On Sunday 7.4.1426 Hejra, the sitting was opened, at exactly 8.30 a.m.. The Public Prosecutor attended, together with the Defendants in person, and the Defendants by proxy, namely Khalid Al Mutayri, Mansoor Al Baker, Abdulla Al Abd Al Baqi, Abdulla Al Faran, Abdulla Al Quileet, Isa Al Hamid, Abdul Rahman Al 'Udayb and Abdul Rahman Al Hamid, holding Identity Card No. 1059783736. Also attended the duly constituted attorney on behalf of Khalid Bin Farah Al Mutayri, by virtue of Power of Attorney issued by the Office of the Notary Public of East Riyadh-2nd, under No. 7293 on 25.1.1426 Hejra, representing Abdulla Bin Hamid Al Hamid.

 In view of the above, as regards the Public Prosecutor's Case and the Defendant's replies, and their statements recorded in the investigation minutes the contents of which have previously been documented, and in view of their consent to take part in drawing up and signing the letter "Vision of the Homeland's Present and Future," submitted to the Crown Prince, containing a statement of their perceived political and administrative reforms, concerning consultation (Shura), the judiciary, the economy and public participation in the political and administrative decision-making, and their admission that some of its signatories had held a meeting with the Crown Prince, who listed to their views. However, the Defendants were not satisfied with this, but exceeded it by addressing the public and appealing to it, in respect of critical issues prejudicing the system of rule in the Kingdom and disseminating the contents thereof through the mass media and other means of telecommunications, both locally and abroad, and making the same a subject of appeal for both the leadership and the people together, calling on others to advocate and uphold their views and disseminate them through pulpits, mosques and clubs, in order to turn the same into a popular petition through which they hope to influence rulers, calling for implementing their claims within a specified period of time.

 
This is also contained in their letter entitled "A National Appeal to the Leadership and the People Together," signed, inter alia, by the First and the Second Defendants. Later, they held the meeting referred to in the Case for this purpose, in an attempt to prove their arguments and convince others of them, by exaggerating the value of such reforms which they are calling for and their influence in reforming the situation. Accordingly, they did not consider the same as public interest, which the ruler usually looks into in order to decide what benefits the country after investigating and verifying that it is not contrary to the provisions of the glorious Shari'a and its tenets. In fact, they made them, as they bragged about them in their replies, a lifejacket on the expeditious implementation of which they pegged the general good of the people and the country at the same time. Thus, they belittled any other efforts else, while exaggerating the threats and publicizing them in a manner that is contrary to the principle of mutual advice and reciprocal counseling for the ruler, and that leads to instigating the mobs and the general public about things which they have not enough experience in matters concerning politics and imperial ordinances at a crucial time which the nation is passing through, when in fact it requires a unity of ranks in order to deprive its enemies of the opportunity to inflict any harm against it. These enemies are lurking for it and looking for pleas to interfere in its affairs in the name of reform. Almighty Allah detested this method, saying, in the Holy Qur'an, as follows: "When there comes to them some matter touching public safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have known it from them (direct)." 

Al Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, said, in explaining this verse, that they should have desisted from disseminating news, leaving the Prophet, peace be upon him, and those who are in authority among them to do so, because they know what should be divulged and should be maintained secret. On the other hand, Al Sa'adi, may Allah have mercy on him, said, in the course of interpreting this verse, as follows: This is an admonition by Allah, to

his servants, against such unbecoming act, and that they should, if there comes to them some matter touching on important issues and public interest, related to security, the happiness of believers, or fear, which is an adversity for them, verify things and not to rush to do divulge the news, but should rather refer it to the Messenger and to those charged with authority, from among those who are knowledgeable, wise and judicious, who know good things and the general interest of the public, or otherwise, and so if they decide that it would be good to divulge it and that it would bring about the general good for the believers and protect them from their enemies, they would certainly do this, otherwise if they find that there is nothing in it to serve the public interest, but would rather do more harm than good, they would not divulge it. 

This is a proof of an established rule, namely that if there is any discussion of any matter, somebody who is well qualified to do so must do the same, and such matter must be referred to those who can do it, without allowing others to step in, since this is closer to right and to safety than wrong.

