Full text of the Principles of Rulings and Rules of Deduction (Islamic Research):
Appendices to the Basic Statute (Islamic Renewal Party)
Principles of Rulings and Rules of Deduction
Article (1): Islam is embodied in the infallible revealed scripture, also called the "Revealed Book of God." The infallible revealed scripture is, in itself, a single level of infallibility and authority. It is:
(a) The Qur'an, which is the word of God revealed to our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, with its exact wording and letters, as it is written in the Preserved Tablet. It is the same as what is written between the covers of the Qur'anic manuscripts, preserved in hearts, recited by tongues, recorded on tapes, and through other means of preservation and transmission. It was transmitted from him, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, in writing (i.e., in script) and orally, through continuous transmission, passed down from one generation to the next. This provides definitive and necessary knowledge for all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that it is from Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. People only differ on whether it originated from him personally or from God. It is miraculous in its wording, and its recitation is an act of worship.
(b) The Prophetic Sunnah: The Prophetic Sunnah, in itself, consists of the sayings of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, including his gestures, actions, and tacit approvals. These are also considered divine revelation in meaning, which the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, expressed—in an infallible manner—through his own words, his gestures (which stand in place of words), his actions, or his tacit approval, i.e., his silence regarding a matter when he saw it or was informed of it, a silence that indicates approval, consent, or lack of denial.
Article (2): The Prophet's, peace and blessings be upon him and his family's, action of something indicates only that this action is not forbidden for his community and is purely permissible, unless there is conclusive and irrefutable proof that it was specific to him. Furthermore, there must be independent evidence for its obligation, recommendation, or even reprehensibility. The same applies to his tacit approval of another's action. As for the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) (not doing something), which some mistakenly call (abstention), it is not part of the Sunnah, because it is pure non-existence: and pure non-existence is nothing and cannot be used as evidence for anything.
However, his (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) (rightful) abstention, which is when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) abstains from a specific action after having performed it once or repeatedly—it makes no difference—only indicates that this action is not obligatory for his community (except for what is proven by conclusive and irrefutable evidence that it was specific to him). There must be another, independent proof that the abstained action is forbidden, disliked, purely permissible, or even recommended. Similarly, his (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) abstention from an action before performing it—that is, his (intending) to perform an action and then refraining from it—only indicates that this action is not obligatory, nothing more. There must be another, independent proof that the abstained action is forbidden, disliked, purely permissible, or even recommended. If this is the case with the Prophet's (peace be upon him) omissions, then it is even more so that the omissions of the Companions cannot be considered a valid argument in any matter whatsoever. Therefore, the argument of some that an action is not permissible because they say, "The Companions did not do it," is pure sophistry and sheer ignorance.
Article (3): The entire revealed scripture is infallible revelation, and it is all preserved. The preserved scripture is not only the Qur'an alone, but also the legislative Sunnah. The Qur'an is the written text found in the Preserved Tablet. It is preserved—in its written form—letter by letter, word by word, pronunciation by pronunciation, and diacritical mark by diacritical mark, because it has been transmitted through continuous, unbroken chains of narration. The Qur'an is what is contained between the two covers of the Mushaf (copies of the Qur'an), and there is no other revealed Qur'an whatsoever, unless it is a Qur'anic text whose wording has been abrogated, as has been reported in some authentic, even continuous, narrations. In that case, it is no longer considered Qur'an, and it is not permissible to include it in the Mushaf. The abrogation of the Quranic text—that is, the removal of the written text so that it is not recorded in the Qur'anic manuscripts, or the forgetting of the words so that readers are unable to remember and recite them—is necessarily and inevitably an abrogation of the ruling it contains, unless conclusive and definitive proof is established to the contrary. An example of this is the ruling of stoning married adulterers, which was legislated by the verse on stoning, and was immediately abrogated when its written text was removed and its wording was forgotten. This was then confirmed by its replacement – both in wording and ruling – with the verse concerning flogging: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery – flog each of them with a hundred lashes. Let not pity for them prevent you from carrying out the punishment prescribed by God, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their punishment.” (An-Nur 24:2)
As for the legislative Sunnah, it is transmitted orally, not through direct transmission (with the exception of very few things: such as the Constitutional Charter of Medina, the Treaty of Najran, and perhaps the letter of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, to al-Mundhir ibn Sawa, the ruler of Bahrain, and similar matters, which are transmitted through direct transmission), even though some of it—a large and important portion—is transmitted through multiple independent chains of narration. The Sunnah is not limited to what is contained in the books of hadith narrations (Sunan, Musannaf, Musnad, Mu'jam, and Juz'; Sira and Maghazi, etc.), although most of the Sunnah is found in those books. Preserving the legislative Sunnah is the preservation appropriate to its nature, being transmitted orally, not through direct transmission. This simply means that it is impossible for anything to be included that is not part of it in a way that would make it indistinguishable, and it is impossible for anything to be lost and never found again.
