Monday, October 30, 2006

Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 2

The following is a continuation from Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 1

Example 3: The claim that Islam doesn’t have a ruling system

Ali Abdul Raziq (1888-1966 CE) of Egypt, a student of Muhammad Abduh attempted to confine Islam to ritual spiritual issues. He claimed that Islam did not define a ruling system or form of government thus denying the clear obligation of Khilafah (caliphate). He wrote in his book ‘al-Islam Wa Usul al Hukm’ (Islam and the principles of government):

"Islam is innocent of this insitution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than another and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."

Islam, according to him, is a religion whose religious precepts are binding only on individual conscience and have nothing to do with power and politics. Thus religion and Siyasa (politics) are worlds apart. He claims the political history of the Muslims under the Khilafah contradicts the teachings of Islam which aims at personal salvation and operates within the confines of individual morality. This is why the extension of religion to political domain in the guise of what he calls ‘the theory of caliphate’ is taken by him to be the innovations of jurists and theologians.

It is clear that he was influenced by the orientalist, Sir Thomas Arnold. For example in 'al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm' after attempting to prove that there is no daleel (evidence) for Khilafah in the Ayah:

''O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you'' [TMQ 4:59]

He says on page 11, “If you want to find out more on this discussion then please refer to the book 'The Caliphate' by the scholar Sir Thomas Arnold. The explanation in chapter two and three of that book is excellent and convincing”.

The book of Sir Thomas Arnold is in fact full of contradictions and attempts to cast doubt on the definitive evidences of Islam. For example he says:

“When ten years later Umar received a mortal wound at the hand of an assassin, he is said to have appointed a body of electors, six in number, to choose a successor. Doubt has been cast on the truth of this story, and there is reason for thinking that Umar, like the Prophet Muhammad himself, left this matter entirely in the hands of those concerned.

The greatest living historian of Islam, Prince Caetani, has suggested that this story of Umar having nominated a body of electors was an invention of later times. In order to justify the practise that prevailed during the Abbasid period of first having a private proclamation of the Khalif in the presence of the magnates of the empire, at which they swore allegiance to the new sovereign, and following it up by the public proclamation, in which the populace received the communication of the election and gave assent by acclamation.” [The Caliphate, Sir Thomas W. Arnold, p. 21, Adams Publishers, New Delhi]

This is a ridiculous claim which contradicts accepted authentic narrations. The renowned scholar and historian Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838–923) as well as others have reported the narrations about what occurred when Umar (ra) was wounded, Umar (ra) said:

"O group of Muhajireen! Verily, the Apostle of God died, and he was pleased with all six of you. I have, therefore, decided to make it (the selection of Khalifa) a matter of consultation among you, so that you may select one of yourselves as Khalifa. If five of you agree upon one man, and there is one who is opposed to the five, kill him. If four are one side and two on the other, kill the two. And if three are on one side and three on the other, then Abdur Rahman ibn Auf will have the casting vote, and the khalifa will be selected from his party. In that case, kill the three men on the opposing side. You may, if you wish, invite some of the chief men of the Ansar as observers but the khalifa must be one of you Muhajireen, and not any of them. They have no share in the Khilafah. And your selection of the new Khalifa must be made within three days." [Tareekh (History) of Al Tabari, Vol 3, pp. 294-295]

Raziq’s book quite opportunely it seems, was published a year after the Khilafah was destroyed in 1925. In it he went to great pains to argue that the verse mentioned earlier and other such hadith and ayat which command the obedience to a Khalifah do not establish the obligation to appoint a Khalifah. He argues that they apply only when an Imam (Khalifah) exists and if he does not exist then there is no obligation to appoint one. To prove this he adduced the following nonsensical argument: “Are we not ordered by the Shar’iah to be generous to beggars, respect the poor and treat them well and show kindness to them? So can anyone who has any intelligence say that this means the Shar’iah has obliged us to bring about paupers and orphans?” [al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, p.125-126, in edition published by al-Mu`assasa al-'Arabiyyah lid dirasaat wan nashr]

The argument he uses is irrational and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Shariah evidences. Essentially he attempts to negate the obligation of establishing am Islamic authority on the pretext that if it does not exist we are not obliged to establish it as to claim such a think would analogous to claiming that the Shariah has obliged us to bring about beggars and orphans to fulfil the Islamic commands.

Such arguments to say the least are highly fatuous and cannot be considered as scholarly opinions for they disregard the fact that the ahkam (rules) come with their asbaab (causes). The sabab (cause) of obedience to parents is their existence and hence upon their death the sabab (cause) ceases which means the hukm of obedience also ceases. The same also applies to beggars and orphans in respect to the ahkam (rules) which came pertaining to them. But this is different when it comes to appointing a Khalifah because the sabab (cause) of the presence of a Khalifah is the presence of the jama'ah i.e. Ummah or community which has to look after its affairs by Islam. So if the community exists then Khalifah must exist to look after their affairs.

The Prophet (saw) said: ''It is not allowed for three people to be in a journey (fulaatin) without appointing one of them as an Ameer.'' [Musnad Ahmad]

This hadith makes it clear that whenever a collection of Muslims exist i.e. jama'ah it is prohibited for them to exist except with an ameer. Therefore it is an obligation to appoint an Ameer when there is any jama'ah. The existence of the jama'ah is the sabab (cause) of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah.

Imam Shawkani said, “If Islam prohibited any three Muslims to remain without an ameer, then how the whole Islamic ummah can remain without an Ameer?”

In fact the term jama'ah in the Islamic text means state, authority, and Khalifah. Let us look at the following hadith: Ibn Abbas narrated that Messenger (saw) said:

''The one who sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, let remain patient, for he who separates himself from the community (jama'ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.'' [Bukhari & Muslim]

Here disobedience and rebellion against the Khalifah is synonymous with separation from the jama'ah. This is because it is obligatory on the jama'ah to look after their affairs by Islam. Having a Khalifah present means this duty is being fulfilled. But if he is disobeyed this means the obligation of looking after their affairs by Islam is being neglected since he is the one who undertakes this task. So the jama'ah has to obey a Khalifah so that their affairs can be looked after. The reason why a Khalifah needs to exist is because the affairs cannot be looked after except by him. Thus, the sabab (cause) of the presence of a Khalifah is the presence of jamaa'ah which is obliged to look after its affairs by Islam. Hence, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) orders us to obey the Khalifah this means by Ishaarah (alluded meaning) it is obligatory to appoint a Khalifah. For how can the Fard (obligation) of ruling by Islam be accomplished if he did not exist. So it is wrong to say a Khalifah does not exist so we are not sinful for not appointing and obeying the Khalifah.

We can see the same point much more clearly in another narration by Ibn 'Abbas which uses the word Sultan instead of jamaa'ah:

''If anybody sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, he should remain patient, for he who separates himself from the authority (Sultan) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he would die the death of the days of ignorance.'' [Muslim]

Here we can see that separation from jamaa'ah and authority (sultan) are used synonymously. Authority (sultan) means the body which looks after the affairs. Jamaa'ah refers to the community whose affairs are looked after by the Khalifah. The key thing in both is the obligation of looking after of the affairs which necessitates the presence of a Khalifah.

It is reported that 'Umar b. al-Khattab said:

''There is no Islam without jamaa'ah and there is not jamaa'ah without Imaarah (leadership). And there is no Imaarah (leadership) without obedience.'' [Sunan of Darimi]

Meaning there is no looking after of the affairs of the jamaa'ah or authority (sultan) without an ameer (Imaarah) and naturally there can be no Ameer when there is no obedience to him. So the jamaa'ah in order to exist i.e. for its affairs to be looked after must appoint an Ameer. Consequently obedience to this Ameer is obligatory because the obligation of looking after the affairs is not possible without an Ameer. Thus, when the Prophet (saw) ordered us to give allegiance (bay'ah) or obey the Khalifah it has a greater meaning than when he orders us to feed the poor or look after our parents. We feed the poor because they are poor and we obey parents because they are parents. Thus when they cease to exist the hukm ceases. But our obedience to the Khalifah is because he looks after the affairs of the jamaa'ah which itself is an obligation. Thus when the Khalifah dies the obligation of obedience to him does not cease because the sabab (cause) of the obedience still exists which is the looking after of the affairs. This is the reason why the order to obey the Khalifah by Ishaarah (alluded meaning) means the order to appoint him.

Let us consider the following ayah:

''O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.” [4:59]

Here we are obliged to obey those in authority because they are the ones who look after the affairs. So obedience is due as long the ruler looks after the affairs of the people by Islam. Since looking after affairs by Islam is Fard then the obedience to them indicates by Ihsraah that they need to exist. In another hadith this point is made even more clearer:

The Prophet (saw) said: ''Even if a slave was appointed over you who leads you with the Book of Allah then hear and obey.'' [Muslim]

Here to emphasise the obedience to the one who looks after the affairs we are commanded in the style of mubaalagha (exaggeration) to obey even if the ameer is a slave i.e. obedience is due because he looks after the affairs which is an obligation. Hence the order to obey indicates by ishaarat an-nass (alluded meaning from the text) the obligation of his presence.

Furthermore there are clear evidences from the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that establish the obligation of having a Khilafah, the Islamic government. Allah (swt) says:

"But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that wich they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction." [TMQ 4:65]

"Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you." [TMQ 4:105]

"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you." [TMQ 4:49]

"Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon).....the thaalimoon (oppressors)....the fasiqoon (evil doers)." [TMQ 5:44-47]

These ayaat (verses) of Qur'an, and many others, prove beyond doubt the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed. The first one in particular refers to the Muslims directly by stating that we have no real Imaan (belief) until we make them judge between us by Allah's revelation. This is an indication of the obligation for all Muslims to establish Allah's ruling system.

Abu Hazim said: I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (saw) that he said: "The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa' (Khalifahs) and they will number many". They asked: what then do you order us? He said: "fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with.” [Muslim]

This hadith is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (saw) is the Khilafah, and not an Islamic Republic, Islamic Socialist Republic or Islamic emirate. This understanding is supported by numerous other hadith that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah.

It is narrated from Abdullah bin 'Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, "One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah)". [Muslim]

It is narrated on the authority of Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, "Whosoever dies and he does not have over him an Imaam, he dies the death of Jahilyyah". [Ahmad, Ibn Abi 'Asim, Tabarani & Abu Nu'aym]

It is narrated from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever dies while there was no Imaam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Mustadrak of al-Hakim]

Thus the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have over him an Imam, which is also represented by having a pledge of allegiance (bayah) on his or her neck. From the texts we know that the pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalifah. The Ahadeeth inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafah (sometimes referred to as Amir ul-Mu'mineen or the Imam). Therefore, these texts clearly indicate a command to establish or appoint them.

The reputed scholar al-Taftazani (d. 1389 CE) said, “There is ijma (consensus) that appointing an Imam is wajib (obligatory)…The adoption (i.e. correct position) is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the Messenger (saw), "Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time, dies the death of the days of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance)." Also, the ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger (saw), so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam. And they must appoint someone, for so many Shari‘ah obligations depend on this duty.”

He then quotes the noted Hanafi scholar al-Nasafi (d. 1142 CE), “as he (i.e. al-Nasafi) indicated by his statement: ‘The Muslims simply must have an Imam, who will execute the rules, establish the hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect the zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish jumu‘ah and the two ‘Eids, settle the disputes among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty’
Taftazani adds: and similar matters which other individuals from the ummah are not allowed to be in charge of.” [Sharh al-Aqa'id al-Nasafiyyah (Commentary of Nasafi’s Essay on the Creed), Translated from the Cairo edition of 1335 AH, p. 142-143]

Al-Haythami (d. 1405 CE) said, “It is known that the Sahabah (ra) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw).” [Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah: 17, al-Haythami]

In fact this obligation has not been disputed by any accepted Mujtahid in history.

