| |
BOOKS
> Book 3 > The System Of Islam |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Print Article |
|
|
|
|
 |
Send to a Friend |
|
|
| |
 |
Download PDF |
|
|
|
The Intellectual Leadership of Islam (Al-Qiyadatul
Fikriyatu fil Islam)
Whenever the level of thinking declines, the wataniyah (patriotic
bond) amongst people arises. It arises in a land to which they are
attached. The survival instinct pushes them to defend themselves and
the land they live on and automatically leads to the patriotic bond.
This patriotic bond is the weakest and lowest level of bond, it is
present amongst animals and birds as well as human beings.
It manifests itself in an emotional manner and is necessary in the
event of a foreign aggression against the land, either when attacked
or occupied. The patriotic bond never arises when the land is safe
from aggression. It ceases when the foreigner is repelled or
banished from the homeland. Therefore, this bond is primitive.
Moreover, when the thinking level is narrow, the qawmiyah
(nationalism) arises. It is similar to a family bond though in a
broader sense. Once the survival instinct is deeply rooted in the
individual it manifests towards the inclination to dominate others.
The inclination to dominate is individualistic in a man of low
intellect. However, as the individuals horizon broadens his
inclination to dominate widens, thus his attempts to dominate
increases from his family, then to his people in the homeland and
once that is achieved the dominance of his people over all other
people becomes the objective. The struggle for dominance creates
internal feuds amongst the members of the family. Hence, when the
dominance within the family is settled then the feud transfers to a
feud between his family and other families until the dominance is
settled in favour of one family or a group of people from different
families. In the end, the conflict arises between his people and
others for dominance and achieving a high standard of living.
Racialism prevails amongst the people sharing this bond who are
subject to whims and selfishness. Consequently, it is an inhumane
bond and it remains exposed to internal feuds if it is not
preoccupied with external conflicts.
Therefore, the patriotic bond is unsuitable for the following three
reasons:
1. It is a primitive bond not serving to bind man with man in his
quest for revival.
2. It is an emotional bond arising from the survival instinct of
defending oneself. Such an emotional bond is liable to change and
does not serve as a perpetual bond binding human beings.
3. It is a temporary bond that exists in the case of threat, but in
the state of stability, which is the normal state of man, it does
not exist. Therefore, the patriotic bond does not deserve to be a
bond amongst mankind.
Whereas, the nationalistic bond is also unsuitable for the following
three reasons:
1. It is a tribal bond which does not serve to bind man with man in
his way for revival.
2. It is an emotional bond that arises from the survival instinct
with its inclination to dominate.
3. It is an inhuman bond which causes conflicts for domination among
people. Therefore, it does not deserve to be a bond between mankind.
As for the other invalid bonds which are mistakenly taken as bonds
they are:
- Bond of self-interest (maslaha)
- Spiritual bond from which no system emanates.
The bond of self interest is a short lived bond and does not serve
to bind mankind, since it is vulnerable to compromise in the pursuit
of greater interests. Consequently, it ceases to exist when the
interests are outweighed and if the interests differ the bond
terminates. Additionally, it separates people from each other and
when the interests are attained this bond ceases to exist.
Therefore, it is a dangerous bond for its adherents.
The spiritual bond from which no system emanates appears in the
practical status of religiosity and does not manifest itself in the
walks of life. Therefore, the spiritual bond is partial and an
impractical bond not suitable to bind people in the affairs of life.
Hence, the Christian dogma did not serve as a bond amongst the
European nations, though it is embraced by them, because it is a
spiritual bond devoid of a system.
Consequently all the aforementioned bonds do not serve to bind man
with man in his quest for revival. The only true bond which binds
mankind in life is the rational doctrine from which a system
emanates. And this is the ideological bond.
The ideology (mabda) is a rational doctrine from which a system
emanates. The doctrine (‘aqeedah) is a comprehensive idea about the
universe, man, life, what preceded this life, what is to follow it,
and the relationship of this life with what preceded it and what is
to follow it. As for the system that emanates from this doctrine, it
is the solution for man’s problems, the method for implementing
those solutions, preserving the doctrine, and conveying the ideology
to others.
The method of implementing the solutions, preserving the doctrine,
and conveying the ideology constitutes the tariqa (method) while the
‘aqeedah and the solutions constitute the fikra (idea).
Consequently, the ideology is composed of the idea and the method.
The ideology comes into existence through the mind of a man either
through revelation sent to man from Allah (swt) combined with an
order to convey it or through a genius capacity acquired by a man.
As to the ideology which comes into existence in the mind of a man
revealed from Allah (swt). This is the correct ideology since, it is
Allah (swt) who is the Creator of the universe, man and life.
Therefore, it is conclusively a definite proven ideology. Whereas,
the ideology which sparks in the mind of man because of his genius
is false since it is developed by a limited mind which is not all
knowing. Furthermore, man’s ability to set a system is liable to
disparity, differences, contradictions, and influence of the
environment in which he lives. A fact which produces a contradictory
system leading to man’s misery. Therefore, the ideology which arises
in a man’s mind is false in its ‘aqeedah and system.
Consequently, the basis of the ideology is a comprehensive idea
about the universe, man, and life and the method which brings the
ideology into existence and implemented in all aspects of life, to
ensure the existence of the ideology is mandatory. The comprehensive
idea is the basis of the ideology since it constitutes the ‘aqeedah
and the ideological leadership. Based on the ‘aqeedah, the
ideological direction of man and his viewpoint in life is defined.