 Whereas, in view of what is contained in the reply memorandum of the Defendant, Abdulla Al Hamid, which constitutes a challenge to some of the principles and terms related to Shari'a policy, and his diversion in interpreting them by quoting isolated or uncommon opinions, and charging meanings to the opinions of some scholars, which they cannot bear, in order to clothe some modern political theories, which they call for and believe that they are safeguards against tyranny and to the protection of liberties, with the robes of legitimacy; whereas, they do this although such theories are not postulated facts in contemporary political systems, as proved by realities. Rather, security lies in compliance with the rules of Shari'a and its principles which prevents despotism and tyranny. Their deeds include the criticism of the people charged with authority in the Islamic regime, by saying: "What scholars have decided that the one who is in authority knows public interest better, and that the judges of the Court are his agent has no credible evidence from the Holy

Book, Sunnah and the methodology of the guided Caliphs and that it embodies tyranny, that calling those in authority princes and scholars has led to imbalance and disruption of things and to the restriction of the influence of scholars by passing fatwas in the service of the authorities." This is contrary to what the majority of scholars said that those in authority are the princes, scholars, or both, and that this is not subject of controversy, and that this was preferred by Ibn Jareer, Ibn Taimiyah, Ibn Al Qayyim, Ibn Katheer and others. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was the prime judge in the Islamic State, and he used to appoint judges, and the guided Caliphs followed suit and unanimity was established on this. Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The appointment by the supreme ruler of a judge is a stipulation for his rulings to be sound and effective, and I do not know any controversy about this." On the other hand, Shaikh Al Islam, Ibn Taimiyah, said: "The ruler of Muslims must look for those who deserve and who are qualified to be governors, from among his subjects, to govern regions from among princes, judge, etc. and he must use the most qualified from among them."

 Due to the fact that the Defendant unleashed his tongue and pen, by defaming certain officials, under the plea of reform and casting doubts about scholars and judges by accusing some of them, saying that some of the deceiving and deceived scholars believe that it is necessary to protect our political backwardness, by tilting the provisions of the Holy Qur'an, saying that the ruler knows public interest, and claiming, together with the Defendant, Matrook Al Faleh, that some Court rulings have incriminated things which are legal and legitimate, and that they, together with the Fatwa of the Senior Scholars Panel, on the Human Rights Committee, in the year 1413 Hejra, have weakened confidence in scholars and judges, and made them tools of oppression of people, that the punitive censure is not regulated, and that it is either too much or too little, according to the ruler's wishes and whims. This attack by the Defendants fill the hearts of the people with hatred against the ruler and scholars,  make people turn away from them, and reduce the dignity of the ruler and

 

make scholars lose respect by others. It may also lead to worse than that, and this is contrary to the method followed by orthodox Muslims who were truly guided. In Al Qurtubi's Commentary on the Qur'an, he quotes one of the orthodox Muslims as saying: "People will continue to enjoy good so long as they hold the rulers and scholars in high esteem. If they hold them in high esteem, Allah will make their life and the Hereafter good, but if they look down upon them, they will spoil their religion and the Hereafter."

 Whereas, due to the false allegations of Matrook Al Faleh and his interpretation of violence in Saudi Arabia by saying that the elements taking part in acts of violence are the product of the Saudi environment and its schools and their educational policy, and that extremist religious message introduced, as claimed by him, to the educational system is the reason behind violence, and that in education there is a unilateral supremacy of teaching and education that is related to the Wahabbi School of Jurisprudence and is clear in its educational curricula, beginning with the primary stage and ending with the universities; and even in Shari'a and religious studies, the Wahabbi School's teachings  and concepts are dominating. These allegations are a heinous falsification against the true creed and an instigation of the young generation against us. They emanate from a perverted understanding of the true message of Shaikh Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahab, may Allah have mercy on him, which returned the society to the true creed, by putting its feet back on the Prophet's custom. These allegations also make the country subject to those who have tendentious means and a target of those who are trying to interfere.