Imam an-Nawawi (d. 1278 CE) said, "(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah.” [Sharhu Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi, Vol 12, p. 205]

Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE) said, "The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest.”

Imaam al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said, "The judges will be suspended, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam.” [Al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, p. 240]

Sharastani said, “It never came to his mind or the mind of anybody that it is allowed for the earth to have no Imam.”

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) said, "It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie. the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf (pious predecessors), such as al-Fadl ibn 'Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others.” [Siyaasah Shariyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah]

Al-Amidi (d. 1233 CE) said, “The legal view of the people of truth amongst Muslims is that appointing an Imam and following him is obligation upon Muslims.”

Al-Mawardi (d. 1058 CE) said, "The contract of the Imamah (leadership) for whoever is standing with it, is an obligation by Ijmaa'a (consensus)". [al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi, Arabic edition, p. 56]

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 CE) said, "The Fitna (mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406 CE) said in al-Muqadimmah, “The appointment of an Imam is obligatory, and this obligation is understood in the shar’ through the ijmaa’ of the Sahabah and tabi’een.”

One of the most respected scholars of the Indian subcontinent, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (d. 1762 CE) said in ‘Izalat al Khafa’, "Khilafah is the leadership of people united in a commonwealth which comes into existence for the establishment of the Deen including revival of religious branches of learning, institution of Islamic ritual observances, organization of jihad… marshalling an army, remunerating the combatants, creating a judicial system and enforcing the laws, curbing of crimes… All these functions have to be performed by it as if it were deputising and representing the Prophet (saw).”

Imam Al-Juzayri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought- Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Imamah (Leadership) is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors." [Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a (the Fiqh of the four schools of thought), Al-Juzayri, Vol 5, p. 416]

The obligation of having an Islamic state or Khilafah is a definitive obligation in Islam just as the obligations of Salah, Zakah and Hajj, the rejection of which is apostasy from Islam. The ruling system of Islam is unique and is enshrined in the Islamic texts especially in the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).

Dr. Taha Hussain (1889-1973 CE) from Egypt also rejected that Islam had a revealed political system. He said there was nothing divine in the Khilafah system except that the Khilafah was a contract between the Khulafah and the general body of Muslims and that Allah (swt) has commanded the Muslims to fulfil their contracts. According to him, beyond this the political system of early Islam had no divine sanction behind it.

He argued that the Quran and Sunnah did not lay down any political system either in outline or in detail. It laid down only general limits and then left the Muslims free to order their state affairs as they liked. The only condition was that they should not transgress the limits laid down in the Quran. In his view the Prophet (saw) did not give any specific political system to the Muslims. This view clearly contradicts the clear evidences, it is difficult to see how modernists today still see his views as credible.

The Prophet (saw) established the Islamic state in Madinah Munawwara, together with the basis it was built upon, its foundations, pillars, institutions, army and its domestic and foreign relationships. From the moment he arrived at Madinah he ruled over the Muslims, looked after their affairs, managed their matters and created the Islamic society. He also made a treaty with the Jews, Banu Dhamra and Banu Madlij, then with the Quraysh, with the people of Elat, Girba and Azrah. He gave the people a covenant that no one will be prevented from performing Hajj, and that no one is to be afraid in the month of Haram. He sent Hamza ibn `Abdul-Muttalib, ’Ubaydah ibn Harith, and Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas in expeditions to fight the Quraysh. He sent Zayd ibn Harithah, Ja‘far ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to fight the Romans. He sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to fight the Domma of Jandal, and he (saw) himself led the army in numerous battles (Ghazwat), where he engaged in severe fighting.

He appointed Walis (governors) for the provinces, and ‘Amils (mayors) for the cities. He appointed Attab ibn Aseed over Makkah as well after its opening, and Bazan ibn Sasan as Wali over Yemen, after he became Muslim. He appointed Mu‘az ibn Jabal the Khazraji over Jund, and he appointed Khalid ibn Said ibn al-Aas as ‘Amil over San’aa, and Zayd ibn Labeed ibn Tha’laba Al-Ansari over Hadramut. He appointed Abu Musa Al-Ashari over Zabeed and Aden. He appointed Amr ibn Al-A’ass over Oman. Abu Dujana was ‘Amil for the Messenger (saw) over Madinah. When he (saw) would appoint Walis he would choose them from those who were suitable for the job they were responsible for, and they would infuse the hearts of their subjects with Iman, and he (saw) used to ask them about the way they would act in their ruling.

It is narrated, “that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Mu’az to Yemen he (saw) said to him: “How would you judge if a matter was raised to you?” He said: ‘By the Book of Allah.’ He (saw) said: “If you do not find it in the Book of Allah?” He said: ‘I would judge by the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saw).’ He (saw) said: “If you did not find it in the Sunnah of Rasool Allah? He said: I would perform my own Ijtihad, sparing no effort in doing that.” He said: ‘He (the Messenger of Allah (saw)) hit his hand on my chest and said: “Praise be to Allah who helped the messenger of the Messenger of Allah in that which pleases Rasool Allah.” [Al Baihaqi, Ahmad & Abu Dawud]

It was narrated from Saad from Amru ibn Awf that the Messenger (saw) appointed Iban ibn Said ibn Al-Aas over Bahrain and he said to him: “Take care of Abdul Qais and respect their leaders.”

He (saw) used to send Walis from the best of those who embraced Islam. He used to order them (the Walis) to teach Islam to those who had accepted Islam, and to take Sadaqat from them. He would delegate the Wali, on numerous occasions, the job of levying of taxes, and He (saw) would command him to exhort the people with good, teach them the Qur’an, educate them in the Deen, and he advised him to be lenient with the people in the truth and be hard against them in situations of injustice. He (saw) also ordered the Walis to forbid the people from calling to their tribes when there was agitation between the people, so that their call be to Allah alone without partner. He (saw) told the Walis to take a fifth of the wealth and what was obliged upon the Muslims of Sadaqat. And that whoever accepted Islam sincerely from the Jews or the Christians and submitted to the Deen of Islam, he would be a believer whose rights are like their rights and his obligations are like their obligations; and whoever remained a Jew or a Christian, he should not be tempted from his Deen.

Muslim and Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas that when the Messenger of Allah (swt) sent Mu’az to Yemen he said: “You will be appointed over tribes from the people of the Book so let the first matter you call them to be the worship of Allah (swt). If they recognised Allah (swt) then inform them that Allah (swt) has obliged on them five prayers in the day and night. If they did that tell them that Allah (swt) obliged on them Zakat which is taken from their wealthy people and paid to their poor people. If they obeyed, take (Zakat) from them and stay away from their best property”

In another narration, they added: “And protect yourself of the prayer (du’a) of the wronged (person), for there is no barrier between it and Allah (swt).”

He (saw), on some occasions, appointed specific people to deal with financial matters. Every year he (saw) would send ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to the Jews of Khayber to assess their fruits. Al-Muwatta mentioned, “that the Messenger (saw) used to send Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to assess their fruits between him and them. Then he would say: if you would like, this is for you, or if you like it is for me. They used to take it”

Salman ibn Yassar said, ‘They gathered some of their women’s jewellery. Then they said: “This is for you and reduce from us and tolerate in the division”. Abdullah ibn Ruwahah said, “O’ people of the Jews! By Allah, from amongst the creatures of Allah (swt) hate you most, but this will not drive me to oppress you. As for the bribe you offered me it is illegal property (Suht) and we do not eat (take) it”. They said: By this (justice) the heavens and the Ardh (earth) stand.”

He (saw) used to inquire about the situation of the Walis and ‘Amils and he used to listen to what is reported to him of their news. He removed ‘Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami who was his ‘Amil over Bahrain because a delegate from ‘Abd Qays complained about him. Ibn Sa’ad said, Mohammed Ibn Omar said: I was told from Amru ibn Awf, the ally of Bani Aamer ibn Luai that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami to Al-Bahrain, then he removed him from it, and sent Iban ibn Said as an Amil over it. Mohammed ibn Omar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) had written to Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami to come to him together with twenty men of Abd Qais, so he came to him with them. Their leader was Abdullah ibn Awf Al-As and Al-Alaa appointed over Al-Bahrain after him Al-Munzir ibn Sawa. The delegation complained of Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) removed him and appointed Iban ibn Said Al-Aas and said to him, “take care of Abd Al-Qais and respect their leaders”

He (saw) used to receive the full (financial) accounts of the Amils and would enquire about their revenues and expenses.

Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abi Hammeed As-Saidi that the Prophet (saw) appointed Ibn Al-Lutbiyyah over the Sadaqat of Bani Saleem. When he returned back to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he revised accounts with him, he said: ‘This is what is yours, and this is a gift to me.’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Won’t you stay in your parents’ home and see if you get your present, if you say the truth ?”

Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood preaching to the people. So he praised Allah and glorified Him and said: “After all I appoint some men of you over some affairs in which Allah gave me authority. Then someone amongst you comes and says: This is for you and this is a gift given to me. Had he not sat in his fathers’s and mother’s home so as his gift comes to him if he says the truth. By Allah, no one of you would take of them (the Sadaqat) anything unduly but comes to Allah carrying it on the Day of Judgement. Beware, I will know any man who comes to Allah with a camel that brays and a cow that is mooing and a sheep that bleats. Then he raised his hands till I could see the whiteness of his armpits. Didn’t I convey?” Abu Dawud narrated from Bareeda from the prophet (saw), he said: “Whoever we appointed in his job and we provided him (some funds), so whatever he took unduly would be ghalool (misappropriation).

The people of Yemen complained of the length of Mua’z’s prayer, so the prophet (saw) restrained him. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abi Masoud Al-Ansari, he said: A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw) I hardly attend the (Jama’a) prayer, because so and so person makes it long. As a response I have never seen the Prophet (saw) in any preaching more angry than he was then. He said: O people! You drive the people away. So whoever becomes Imam to the people let him lighten (the prayer), for there are amongst them the sick, the weak and the one who has a pressing need.’ In another narration by Muslim from Jabir, he (saw) said, “… O’ Mua’z! Are you a seducer (Fattan)…?”

He (saw) used to appoint judges to judge between the people. He appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib as a judge over Yemen. He also dispatched Mu‘az ibn Jabal and Abu Musa Al-Ashari as judges to Yemen. He asked the two of them: “By what would you judge? They replied that if they did not find the rule in the Book or the Sunnah then they would measure the matter with another, and they would act with that which is closer to the truth.” The Prophet (saw) consented with that, which indicates that he (saw) chose the judges and checked their method of judging.

He (saw) used to look after the affairs of the people and he appointed secretaries as heads of the departments. So Ali ibn Abi Talib was the secretary of agreements and peace treaties. Muaiqeeb ibn Abi Fatima was in charge of the Prophet’s official seal and he was the secretary for booty. Huzayfah ibn Al-Yaman used to assess the fruits of the Hijaz and Zubair ibn Al-Awaam used to record the funds of the Sadaqat, and Al-Mughira ibn Shu’abah used to record the debts and transactions, and Shurahbeel ibn Hasanah used to write the letters to the leaders of other States. So he appointed a secretary for each of the interests, however numerous these were. He (saw) used to make many consultations with his companions and he did not prevent himself from consulting the people of opinion and vision and those whom he witnessed of their intellect and honour, and showed their strong Iman and sacrifice in calling for Islam. There were seven people from the Quraish and seven from the Muhajireen who were: Hamza, Abu Bakr, Jafar, Umar, Ali, Ibn Masood, Salman, Amaar, Huzayfah, Abu Dharr, Al-Miqdad and Bilal. Ahmed narrated from Ali, he said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (swt) say: “There was no prophet before me who was not given seven intelligent assistant chiefs, and I was given fourteen intelligent assistant chiefs, seven from Quraish and seven from Al-Muhajireen.” In another narration by Ahmed from Ali, he mentioned the names …Hamzah, Jafar, Ali, Hassan, Hussein, Abu-Bakr, Umar, Al-Miqdad, Abdullah ibn Masood, Abu Dharr, Huzaifah, Salmaan, Ammar and Bilal.