Moreover, all thoughts are built upon it, and the solutions for
life’s problems emanate from it. The method is essential, because if
the system that emanates from the doctrine does not include the
method of implementing such a system, preserving the ‘aqeedah, and
conveying da‘wah, then the idea would turn to be a hypothetical and
fanciful philosophy in pages of books without any effect in the
life.
Hence, the doctrine, the solutions for the problems, and the method
are all necessary for the ideology to come into existence. However,
the mere presence of the idea and the method from which a system
emanates does not denote that the ideology is correct, it simply
denotes that it is an ideology, and nothing more. The matter which
determines the validity of the ideology is the ‘aqeedah. Because the
‘aqeedah is the intellectual basis upon which every idea is built,
views are defined, and from which every solution and method
emanates. Therefore, if the intellectual basis is correct the
ideology will be correct, and if the basis is false the ideology
will be false.
If the comprehensive idea (doctrine) is in harmony with mans nature
and is built upon the mind it will be correct. However, if it
disagrees with mans nature and is not built upon the mind it will be
false. The compatibility with mans nature means that the ‘aqeedah
recognises the natural weakness and need of man for the Creator, the
Sovereign, i.e., it agrees with the instinct of religiosity.
Building the doctrine on the mind means that it is not built on
materialism or a solution arrived through compromise.
If we examine the ideologies that exist in the world, we will find
only three: Capitalism, Communism and Islam. The first two
ideologies are implemented by states, while Islam is not carried by
a state, but rather by individuals within different peoples,
nevertheless it is internationally existent in the whole globe.
Capitalism is based upon the separation of religion from life. This
idea constitutes its doctrine, its ideological leadership and its
intellectual basis. According to this intellectual basis man lays
the system for life and it is necessary to preserve for man the
following types of freedom: freedom of belief, freedom of opinion,
freedom of ownership and personal freedom. The Capitalist economic
system has arisen out of the freedom of ownership and capitalism has
become the most prominent feature that has sprung out from the
doctrine of this ideology. Thus, this ideology is called Capitalism
named after its most prominent aspect.
As for democracy, which is ascribed to this ideology, it stems from
man laying his own system. The people are therefore, the source of
authority. They determine the structure and function of the system,
employ the ruler to govern them, and take away the authority from
the ruler when they want to and establish for him the laws they
like. This is because ruling is a contract between the people and
the ruler to rule according to a system people choose to be applied.
Though democracy is a part of capitalism, it is less prominent than
the economic system. Because the Capitalist economy in the West
influences the government to the extent that the Capitalists are
effectively the real rulers in the Capitalist countries which
implement Capitalism. Moreover, democracy is not limited to this
ideology, since the Communists also claim to be democratic and
pretend that governing belongs to the people. It is therefore more
accurate to call this ideology the Capitalist Ideology or
Capitalism.
This ideology emerged when the emperors and kings of Europe and
Russia were using religion as a means to exploit the people,
transgress against them and suck their blood. The clergy was used as
an instrument for this. There arose, as a result of the oppression,
a bloody struggle in which the philosophers and thinkers went as far
as denying religion. While, others acknowledged religion but called
for its separation from life. Eventually, the opinion of the
majority of the philosophers and thinkers settled on one idea, the
separation of religion from life. It naturally resulted in the
separation of religion from the state. Thus, the opinion settled on
avoiding the discussion of religion, whether in denial or
recognition, and instead confined discussion to the necessity of
separating religion from life. This notion constituted a compromise
between the clergy, on the one hand, who sought to control
everything in the name of religion, and the philosophers and
thinkers, on the other hand, who denied religion and theocracy.
Therefore, this idea does not deny religion nor does it allow it to
interfere in the life, instead it just separates it from life.
Consequently, the doctrine which was embraced by the West is the
separation of religion from life, and this doctrine is the
intellectual basis upon which all thoughts are built, the basis for
the intellectual direction of man and his viewpoint in life. It is
the basis for solving all of life’s problems. It is the intellectual
leadership carried and propagated in the world by the West.
The separation of religion from life implicitly recognises religion,
and by doing so, it recognises that there is a Creator of the
universe, man and life, and that there will be a Day of
Resurrection. Since, these are the origins of religion as a
religion. It provides an idea about the universe, man, life, and
what preceded this life and what is to follow it because it didn’t
deny the existence of religion. When it claimed the separation of
life from religion it actually confirmed its implicit existence.
Therefore it proved the existence of religion and gave the idea that
there is no relationship between this life with what preceded it and
with what is to follow it, and that religion is a mere relationship
between the individual and his Creator. Accordingly, this doctrine
(separation of religion from life), by its all inclusive concept,
constitutes a comprehensive idea about the universe, man and life.
Thus capitalism, by this explanation, is an ideology like any other.
Socialism which led to Communism views the universe, man, and life
as only matter and that matter is the origin of all things. The
evolving of this matter brought all things into existence and thus
there is nothing beyond matter. Therefore, matter has no beginning
and no end, is everlasting and self-existing, i.e. not created by
anyone. Communists, therefore, deny that matter is created by a
Creator. They deny the spiritual aspect of matter and view the
recognition of the spiritual aspect as constituting a threat to
life. Consequently, they maintain that religion is the opium of the
masses which sedates and hinders them from action. They believe in
nothing but matter, even thought is claimed to be a reflection of
matter on the brain. Hence, matter, for them, is the origin of
thought and the origin of everything and through the materialistic
evolution all things are brought into existence. Accordingly, they
deny the existence of the Creator and consider matter to be eternal,
and thus, they deny what preceded this life and what is to follow it
and fail to recognise anything except this life.