All of the Sunnah, especially the sayings of the Prophet, is infallible revelation. However, some of it is unrelated to matters of faith and Islamic law, such as accounts of tribulations, hadiths about the end times and the signs of the Hour, the verification of tribal lineages, medical prescriptions, and the naming of hypocrites; as well as details of events in the Prophet's life, battles, and some historical accounts, and so on. While these are undoubtedly true, they are not part of the "dhikr" (remembrance) that God has guaranteed to preserve. Some of it could be lost and never found again. Furthermore, it is not "dhikr" in the sense of "knowledge" that one sins by concealing. This is unlike "dhikr," which is knowledge that one is obligated to remember, discuss, study, teach, transmit, and spread by anyone who hears it, and concealing it is forbidden.
Article (4): It is not permissible to cite, nor is it valid as evidence, a text from the narrations of the Sunnah, including the biography and the battles, unless its authenticity and attribution to the Prophet, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, are proven either with absolute certainty through continuous transmission, exceeding all possible doubt; or by being proven with a strong and preponderant probability that exceeds all
A reasonable doubt, an acceptable objection, or a valid defect. Furthermore, it is not permissible to cite a sound and authentic report unless all its chains of transmission have been thoroughly examined, and all its wording has been meticulously verified, either to determine the precise, authentic, and fully verified wording or to deduce the consistent meaning shared by all the chains and narrations. Even after this has been completed, it is not permissible to rely solely on the verified report or text if other reports address the same issue, either entirely or in a substantial part of it. Rather, it is essential to gather all verified reports and texts on a single topic before citing them or deriving rulings from them. The best guarantee for this is to consider all texts of the Quran and Sunnah as a single, continuous text.
Article (5): It is essential to consider all texts of the Quran and Sunnah as a single, continuous text, with equal authority and the obligation to obey them all. It is not permissible to contradict one text with another, nor is it permissible to apply one text while completely disregarding another. To do so with regard to the Quran is the practice of those who divide it (90) and who have made the Quran into fragments (91) (Al-Hijr 15:90-91). Only a stubborn disbeliever would do this intentionally. The matter is similar in its malice and evil with regard to the Sunnah. It is never permissible to prioritize one text over another except with proof from the texts themselves, or due to a necessity dictated by sensory perception or reason. This includes giving precedence to the Quran over the Sunnah and making it the primary source, giving precedence to the mutawatir (widely transmitted) hadith over others, and giving precedence to the definitive over the speculative.