He (saw) also used to seek advice from other than these people, but these people mentioned are the ones he sought opinion from extensively. They were effectively the Majlis Ash-Shura (Consultative assembly). He (saw) put on the Muslims and others certain funds, on fruits and livestock which are: Zakat, Ushr, Fai, Kharaj, Jizya. The funds of spoils and booties were due to the Bait-Ul-Mal. Zakat was distributed on the eight types of people mentioned in the Qur’an and it was not given to other than them nor was it used to manage the affairs of the state. Funds for looking after the affairs of the people used to be from the revenues of Fai, Kharaj, Jizya and Booty, which were sufficient for running the state and preparing the army, thus the state did not feel that it had a shortage of funds.

In this way the Prophet (saw) established the structure of the Islamic state and he completed it in his life. He was the leader of the state and had assistants, Walis, judges, army, directors of departments, and a Majlis for Shura. This framework in its structure and functions is a method that must be followed. As a whole, it is proved by Tawatur (definitive transmission). The Prophet (saw) performed the actions of the leader of a state from the moment he arrived in Madina until his death, and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were his assistants. The Sahabah consented after him on establishing a leader for the state who would succeed the Prophet (saw) in the leadership of the state only, and not in Messengership or Prophethood because he (saw) was the seal of the Prophets. Thus the Messenger (saw) established the whole structure of the state in his lifetime and he left behind the shape of ruling and complete structure of the state.

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi

Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 3

A Muslim Ghetto in New Delhi

The Indian masses have no faith in the secular democratic government of their country. It is evident from the wide-spread corruption and null participation of the people in the participation of democratic process. If any ordinary Indian should be asked about the integrity of the public representatives and government servants, a majority of those would refuse to have faith in them except those having some vested interest. People have a belief deep down in their hearts that secular democracy doesn’t solve the problems of mankind.

Similar is the case of Muslim community living across the globe having no faith in the secular democratic governments. Therefore we see that the Muslim minorities living in any part of the world try to preserve their culture, Islamic values and identity by separating themselves. Or sometimes they are separated by the establishments through prejudiced treatment with them. They have firm faith in Islam that it resolves the problems of mankind in the best way.
Today these Muslim dominated areas are termed as 'ghettos' by the people of the West. One phenomenon is similar to all Muslims’ ghettos that they are neglected by the secular governments all over the world.

Like several ghettos in India, there is an area in the southern part of Okhla, New Delhi, known as Jamia Nagar, founded by Dr. Zakir Hussain, the late president of India.
It is the largest Muslim minority concentrated area in Delhi sheltering Muslims from all walks of life and administrative offices of most of the prominent Muslims’ national organizations. It stretched from Zakir Nagar to Shaheen Baag adjacent to U.P. border. Abul Fazal Enclave and Shaheen Baag accommodate lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of Muslims alone beside Zakir Nagar, Batla House and Gaffar Manzil. The whole Jamia Nagar in general and these two areas in particular are getting ‘motherly treatment’ since their inception. An ‘ideal condition’ of acute shortage of electricity can be witnessed here. The area doesn’t have proper dumping facility. Two huge sewages running parallel at one side. One of it is Agra canal turned into a canal-sewage carrying most of the dump of South Delhi. The roads are rough, streets unplastered and uncared drainage system. There is no arrangement of supply water from Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). People rely on underground water which is declared unhygienic by the government agencies. Either one has to buy a polythene bag of water for Re. 1 which carries 1 glass of water. Selling water is a hot cake for the vendors who collect water from MCD tapes from adjacent localities. Some people also set up small water refineries and supply water at Rs 10 per cane which carries 20 litres of water.

It is an irony that most of Muslim representative political and religious organizations execute their administration from here while turning a blind eye to the problems of the local people. They should give some of their efforts to attract the attention of the State government and its bodies. But, as mentioned earlier, people have no confidence in secular democracy which has lowered their morale in the reformation and development process.

Abu Musab, New Delhi
29th October 2006

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Indian Samajwadi Party siphoning off Zakat Funds

Rampur (U.P.) An irony of the age – Secular politics and Islamic charity runs in parallel. But this is happening in Rampur where people were executing the obligatory part of Islam i.e. paying of Zakat, by submitting their Zakat money at the office of “Samajwadi Party”. Till now we have some Islamic organizations conducting the affairs of collecting Zakat funds and distributing them to the needy people. Which is a temporary solution in the absence of the proper mechanism which the Shariah mandates which is under the functioning of an Islamic state.

As exposed by an Urdu daily newspaper, Muhammad Azam Khan, a top leader of Samajwadi Party (SP), floated a foundation by the name of Muhammad Ali Jauhar University fund. It is collecting Zakat Funds to help the needy Muslim students of Muhammad Ali Jauhar University. As a chairman of Jauhar Trust, Mr. Azam issued an appeal to Muslims for depositing their Zakat to the Trust. The appeal also mentioned a Fatwa justifying the act but it did not divulge who issued it. Later it was added that the cash payment of the Zakat could also be submitted at SP’s local office. As it was apprehend by some, a big stream of people started pouring in and depositing their Zakat at the SP’s office. Many of the Zakat payers were so politically motivated that they were insisting that the information of their contribution should be conveyed to Mr. Azam. It also included those people who were never seen before this as enthusiastic regarding Zakat. The people who are running madrasas said it badly affected their annual fund collection needed for executing the affairs of Islamic madrasas. It is also being said that this Zakat Fund has been established to attract money from Gulf countries. Obviously, it is a politically motivated attempt to exploit an Islamic obligation and to benefit the secular non-Islamic parties.

It could set a wrong precedent and has the potential to mislead gullible Muslims to channel their Zakat to groups which are engaged in non-Islamic politics and to abandon the due right of the needy Muslims.

Abu Musab, New Delhi
26th October 2006

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Q&A: Wearing garments below ankles for men?

Question: Is it haram to wear garments that reach below the ankles, such as trousers?


It is unfortunate that today people sometimes make a big deal about small issues and they condemn other Muslims as doing something Munkar (evil) even though they are following a legitimate opinion derived from Ijtihad. Imam Naysaburi one of the great Ulema in the past said, the Munkar is those of the haram which are definitive and not those which there is difference of opinion on.

There is clearly difference of opinion amongst the Ulema on this issue. The strongest opinion is that the Prophet (saw) was cautioning the Muslims from the practise of Jahilliyya when people used to trail their garments below their ankles our of pride. If it is done without pride then it is permitted.

Imam Muslim reported narrated Abu Dharr: The Messenger of Allah observed: "Three are the (persons) with whom Allah would neither speak on the Day of Resurrection, nor would look at them nor would absolve them, and there is a painful chastisement for them." The Messenger of Allah repeated it three times. Abu Dharr remarked: "They failed and they lost; who are these persons, Messenger of Allah?" Upon this he observed: "They are: the one who makes (his garment) hang down on the ground (al-musbil), the recounter of obligation, and the seller of goods by false oath."

Muslim narrates directly afterwards another version from Abu Dharr where the loin-wrap or lower garment (izar) is explicitly mentioned.

The following are Imam Nawawi's, Ibn Qudama's, and Ibn Hajar's commentaries on the various hadiths on this chapter. It will be seen in the light of their views that there is no strong basis to argue that it is absolutely prohibited to wear garments below the ankles.

Imam Nawawi states:
As for the Prophet's saying: "the one who makes his garment hang down on the ground" then its meaning is: The one who lets it down and drags its extremity out of arrogance (khayla') as has been mentioned by way of explanation (of the same phrase) in the other hadith [in Bukhari and Muslim]: "Allah will not look at a person who drags his lower garment in arrogance." Khayla' is self-aggrandizement (kibar), and this restricted (muqayyad) meaning of letting down the garment as consisting in dragging it (al-jarr) out of arrogance reduces the general sense of the person who lets down the lower garment to a specific sense and indicates that the one meant by the threat of punishment is the one who does so out of arrogance.

The Prophet permitted Abu Bakr al-Siddiq to do so (i.e. let down his lower garment) and he said to him: "You are not of their number" [Bukhari] because he trailed it for a reason other than arrogance. Imam Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others said: "The letting down of the lower garment was mentioned by itself because it is their most common garment, but the ruling concerning other garments such as the shirt and others, is the same ruling." I say [Nawawi]: This has been made plain to us explicitly in the hadith from the Prophet on the authority of Salim ibn `Abd Allah from his father: "The letting down (isbal) pertains to the lower garment, the shirt, and the turban. Whoever drags something out of arrogance Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection." Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah narrated it with a fair chain. And Allah knows best.

The scholars are in agreement that it is disliked (makruh) to pray with braided or plaited hair, as well as with folded up garment or sleeves or the like:... all this is disliked and agreed upon as such by the scholars, and the prohibition is that of offensiveness of the lesser type (karahatu tanzih) i.e. not haram, and if one prays in this manner then he has not done well but his prayer is valid. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari has submitted the Consensus of the scholars in this question, while Ibn al-Mundhir has related that one must repeat the prayer according to al-Hasan al-Basri.

Ibn Qudama states: The isbal or trailing of the shirt and the pants (i.e. the baggy middle part of the sarawil) in the spirit of arrogance is disliked (makruh). The Prophet said... [he recounts the evidence already mentioned by Nawawi].

As for the statement of some whereby "scholars have agreed that praying with folded sleeves or pants is unlawful" it is a lie since their near totality agree that it is makruh not haram, as Nawawi states in his commentary of Sahih Muslim quoted below; furthermore, Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari states that, "the prohibition of folding up the clothes in prayer concerns other than the bottom of the lower garment."

Sahih al-Bukhari and Fath al-Bari
Imam Bukhari addressed this topic in the first three chapters of the Book of Clothing in his Sahih, respectively entitled Chapter of those who trail their lower garment without arrogance, Chapter of raising up the bottom of the clothes, Chapter of what hangs lower than the ankles being in the Fire, and Chapter of those who trail their cloth out of arrogance. Below are some of the hadiths he included in these chapters, together with some of Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's commentary on them from his work Fath al-Bari:

Chapter of those who trail their lower garment without arrogance.

[Ibn Hajar:] Meaning that they are exempted from the threat mentioned in the hadith, but only if there is an excuse, in which case they are not blamed. Otherwise there are considerations which will be mentioned further down.]

1. Narrated `Abd Allah bin `Umar: The Prophet said: "Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at the person who drags his garment (behind him) out of conceit. On that Abu Bakr said, "O Allah's Apostle! One side of my izar hangs low if I do not take care of it." The Prophet said, "You are not one of those who do that out of conceit."
[Ibn Hajar: The reason it hanged low was that Abu Bakr was corpulent... It seems that its knot would loosen when he walked or did other things independently of his will, but that it would not trail if he took care of it, since he would tie it again every time he noticed it... The Prophet's words indicate that there is unconditionally no blame on those whose izar trails on the ground without their will. As for Ibn Abi Shayba's report whereby Ibn `Umar disliked it in any case, Ibn Battal said: "This is part of his strictness. Besides, he narrated this hadith himself and so the ruling (of toleration) was not unknown to him." I say: Rather, Ibn `Umar's dislike signifies those who deliberately trail it whether out of arrogance or not, and it is in conformity with his narration mentioned by Ibn Battal. Surely Ibn `Umar would not blame those who did not intend anything. By declaring it disliked he only meant those who trail their izar without their will, and then continue doing so after they realize it. This is agreed upon. They only disagreed whether the offensiveness is of a near-forbidden or of a slight type.]