In spite of the differences between these two ideologies in respect
to their view about the universe, man and life, yet both agree that
the ideals to be sought by man are the sublime values that man lays
down for himself, while happiness is to enjoy the optimum level of
sensual gratification which in their opinion are the means to
happiness, even happiness itself. The two ideologies also agree upon
preserving the personal freedom of the individual so man can act as
he likes, however he desires, as long as he sees his happiness in
that action. Therefore, the personal freedom of the individual is a
part of what is sanctified by these two ideologies.
Both ideologies differ in their view of the individual and society.
Capitalism is an individualistic ideology which assumes society to
be composed of individuals. It pays secondary attention to society
and concentrates its attention on the individual. Therefore, it
considers it necessary to secure the freedoms of the individual. In
order to ensure this freedom, every member works for the sake of
society. Freedom of belief is, therefore, one of the things
sanctified by this ideology. Freedom of ownership is also sanctified
and not restricted by its philosophy but by the government which
intervenes to guarantee the liberties. The government implements
these restrictions by the police and through law enforcement. The
state, however, is considered a means and not an end in itself.
Sovereignty ultimately belongs to the individuals and not to the
state. Accordingly, capitalism carries an ideological leadership,
which is the separation of religion from life’s affairs, and on the
basis of this leadership capitalism implements its laws, calls for,
and attempts to be applied everywhere.
Socialism and Communism is an ideology which views society as a
collective group consisting of human beings and their relationship
with nature. Thus, people will submit to this relationship
inevitably and automatically. This collective is one single unit of
man, nature, and relationships, and all constitute one whole and not
parts separated from each other. Nature is considered to be a part
of mans character, the part he carries in himself. man does not
evolve without being connected with this part of his personality,
i.e., nature, because mans relationship with nature is like the
relationship of the thing with its own essence. Accordingly, society
is considered to be one unit whose three elements evolve together as
a whole. And thus man has to revolve within this group like a spoke
in a wheel. Therefore, Communists hold no freedom of belief or
economical ownership for the individual; belief and economy are
defined by the state. Consequently, the state is also one of the
things sanctified by this ideology. From this materialistic
philosophy, life’s systems have emanated and the economic system was
considered the primary basis and the main factor in determining
other systems. Hence Socialism and Communism carries an ideological
leadership which is materialism and dialectic materialism and on
this basis it implements its systems, calls for them and attempts to
apply them everywhere.
As for Islam, it holds that beyond the universe, man and life, there
is a Creator, who created them all. Therefore, its basis is the
conviction in the existence of Allah (swt). This ‘aqeedah has
defined the spiritual aspect in everything, which means the creation
of the universe, man and life by a creator. Likewise, the
relationship of the universe with Allah (swt) and the relationship
of the life and of man with Allah (swt) is the spiritual aspect of
the universe, life and man. The spirit (ruh), therefore is man’s
comprehension of his relationship with Allah (swt).
The belief in Allah (swt) must also be linked to the belief in the
Prophethood of Muhammad (saw), his Message, and that the Qur’an is
the speech of Allah (swt). Hence, it is obligatory to accept all
that the Qur’an has informed us of.
Accordingly, the Islamic ‘aqeedah makes it compulsory to believe in
what had preceded this life (Allah), and to believe in that which is
after this life - the Day of Resurrection. It also obliges man to
believe that in this life he is restricted by the commands of Allah
(swt); which constitutes the relationship with what preceded this
life. Man will be reckoned as to whether he obeyed these commands.
This accountability constitutes the relationship of this life with
what is to follow it. Inevitably, a Muslim must realise his
relationship with Allah (swt) when undertaking any action, and
direct his actions according to the commands of Allah (swt). This is
the meaning of mixing matter and spirit. The ultimate aim of
directing Muslims actions according to the commands of Allah (swt)
is to attain His (swt) pleasure. While the immediate end sought in
undertaking the action is the value the action yields.
Therefore, the ideal aims to protect the society are not instituted
by man, but rather by the commands of Allah (swt) which are
consistent, neither adapting, changing, nor evolving. The protection
of the human race, mind, human dignity, private property, religion,
security and state are all fixed ultimate aims to protect society,
and they are not subject to change or development. Islam has
assigned a firm penal code to protect these aims. It is obligatory
to protect these aims, because they are the commands of Allah (swt)
and not because they produce material value. Accordingly, the Muslim
and the state undertake all actions according to the commands of
Allah (swt), because they and only they (the commands) should govern
all of mans affairs. Undertaking actions according to the commands
of Allah (swt) provides a Muslim with tranquillity. Hence, happiness
is not satisfying the sensual gratification, it is rather attaining
the pleasure of Allah (swt).
In respect to mans organic needs and instincts, Islam has organised
them in a way that ensures their satisfaction such as the spiritual
requirement, along with the dietary and sexual needs. However, this
is not done at the expense of some over the others, or by
suppressing or setting others loose, or setting all of them loose.
Instead, Islam has co-ordinated all of them and satisfied them
through a precise system which produces delight and comfort for man
and prevents him from lapsing to the level of the animal which
satisfies its instincts in a chaotic manner.
