Interpretation (Ta'wil) in Newly-Arisen Matters: Participation in Parliamentsالتأويل في الأمور الحادثة: المشاركة في البرلمانات

Questioner: Do those who interpret in matters that are settled — especially newly-arisen matters — have any argument?

We divide them; we do not treat them as a single category. We distinguish between a person who has knowledge and a basis of evidence, who comes with a strong doubt and evidences, and whom we know to be a mujtahid — and (audio unclear) whether there is evidence or there is no evidence, he will act regardless; he is set on going ahead. This is the first matter, and it is important; it is a fundamental condition in the issue.

The second matter concerns newly-arisen matters. Take parliaments as an example. The problem with parliaments is not merely the question of "I want to reform, so I participate" — and you participate and participate, and there are no signs of change, except that [one says] it may reduce harm. And we know what the greatest harm is: shirk. So I do not know what "reducing harm" means while you are practicing this shirk. In addition to that, if he wants to reduce harm, let him declare his disavowal of the taghut, so that we may know that he truly has ijtihad. But a person who does not declare his disavowal of the taghut — how can we know that he is a mujtahid? Take, for example, a person who places authority under the will of the people and says, "I want to reform." Very well — how are the people to know that you want to reform, when you do not declare that Islam is the first choice, and you do not declare disavowal of the taghut? That is: were the people to want rule by other than what Allah has sent down, will you declare your disavowal of the taghut, which is a condition of "there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah"? If he does not declare it, then we understand from him that he never wanted reform, and that from the outset he has no disavowal of, nor enmity toward, the tawaghit.

Allah, Majestic and Exalted is He, says, "So whoever disbelieves in the taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold," and the messengers, from the first of them to the last, were sent with disbelief in the taghut. Allah, exalted is He, said, "And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], 'Worship Allah and avoid the taghut.'" The taghut, as Ibn [al-Qayyim] said, is "anything by which the servant exceeds his limit — whether something worshipped, followed, or obeyed." This ought to be qualified with a restricting phrase: it is a comprehensive definition, but not an exclusive one, so we add, "in a way that contradicts the foundation of faith." Then the definition becomes both comprehensive and exclusive.

Accordingly, disavowal is indispensable, and it is indispensable to present Islam with an appearance of honor, of strength, of courage; we do not hide our religion or our creeds. Then, what is this reform that you will bring about? Is it economic reform — that people's livelihood improves while they remain upon major sins, upon shirk, upon destructive sins and nullifiers? We know that nothing benefits alongside shirk; whatever deed you set right will not benefit alongside shirk, as Allah, Majestic and Exalted is He, said, "And We will turn to whatever deeds they did and make them scattered dust."

Therefore, interpretation — I repeat — is not admissible in every issue, and if it is accepted from one person, that does not mean it is accepted from another. We distinguish [the one who] has his knowledge, his evidence, and his doubt — as (audio unclear) said in al-Fath, such that the accepted interpretation is one that has a basis in knowledge, relying on evidences, not coming from nowhere. A further condition is that he not commit a nullifier. For some people err in this matter: [we say,] you erred, for instance, in entering parliament — this is an error we might overlook for one who has knowledge. But how can we overlook it when he says something else: "I respect the will of the people, even if they want rule by other than what Allah has sent down"? There is no interpretation in that. The first was overlooked on account of interpretation — you participated, and you have (audio unclear). But the second — what interpretation is there for it? Where is the disbelief in the taghut that Allah, Majestic and Exalted is He, commanded, and made obligatory upon the whole Ummah, obligatory upon all His servants? And then it may be asked: what benefit are you achieving for the Ummah, with these major sins present?

النص العربي الأصلي