Narrated Abu Bakrah: The solar eclipse occurred while we were sitting with the Prophet. He got up dragging his garment (on the ground) hurriedly till he reached the mosque. The people turned (to the mosque) and he offered a two-Rak`at prayer until the eclipse was over. Then he faced us and said: "The sun and the moon are two signs among the signs of Allah, so if you see a thing like this (eclipse) then offer the prayer and invoke Allah until He remove that state."
[Ibn Hajar: This hadith shows that if the trailing of the izar is due to haste then it does not enter under the prohibition. It intimates that the prohibition is specific to what is done out of arrogance. Yet it provides no proof for those who restrict the prohibition to arrogance only to the point that they permit the long shirts that trail on the ground.]

Chapter of tashammur or raising or tucking up one's clothes.

[Ibn Hajar: tashammur is the raising up of the bottom of one's clothes.]

Narrated Abu Juhayfa: I saw Bilal bringing a `anaza or small spear and fixing it in the ground, then he called for the start of the prayer (iqama) and I saw Allah's Apostle coming out in a suit of clothes having tucked up its end (mushammiran). He then offered a two-Rak'at prayer while facing the spear, and I saw the people and animals passing in front of him but behind the spear.

[Ibn Hajar: al-Isma`ili did not have mushammir in his narration but related it as: "and the Prophet came out and I can almost see the gleaming of his shanks" then he said: al-Thawri narrated it in the terms: "I can almost see the glistening of his shanks" which al-Isma`ili commented: "This is the tashmir in question." It can be concluded from it that the prohibition of folding up the clothes in prayer concerns other than the bottom of the lower garment.]

Chapter of "What hangs below the two ankles is in the Fire."

[Ibn Hajar: Bukhari in the chapter-title did not restrict the subject to the part of the izar as in the hadith he cites in the body of the chapter. This is a reference to the generalization of the prohibition to include the lower garment, the shirt, and others. It seems he was referring to the wording of the hadith of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri narrated by Malik, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah, which Abu `Awana and Ibn Hibban declared sound, all through al-`Ala' ibn`Abd al-Rahman... Abu Dawud, Nasa'i, and al-Hakim who declared it sound [also Ahmad] cited the hadith of Abu Jurayy [Jabir ibn Sulaym] whereby the Prophet said: "Lift up you lower garment to the middle of your shank, and if you don't wish to, then to the ankles. Beware the trailing of the lower garment, for it is arrogance, and Allah does not like arrogance." Nasa'i also cited, as well as al-Hakim who declared it sound, the hadith of Hudhayfa with the wording: "The lower garment is let down to the middle of the two shanks, and if you don't wish to, then lower, and if you don't wish to, then lower than the shanks, but there is no right to the lower garment for the ankles."]

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "The part of an izar which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire."

[Ibn Hajar: al-Khattabi said: "He means that the spot which the lower garment reaches below the ankles is in the Fire, and he has named the cloth to refer to the body of its wearer (i.e. by metonymy)... its principle being in what `Abd al-Razzaq has cited from `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Abi Dawud whereby Nafi` was asked about this and he said: What wrong did the clothes do? Rather, it concerns the feet." However, Tabarani narrated from Ibn `Umar through `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn `Aqil: The Prophet saw me trailing my lower garment and he said: "O Ibn `Umar, every part of the clothes that touches the ground is in the Fire." Tabarani also narrated with a fair chain from Ibn Mas`ud that he saw a Bedouin praying with a trailing garment and he said: "What trails in the prayer is neither lawful nor unlawful in the eyes of Allah." Such a statement is not made on the basis of opinion (i.e. it is related from the Prophet). Based on the above there is no impediment to understanding the hadith literally (i.e. as referring to the cloth alone)...

The warning in absolute terms is in fact understood as specific to arrogance according to the other evidence which has been narrated, and it is agreed upon that the threat concerns arrogance...

Exempt from the absolute understanding of lowering the garment that done out of necessity, as for instance when one suffers an ankle-wound which the flies, for example, would harm if it were not covered with one's lower garment for lack of something else. Our shaykh [al-`Iraqi] has pointed this out in his Commentary on Tirmidhi, and he has cited as a proof the Prophet's dispensation to `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf in wearing a silk shirt because of itching.]

Chapter of the one who trails his cloth in arrogance.

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at a person who trails his izar out of pride."

[Ibn Hajar disagrees with Nawawi's limitation of the general prohibition against trailing the lower garment as being specific to trailing it out of pride. He then says: In conclusion there are two cases for men: one of desirability, which is to shorten the lower garment to the middle of the shanks; and one of permissibility, which is to lower it to the ankles. Similarly there are two cases for women: one of desirability, which is to add a handspan to what is permissible for men; and one of permissibility, which is to add an arm's length instead of a handspan...

It is inferred from the narrations:

- That what is highlighted in the majority of cases is the specific meaning of dragging the garment behind;

- That conceit and strutting is abhorrent even for one who lifts up his garment;

- That the comprehensive understanding of the evidence is that whoever means, by dressing well, to show Allah's favor upon him, in thankful awareness of out and without despising those who do not possess what he has: then it does not harm him in the least to wear whatever is permitted, even if it is extremely costly.]

Narrated `Abd Allah ibn `Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "While a man was trailing his izar on the ground, suddenly Allah made him sink into the earth and he will go on wailing in the earth until the Day of Resurrection."

Shu`ba said: I met Muharib ibn Dithar on horseback as he was riding to the place where he sat to judge cases and I asked him about this hadith. He said: I heard `Abd Allah ibn `Umar say: Allah's Apostle said: "Whoever drags his clothes on the ground out of conceit, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection." I said to Muharib: Did he mention the man's izar? He replied: He specified neither the izar nor the shirt.... Musa ibn `Uqba, `Umar ibn Muhammad, and Qudama ibn Musa add to it from Salim from Ibn `Umar: "Whoever drags his izar out of arrogance."

[Ibn Hajar: He mentioned the lower garment because in the majority of cases it is the lower garment which shows one's conceit... In these hadiths is evidence that the trailing of one's lower garment on the ground is an enormity. As for letting it down for other than arrogance then the apparent meaning of the narrations is that it is also forbidden. However: the restriction of these narrations to the meaning of arrogance furnishes proof that the unqualified criticism in the abhorrence of letting down garments must be understood in terms of its specific meaning here. Therefore neither dragging the garment nor letting it down is forbidden if one is safe from arrogance.

Ibn `Abd al-Barr said: "What is understood from the hadith is that trailing for other than arrogance is not sanctioned by the threat, except that trailing the shirt and other than the shirt among garments is abhorrent in every case."

Nawawi said: "Letting down one's garment below the ankles is due to arrogance. If it is done for other than that then it is merely disliked. This is what Shafi`i declared about the difference between the trailing due to arrogance and that due to another reason. His words are: What is desirable is that the low garment reach to the middle of the shanks, and what is permitted without offensiveness (bi la karaha) is between that point and down to the ankles. Whatever is below the ankles, if due to arrogance, is prohibited (mamnu`) with the prohibitiveness of what is strictly forbidden (tahrim), otherwise it is prohibited with the prohibitiveness of the lesser kind (tanzih), because the hadiths that are extant concerning the prevention (zajr) of trailing are unqualified and must therefore be restricted to trailing out of arrogance."

Buwayti referred in his abridgment to the text of Shafi`i which Nawawi mentioned. He said: "Sadl -- letting down a loose cloth -- is not allowed in prayer nor elsewhere out of arrogance; but it is less (of a prohibition) if done for another reason because of the Prophet's saying to Abu Bakr." His expression "it is less" implicitly precludes strict forbiddance. The latter is definitely understood to apply for trailing out of arrogance. Other than that the case varies. If the length of the garment fits the wearer but he lets it hang down then it seems there is no tahrim (prohibition) of it, especially if this is unintended as happened to Abu Bakr. But if the length of the garment exceeds the size of the wearer then this may become prohibited from the perspective of waste (israf) and end up as strictly forbidden; or it may become prohibited from the perspective of resemblance to female fashion, and this is more likely than the former....

In conclusion, letting down the garment supposes dragging it behind oneself, and dragging it behind oneself supposes arrogance.]

Thursday, October 26, 2006

How to establish the Islamic State - Part 9

The following is an extract from the draft translation of the arabic book entitled 'Dawa ilal Islam' (Dawa to Islam) by Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud, published by Al-Waie Publications in Lebanon. I will be posting the sections of the book related to this subject.

Gradualism (tadarruj)