To maintain this organisation of organic needs and instincts, Islam
considers the community to be an indivisible whole, and rather views
the individual as an attached part of the community, and being a
part of the community, the individual is not perceived as a spoke in
a wheel, rather the individual is viewed as a being a part from a
whole like a hand being a part of the body. Thus, Islam took care of
the individual as part of a community and not separate from her such
care leads to the protection of the community. At the same time,
Islam took care of the community not as being a whole devoid of
parts, but in her capacity as a whole comprising parts i.e.
individuals. So this given care leads to the protection of these
individuals, each as a part of the community. Prophet Muhammad (saw)
said: "The example of those who maintain Allah’s limits and those
who surpassed the limit is like the example of those who share a
boat. Some would occupy the lower while others the upper deck. The
occupants of the lower deck would have to go to the upper deck to
have access to the water. They said, why don’t we drill a hole in
the lower deck to directly access the water so as not to cause any
inconvenience to those above us. If those on the upper deck allowed
this to happen then the entire boat with all the passengers would
sink. However, if they prevented them from doing so then all would
be saved".
This outlook of the community and the individual establishes a
distinct concept about society. The individuals as part of the
community must have thoughts that bind them together by which they
live. They must also share the same sentiments which affect and
motivate them. Additionally, they must have one system to address
all of their life’s problems. Hence, society is composed of
individuals, thoughts, sentiments and systems. man has to be bonded
in this life by these thoughts, sentiments and systems. A Muslim is,
therefore, bonded in all matters of this life by Islam and he does
not have freedoms at all, since a Muslim’s ‘aqeedah is restricted by
Islam’s commands and is not left unrestricted. Consequently any one
who renounces Islam is considered to have committed a capital crime
and his apostasy is met with capital punishment if he does not
repent. Similarly, personal matters are restricted by the system of
Islam. Hence, zina is a crime for which the adulterer is severely
punished without any pardon and in public. Allah (swt) says:
"And let a party of the believers witness their punishment." [TMQ
24:2]
Drinking khamr is a crime that also invokes punishment. Likewise,
acts of aggression against others constitutes a crime that is
treated case by case according to the type of aggression, such as
false accusation of zina, murder etc. Economic aspects are
restricted by the Shari‘ah, by means of ownership permitted by the
Shari‘ah, and the manner by which Islam defined private property.
Private property is defined as the Shari‘ah permission to derive
benefit from the owned property.
Consequently, transgressing these restrictions is considered a
crime, which differs according to the type of transgression, such as
theft, robbery, etc. Thus, a state which protects both the community
and the individual and implements the system in the society is
mandatory. It is necessary that the ideology influences its
adherents so that its protection is naturally coming from the people
themselves. Accordingly, it is the ideology which restricts and
protects the entire society while it is the state which implements
the legislation set by the ideology. Sovereignty, therefore, belongs
to Allah (swt) and His (swt) Shari‘ah not to the state or the
nation, though, the authority belongs to the nation and is practised
by the state. Hence, the state is the method for implementing the
system, although the individuals piety (taqwa) of Allah (swt) can be
relied upon for his adherence to the laws of Islam. Therefore, it is
necessary to have the legislation implemented by the state and
orienting the individual to comply by Islam through his taqwa.
Islam is therefore comprised of an ‘aqeedah and systems and the
Islamic ideology is both a fikra and a method which is an integral
part of the fikra. Its system emanates from its ‘aqeedah and its
hadarah (civilisation) constitutes a unique way of life. The Islamic
method in carrying the daw‘ah is by implementation of Islam through
the State and carrying it as an intellectual leadership to the world
which should be the basis for understanding and practising Islam.
Applying Islam on the people who are governed by the system of Islam
is considered carrying a da‘wah, because applying Islam on
non-Muslims is considered to be one aspect of the practical method
for the da‘wah. It is through this implementation this vast Muslim
world came into existence.
To summarise three ideologies exist in the world, Capitalism,
Socialism and the third ideology is Islam. Each of these ideologies
has its own doctrine from which a system emanates, a measure for
man’s actions, a particular view of society, and a method to
implement the system.
As for ‘aqeedah the Communist ideology holds that matter is the
origin of things and that all things emanate from is by means of
materialistic evolving i.e. dialectic materialism.
The Capitalist ideology believes that religion must be separated
from life which results in the separation of religion from the
state. Hence, the Capitalists don’t discuss the issue whether a
Creator exists or not, they merely discuss the point which says that
the Creator has no right to interfere in the life regardless of
whether his existence is acknowledged or not. Consequently, those
acknowledging the existence of a Creator and those who deny it are
equal in the Capitalist doctrine which is the separation of religion
from life.
As for Islam, it believes that Allah (swt) created everything in
existence and that He (swt) sent prophets and messengers with His (swt)
deen to human beings, and that man will account for his actions on
the Day of Judgement. Therefore, Islam’s ‘aqeedah is the belief (Iman)
in Allah (swt), His angels, His books, His messengers, and the
Qada’a and Qadar, the good and bad of which are from Allah (swt).
However, regarding the manner in which the system emanates from the
doctrine, Communism maintains that the system is taken from the
tools of production, thus the feudal system was the product of the
dominant mode of production in the feudal society, namely the axe.
The evolution of society to Capitalism made machinery become the
tool of production, thus the Capitalist system is taken from this
mode of production through dialectic materialism. Capitalism in
separating religion from life, maintains that it is man who sets the
system for this life based upon his situation. Islam considers that
Allah (swt) has assigned a system for man to proceed in this life.