Article (6): It is not permissible to take texts out of their complete context, without truncation or distortion, because this is a type of (distortion of the words from their proper places). Doing this with regard to the Qur'an is the practice of a group of Jews: {They hear the words of God, then they distort them after they have understood them, while they know (75)} (Al-Baqarah; 2:75), as in His words, may His glory be exalted and His names be blessed: {So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] places and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded.} And you will still find treachery from them, except for a few of them. So pardon them and overlook their faults. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (13) (Al-Ma'idah 5:13). Only a cursed disbeliever would do such a thing intentionally. The matter is similar to this in terms of wickedness and evil. All texts must be accepted in their general and absolute sense; it is not permissible to specify or restrict any of them except with evidence from within them, or with a necessity dictated by sensory perception or reason. Applying texts in their general and absolute sense necessitates many things, including: (a) If a ruling is contingent upon a specific attribute of a particular thing or things, and this contingency is based on causality, then it must be applied to all things in the universe described by that attribute, except what is excluded by another text or dictated by sensory or rational necessity. This is what some legal theorists call "analogy based on a legal cause," which is in reality a generalization, not an analogy. However, we are not concerned with terminology; what matters to us is the reality of things!
(b) If a ruling is contingent upon a specific level or degree of a particular attribute, then the ruling must be applied to all levels and degrees higher than that. This is what some legal theorists call "analogy by way of a fortiori reasoning," and this is a rational necessity from which there is no escape. All other forms of analogy, or what they call analogy—such as analogical reasoning based on resemblance—are false, fabricated, and invalid. They lead to the creation of laws not sanctioned by God, which, in reality, leads to disbelief—may God protect us from such a fate. Furthermore, they are mere folly, completely unnecessary for us.
Article (7): It is imperative to interpret all the words of the Quran and Sunnah according to their meanings in the pure Arabic language at the time of the Quran's revelation, and not according to the later derivations and terminology coined by later generations. To deviate from this is another form of distorting the meaning of words, a practice frequently committed by the heedless and the dull-witted. Only a wicked, obstinate disbeliever would deliberately do so. If a single word is used in more than one sense, it is not permissible to prioritize one meaning over another except with clear proof from Islamic law or due to a necessity dictated by sensory perception or reason. For example: the word (nikah) is used equally for the well-known (contract), as well as for (sexual intercourse), whether permissible or forbidden. Therefore, both meanings of this word must be considered wherever it appears, unless there is evidence to the contrary. For example: His, may His glory be exalted, saying: {And do not marry those [women] whom your fathers married, except what has already passed. Indeed, it was an immorality and an abomination, and evil as a way.} (An-Nisa; 4:22): So, whoever the father married with a valid contract that permits enjoyment, becomes permanently forbidden to the son, as soon as the marriage contract is concluded, even if the father did not consummate the marriage (and likewise, the right of ownership that permits enjoyment as soon as ownership is established, due to the unity of the cause and reason, or due to the generality of the meaning if you wish); But that's not all: Whoever the father has had sexual intercourse with—that is, with whom he has had intercourse that necessitates ritual purification—is permanently forbidden to the son. There is no difference between intercourse within an invalid marriage, or with an invalid slave woman, or consensual adultery that warrants the punishment for adultery, or rape that warrants the punishment for highway robbery.
Article (8): The texts must be revered and respected absolutely. Just as they must be applied in their general and absolute sense, and nothing may be specified or restricted except with evidence from them, so too it is not permissible to take them out of context, distort them from their proper places, or attribute meanings to them that are not required by the text according to the customs and conventions of the Arabs in their linguistic structures at the time of revelation, and what is dictated by the necessities of sense and reason. This necessitates several things, including:
- Every statement and every issue only gives you what is specific to it and does not give you a ruling for anything else. This does not mean that anything else agrees with it in ruling, nor does it contradict it, but rather that everything else depends on its own evidence. If a text from God Almighty, or from His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, is attached to a specific characteristic, time, or number, then anything outside of that characteristic, time, or number is not subject to a ruling contrary to that explicitly stated ruling. Rather, its application depends on its supporting evidence.
For example, His words, may His names be blessed: {And [He created] horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment} (An-Nahl 16:8). The mention of riding and adornment does not necessarily imply the prohibition of eating them (this falls under what is called "argument from the text"), nor does it imply their permissibility (by analogy). The prohibition or permissibility of eating them is derived from other evidence besides this text.