We want to look at, treat and demonstrate the corruption of the idea of gradualism in the adoption of Islam, and the ideas that result from this idea, such as the permission for Muslims to participate in the current systems. The view that Democracy is from Islam is an attempt to make Islam more acceptable to the mind. This is because these thoughts have a strong relationship with the work of some groups in bringing change.
So what is gradualism? What does it include according to those who hold this view? What are its justifications? What is the Shar’ee rule regarding it?
When the Muslims reached the abyss of spiritual weakness, material and intellectual backwardness and political decline, their thoughts came to reflect their bad situation. Those who adhered to Islam came to have thoughts that did not reflect the truth of Islam and its viewpoint towards life, rather they reflected a misunderstanding and a lack of comprehension of the facts of Islam and its view of life. The Kaafir colonialist, who came to control the affairs of the Muslims, was able to change them as he wished, and implant its own concepts and criteria amongst the Muslims. He planted his own thoughts, which bore fruits of different tastes; nice in the mouths of his enemies and sweet to their tongues. The round was to their benefit. The reason for this was not Islam, but rather its people, who had lost the clear adherence and the correct understanding. The Muslims tried to oppose this with an understanding that was affected by the reality and subject to their interests. However they were twisted attempts and lame steps that ended up in rapid failure and horrible surrender. Kufr continued to indulge itself freely in our lands without anyone to stop it or prevent it doing so. So how did the Kaafir colonialist attack Islam? And what was the response of the Muslims?
The Kaafir colonialist attacked Islam by accusing it of not being able to keep up with the time and provide solutions for the new problems. The Muslims responded by attempting to produce solutions from Islam that complied with the views of the capitalist system. Since the basis of the capitalist system completely contradicts the basis of Islam, they tried to reconcile the two contradictions. So they attempted to bring erroneous interpretations that produced erroneous concepts and criteria. These were then falsely attributed to the Shar’a. The aim was to harmoniseIslam and Capitalism and give the impression that Islam is able to keep up with the age. The result of this was that these solutions were adopted on the basis that they were Islamic thoughts, principles and criteria, and that Islam is understood by using them; even though adopting such thoughts meant leaving Islam and following the Capitalist system. Every call to reconciliation or every call that is affected by this idea is an invitation to adopt Kufr and abandon Islam. It also means carrying and inviting the Muslims to adopt the thoughts of kufr and abandon the true Islamic da’wah.
Therefore, when the Muslims during the declined periods tried to revive the Ummah with these thoughts, it made matters worse, and they were not able to take the Ummah out from the abyss that they were in, because they had descended into it themselves.
Hence, we began to hear mouths talking, whether intentionally or unintentionally, about the Islamic Sharee’ah, in an insolent way. They claimed that it is unreasonable, fourteen hundred years after the Messenger (saw) was sent, to arbitrate with the same previous mentality. In their view, we must modernise in a way that proceeds with the circumstances and takes Islam to leadership again. They said it must be given the image of modernity. It must have the modern thoughts grafted on to it so that the hearts are habituated to it again. It should come out of its obscurity, and away from the accusations of the people. Thus, its old image was no longer acceptable.
Some Muslims came with thoughts from this perspective. For them they formed intellectual principles, defined their course and gave their new direction in life. These are what we called the thoughts of the declined age, which appeared during the prevalence of the corrupt western revival in our lands. At the time when those Muslims thought that keeping up with the times, and benefiting from the western revived thought, was necessitated by the Shar’a so that Islam can stay on the level of the age.
So many thoughts, that served this orientation appeared, for example; ‘religion is flexible and evolving’, ‘take and then demand’, ‘accept what agrees with the Shar’a or that which does not contradict the Shar’a’, ‘committing the lesser of two harms or evils’, ‘if you cannot take the whole of it, don’t throw away most of it’, ‘gradualism in taking Islam’, ‘it is not rejected that rules change with the time and place’, ‘wherever there is an interest, that is the Shar’a of Allah.’ These thoughts and their like became the intellectual standpoint or principle that they called the modern Islamic revival. Their most important protagonist was the freemason Jamal ud-deen al-Afghani and his freemason student Muhammad Abduh, who was known as the Shaykhul Islam.
These things were said by people with bad intentions and evil designs in mind, so as to separate the Muslims from the source of their strength and cause weakness in them, that would prevent them from establishing the command of Allah (swt) once again.
Other people said these things out of good intentions and sound aims, thinking that these will be the healing balm for all the ailments of the Muslims today, in respect of the fall and decline of the Ummah.
The effect of such thoughts, whether uttered with good intentions or not, is the same. However, we warn the Muslims of the Kuffar’s plots against this deen and advise them to discard these thoughts, whose futility has been proven in the reality. They do not yield any good, and nor do they ward off any evil. Indeed, Allah (swt) has made made us the richest of people. In Islam there is everything we need, without the need for anything else. The nature of Islam itself obliges the method by which it should be taken. The Islamic deen has been revealed by Allah (swt) to treat life’s affairs. The Muslim has only to make Ijtihaad in the revealed Shar’ee texts, and not outside them, to know the Hukm of Allah (swt). The intellectual principles necessary for his life must be regulated by their Shar’ee evidences, because they are Shar’ee rules, which have detailed evidences. This method of Ijtihaad is fixed and the same; it is not allowed to alter it in any way. From this point, the basis of our revival starts, exactly as it started before.
It is important to mention some of the regulated Shar’ee thoughts and principles that must control the minds of the Muslims, in order to guide their direction and determine their orientation, so that they work in accordance with them. For example; ‘wherever the Shar’a lies, that is the interest and not the opposite’, ‘the basis of actions is that they are restricted to the Shar’ee rule’, ‘the basis of things is that they are permitted as long as there is no evidence of prohibition’, ‘the hasan (good) is what the Sharee’ah has said is hasan (good) and the qabeeh (reprehensible) is what the Shar’a has said is qabeeh (reprehensible)’, ‘the good is whatever pleases Allah (swt) and bad is whatever angers Him’, ‘there is no rule before the revelation of the Shar’a’, ‘whosoever turns away from the Zikr of Allah (swt) he will have a narrow difficult life’, ‘the Islamic Ummah is one Ummah to the exclusion of all other people’, ‘Islam does not accept patriotism, nationalism, socialism or Democracy’, ‘Islam is a unique way of life that differs completely from other ways of life.’
Familiarising ourselves with just some of the Shar’ee texts indicates clearly the importance of adhering to what the Salaf us-Salih (pious predecessors) used to follow and not to deviate from it to ibtidaa’ (innovation). This is because every innovation in the deen is reprehensible.
The Messenger (saw) said: “I have left you with something, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray. A clear matter; (which is the) Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.” [Sirah of Ibn Hisham]. The word ‘never’ includes us.
And he (saw) said; “My Ummah will be divided into 73 sects. All of them will go to the Hellfire except one. They (the Sahabah) asked; ‘And who are they O Rasool of Allah?’ He (saw) said: ‘I, and what my Sahabah are upon today.’” [Reported by Abu Dawud, at-Tirmizi, Ibn Majah and Ibn Hanbal]
He (saw) said; “I have you left you on the resplendent proof, no one deviates from it after me except the one who has gone astray.” [Reported by Ibn Majah and Ibn Hanbal]
He (saw) said; “The best people are my generation, then those who came after, then those who came after them...” [Reported by Muslim]
He (saw) said; “...Verily he among you who lives [long] will see great controversy. Beware of newly invented matters, for every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is in the Fire... Keep yourselves to my Sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafaa’ – cling to them stubbornly.” [Reported by Abu Dawud and At-Tirmizi]
And he (saw) said; “Any action that is not according to our matter (deen) is rejected.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]
These ahadith invite us to follow the good and warn us againt innovation. The order of goodness indicates that the adherence weakens the further away one is from the time of the Messenger (saw). This gives the sense that the more distant the time is, the stronger and more stringent our adherence needs to be, and the more we need to investigate the truth, and the more we need to be sincere. This is because we have been ordered to cling to the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw) and the sunnah of the righteous and guided Khulafaa’, and remain on what the Messenger (saw) and his Sahabah remained upon. So we must not innovate in the deen, or go into the newly invented matters, because the one who does this is rejected. So what is the way to ensure all of this in our days?
- We must preserve the Islamic ‘Aqeedah clearly and purely in our hearts; it should not be affected by any obscure elements.
- We should drink from the pure and clear sources of Islam.
- We need to protect the regulated method of deducing rules, which prevents people’s whims and personal opinions from infiltrating the Shar’ee rule.
- We should make Islam the most important thing in our life; more important than ourselves, our children, family, interests and desires, such that the Word of Allah (swt) is the highest in ourselves, and that we do not put anything ahead of Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) and that we are in the same condition as the Muslims were in the time of the Salaf as-Saalih (pious predecessors).
- We should discard all the thoughts and filth of Kufr from our minds and keep its excitement and glitter away from us. Just as the Sahabah (May Allah be pleased with them) discarded the filth of Jahiliyyah at the door of Islam and entered it pure and God-fearing.
All this requires that we go back to the beginning. Nothing will be better for the latter period of this Ummah than what was good for it in the beginning. This is a necessity no Muslim can do without, in every stage of his life. According to their closeness to or distance from this, their condition be determined as strong or weak.
After this introduction we can ask; What is gradualism? What does it include according to those who hold this view? What are the justifications given for it? And what is the Shar’a’s position regarding it?
Gradualism means achieving the required Shar’ee rule in stages, and not all at one time. This is what they call marhaliyyah. The Muslim first implements or calls for a non-Shar’ee rule, which is closer to the Shar’ee rule than the previous one in his view. Then he gradually implements or calls for, a change from a non-Shar’ee rule that is closer than the previous one, to what the hukm Shar’ee is in his view. Then he gradually implements or calls for a change from a non-Shar’ee hukm to another non-Shar’ee hukm that is closer to the Shar’ee hukm, until he reaches, according to his opinion, to the hukm Shar’ee.
This also means the implementation of some Sharee’ah rules and keeping silent over the implementation of other, non-Shar’ee rules, until with time he reaches to the complete application of the Shar’a.
This kind of gradualism is not restricted by a fixed number of stages. Nor is it subject to regulatory principles for those who advocate it. A single rule may take one, two, three or more stages. In this kind of gradualism, the situations and circumstances have a clear effect in defining the number of stages. They may be few or many, and the time period of each stage may be long or short.
The idea of gradualism may include thoughts related to the ‘Aqeedah, for example the acceptance of the statement that Socialism is from Islam, or that Democracy is from Islam. It may include Shar’ee rules, such accepting a woman wears a dress that reaches little below the knees, waiting in a following stage, that she wears according to the Shar’ee rule. It may be related to the system, such as calling for participation in ruling, even though it is Haram according to the Shar’a; even according to the acknowledgement of those who advocate gradualism. However, for them the demand is not intended to be for itself, but rather to achieve the ruling by Islam, which is the origin and the obligation, in a following stage. It may be by the work to establish certain Islamic rules, and remain silent over others in the hope that they will increase, and become dominant and then take the lead, and so on and so forth. Or it may be related to the da’wah when he calls people to all of this. So the one convinced of gradualism adheres to this style and attempts to call others according to this idea. The one who calls to such an idea may be so God-fearing that in terms of adherence, he does not accept any negligence on his part, but he accepts it for others, because of his concern for others, so that they do not reject the da’wah to the rules of Islam, and so that they may be on something better than being on nothing at all.

The justifications of those who advocate gradualism or marhaliyyah, and its refutation