He (swt) has sent Muhammad (saw) with this system which was revealed
to him (saw) and man must follow it. Hence, a Muslim studies the
problem and deduces its solution from the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
As the measure for actions, Communism considers materialism, i.e.
the materialistic system, so as matter evolves so does the measure.
Capitalism considers the measure to be benefit, and on this basis,
actions are evaluated. Islam considers the halal and the haram as
the measure, i.e. the commands of Allah (swt). Accordingly, the
halal is performed and the haram shunned; the measure neither
evolves nor changes, nor is it influenced by benefit, and thus it is
only the Shari‘ah which governs.
As for society Communism considers it consisting of a whole unit
comprising of earth, modes of production, nature, and man which all
are considered to be matter. When nature and its content evolve man
evolves with it, thus the society evolves. Consequently, society is
subjugated to evolving materialism. Therefore, man has to only bring
forth the contradictions to promote this evolutionary process. When
the society evolves the individual evolves with it and thus man
revolves with the society like a spoke in a wheel.
Capitalism views society as composed of individuals. Hence, if the
individual’s affairs are managed the society’s affairs will be
managed. Care is therefore, only given to the individual while the
government acts only on the individual’s behalf. Consequently, this
ideology is individualistic.
Islam views the ‘aqeedah as the basis of society. This ‘aqeedah
includes its thoughts, sentiments and the system which emanates from
it. Thus, the Islamic society is brought into being when the Islamic
thoughts and sentiments dominate and the Islamic system is
implemented among the people.
Society is therefore comprised of man, thoughts, sentiments and the
system. For a person together with another person constitutes only a
group. A society comes into existence when people adopt the same
thoughts, share the sentiments, and apply the same system upon them.
When people live together there arise common interests which
requires. However, if thoughts, sentiments and systems this
relationship amongst the people are united. If the thoughts about it
or sentiments towards it or systems are different, then the
relationship would not exists and consequently the society would not
exist.
Therefore, society consists of man, thoughts, sentiments and
systems, because these alone establish continuous relationships and
make a group of people a distinct society.
If all people in a society were Muslims, but the thoughts they
adopted were democratic and Capitalistic, their sentiments were
spiritual, patriotic or nationalistic, and the system applied upon
them was democratic and Capitalistic then the society would be non
Islamic, even if the majority of the people were Muslims.
Concerning the implementation of the system, Communism considers
that the state alone implements the system through an iron fist. The
state develops the system and takes care of their affair on behalf
of the individual and community. The government in capitalism
oversees the sanctification of liberties. So if someone violated the
freedom of an individual, then the government will act to prevent
the violation. However, if someone did not violate the liberty of
others rather, exploited and took away and took the individuals
right, with his consent, then there would be no violation of
liberty. The state would not interfere because again the state
exists to maintain the liberties.
Islam considers that the system is implemented by the individual’s
consciousness (taqwa) and by the state through: the awareness in
society about Islam’s justice, the co-operation between both the
nation and the ruler through amr bil maruf wa nahiy anil munkar
(enjoining the good and forbidding the evil) and the authority of
the state.
The state takes care of the community affairs and the affairs but
not the individual unless if he is unable to do so and the system
does not evolve at all. The state has the authority to adopt the
rules (Ahkam Shari‘ah) when there is more than one opinion of
ijtihad on an issue.
The intellectual leadership of Islam is comparable with man’s nature
and in spite of its depth it is easily understood. One’s heart and
mind are quickly opened to it, eagerly trying to understand it, and
pondering over its details with appreciation. This is because the
instinct of religiosity is part of man. Every man is religious by
nature and no power can remove from him this innate quality because
its deeply rooted in him. Man, by nature, feels incomplete, and that
there is a greater power which deserves to be sanctified. Man’s
instinct of religiosity arises from his natural weakness thus
constituting his need for the Creator.
It is a permanent instinct in man with specific manifestation
requiring sanctification. Consequently, mankind is religious and has
always worshipped something throughout history. Humanity has
worshipped man, planets, stones, animals, fire and other things.
Islam, however, with its doctrine came to lead man away from
worshipping created things to the worship of Allah (swt) who created
everything. The advent of the materialistic ideology, which denies
the existence of Allah (swt) and our relationship with Him (swt),
could not put an end to this innate religiousness. However, it
succeeded in shifting man’s conception of power greater than himself
to its reverence to the ideology and its advocates.
Thus, it shifted people’s sanctification of worshipping Allah (swt)
to worshipping man, and away from venerating the ayat of Allah (swt)
to venerating mans words. So it brought backwardness in mans
worship. It could not put an end to religion, which is innate.
Instead, it distorted and diverted it in a reactionary way.
Therefore, the intellectual leadership of the materialistic ideology
(Communism) is a negative leadership incoherent with man’s nature
and thus it is a failure from this perspective. It manipulates the
people through appealing to their stomach. It attracts the deprived,
the poor, and the defeated ones. Those who adhere to it are low in
their thinking, the failures, anarchists and mentally devious people
who aspire to be known as intellectuals when they arrogantly talk
about the theory of dialectics whose failure is proved by both the
intellect and in reality. It has to resort to force and brutality to
subjugate people to its ideology. Hence, oppression, suppression,
anarchy, turmoil, destruction and agitation are its most important
instruments.
The Capitalistic ideological leadership likewise disagrees with
man’s nature, i.e., the instinct of religiosity. This instinct of
religiosity becomes apparent in sanctification as well as in
management of man’s affairs in life. The inconsistency and
contradictions appear when man undertakes this management, a matter
which testifies to man’s inability.