Another example: His statement, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family, “Regarding grazing sheep, for every forty: one sheep,” does not imply that zakat is waived for other animals (according to what is called “the concept of the opposite”), nor does it imply that zakat is obligatory or its amount. Rather, that ruling is sought from sources other than this text.
A third example is the Prophet's saying, peace and blessings be upon him and his family: “O young men, whoever among you can afford marriage should get married, for it is more effective in lowering the gaze and guarding chastity. And whoever cannot afford it should fast, for it will be a shield for him.” The fact that he did not mention masturbation does not mean that it is forbidden or disliked. Rather, it simply indicates that masturbation is not preferable to marriage or fasting. It is quite possible that it is recommended, but not as much as those two. In any case, this can be determined from other texts.
(b) Every word that begins with a negation and is then qualified by the word “except” or the word “until” applies only to what it is qualified by. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: “The prayer of one who has broken his ritual purity is not accepted until he performs ablution.” This applies only to prayer (including circumambulation of the Kaaba, as it is a prayer in which speech is permitted). This has no relation to the Sa'i between Safa and Marwa, entering into the state of Ihram, reciting the Quran, supplication, etc.
(c) The imperative form, such as saying “Do it,” and its equivalents, is used to request an action in general in its original linguistic sense. In the discourse of the Wise Lawgiver, it implies recommendation and immediacy unless there is contextual evidence that shifts it from recommendation to obligation or permissibility, for example, or to a delay. (d) The prohibitive form, such as saying "Do not do it," and similar expressions, is originally intended to request the absolute cessation of an action. In the discourse of the Wise Lawgiver, it implies aversion unless there is contextual evidence to shift it from aversion to something else, such as prohibition.
(e) A statement remains a statement, that is, a description of reality, according to its apparent meaning. It is not permissible to interpret it otherwise (such as using hidden meaning, symbolism, metaphor, figurative language, or other rhetorical devices) except with proof. Similarly, it does not convey a command or prohibition except with proof.
(f) The default for an exception is that it is a true, complete, and continuous exception, not a separate exception. The exception is only necessary within the immediate category, and it is not permissible to move to a higher, more distant category except with proof. For example: (Do not set out on a journey except to three mosques: ... etc.) meaning only: (Do not set out on a journey to any mosque except to these three mosques: ... etc.). The hadith has indeed come in this form, explicitly stated in one of the narrations. This statement—contrary to Ibn Taymiyyah's ugly sophistry—has no relation to setting out on a journey to graves, or historical sites, or markets, or parks, or to attend a wedding, or to offer condolences, or to witness a sporting event, or a horse or camel race; or to travel to the moon and planets; or even to setting out on a journey to commit highway robbery and violate honor, which is a heinous crime, one of the greatest sins, which may lead its perpetrator to the level of polytheism and disbelief. But this is not to be taken from this;
Another example is His, may His glory be exalted, and His station be sublime: “And those who guard their private parts (5) Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed (6) But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors (7)” (Al-Mu’minun 23:5-7). The closest gender here refers to women in relation to believing men, for example. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn from this is the obligation to guard one's private parts from looking at, touching, or having sexual relations with women other than one's wife or slave-girl, and nothing more. As for a man looking at, touching, and rubbing his own private parts (masturbation), this is entirely unrelated here. The prohibition or reprehensibility of masturbation cannot be derived from this text at all. Rather, it must be sought from other texts, which do not exist in the world. Therefore, masturbation is permissible. Furthermore, a man looking at, touching, and rubbing the private parts of another man (sodomy) is also entirely unrelated here. The prohibition of sodomy, which is the act of males engaging in homosexual acts, cannot be derived from this text. Rather, it must be sought from other texts found in the Quran and Sunnah, supported by established consensus. Therefore, sodomy is definitively prohibited by these sources, not by this verse from Surah Al-Mu'minun. The same applies to believing women: their closest sex is men only.
Article (9): Abrogation is only permissible in cases of compelling necessity, where one is unable to conceive of any other solution or conclusive proof. To assert abrogation in any other circumstances is a grave offense. Therefore, it is imperative to reconcile the texts using all possible means of reconciliation, particularly specification and qualification, in accordance with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence.