The people who espouse this approach rely on justifications that they say support their understanding regarding thought and the Islamic da’wah. With this aim in mind, they cited justifications as proof for whatever they wanted. They were not subservient to the text and its indications. Rather they subjected the text to whatever they desired, as we shall see shortly. The following are some of the justifications.
1- Their view that Allah (swt) did not forbid usury all at once. Rather its prohibition was in phases and stages. He (swt) said; “And that which you gave in gift (to others), in order that it may increase (your wealth by expecting to get a better one in return) from other people’s property, has no increase with Allah, but that which you give in zakah, seeking Allah’s Countenence, then those - they shall have manifold increase.” [TMQ 30:39]
He (swt) said; “Eat not Riba (usury) doubled and multiplied.” [TMQ 3:130]
He (swt) said; “O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from Riba (usury) (from now onward), if you are (really) believers.” [TMQ 2:278]
He (swt) said; “And their taking of Riba (usury) though they were forbidden from taking it.” [TMQ 4:161]
“Allah has permitted trading and forbidden Riba (usury).” [TMQ 2:275]
From the summation of these verses those who call for gradualism say that riba (usury) was mubah (permitted) because of the first ayah. The prohibition of taking multiple riba as opposed to the small usury was revealed in the second ayah. Then in the third ayah, the little usury was forbidden when Allah (swt) said; “Give up what remains (due to you) from Riba (usury).” [TMQ 2:278]. Then they said that the prohibition of usury began by indirect suggestion and not by a clear statement as evidenced by the fourth ayah, which talks about the Jews. Finally, Allah (swt) forbade usury after this series of revelations and stages, by His (swt) saying; “Allah has permitted trading and forbidden Riba (usury).” [2:275]
The one who studies the correct Fiqh (legislative understanding) of these verses finds that the view concerning gradualism cannot be further from the truth.
- The first ayah has nothing to do with the prohibited usury in any way whatsoever. Its subject matter is gifts and presents. The meaning of the verse is whoever gives a gift or present and wants people to increase it or to reclaim it, then this has no increase with Allah (swt), meaning he will have no reward from Allah (swt). The Messenger of Allah (saw) said; “Whoever gave in charity the equal of a date from a tayyeb (halaal) earning – and Allah does not accept except tayyeb – Allah receives it in His right hand, then grows it for its giver the way one of you grows his little horse until it becomes like the mountain.” [Narrated by al-Bukhari]. And Ibn ‘Abbas said; “And that which you gave in gift (to others)” [TMQ 30:39], means if a man gives something as a gift wishing to get something better, that person will have no increase with Allah (swt) and nor will he be rewarded. However, he will not be sinful. It was with this meaning that the ayah was revealed (as reported by al-Qurtubi). Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said about this ayah; that the one who gives a present and wishes a return from people more than what he gave; then this person will not have the reward from Allah (swt). This is how it was explained by Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujaahid, ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, ‘Ikramah, Muhammad b. Ka’b and ash-Sha’bi. This type of action is mubah (permitted).
Ibn ‘Abbas said; “Riba (usury) is two types; one (Riba) that is invalid, which is in selling (trade), and the other, in which there is no harm; that is the gift of a person who wants in return for it more or multiple.”
- As for the second ayah; “Eat not Riba (usury) doubled and multiplied.” [TMQ 3:130]. It was revealed to prohibit the taking of multiple usury, which was the reality in the time of Jahiliyyah. There is nothing to indicate any restriction in the prohibition of usury.
The Mufassirun (scholars of Tafseer) have stated that it was in Surah Baqarah that the prohibition of usury came, and it was the first Surah to be revealed in Madinah. Sura Aali ‘Imraan, in which the prohibition of multiple usury came, was revealed after Baqarah. Therefore, it negates any notion that Allah (swt) permitted ‘little’ interest. Therefore, what was mentioned in the verse in Aali ‘Imran was not by way of gradualism, but it came as a mention of the normal practice of the Kuffar when dealing with usury. Thus, the hukm regarding the prohibition of Riba was revealed in the beginning.
- As for the third ayah; “O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from Riba (usury) (from now onward).” [TMQ 2:278]. This does not mean that the Muslims were allowed to take small amounts of usury and then they were forbidden from this. On the contrary, this verse was revealed regarding some people who had embraced Islam and had usury due from people to whom they had lent money with interest. They had already taken some of it and some remained. So Allah ‘Azza wajalla forgave them for what they had taken, and forbade them from taking the rest.
This understanding is supported by the saying of Allah (swt); “But if you repent, you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly (by asking more than your capital sums), and you shall not be dealt with unjustly (by receiving less than your capital sums.” [TMQ 2:279]. Likewise the saying of the Messenger (saw); “Verily the Riba of Jahiliyyah is terminated – all of it; and the first Riba I terminate is the Riba of al-Abbas b. Abdul Muttalib.” [Sirah of Ibn Hisham]
- As for the fourth ayah; “And their taking of Riba (usury) though they were forbidden from taking it.” [TMQ 4:161]. The Riba intended here is the haraam money from bribery and other such money, which the Jews used to take, as Allah (swt) said; “(They like to) devour that which is forbidden.” [TMQ 5:42]. It does not mean Riba in the Shar’ee definition.
Thus, usury was haraam from the beginning of the legislation. There is nothing to indicate that it was forbidden in stages. The multitude of evidences mentioned regarding this subject, were for certain incidents. There is nothing in these to indicate gradualism.
2- Their opinion that Allah ‘Azza wa jall forbade alcohol in stages:
He (swt) said; “They ask you (O Muhammad [saw]) concerning alcohol and gambling. Say: ‘In them is a great sin, and some benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.’” [TMQ 2:219]. He (swt) said; “O you who believe! Approach not as-Salah (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state, until you know (the meaning) of what you utter.” [TMQ 4:43]. He (swt) said; “O you who believe! Intoxicants, gambling, al-ansab (animals slaughtered for idols), al-Azlam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaytan’s handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination), in order that you may be successful. Shaytan wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah and from as-Salah (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain?” [TMQ 5:90]
From the total of these verses, those who believe in gradualism say that alcohol was permitted in the beginning, as evidenced by the first ayah. Then the permission was restricted by Allah’s (swt) saying; “O you who believe! Approach not as-Salah when you are in a drunken state.” [TMQ 4:43]. Then it was forbidden, after this restriction.
The one who studied these verses from a legislative viewpoint, will not find any gradualism in the prohibition. Before its prohibition, alcohol did not have a rule. In other words, it was left permitted, ie the Shar’a was silent about it, even though the Muslims were drinking it until the revelation of the third ayah. This is further supported by what happened with Sayyiduna ‘Umar b. al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who said; “O Allah! Give us a clear explanation about alcohol, for it takes the wealth and the mind.”, and so the following ayah was revealed; “They ask you (O Muhammad [saw]) concerning alcohol and gambling.” [TMQ 2:219]. Thus, ‘Umar (ra) made Du’a and so this ayah was recited to him. He said; “O Allah! Give us a clear explanation about alcohol”, so the following ayah was revealed; “O you who believe! Approach not as-Salah when you are in a drunken state, until you know (the meaning) of what you utter.” [TMQ 4:43]. ‘Umar (ra) made Du’a and so this ayah was recited to him. He said; “O Allah! Give us a clear explanation about alcohol”, so the following ayah was revealed; “O you who believe! Intoxicants, gambling, al-ansab (animals slaughtered for idols), al-Azlam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaytan’s handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination).” [TMQ 5:90]. Hence, ‘Umar (ra) made Du’a and so this ayah was recited to him, until: “So, will you not then abstain?” [TMQ 5:90]. ‘Umar said: “We have abstained! We have abstained!” [Reported by Ahmad, at-Tirmizi, an-Nasa’i and Abu Dawud]
Sayyiduna ‘Umar continued to ask Allah (swt) to send down a clear explanation regarding alcohol, which was left permitted before the revelation of the first ayah mentioned above. He continued to ask Him (swt) despite the revelation of the first and second ayah, which indicates that it remained mubah (permitted) until the prohibition was revealed in the third ayah.
The prohibition in the second ayah is focused on the Salah and not alcohol. The ayah is to do with Salah.The one who scrutinises the Fiqh of this ayah will see that it does not forbid the Muslims from drinking at prayer, rather it prohibited praying in a state of intoxication, so that the Muslims know what they are saying. After the revelation of this ayah, if the smell of alcohol emitted from the mouth of the Muslim and he prayed, or he carried with him a waterskin of alcohol, or drank a certain amount of alcohol that did not affect his thinking, then there was nothing wrong with that.
Allah (swt) derided alcohol in the first ayah, because it brings harm. In the second ayah, prayer in the state of intoxication was prohibited. In the third ayah, alcohol was prohibited. This cannot be said to be gradualism, since no one permitted the drinking of alcohol after its prohibition ie after the revelation of the ayah of Surah al-Ma’idah, whether in the time of the Messenger (saw), Sahabah, and Tabi’in or those who came after them. The books of Fiqh of the great scholars and mujtahideen of this Ummah did not discuss gradualism in the prohibition of alcohol. The Islamic conquests took place in full swing, and the lands were opened up. The people used to enter the deen in hordes. The Muslims who conquered these lands did not give attention to the newness of the converts who had just embraced Islam, and nor were they silent about the drinking of alcohol. The Muslims who went to the lands did not wait until the converts had also passed the same stages as passed by the prohibition of alcohol, even though they may have needed gradualism; though that is of no significance. Our great early scholars were not familiar with the discussion of gradualism. Rather it is a new discussion, brought about by the severe reality and the difficult circumstances, from the views of some so-called scholars who wished to make it a way of thinking; not only regarding some particular rules but for the whole deen. The Messenger’s (saw) hadith was right when it stated; “Verily he among you who lives [long] will see great controversy, so you must keep to my Sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly-guided Khulafaa’ - cling to them stubbornly. Beware of newly invented matters, for every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is in Hell-fire.” [Reported by Abu Dawud and At-Tirmizi]
The question that the advocates of gradualism use as a way out is; is it allowed to take the previous Hukm under the pretext that rules came gradually?
The definite answer is; no. This is because the rule that prohibits alcohol is definite. The Shar’a does not permit us to go back to the previous rule, since we would have done what the Shar’a has ordered us not to do. This was the position of the Salaf (the early generations) and the Khalaf (those who came after). Alcohol today has the same Hukm. It does not change at all and the sin is not removed from the one who drinks it.
3- Their view that the Shar’a dealt with the problem of slavery gradually. This opinion is not valid, because Allah ‘azza wa jalla did not forbid the presence of slaves, rather He (swt) created a way out from it. If they came back into existence, then the rules will return and slaves will exist for the second time.
4- Their opinion that the Qur’an was revealed in parts and piecemeal; it was not revealed all at once, which indicates the presence of gradualism. The answer to this is that Allah ‘Azza wa jalla used to reveal the rules according to the incidents and events to strengthen the hearts on them. The first thing that was revealed was the Imaan. The Paradise and Hellfire were discussed first, and then the halaal and haraam came. This does not constitute taking part of what was revealed and leaving another part. The Muslims were responsible within the limits of what was revealed. Their responsibility did not go beyond this. When the Imaan was revealed, but the rules were not, the Muslims were responsible for the whole of Islam, but according to the details explained by the Sharee’ah texts at the time. Thus, the Muslims are responsible for the individual Shar’ee rules in all circumstances, whether the Islamic State existed or not. As for the Shar’ee rules entrusted with the Islamic State, they relate to the State. This is the detail that binds the Muslims, and nothing else. And so, we can say there is no turning back.
Now, after having examined what the meaning of gradualism is, and what it includes and what its justifications are, we move to explaining the correct Shar’ee opinion, with the Shar’ee way of thinking.
I say the correct opinion, and not the opinion that is closest to being correct, because the idea of gradualism is not from the Shar’a, and it is not allowed to be attributed to the Shar’a. The issue does not relate to gradualism and whether it is a Shar’ee rule or not, as much as it relates to a way of thinking not at all approved of by the Shar’a.
That is because Islam has a nature that is radically different from anything else. The nature of the Islamic system is that it is established on exclusively following the wahy (revelation); while the man-made system is based on human innovation and experiance which, however strong, will remain deficient in setting down the correct solutions for mans’ problems.
When the Muslim adheres to the Shar’a, he must make the basis of his adherence the Imaan in Allah (swt), otherwise his adherence will not be accepted. When he calls others to Islam, he must make the basis of his da’wah the Imaan in Allah (swt), otherwise his da’wah will not be accepted. The matter is primarily concerned with Imaan, and then to the correct adherence.
So that the Muslim can change himself, and change the systems in a correct and sound manner, he must concern himself with the spiritual basis, by first establishing it, and then nurturing it. It will then be easier for him to adhere to Islam, regardless of whether it agrees or does not agree with the reality, nature and the desires of the people. Not relying on the spiritual basis will cause the Muslim to fall into sin, even though it did not lead him to kufr. The fact that Islam has a spiritual basis, ie Imaan in Allah (swt), does not indicate if this hukm is near to or far from the truth. Rather, if we look at this hukm in light of the basis, then we will see how close to or far away from this basis it is.