Consequently, a deen revealed from the Creator must manage man’s
affairs in life. The separation of religion from life contradicts
man’s nature. The presence of religion in life does not mean viewing
all of life’s daily functions as religious rites. Rather, the
presence of religion in life means to address all of man’s problems
with Allah’s (swt) system, a system that emanates from the ‘aqeedah
which agrees with man’s nature. To remove this and replace it with a
system which emanates from the idea of separation of religion from
life disagrees with man’s nature. Therefore, the intellectual
leadership of Capitalism is negative since it fails to address man’s
nature. It separates religion from life, banishes religiousness from
life by making it an individualistic affair, and prevents Allah’s (swt)
system from addressing man’s affairs.
The Islamic intellectual leadership is positive since it establishes
the mind as the basis for the belief in the existence of Allah (swt).
Islam draws man’s attention to the elements of the universe, man and
life to conclusively and decisively deduce the existence of Allah (swt),
the Creator of these things. This defines for man the utmost
perfection which he innately searches for and does not exist in him,
the life, or the universe and directs man’s mind to this utmost
Supreme, comprehending His (swt) existence, and believing in Him (swt).
The Communist intellectual leadership is built upon materialism and
not the intellect. It considers that matter existed before thought
and matter to be the origin of all things, hence it is
materialistic. The Capitalist intellectual leadership however, is
based upon a compromise reached after a bloody struggle between the
clergy and the intellectuals which had lasted for many centuries and
it resulted with the idea of separation of religion from the state.
Therefore, both the Communist and Capitalist intellectual
leaderships failed since they contradict man’s nature and are not
built upon the intellect.
In conclusion, of the three doctrines, only the Islamic doctrine is
correct, because it is built upon the mind and it agrees with man’s
nature and, thus man positively responds to it, whilst the other
doctrines are not built upon the mind and they disagree with man’s
nature.
The Communist doctrine maintains that matter precedes thought thus
it is built on matter and not on the mind. It maintains that thought
is the reflection of the matter onto the brain. Prior to the
reflection of the matter onto the brain there was no thought, and
accordingly everything is built upon matter. Consequently, the
origin of the Communist intellectual leadership is matter and not
thought.
This perspective is wrong for two reasons:
There is no reflection between the matter and brain. The brain does
not reflect upon matter, neither does matter reflect on the brain.
Reflection requires that objects be endowed with the characteristic
of reflection such as a mirror. This characteristic is not possessed
by the brain nor matter. Rather, the sensation of the matter is
transferred to the brain through the senses. The sensation of the
matter to the brain is not a reflection of matter to the brain, nor
a reflection of the brain to the matter it is only the sensation of
the matter. In this regard there is no difference between sight and
the other senses in the sensing of the matter. Thus sensation occurs
by smelling, hearing, touching and tasting as it occurs by seeing.
Accordingly, man senses things through his five senses, and things
are not reflected on the brain, rather what occurs is a sensation of
the things.
Sense alone does not produce thought, but merely produces sensation,
i.e., a sense of the tangible object. Sensation, plus sensation,
plus a million sensations will still only produce sensations and no
thought at all.
In order for man to think, he must have previous information through
which he can explain the sensed matter. For example, if a book in
the ancient Syriac language was given to someone who has no previous
information about the Syriac language, he would be able to only
sense it through sight and touch. Even if the individual would
repeat this sensation a million times, he still would not be able to
understand a single word of the book unless he is given the relevant
information about the Syriac language. Thereafter, he will start
thinking and understanding. Let us take another example of a child
with sound senses but no previous information. If we were to place
in front of the child a piece of gold, brass and a stone the child
would not be able to comprehend them, no matter how many times it
senses these things. However, if the child was given previous
information about them, he would use this information to comprehend
them. Were the child to grow up to be twenty years of age without
any information he would remain as his first day of life regardless
of the biological growth in the brain. Since it is not the brain
that enables man to comprehend, rather it is the previous
information together with the brain and the sensed object.
As for the instinctual behaviour, in contrast to the intellectual
process in man, it results as a mere response to the instincts and
organic needs, a matter which occurs with animals as well as man.
For example, a baby recognises through giving him an apple and stone
repeatedly, that the apple can be eaten while the stone cannot.
Likewise, the donkey recognises that barley is eatable but soil is
not. This differentiation occurs not through thought or intellect,
but through the response to the instincts and the organic needs,
which are present in animals and man. Thought cannot be produced
unless previous information is coupled with the transference of the
sensed thing through the senses to the brain.
Accordingly, the mind, intellect, or comprehension can be defined as
the transmission of a sensed object through the senses to the brain
and the existence of previous information by which this reality is
explained. Therefore, the Communist intellectual leadership wrongly
understood the meaning of the mind and the thinking process. Since
the Communist intellectual leadership is not built upon the mind it
is both a false and incorrect intellectual leadership.
The Capitalist intellectual leadership is built on a compromise
agreed upon by the clergy and the intellectuals after their bloody
conflict which lasted for many centuries. This compromised solution
is the separation of religion from life i.e., the implicit
acknowledgement of religion while separating it from life. Thus, the
Capitalist intellectual leadership is not built on the mind, it is
based on this compromise. Indeed, the idea of a compromise is deeply
rooted in the Capitalists who draw the truth (haq) near to the
falsehood (batil) and Iman near to Kufr the light (nur) near the
dark (dhalam). The compromise on which they have built their
doctrine and ideological leadership has made them swerve from the
truth, the Iman and the light. Therefore, this ideological
leadership is not built on the mind thus it is false.