 Due to the claims by the Defendant, Ali Al Dumayni, as disseminated in his commentary through the website and foreign broadcasting, by saying that the monopoly of one school of jurisprudence, in exclusion of the other schools and sectors, has led to the penetration and seeping of this fiqh current into the body of educational social and political systems as a whole, and that youths have been attracted to an ideological concept that excommunicates

and declares the society heretics, and that our society has become the society of unilateral opinion that is closed to others. He also claims that the reason behind the widespread terrorism is a cultural, educational and social imbalance, and he accuses the State that it has enabled one school of jurisprudence to express itself through pulpits and institutions in general over a long period of time, and that its unilateralism and monopoly of the understanding and creed, and its exclusion of others, has led to extremism and rigidity, and that the current of extremism and rigidity, which have reached the stage of declaring others as heretics, and to the use of terrorism, have been given an ample space of freedom that oppressed other elements of the society. His claim that among the reasons of violence and terrorism is the extremist religious message which has perpetrated a unilateral methodology by monopolizing the religious truths and marginalizing other sectors, citing in this what the State has done by unifying the sources and authorities of Ifta (religious reasoning) and that it is doing this through its propagation institutions and educational curricula and Shari'a bodies by spreading what it claims to be the sound creed in order to preserve and safeguard the society against what is contrary to it, claiming that the sectoral and cultural segments of the society cannot express their opinions and religious views, substantiating his plea by erroneous press reports, in a blatant attempt to confuse Fiqh opinions which remain a wealth for the nation that students in their school learn and scholars and judges refer to in their fatwas (religious rulings) and judgments and in the contractual undertakings which are not used in the fundamentals we believe in, or else decision and transgression would have spread and the truth would have become concealed. 

It is said, in "Al Ahkam Al Sultaniyah," by Al Mawardi and Abi Ya'la, and others, as follows: "The duty of he Imam (ruler) is to protect religion on its established fundamentals and what the predecessors of the nation have been unanimous. If a heretic or suspicious man protrudes his head, he must pinpoint the truth and evidence to him, and apply rights and punishments to him in order to protect religion from any depravation or defect. The nation is
prevented from doing so, and in view of his insult to the nation and his prevarication against some of its fundamental principles, in saying that those who have been involved in bombing  attacks were prepared by us for such massacres and that we provided them with  religious and theological weaponry. They are the product of our cultural programmes and they are the students of the principle of "loyalty and monotheism" and those who claim to safeguard virtues. These falsifications and allegations by the Defendant are considered a crime against he country and its people and rulers, and a distortion of the most salient of its features on which it was based, namely the rule of Shari'a and invocation of sound and true creed and adherence to this in its educational curricula and in its internal and external policies. They are also an invitation for the society to be free of values, under the pretext of freedom of opinion and beliefs which are without any Shari'a restrictions, which the Basic System of Rule came to champion and uphold for all, in accordance with the provisions of Shari'a. Allah has commanded us to be unanimous on right, and prohibited us from being disunited and fragmented. He says, "And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves." It is a postulated and established rule in Shari'a and fact that adherence to the teachings and principles of Islam and compliance with them is the essence of right and good, while following one's whims and disunity are the recipe of corruption and destruction of countries and people. Allah, the Almighty, says, "If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in ruin." Because what was committed by the Defendants, as detailed previously, contains varying Shari'a violations of Shari'a, which have been explained, and which are contrary what the Basic System of Rule is trying to establish and uphold, under Articles 12, 13, 20 and 26, which call for unity, solidarity and the protection of creed and human rights in accordance with Shari'a, all this is a reason for punishment by censure.

 For the reasons citied above, we hereby rule against them as follows: 

First, imprisoning the Defendant, Abdulla Bin Hamid Al Hamid, for a term of seven years, which shall be included from the day he was detained;

 Second, imposing a prison term against the Defendant, Matrook Bin Hayes Al Faleh, for a period of six years, to be calculated from the date he was detained; 

Third, imposing a prison term of nine years on the Defendant, Ali Bin Gharam Allah Al Dumayni,  which shall be calculated from the date he was detained. 

In addition, all of them must sign an undertaking not to raise what would prejudice the general good of the public and the country and to desist from being involved in what would be detrimental to the unity of the country and its security.

 When the Defendants were informed of the rulings against them, they said they are not satisfied, and they pleaded for taking the matter to the Court of Cassation, through a Statement of Appeal, and we made them understand that they can appeal to the rulings within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of the rulings, and that if this period expires and they do not submit their appeal, they will forfeit their right. For his part, the Public Prosecutor decided that he is not objecting to the rulings. May Allah's blessings and peace be upon our Prophet, Mohammed.

 Judge Mohammed Bin Ebrahim Bin Khunayn    Judge Saud Bin Abdulla Al Othman   JudgeAbdul Latif Bin Abdul Aziz Al Abdul Latif