happiness, whereas the view of the Shari’a looks primarily to happiness in the hereafter, and to happiness in this world in second place and indirectly as the means to the hereafter. That is to say, the view of this time is a stranger to the spirit of the Shari’a; in which case, it may not make interpretations in its name.
The Third There is a rule: “Necessity makes permissible what is forbidden.” This rule is not universal. So long as it is not by way of what is forbidden, necessity makes licit what is forbidden. But if something has become a necessity due to abuse and for illicit reasons, this necessity may not be the basis of ordinances permitting it, nor form an excuse. For example, if, through ill choice someone makes himself drunk in an unlawful way, according to scholars of the Shari’a, his actions act against him and he may not be counted as excused. If he divorces his wife, the divorce is in force. And if he commits a crime, he receives the punishment. But if it is not through ill choice, the divorce is not in force, neither does he receive punishment. And, for example, even if an alcoholic is addicted to alcohol to the degree of necessity, he may not say: “It is a necessity, and lawful for me.”
Thus, at this time there are many matters which have reached the degree of necessity and have taken on the form of a general calamity afflicting people, and which, since they have arisen from ill choice, illicit desires, and forbidden acts, may not be the basis of ordinances permitting them and making what is unlawful lawful. However, since those who make interpretations at the present time make those necessities the basis of ordinances of the Shari’a, their interpretations are earthly, the products of their own fancies, tainted by philosophy, and cannot be heavenly or revealed, or in accordance with the Shari’a. However, if exercise of authority concerning the Divine ordinances of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and interference in the worship of His servants is without the Creator’s permission, that exercise of authority and interference are rejected. For example, a number of the heedless and neglectful approve the changing of some of the marks of Islam like the Friday Sermon, and substituting the language of each country for Arabic, for two reasons:
The First: “So that in that way the mass of Muslims will understand current politics.” But current politics has become so intermixed with lies and trickery and evil that it has become like the very whisperings of Satan. However, the pulpit is the seat of delivering Divine revelation, so political rumours do not have the right to rise to that high position.
The Second: “The Friday Sermon is for understanding the admonitions of certain Suras of the Qur’an.” Yes, if the majority of the Islamic nation conformed to the essential teachings and incontestable matters of Islam and the ordinances which are well-known and carried them out, then the reading