However, the Islamic doctrine is built upon the mind, because it
obliges the Muslim to believe in the existence of Allah (swt), in
the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) and the Qur’an, through the use of
the mind. It obliges the Muslim to believe in the ghaib, (things
beyond the senses) on the condition that it is mentioned in a source
which was conclusively proven rationally like the Qur’an or hadith
mutawatir. Thus, the Islamic creed is based upon the intellect.
This is from the rational perspective, however with regards to man’s
nature, the Islamic intellectual leadership agrees with man’s nature
since it recognises the existence of deen, its relevance upon life,
and the obligation to manage the life according to the commands of
Allah (swt).
Religiosity is innate in man since it is one of man’s instincts with
its own reaction, namely, sanctification. Which is a natural
response to a specific instinct which differs from all the other
responses of other instincts. Thus, the belief in deen and the
obligation to live according to the commands of Allah (swt) is
instinctive. It agrees with man’s nature and therefore responds
positively to man.
This differs from the Communist and the Capitalistic leaderships
which disagree with man’s nature. The Communist intellectual
leadership denies the existence of religion absolutely and opposes
its recognition. Accordingly, it contradicts man’s nature. The
Capitalist intellectual leadership neither recognises nor denies
religion. It does not make the recognition or denial of religion an
issue for discussion. However, it insist on the separation of
religion from life and advocates that life be managed in a
beneficial way with no relation to religion. Therefore, it
contradicts man’s nature.
The Islamic intellectual leadership therefore, is the only correct
intellectual leadership because it agrees with man’s nature and
mind; all the other doctrines are false. Accordingly, the Islamic
creed is the only correct and successful ideological leadership.
One question remains: Did the Muslims implement Islam? or did they
only embrace its doctrine while implementing other systems and laws?
The answer to this question is that Muslims implemented only Islam
through all the ages from the arrival of the Messenger (saw) to
Madinah until 1336 A.H, i.e., 1924 AD when the Islamic State
collapsed at the hands of colonialism. The Muslims implementation of
Islam was comprehensive and its success in its comprehensive
implementation was overwhelming.
The practical implementation of Islam is undertaken by two entities
having the responsibility to implement the system. They are:
The judge who is responsible for settling disputes between people,
and, the ruler, who governs the people. It has been narrated through
successive reports that the judges who settled the disputes between
people from the time of the Messenger (saw) till the demise of the
Khilafah in Istanbul, settled the disputes in all affairs with the
laws of the Shari‘ah. This is whether the disputes were between
Muslims or between Muslims and non-Muslims. The courts that settled
disputes, such as infringement of rights, family matters, criminal
prosecution, etc. were under one single court based on the Islamic
Shari‘ah.
The clearest proof of this is contained in the records of the
Shari‘ah courts stored in the old cities of Jerusalem, Baghdad,
Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul etc. These records are a conclusive
proof that only the Shari‘ah was implemented by the judges. Even
non-Muslims used to study and write Islamic fiqh like Saleem al-Baz,
who wrote a commentary on al-Majalla. Laws that were introduced
towards the demise of the state, were introduced on the basis of the
scholars fatwa that such laws which do not contradict the Ahkam
Shari‘ah. Consequently, the ‘Uthmani penal code was introduced for
application in 1275 A.H (1857 AD.) and the Law of Rights and Trade
was introduced in 1276 A.H (1858 AD.). This was followed in 1288 A.H
(1870 AD.) by the separation of the courts into two: Shari‘ah courts
and regular law courts and a decree was passed to arrange for this
separation.
In 1295 A.H (1877 AD.) a law was issued to regulate statuary courts.
In 1296 A.H (1878 AD.) the Rights and Penalties Procedure was
issued.
Since the ‘ulemah did not find any justification to use the civil
law, which was put aside in 1286 A.H (1868 AD.) and the Shari‘ah
magazine (al-Majalla) issued a canon for transactions.
All these canons were issued as rules permitted by Islam and were
not enacted except, as clearly spelled out in the decrees
introducing the canons, after being permitted by the Sheikh
al-Islam. The colonialist authorities since 1918 AD. have occupied
some Islamic lands and were settling disputes over the civil cases
according to non-Islamic laws. Whereas, those countries which were
not physically occupied by colonialist armies, although still within
their domain of influence, are still ruled judicially according to
Islam, such as Afghanistan and the Arabian peninsula, i.e., Hijaz,
Najd and Kuwait. These countries still run their judiciary according
to the Islamic Shari‘ah, although the rulers in these countries no
longer implement Islam. Accordingly, we observe that Islam was
implemented judicially and no other law was applied in the judiciary
throughout all the ages of the Islamic State.
The implementation of Islam by the ruler is represented in Ahkam
Shari‘ah related to five areas: social; economics; education;
foreign affairs; and ruling. The Ahkam Shari‘ah relating to these
matter were all implemented by the state.
The social system defines the relationship between men and women and
the matters that arise as a result of this relationship i.e.
personal status. Alone the Shari‘ah is still applied in the social
system in spite of the presence of the colonial powers in the
Islamic lands and the presence of Kufr in the ruling system;
definitely no other system has been implemented.
Concerning the economic system, it is characterised in two ways,
firstly by the way in which the state collects public revenue in
order to look after the people’s affairs. Secondly, by the way in
which this revenue is spent. As far as collecting revenue is
concerned, the State collects the zakat due on fund, land and
livestock as an obligation of worship and is exclusively distributed
amongst the eight categories mentioned in the Qur’an.