Now let us ask those who advocate the idea of gradualism; Where is the spiritual basis in this call? Where is Allah’s (swt) order to be found in it? When did the Messenger (saw) ever resort to it - even though he was in need of it - either in Makkah or Madinah?
Didn’t the Messenger (saw) say to Bani ‘Aamir b. Sa’sa’ah, when he (saw) sought the Nusrah from them; “The matter (authority) is for Allah; He (swt) places it wherever he wishes.”? [Sirah of Ibn Hisham]. This was even though he desperately needed someone to support the da’wah. This is what he (saw) said when they asked if they could take the power after him. Couldn’t he have accepted their request, and then after they had professed belief changed their request? Isn’t it the true da’wah and divine order that has made him (saw) honest in what he says without any flattery or compromise, so that those who were to live might live after a clear evidence, and those who were to be destroyed might be destroyed after a clear evidence?
Didn’t the Messenger (saw) say to his uncle Abu Taalib, when the latter asked him to lighten the call, and not place an unbearable burden on him; “By Allah O uncle! If they had put the sun in my right hand and the moon on my left, so that I may leave this matter; I will not leave it until Allah made it prevail or I die in the attempt.”? [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. This text from the Messenger (saw) shows that he did not accept to compromise in the slightest, and he gave the best example for his da’wah. He did not compromise or flatter. He did not go along, acquiesce with, or court those in authority. Rather his da’wah was explicit and bold, because that generates the true thoughts with which the falsehood is defeated and destroyed.
Didn’t Allah (swt) order the Muslims to make Hijrah from the place where they are not able to undertake what He (swt) made obligatory on them? Didn’t He (swt) forbid them to reside there when He (swt) said; “Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them) they (angels) say (to them): ‘In what condition were you?’ They reply: ‘We were weak and oppressed on earth.’ They (angels) say: ‘Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?’” [TMQ 4:97] Ibn Katheer has transmitted an Ijmaa’ (consensus) on the prohibition of residing in a place where the Muslim is not able to establish his deen.
Didn’t the Messenger (saw) start his da’wah with ‘Laa ilaaha illallah Muhammadur rasoolullah’, and challenge the people with it? It was also his last statement, without any change. Did he call to something less than that at the beginning, and then go on with it gradually? Or was it his (saw) first and last Call?
Didn’t Abu Bakr fight against those who withheld the payment of Zakah, and not delay his response to them or please them? He made his well-known statement; “By Allah, if they withhold from me the rope of a camel, which they used to give to the Rasool of Allah, I would fight them.” This was his response even though the Muslims witnessed widespread movements of apostasy and rebellion at the time.
Did the first Muslims who carried the da’wah to Islam ever carry this idea of gradualism? Did they follow this path when they implemented Islam upon the conquered countries, whose land changed from dar al-kufr to dar al-Islam? The early Muslims did not give any attention to the circumstances of those people who were new to Islam. They did not leave them to drink alcohol, waiting for them to become used to not drinking alcohol, dealing with usury or being addicted to women. Rather they entered into Islam completely and abstained from usury, fornication, alcohol and everything Allah (swt) prohibited them from doing. They used to implement the Shar’ee rules regarding the non-Muslims, whether they were individual ones, collective ones, personal one or ones of sufficiency.
Did the original books of Islamic Fiqh deal with this subject? Did our early trustworthy jurists and Mujtahideen make any mention of gradualism, though it is known that our jurists discussed in detail the kulliyat (total) and juz’iyat (branches) of the Sharee’ah?
The Sharee’ah in its totality indicates that the obligation of the da’wah be exemplified by honesty and keeping on the straight path; “All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has sent down to His slave (Muhammad [saw]) the Book, and has not placed therein any crookedness.” [TMQ 18:1]. Allah (swt) informed us that the Kuffar wish that we compromise and be compliant with them. They want us to relinquish the truth, and accept a quarter or a half of the solution. They want to start by trying to make us do kufr, as in His (swt) saying; “Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their own selves…” [TMQ 2:109], and will end with trying to make us take the rules, as in His (swt) saying; “They wish for you to compromise with them, so they (too) would compromise.” [TMQ 68:9] “So (O Muhammad [saw]) obey not the deniers (of the verses).” [TMQ 68:8]. Our Lord has warned us against inclining toward the unjust people; “And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and have no protectors other than Allah, nor you would then be helped.” [TMQ 11:113]
The true da’wah to the true Imaan makes the Muslim’s adherence complete, even if he was new to Islam and to its adherence. Our obligation, as da’wah carriers, is nothing but to implant the Imaan in our hearts and devote ourselves to this, until it bears fruit, with the best adherence and Taqwa. The Islamic State, when it is established, will not be established at the hands of people who are devoid (of any Islamic concepts) or full of western concepts. It will not be established by people in whom the da’wah did not work, it will have influenced them and made them accept it. Rather, as we have stated previously, the State must be established upon a public opinion that emanates from a general awareness, which accepts the idea of Islam and of being ruled by it. There is no need to resort to the idea of gradualism, under the pretext of drawing the hearts and minds closer to Islam; nor is there a need to yield to the weakness of human beings or to go along with the reality, because Allah (swt) has ordered us to change the hearts and minds and the reality by Islam.
If we return to the Qur’an and examine its ayaat, we will find that the command in it is decisive, and that gradualism is from the foreign western thoughts, having been interpolated by so-called scholars through lies and falsehood.
Whenever an ayah was revealed, the Messenger (saw) and the Muslims with him, rushed to implement it without the slightest delay. The implementation of any hukm that was revealed became obligatory, simply because it had been revealed. After the revelation of His (swt) saying; “This day, I have perfected your deen for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your deen.” [TMQ 5:3], the Muslims became obliged to apply the whole of Islam, whether it is in beliefs, ‘ibadaat, akhlaq, mu’amalaat, and whether the rules relate to ruling, economy, social system or foreign policy, in times of peace and war.
-His (swt) saying; “And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad [saw]) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain from it.” [TMQ 59:7], ie take and act upon whatever is brought by the Messenger (saw), and refrain and keep away from everything he has forbidden you. This is because the ‘maa’ in the ayah has come in the ‘aamm (general) form. Thus it includes the obligation to act upon all the obligations, and refrain and keep away from all the prohibitions. The order to take or leave that is mentioned in the ayah is an obligation and this is due to the Qareena (indication) at the end of the ayah, which ordered Taqwa and warned of a severe punishment for the one who does not act upon this ayah.
-His (swt) saying; “And judge (O Muhammad [saw]) between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, and beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allah has sent down to you.” [TMQ 5:49]. This ayah also gives a decisive order to the Messenger (saw) and the Muslims after him to rule by all the rules revealed by Allah (swt), whether it is a command or a prohibition. It also forbids the Messenger and the Muslims after him from following the whims of the people, and submitting to their wishes. Likewise it warns the Messenger (saw) and the Muslims to be aware in case people try to turn them away from applying some of what Allah (swt) has revealed.
- Allah (swt) said; “And whosoever does not judge by whatever (maa) Allah has revealed, such are the Kaafirun (disbelievers).” [TMQ 5:44]
- And He (swt) said; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the zaalimun (unjust, oppressors).” [TMQ 5:45]
- And He (swt) said; “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Faasiqun (transgressors).” [TMQ 5:47]
In these ayaat, Allah (swt) described those who do not rule by what Allah (swt) revealed as being disbelievers, oppressors and transgressors. This is because the ‘maa’ mentioned here came in the ‘aamm (general) form, so it includes all the Shar’ee rules revealed by Allah (swt), whether they are commands or prohibitions.
From everything has been mentioned, it certainly becomes clear with no ambiguity, that it is obligatory on the Muslims, whether as individuals, groups or the State, to apply the rules of Islam completely without any delay, procrastination or gradualism. There is no excuse for the individual, group or State for not implementing the rules.
Gradual implementation completely contradicts the rules of Islam. The one who applies some of the rules and leaves some, is considered sinful in the sight of Allah (swt), whether it is a individual, group or State.
The waajib (obligated) remains a waajib and it is obligatory to act upon it, and the haraam remains haraam and it is obligatory to stay away from it. When the delegation of Thaqeef asked the Messenger (saw) to leave al-Lat for three years without breaking it, or to exempt them from praying on condition that they embrace Islam, he (saw) did not accept it from them and he rejected it completely. He (saw) insisted on destroying the idols without any delay, and insisted that they pray without any delay.
Allah (swt) has described the ruler who does not apply all the rules of Islam, or the one who applies some of them only, as a kaafir. This is if he does not believe in the suitability of Islam or does not believe in the suitability of the rules he has abandoned. He is described as an oppressor and transgressor, if he does not implement all the rules of Islam or he implements some of them whilst believing that Islam is suitable for implementation.
The Messenger (saw) has made it obligatory to fight the ruler and unsheathe the sword to his face if he displayed any kufr buwah (explicit disbelief) for which we have a burhaan (clear proof) from Allah (swt). In other words, if he ruled by the rules of kufr, and there is no doubt that they are kufr rules; and this is regardless of whether they are few or many. This is owing to the hadith of ‘Ubadah b. Saamit: “that we would not dispute with the people in authority, unless you witness fragrant kufr for which you have a burhaan (conclusive proof) from Allah.” [Reported by Muslim]
Therefore there is no complacence or gradualism in the implementation of the rules of Islam, since there is no difference between one waajib and another waajib, or between one haraam and another haraam, or between one hukm and another hukm. The rules of Allah (swt) are all the same. They should be applied and executed without any delay, postponement or gradualism. Otherwise the saying of Allah (swt) will apply to us; “Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment.” [TMQ 2:85]
There is no excuse for the Muslim not to apply a Shar’ee rule, whether he is a ruler or a normal individual, unless there is a Shar’ee rukhsah (dispensation) mentioned in the Shar’ee texts. Inability is considered a Shar’ee dispensation, in the case of true and tangible weakness (or what is most probably that) ie in the case of true compulsion, such as the case of the one coerced into doing a haraam or the example when the Messenger (saw) offered a third of the fruit produce of Madinah to the tribe of Ghatfaan, or the example of the Khaleefah who accepts to resort to arbitration with rebels, or when carrion becomes permissible for the one who is under duress and fears death.
From what we see in this gradual approach, we find that such an idea has arisen amongst its advocates because of the pressure of the reality. To free themselves from such pressure, they went to hunt for evidences for this approach, so as to provide a justification and permission to do da’wah according to it. This is because the idea existed first, and then they produced a Shar’ee evidence, which they interpreted in such a way as to serve the idea. This is the beginning of deviation. Our advice to those Muslims who are established on the idea of gradualism is that they must discard the weakness they have within them. Their linkage to the Shar’a should be that of the one who trusts his Lord, has a strong Imaan that He (swt) is the one who manages the affairs, and changes the circumstances, and that He (swt) grants the victory to those who deserve it. They must be like this, so that with this Imaan they can face the severity of the reality and the harshness of the circumstances. So he feels elevated with his Imaan above (the reality) and makes it the departure point of the da’wah and the final point. All this will be reflected, in terms of the correct restriction and right adherence (to the Shar’ee rules), on those whom we invite. This will happen without the need for gradualism.
The call to gradualism is a call to other than Islam, and this is haraam. This makes the non-Muslim, or the deficient Muslim who is invited on this basis, hesitant in accepting what is presented to him. The responsibility of this hesitancy lays on the one who calls for gradualism. This is because Islam has not been presented to him, and because his presentation is far away from the spiritual basis that is based on the Imaan in Allah (swt), the Creator and Manager of all affairs, and on whose basis the Shar’ee rule is adopted or rejected. This makes the hujjah (proof) of Allah (swt) against those Muslims who call for gradualism; not against the ones whom they invited.
The call for gradualism includes interference and domination over the legislation, when it allows people to make partial implementation, under the pretext that they are not strong enough to make complete and immediate application. We are ordered not to put anything in front of Allah and His Messenger, or deviate away from them. The one who solves the problems of man is His Lord, the All-Knowing, the All-Informed, Who knows what He has created. How can the Muslim allow himself, when he calls for gradualism, to interfere in this process of legislation? The correct position is that the task of the da’ee (carrier of the da’wah) is restricted to executing and conveying the solution; not legislating it.
The call to gradualisnm provides the da’ee with a corrupt way of thinking, on whose basis he invites the people. When the person that he calls to gradualism is affected by it, it will corrupt his way of thinking, which must be changed just as the erroneous thoughts have to be changed. This is if we know that the way of thinking comes at the beginning of the transformation process, since it is more important than the changing of thoughts. We cannot ensure a credible change of the Ummah until we change her way of thinking, even in a general manner. This corrupt method by which he thinks and calls people will take the place of the correct method.