Furthermore, abrogation may only be invoked based on a text that is of the same or higher authority as the abrogated text, and whose indication of abrogation is definitive, or due to a necessity dictated by sensory perception or reason. This necessarily entails the following:
(a) - That the general and absolute, by its very generality or absoluteness, does not abrogate the specific or qualified, even if the general or absolute is later in time than the specific or qualified. Rather, there must be independent proof that necessitates the assertion of abrogation and compels one to accept it, such that there is absolutely no other reasonable alternative. An example of this is the statement of God, may His glory be exalted and His station be sublime: {There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have eaten [in the past] if they fear Allah and believe and do righteous deeds, then fear Allah and believe, then fear Allah and do good; and Allah loves the doers of good.} (Al-Ma'idah 5:93) (93), which was revealed—certainly—after the prohibition of alcohol, cannot—for all time—abrogate the prohibition of drinking alcohol or eating carrion and pork, the rulings for which were revealed before that. Thus, the grave error committed by Qudamah ibn Maz'un, may God be pleased with him, a veteran of the Battle of Badr and undoubtedly among the people of Paradise, becomes clear. He drank alcohol, misinterpreting the verse.
(b) It is permissible for the texts of the Sunnah to qualify or specify the Qur'an, or to serve as an explanation and interpretation of it, because this is not abrogation, nor is it of the same nature as it. However, no text from the Sunnah can ever abrogate anything from the Qur'an, as previously mentioned, and as stated by Him, may His glory be exalted and His names be blessed: "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"
(106) Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and that you have no protector or helper besides Allah? (107) (Al-Baqarah 2:106-107). It is utterly impossible for a text from the Sunnah to be on par with, or superior to, a text from the Qur’an in terms of honor, eloquence, or authenticity. An example of this is the ruling on adulterous women in the “verse of confinement,” which is the statement of God, may His glory be exalted and His status be elevated: “And those of your women who commit adultery, call to witness against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine them to houses until death takes them or God ordains for them a way out.” (15) (An-Nisa; 4:15). It was not to be abrogated except by the verse of stoning, and not by the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, as some people imagine. The verse on stoning is superior to the verse on imprisonment because it established equality between men and women, thereby eradicating the patriarchal system of pre-Islamic ignorance and completely dismantling it. It also distinguished between married and unmarried individuals. A swift death by stoning—despite its painful and terrifying nature—is preferable to a slow death by life imprisonment, and it serves as a stronger deterrent (even if some atheists deny this). Then, as mentioned earlier, the verse on stoning was abrogated, and all those rulings were replaced, refined, amended, and mitigated by the verse on flogging until the Day of Resurrection.
Article (10): God abrogated the previous laws with the mission of our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, with a final, complete, absolute, and irrevocable abrogation. Therefore, the laws of the previous prophets are abrogated; it is not permissible to apply them, and following them is forbidden. Moreover, they were not sent to us at all, nor did they address us with anything whatsoever. Therefore, their laws are not binding upon us in any way. Not only that, but it is forbidden for us to follow any of their laws because they are abrogated. Adopting the abrogated and abandoning the abrogating is a grave sin, a challenge to God's judgment, and a rebellion against His Lordship and Sovereignty. This is the very bottom of the abyss of disbelief and polytheism, for acknowledging and submitting to God's ultimate and supreme Lordship and Sovereignty is the pinnacle of faith and monotheism.
Therefore, it is utterly impossible for the statement "The law of those before us is our law" to be true, for it is in reality a statement of disbelief, as some of the most eminent scholars have erred in doing. Any similarity, or even exact correspondence, found in our law to some rulings of previous laws is a new legislation, appearing similar in form to the previous law. It is not a continuation of a previous law—God forbid!—but merely an affirmation. And affirmation, in itself, is legislation. Even the tacit approval by Islamic law—at first—of the laws of Ishmael, whether authentic, distorted, or altered, was itself a new legislation. Much of that was subsequently abrogated, little by little.
