations of the disbelief, and the error. So, can you have more disbelief, polytheism and atheism than that? Does the follower of this road have an origin, or religion, or monotheism after that?
"Have you never seen those who aver they believe in what has been revealed to you and had been to others before you, yet desire to turn for judgement to evil powers, even though they have been commanded to disbelieve in them ? Satan only wishes to lead them astray, for away".
Answer us, is it possible to enact a law or legislation at these pagan abodes without these disbelieving, polytheistic ways?
Answer us, O, people of reclamations, who are teaching this. Even the application of God’s decree which you weep over, will you apply it through this road? Do you not know that it is a closed disbelievers road? If it succeeds, for the sake of the argument, it would not be Allah’s judgement -it would be the constitution’s judgment. The judgment, of the people, of the masses. It would not be Allah’s judgment unless you have a surrender to Allah’s speech and His decree, and unless you show humble submission to Him. But when the surrender is to democracy and the decree of the constitution and the people’s judgment, it will be to the judgment of the deity, even if it agrees with Allah’s judgment on many things. Allah said "Authority belongs to Allah alone". He did not say: "the judgment belongs to people". He said "So judge between them by what has been revealed by Allah". He did not say: "like what has been revealed by Allah", Or "judge between them by what the constitution and the law include". This is the saying of the polytheistic democracy’s slaves, and the constitution’s slaves. Where are you ? Are you still in your slumber, and your old error? Do you bury your heads in the sand? Do you not see the similarity around you ? There is Algeria and there is Kuwait, there is Egypt, and so on. Are you not sure that it is a disbeliever's game, yet? A closed, crooked, polytheistic comedy? Are you not sure that these councils are games at the disposal of the deity? He opens and closes it as he wills and desires. No law can be enacted before the consent of the deity. So why do you insist on this obvious disbelief and this pure lowness.
And through all that, you will hear them roar and say : " How will we leave these councils to the communists, christians, and the other atheists?" !! So , to Hell with them !
Allah said : "And do not grovel by those who rush into disbelief .They are not harm to God, and God will not give them any share in the life to come, and their torment shall be great ". If you are one of the atheists, we hope you will enjoy this partnership, and participation. Share with them their disbelief and polytheism if you want, but you must know that this participation does not end at the limits of this world . It will be as Allah said in the chapter of Women, after He had cautioned such councils, and ordered to avoid their people, and not to sit with them, because any one who sits with them, will be like them as Allah said warning : " ..Indeed God will put the hypocrites and infidels together in Hell". So, are you not sure after that, that it is pure polytheism and an obvious disbelief? Do you not know that it is not God’s religion, and that it is not the monotheistic religion? So, why do you want it? Leave it for them yes, leave it and avoid it. Leave it to the people of it's religion, and follow the religion of Ibrahim, the true believer. Say as his grandson Yusuf said at the time of his weakness in the prison " … I have given up the religion of those who don’t believe in God and deny the life to come. I follow the faith of my fathers, of Ibrahim, and Ishaac, and Yaqub. We can not associate any one with God, this is among God’s favour to us and to all mankind, but most men are not grateful".
O People, avoid the deity and his councils, leave them and disbelieve in them as long as they remain like that.
This is the manifest right, the obvious, clear light, but most people do not know.
"To every community We have sent an apostle (saying): "worship God, and keep away from all other deities” Thus some of them were guided by God and ruin was justified on some …"., and said :"... are a number of gods better, or One God Omnipotent? What you worship besides Him are nothing but names that you and your fathers have assigned, for which no sanction has been sent down by God. Authority belongs to God alone. He Commands that you worship none but Him. This is the right way, but most men are ignorant"
Avoid them, leave them, leave their people and their polytheism before it is too late, before the day comes, on which this will be the greatest thing. You wish, and hope, but after that it is too late and on that day, there will be no consideration of the griefs, and sighs. Allah said: "And the followers will say: “ could we live but once again we should leave them as they have abandoned us now” God will show them thus their deeds, and fill them with remorse, but never shall they find release from the Fire ".