Adhering to the ideology as a thought and method

When the Kaafir West managed to impose its way of life as the way that people should follow, the Muslims lived through intellectual, social, economic and political conditions that were the envy of none. The Muslims lived according to thoughts that contradicted their ‘Aqeedah. Hence, they lost the correct orientation and their personality when they tried to reconcile their thoughts, that emanate from their ‘Aqeedah, with the western thoughts about life, which emanate from a foreign thought that the Ummah did not accept. This falsehood penetrated their minds owing to their ignorance, and inability to take matters from their foundations. They reconciled the irreconcilable, between Islam and that which contradicted it. They made perceived benefit the goal of the Sharee’ah. They were content to accept any interpretation and justify any fabrication. Owing to this, the economic and social life of the people became full of contradictions. The political forces were intent on concentrating these foreign thoughts at the expense of the original thought of the Muslims.
It was in the shade of this very bad situation that Islamic groups and parties started to emerge, in order to face these hordes of erroneous thoughts and concepts, deviant emotions, and political circumstances shaped by the foreigner.
The party or group was supposed to have the antidote or the healing balm. They were supposed to draw out the straight line that the people should follow under its guidance, alongside the crooked line whose fire will burn the people. They were supposed to say to the people; “And Verily, this is my Straight path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path.” [TMQ 6:153]
The group or party was supposed to have qualities that would enable it to achieve the aim. These qualitites are the clarity of thought, the will to achieve the aim, preparing an aware collection of people, preparing the Ummah and adherence to the rules of the method.
In terms of the idea, it is supposed to assume the highest position in the group. In the view of the group, the idea is the truth, which all the people should turn to, and it is the guidance that lights the path for mankind. It is the gifted mercy from Allah (swt) to His servants. It is the light that takes mankind out of the darkness of desire. It is the one that fits man, agrees with his natural disposition, convinces his mind and gives his heart tranquillity. It is the one that gives happiness to life and creates hope. It has the depth and comprehensiveness that makes it capable of answering all of man’s questions about the life that he lives, and links him properly with what is before life and what is to come after it. It links him correctly with his Creator, such that he understands his objective and brings him happiness until the end.
The group or party that believes in this idea, also believes that when it is not prevalent, that munkar and falsehood will spread freely; whims will be followed, oppression will occur, and darkness will spread. A narrow difficult life will leave the people sleepless, so you will never see them contented. Neither will their nature be at ease or their minds in a state of contemplation.
The foremost issue that the group must be concerned with is to arrive at the Fikrah (idea), which will form its spirit and reason for its existence. It will look after it, preserve its purity, and remove anything that is not from it. It will not allow it to be mixed with foreign thoughts and it will not decide its position regarding other calls and ideas proposed on a foreign basis. Perhaps the purity of the idea requires clarity of vision for the group. The clarity of vision will be by understanding the Shar’ee rule via a correct deduction, and the rule should be based on the Islamic ‘Aqeedah.
When the idea loses its clarity, purity, crystallisation and distinctness, it would have lost its special character, and it will no longer be the light, guidance or the gifted mercy. It would have lost its reason for existence and become like the other movements; defeated in the face of the reality, which could affect it instead of it affecting the reality, and reshaping it instead of it reshaping the reality into what it should be.
The more the idea is crystalised in the minds of its people, the more the method of delivering it practically is crystalised. The clarity of the objective comes from the clarity of the idea. The method for achieving the objective consists of regulated Sharee’ah rules, like any other Shar’ee rules.
The ideological group or party adheres to the ideology in every situation. That is because the ideological Fikrah prevents the one who has conviction in it and calls for it from taking anything from any other source unless the Fikrah approved it. Since it is a fundamental idea, it begins with the study of matters from their basis and it gives a distinct answer to the meaning of man’s existence in this universe. Every peripheral thought is taken from this fundamental thought and emanates from it. Then man’s thoughts about life, concepts about things and judgement on actions will all be of the same type as the fundamental thought.
The structure of Islam is complete and has nothing missing even if it is a single brick. Everything in it is in complete harmony with everyting else because it emanates from one constant intellectual basis that agrees with the norms of life and nature of creation.
So whosoever believes in Islam, the halaal and haraam become the criteria of his actions and his viewpoint towards things, and not benefit. This is because the concept of benefit is in harmony with the idea that man is the one who legislates and not Allah (swt). Happiness for the Muslim is when he attains the Good pleasure of Allah (swt), and not the greatest amount of enjoyment. His life becomes one of servitude to Allah (swt) and surrender to His command, and not a life based on the idea of freedoms, which would make him free from any constraints. Whoever accepts the basis must accept whatever originates from it. Whoever wishes to change, must start with the basis and observe the harmony between the peripheral thoughts and the basis. This is the ideological Fikrah and ideological da’wah from which the group must start. Hence it is not acceptable that the Muslims, their systems or groups mix Islam with something else. Likewise, it is not acceptable from the current regimes to make Islam one of the sources of legislation, along with other non-Shar’ee sources, such as customs, or to make Islam the main source amongst others. In addition it is not acceptable that Islamic groups take a mixture of things, like being established on Islam as well as other western thoughts that are foreign to Islam. This is nothing short of defeat, which Allah (swt) and His believing servants do not accept.
That is why all the Islamic groups whose ‘Aqeedah is established on the basis of ‘Laa ilaah illallah muhammadur rasoolullah’ - there is none worthy of worship or obedience except Allah (swt) - are not allowed to go to the east or west to adopt their rules about life. One must ensure that every thought emanates from the ‘Aqeedah, and that it is taken from the authentic Shar’ee sources, and deduced from their detailed evidences.
How can ‘Laa ilaah illallah muhammadur rasoolullah’ be in harmony with the statement that socialism is from Islam, even though it is established on the idea that ‘there is no god, and life is just matter’? How can it be in harmony with the statement that Democracy is from Islam, even though it is established on the idea of ‘separation of religion from life’ or the view that nationalism and patriotism are from Islam even though they are based on tribalism, which Islam has shown to be despicable?
How can ‘Laa ilaah illallah muhammadur rasoolullah’, which means legislation is only for Allah (swt), be in harmony with the view that we should participate with others, or others should participate with us, in legislation?
How can ‘Laa ilaah illallah muhammadur rasoolullah’, which is established on humility, subservience and worship to the Lord of the worlds, be in harmony with the idea of freedom that is present in the western systems, when it makes man the sovereign in everything? He does not submit to a God, except according to how much this agrees with his whims, desires and benefit.
Indeed, guarding the Islamic ‘Aqeedah means guarding whatever emanates from it. Otherwise, the character of the group would be lost in the grip of reconciliation, which Allah (swt) and His servants do not approve of.
In order to preserve the idea in terms of clarity, purity, distinctness and crystallisation, it must be removed from the effect of the reality, and from surrendering to its circumstances, and it should be placed far away from any fabrication, alteration and bargaining.
Just as the da’wah carrier wishes to change the society according to his vision, society has its own erroneous concepts and thoughts, political conditions and social order. This puts pressure on the da’wah carrier and on the group that he works with for change.

Alertness to deviation or compromise

Thus, when the group is established on the ideological Fikrah and comes to the reality, the winds will blow upon it and try to pull it out from its roots. The regimes treatment of this group will be different to their treatment of other movements. This is because the other movements put forward partial thoughts, which do not harm the regimes at all. Rather they may fill the gaps and deficiencies created by the regimes themselves. However, the radical da’wah based on the ideological Fikrah deals with matters from their basis, and not by accepting patchwork solutions or going along with the situation. Neither does it accept half solutions or reform problems created by the regimes. It will not accept to leave the da’wah that is for complete change. Nor will it accept to deal with peripheral matters whilst leaving the basis on which these peripheral matters are founded. It is natural that a group or party such as this would be confronted in an unprecedented manner. The more the group adhered to the radical change the more the regimes will be hostile towards it and the greater the confrontation will be.
The severity of the confrontation may be reflected on the da’wah carrier such that he will not be able to bear it. So he will put pressure on his group so that it lightens the force of the call. He may find it difficult for himself, and his resolve may weaken when he finds himself rejected by the people and left alone. He might whisper to himself and try to cease from engaging in the da’wah when his worldly interests clash with the new situations that arise from working with the group. So he may begin to apply pressure on his group and call them to turn away from demanding change towards demanding reform. If the group responded to the requests, he would remain with the group. In this case he has managed to work for his deen and the dunya, and please both Allah (swt) and the King; or at least according to his claim. If the group rejected his pressure and insisted on its radical and fundamental work, he will turn away from it. Here the group will face two dangers; an internal danger from its Shabab whose determination has weakened before the heavy blows, and an external danger from the regimes that do not tolerate people of such radical views.
The battle of bargaining would start between the group and the regimes. Offers would start to be heaped on the group. The policy of the carrot and stick will start to be enacted. It is well known that bargaining takes place in the matters of trading; when the group enters into the bargaining (process) it has become a trade, with the selling of responsibilities and humiliation of nations taking place. Otherwise it will be burnt by the fire of the regime and seared by its flames.
Therefore, the correct ideological Fikrah requires an ideological group or party whose leadership and members are concerned about the Shar’a such that it is the master. They are also concerned for the clarity, purity, patience, sacrifice, altruism, and self-denial. They are devoid of any temptation for their own fortunes, so that they don’t become deviated and their determination is not weakened. In order that the group proceeds in a assured manner that protects its work and makes it free from change, or people playing games with the group, it must link every idea or Shar’ee rule tightly to the Islamic ‘Aqeedah. Even if there is a clash between the individual selfish benefits of the da’wah carriers, and the steadfastness and patience on carrying the da’wah, to achieve its goals, then the preference is for the interest of the da’wah. This linkage would then be an insurmountable barrier against the whispers of Shaytan and the whispers of the nafs (soul) that call towards evil.
In order that the party’s ship is saved from sinking into the mire that is the awful reality, it must have regulating principles that define the thoughts and way of thinking. That will bind the group to what it has deduced. It is not allowed to deviate from these principles any time, under the pretext of interpretation or justification.
Thus, good direction, good emulation and good understanding will lead to purifying the group and those working within it from any defects or blemishes that may have touched them, and it will purify their souls and strengthen their Imaan.
On this path none can remain steadfast on its hardship except the believers who are of firm resolve. The trials that those undertaking the work have sustained, will purify them, like the fire purifies gold.
If the group lost its regulating principles, then the group will suffer from withdrawal (from the work), alteration, retreat and inconsistency. Ambiguity in the method and objective, and a lack of crystallisation will drive the group to alter things when it finds the work difficult, or it will lead it to justify things or explain things away when the group is asked to provide evidence.
When the group yields to compromise and accepts the truth in parts, not completely, and abandons the radical approach and fundamental work, it loses the only strength it possessed. It will not be a unique group, or draw the attention of people to its unique and distinct character. It would have failed in the intellectual struggle, and the victory will be for its enemy, even if it kept on calling for Islam and proposing Islam as the solution. This is because its approach has become distorted; to the benefit of the system. By doing this, it would have become an obstacle in the face of change, instead of being the opposite. This is what Allah (swt) has warned us of when He (swt) said to His Messenger (saw) and his Ummah after him; “And beware of them lest they deviate you from any of that (teaching) which Allah has sent down to you.” [TMQ 5:49]. Also what Sayyiduna’Umar (ra) said to his judge Shurayh: “Let no man distract you from it.”
The sharpest weapon that the group possesses is its Fikrah. If it is able to preserve it and keep it away from the sphere of compromise, remain steadfast on it in spite of the circumstances, and follow the footsteps of the Messenger (saw), it will manage to prepare, after some time, what the Messenger (saw) prepared; that is a believing group and the Ummah to accept the rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed. After preparing that it would be able to reverse the balance in favour of the da’wah, and to establish the State.
The thoughts of Islamare an endowment to the people of the true da’wah that demands of them to confront the pressures with the thoughts of Islam that are in harmony with the original fundamental idea. It is not fitting for the group to face the pressures with the mentality of, ‘Take and demand’, ‘propose what suits the reality’, ‘propose only some of the demand’, ‘acceptance of half solutions’. The group was established to change such thoughts, and not to work by using them. This is the mode of thinking of the west with which they invaded our minds. This radically differs from the nature of Islam, which rejects all of this and works to uproot it, and works to concentrate Islam and its method in thinking. So the one who wants to create change and works for it, must start with himself first.
After presenting what the group must be characterised with, in respect of insisting on the purity and clarity of the Fikrah and maintaining it, we present two of the thoughts proposed by the Kaafir West. They are ideas that the loyal regimes have committed to, and use to push the Muslims. Unfortunately some groups that are working for Islam, and the Muslim writers who always promote the western thoughts have seized these ideas quickly. These two ideas are the following. The first is the idea that Democracy is from Islam and that it is Shura itself. One writer called it: ‘shurocrasy’, through the reconciliation of words and intellectual falsification. The second idea is participating in kufr rule, which has been advocated by some Muslims and movements. In order that we proceed in this study according to the principles mentioned in the beginning of this discussion, we will study the reality in which Democracy is applied, the reality of Democracy, and whether there is a reality in the Shar’a that resembles the reality of Democracy, so as to validate its acceptance.