And even the Quran's mention of a ruling from a previous law is merely information, not legislation for us unless supported by evidence. An example of this is His, the Exalted and Majestic, saying: “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had killed all of mankind. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved all of mankind. And Our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, are transgressors.” (32) (Al-Ma'idah; 5:32). This is not a law for us simply by its mention, but rather Because this noble verse serves as a prelude to the ruling concerning those who wage war against God and His Messenger in the verse immediately following it—a ruling of extreme severity and harshness: “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land is that they should be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be banished from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter they will have a great punishment. (33) Except for those who repent before you are able to do so.” “So know that God is Forgiving and Merciful” (34) (Al-Ma’idah 5:33-34), as attested to by numerous authentic hadiths.
Article (11): The original Islamic legal ruling concerning all things (all things: objects, actions, words, thoughts, and imaginings) is permissibility and freedom from legal rulings, except for what has been explicitly excluded by the text, as we have established with conclusive evidence in our book: (The Book of Tawhid: The Foundation of Islam and the Reality of Tawhid). This general principle is a favor, grace, and blessing from God. Therefore, we must accept God’s favor and be grateful for it, not deny it through excessive questioning, destructive pedantry, and engaging in convoluted arguments following the ways of the Jews. Nor by seeking out ambiguities of prohibition, surrendering to the whispers of devils who command polytheism and disbelief, as stated in the Hadith Qudsi: “All wealth that I have bestowed upon My servants is lawful for them. I created all My servants as upright believers, but the devils came to them and led them astray from their religion, and forbade them what I had made lawful for them, and commanded them to associate with Me that for which I have sent down no authority.” There is no point in demanding proof of the absolute permissibility of a particular thing, action, statement, thought, learning, teaching, imagination, or the invention, circulation, and use of tools, methods, and techniques. This is because conclusive evidence has already established the permissibility—in general terms—of all things, actions, and statements. Rather, one should only demand proof of obligation, recommendation, reprehensibility, or prohibition; or the existence of a legal ruling (cause, condition, impediment, validity, invalidity, permission, obligation, etc.). Even the demand for proof of prohibition should be exercised sparingly and avoided altogether, lest one fall into the destructive trap of religious extremism and fanaticism.
For example, there is no point in seeking proof that a woman may uncover her face, because everything in the universe is permissible to look at and is not obligatory to cover. Nothing in the universe is inherently considered private except what is proven otherwise.
Article (12): The original legal ruling regarding contracts and conditions is permissibility, and validity follows from this. This is a general principle. Therefore, the general principle is the obligation to fulfill the contracts that were concluded and the conditions that were agreed upon, because they were concluded lawfully and correctly, except where the text states otherwise.
Its exception, or proof to the contrary. For example: modern insurance contracts, whether commercial or cooperative, are a new type of contract and are not among the (guarantee) contracts studied by the ancients, even if they resemble them. Therefore, they are valid and permissible according to this general principle.
Article (13): Permissibility and purity are distinct concepts. The prohibition of something does not necessarily mean its impurity, and its impurity does not necessarily mean its prohibition, i.e., the prohibition of benefiting from it in all ways. For example: the prohibition of drinking alcohol does not mean its impurity. Perfumes and alcoholic preparations are pure, contrary to what many jurists have mistakenly believed, or what the general public assumes. Similarly, the impurity of feces does not mean its use as fertilizer is prohibited, nor does it prohibit the collection, transportation, sale, etc.