Avoid them now and say to them - if you follow Ibrahim’s religion and the way of the prophets - as we say at the end of our speech:
O, the legislations' slaves … and the constitution’s slaves … O, the people of the religion of Democracy ... O, the legislator lords … We leave you and your religion … We disbelieve in you and in your polytheistic constitution and your pagan councils, and we have enmity and hate towards you. Unless you believe in ALLAH alone!
37 -Surat aal'-Imran, ayahs 7-8 (3:7-8).
38 -Surat aal'-Imran, ayah 85.
39 -refer to footnote number 27.
40 -Surat Yusuf, ayahs 37-38
41 -Surat Yusuf, ayahs 39-40
42 -Some of people who claim to be scientists claim that a ministry is more dangerous than Parliament. They think that parliament is a resistance forehead against the government, they struggle through this forehead a constitutional struggle, and they confront a legal fight, and beat a deplomatic strife. They pretend not to see that the legislation is more dangerous than the execution, specifically, their legislation which they call Jihad and strife – canot exist, except in the Parliament, according to their constitution and democracy – see article (24) part (2) of the Jordanian constitution. The legislative authorities of the people can’t be practiced except as they are shown in the constitution. And the parliament members are solely the people’s representatives (the owner of the constituional – authorities as they think).
43 -Surat an-Nisa, ayah 60.
44 -article 43 of the Jordanian constitution states that 'the Prime Minister and the ministers must swear before they practice their work, in front of the King, the following oath (I swear by Allah, the Great, to be loyal, sincere to the King, and to keep the constitution...)'. And article 79 (Each member of the parliament, before he practices his work, must swear in front of his council, the following oath: (I swear by Allah, the Great, to be loyal to the King and the home country and keep the constitution) and so.... Did Yusuf do any of this? Don’t be deceived by the deception of the fascinated people who say: (we swear, but our intent is not to do any thing that contradicts with the religion). You should tell them that the Oath will not be according to the swearer’s intent, because if it is so, the contracts of people will be untrue, will be corrupted, and there will be a big mischief and corruption as the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said in the Hadeeth that was narrated by Muslim: (The Oath is according to the one who asks you to swear). So , your Oath won’t be according to your intents, it will be according to the deity’s intent, who has asked you to swear…
45 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 24.
46 -Surat Sad, ayahs 82-83.
47 -Surat an-Nahl, ayah 36.
48 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 76.
49 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 56.
50 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 54.
51 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 56.
52 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 21.
53 -Surat Hajj, ayah 41.
54 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 54.
55 -Surat an-Nahl, ayah 36.
56 -Surat az-Zumar, ayah 65.
57 -Surat Yusuf, ayahs 37-38.
58 -Surat Yusuf, ayahs 39-40.
59 -This will not be contradicted by the saying of the one who asserts by His saying that in (chapter of the Forgiver) through a believer of pharoah’s people: (Yusuf) had brought the details to you before that, and you are still in doubt of what he had brought, but when he died, you said: “God will not send a messenger after him“) because: This verse is not an obvious indication that the meant one by Yusuf is Yusuf bin Yaqub. It may be another person. Some interpreters mentioned that it is not (Yusuf bin Yaqub), they said that: (He is Yusuf bin Afraneem bin Yusuf bin Yaqub) who also spent 20 Years as a prophet. This was narrated by Ibn Abbas. See the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, and if the evidence becomes just as a possible thing the argumentation will still be untrue.
60 -Surat al-Maaidah, ayah 48.
61 - Transmitted by Bukhari. Narrated by Abu Hurairah.
62 -Surat Yusuf, ayah 55.
63 -Surat al-Maa'idah, ayah 41.
64 -Majmoo al-Fatwa: part 28, page 68
65 -Majmoo al-Fatwa: part 20, page 56
69 -Surat al-Baqarah, ayah 111.
70 -Surat al-Maa'idah, ayah 3.
71 -refer to al-Biddayah w'al Nihhayah: part 3, page 277.
72 -Surat al-Anam, ayah 19.
73 -page 71 of this booklet can be found in Zaad Al-Ma’ad: part 3, page 60.