Article (14): The fundamental principle regarding the materials of the universe is purity. There is no difference between gases such as air and vapor, liquids such as water, juice, milk of mammals, saliva of animals, and flowing blood, or solids such as iron, copper, earth, and rocks. There is no difference between a simple element such as gold, a molecular compound such as water, a homogeneous mixture such as air, or a complex compound such as clay and agricultural soil. There is no difference between inanimate matter such as rocks and mountains, and animate matter such as animals and birds. There is no difference between wet and dry matter: all of this, created by God in the universe, is permissible and pure for humankind. This includes benefiting from the substance itself in ways that result in its destruction and annihilation, such as slaughtering a sheep or eating bread, or enjoying its benefits, such as riding an animal, smelling a rose, or gazing at the beauty of mountains and plains. However, this does not apply to anything explicitly excluded by a text that renders it impermissible, thus making it forbidden, or impure, thus making it unclean, or both.
Article (15): Islam is a complete religion. The final, pure Sharia encompasses all actions of humankind with its rulings in the most perfect manner until the Day of Resurrection, as Allah Almighty says in the last verses of the Glorious Quran revealed: {This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion} (Al-Ma'idah 5:3). The religion is complete, and it is Islam, the only religion Allah accepts. This is the religion that Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and his companions followed until his death. There is nothing besides Islam except ignorance and disbelief. The favor is complete, and beyond completion lies only deficiency, followed by calamities and punishments, resulting from disobeying Allah, violating His commands, and failing to adhere to His law.
Article (16): Since (commitment to the Sharia rulings is the purpose of the creation of man), it is the purpose of creation, and it is the meaning of human existence, as God Almighty said: {And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me. (56) I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed Me. (57) Indeed, it is God who is the Provider, the Possessor of strength, the Firm. (58)} (Adh-Dhariyat; 51: 58), and the worship of God is: attributing all the attributes of divinity to God, Blessed and Exalted is He, with the absolute and complete rejection of attributing any of the attributes of divinity to anyone other than Him. Lordship is the ultimate and supreme dominion and sovereignty, the authority to command and prohibit that is unsurpassed and beyond question. This can only be conceived as existing in a divine being. Lordship, therefore, is the pinnacle of divinity. Consequently, it is obligatory to adhere to every command and prohibition. This is the worship for which humankind and jinn were created. It is not merely standing, sitting, bowing, prostrating, or prostrating; nor is it simply rolling in dust, wiping oneself against the walls of a grave, washing one's limbs, immersing oneself in baptismal water, supplication, prayers, almsgiving, sacrifices, offerings, circumcision, marking and adorning sacrificial animals, lighting lamps and candles, burning incense, or any other such rituals, ceremonies, or actions. Rather, it is the acceptance, submission, and obedience to the command, when such a command comes from God, the possessor of absolute, ultimate, and supreme Lordship, dominion, and sovereignty.
From another perspective, the worship of God is complete humility, submission, surrender, and absolute obedience without question or inquiry, based on the unwavering and certain belief that He, may His glory be exalted and His station be sublime, is the true God, the One, the Unique, the Self-Sufficient, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of all existence: He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none comparable to Him. The Sustainer of all existence is the Necessary Being, self-subsistent. He is the First, before whom there is nothing, and He is the Last, without end. He is the One who acts with a free will that transcends all constraints and conditions: He is the Possessor of absolute and supreme dominion, Lordship, and ultimate sovereignty. He is the Doer of what He wills: {And your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no choice. Exalted is God above what they associate with Him.} (Al-Qasas 28:68). He creates what He wills and chooses, and He decrees what He wills. He is All-Powerful over everything, and He is All-Knowing of everything: He knows what was, what is, what could be, and what would have been had it been.
He is the Doer of what He wills. Since Islam is a complete religion, it follows that all voluntary actions of people are subject to Islamic law, with nothing falling outside of it, as Allah Almighty says: {And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification of all things} (An-Nahl 16:89), and He, whose names are blessed, says: {...and if you disagree about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination} (An-Nisa 4:59), and He, the Exalted and Majestic, says: {And whatever you differ about...} “As for the matter, its judgment rests with God. That is God, my Lord; upon Him I rely, and to Him I turn in repentance.” (10) (Ash-Shura; 42:10). Referring matters to God and His Messenger necessarily entails resolving all disputes and settling all conflicts. It is imperative to affirm that the revealed Book of God—that is, the Quran and the Sunnah—contains the resolution of every dispute and the settlement of every conflict. Otherwise, God’s command would be a falsehood and a deception, for He would refer disputes to those who lack the authority to resolve them. Exalted is God far above such a thing!
Article (17): It follows from the foregoing that there is no truth to what some contemporary Islamists have fallen into by claiming the existence of a “legislative vacuum” that people fill with “reason,” or “juristic preference,” or “public interest,” or “the practice of the wise,” or by observing the “spirit of legislation and its principles.”
“Stop it,” or “block the means,” or “analogical reasoning,” and other such sophistry and nonsense, indeed, falsehood, slander, and disbelief. There is no truth to the claim that revelation elaborates on matters of creed and worship, while being general regarding transactions. Some sincere and eminent scholars have erred, comparing the perfect divine law to imperfect man-made laws, which are necessarily riddled with loopholes and require patching up their gaps with “juristic preference,” “the practice of the wise,” “public interest,” or “analogical reasoning,” and other such falsehoods, sophistry, and nonsense. A sincere and pious scholar, regardless of his rank, should not be followed in his error, but rather should seek refuge in God from it and supplicate to Him for forgiveness.
Article (18): As a consequence of all that has been mentioned, particularly the fact that Islam is a complete religion, and that prophethood was sealed and divine revelation ceased after the passing of the last of God's prophets, our master Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib al-Hashimi al-Qurashi al-Arabi al-Ummi (may God's blessings, peace, and grace be upon him and his family), it is impossible for new legislation to arise after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Therefore, it is legally impossible for consensus (ijma') to establish legislation independently of the texts. The claim that consensus can be based on matters not explicitly addressed in the texts is false and, in reality, constitutes disbelief, because the texts encompass everything, and nothing is excluded from them: this is known to those who know it, and unknown to those who are ignorant of it.
Article (19): A valid consensus, assuming its existence, must originate from the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) directives: either through a Quranic text, or through sound evidence based on a collection of Quranic verses, or through a text from the Sunnah, or through sound evidence based on a collection of Sunnah texts, or through sound evidence based on a collection of Quranic and Sunnah texts, or through an action of his (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), or his tacit approval. Most consensus is based on the transmission of a practice (such as the number of rak'ahs in the obligatory prayers), or his (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) tacit approval of an action he knew of and did not disapprove of. If the consensus is thus, then it is from the infallible revelation that descended during the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) lifetime, and it is a definitive proof, just like the Quran and Sunnah in all matters. Abrogation based on it is also permissible, without a doubt. As we have previously defined, a valid consensus cannot be transmitted except through another consensus or through continuous transmission. It is also impossible for it not to include the consensus of the Companions. It is utterly impossible for such a consensus to be reached after a disagreement, as some claim. Calling such a thing a consensus is a pure lie and a blatant fabrication, potentially bordering on disbelief.
Article (20): The objectives of Islamic law, assuming their existence and their correct derivation from the legal texts, as well as the pursuit of benefits and the prevention of harms, and the consequences of actions, assuming their correct understanding from reality, none of this constitutes a valid legal proof. It is not the underlying reason for Islamic law as a whole, nor is it the reason for any of its specific rulings, even if it may be considered among its objectives and wisdoms. Knowledge of these objectives is not useful in deriving or understanding rulings, but only in ensuring the proper application of Islamic law. This is to prevent legal rulings and acts of worship from becoming mere formalities and superficial procedures, devoid of spirit, content, and purpose, as occurred in the abhorrent and accursed Talmudic Judaism.
Which itself is an appendix of the party's constitution (not to be misunderstood as the party's proposal draft constitution for an islamic state which is not yet ready but everything available are its building blocks and anybody can use it to make their own draft based in evidence and research) :
Here is the Prophetic Medina Paper (Constitution) verifiable and authenticated throughly (there is also najran treaty which expands the governance model but not yet in the library but anybody can look it up and work on it themselves) :