The State never used the zakat fund for managing its expenditures.
The State collected the necessary funds for its expenditures
according to the Shari‘ah. It did not apply any system of taxation,
instead it implemented Islam. Thus, it collected kharaj over the
productive worth of the land, jizya an amount to be paid by
non-Muslim males, who are in a good condition of work, and customs
duties in its capacity as the supervisor of internal and external
trade.
The State did not collect funds except according to the Shari‘ah. As
for distribution, the state had a nafaqah system (financial support)
for the disabled, placed the safeeh (incompetent) and mubaddir (the
one who spends his wealth on haram) under guardianship, and
established lodgings in every city and along the roads to the
pilgrimage to assist the poor, destitute, and the travellers, there
relics can still be seen in major Muslim cities. The State’s
expenditure was solely governed by the Shari‘ah and by no other
system. Any deficiency that may be noticed in this field was due to
negligence and misapplication and not to the absence of the Shari‘ah.
The foundation of the educational policy was Islamic and the Islamic
culture constituted the basis of the curriculum. Care was exercised
to ensure that foreign culture was not adopted if it contradicted
Islam. The neglect in opening schools towards the demise of the
Ottoman state was typical of all the Muslim countries at that time,
due to the intellectual decline which reached its lowest level in
that period. In all the other ages of the Islamic State, it was well
known that only the Islamic land attracted the attention of the
scholars and students. The universities in Cordoba, Baghdad,
Damascus, Alexandria and Cairo had a tremendous effect on the course
of education throughout the world.
The foreign policy of the Islamic State was founded upon Islam. The
Islamic State built its relationship with all other states upon the
basis of Islam, and all other states dealt with it as an Islamic
State. All of its external relationships were based on Islam and the
interests of Muslims. It is known all over the world that the
foreign policy of the Islamic State was an Islamic policy, to the
extent that no evidence is required.
With regards to the ruling system, the structure of the state in
Islam is established upon eight pillars:
the Khaleefah, i.e., the head of State
the Khaleefah’s delegated assistants (Mo’aawen Tafweed))
the Khaleefah’s executive assistants (Mo’aawen Tanfeed)
the Governors (Wula)
the Judges (Qadi)
the armed forces (Jaysh)
the administrative apparatus (Idarah)
the consultative assembly (Majlis al-Shura).
This structure existed and Muslims have never been ruled without a
Khaleefah until, by the hands of Mustapha Kemal, the disbelieving (Kafir)
colonial powers abolished the Khilafah in 1342 A.H (1924 AD.). The
existence of a Khaleefah for the Muslims, prior to its removal, had
been continuous. Whenever a Khaleefah died or was removed, he was
succeeded by another, even during the era of decline.
Since the Islamic State is the Khaleefah, it means that when a
Khaleefah is present the Islamic State exists. As for his
assistants, they were present in all ages and were assistants and
not wazir. Although, they were named wazir during the ‘Abbassid era.
The assistants did not possess the characteristic of ministers found
in the democratic system at all they were assistants and an
executive body only, while all the powers were in the hands of the
Khaleefah.
The existence of the governors, judges, and administrative system
was obvious. And when the colonial powers came and occupied the
land, all the affairs had been running and there were governors,
judges and the administrative apparatus on the spot.
As for the Islamic army it was renowned all over the world for being
unbeatable. With regards to the Majlis al-Shura, after the era of
the Khulafah ar-Rashidun, its existence was not given much
attention. The reason for that is that the Majlis al-Shura is not a
basis for ruling but rather a part of the state’s structure and is
one of the rights of the people. Thus, if the Khaleefah neglects it
he would be negligent, but the ruling system would still remain
Islamic. The shura (consultation) in Islam entails expressing
opinion which are contrary to the parliamentary system in democracy
which is viewed as a branch of ruling. Therefore, it must be clear
that the Islamic ruling system was applied.
A question may arise concerning the bay‘ah (pledge) to the Khaleefah.
It is an established fact that there was no hereditary system in the
Khilafah. In other words, unlike in monarchy, the leadership of the
State could not be inherited. Instead, the leadership of the State
would be acquired through receiving the bay‘ah from the Muslims in
some eras, from the influential people (ahle al-halli wal-‘aqd) in
later eras or as what occurred towards the demise of the state from
the Sheikh al-Islam. Throughout the ages of the Islamic State, the
procedure was that no Khaleefah was appointed without receiving the
bay‘ah. Never was a single incident reported that the Khaleefah was
appointed through inheritance without receiving the bay‘ah. However,
notwithstanding this, the manner of attaining bay‘ah was misapplied.
Thus, a Khaleefah would take a bay‘ah from the people before his
death for his son, brother, cousin, or any other individual of the
family. After the death of the Khaleefah the bay‘ah was renewed for
that person. This is a misapplication of the bay‘ah but it neither
constitutes hereditary rule or succession to the throne. Likewise,
the misapplication of the elections in a parliamentary or a
democratic system is still called elections not an appointment even
if the government backed candidates succeed in the elections.
Consequently, one must acknowledge that the Islamic system was
applied throughout all periods of the Islamic State. As for the
practical success of the Islamic ideology, it was without parallel
particularly in the following two matters:
Firstly, the Islamic ideology transferred the Arabs from a low level
of intellect in which they were acting haphazardly in the darkness
of bloody family feuds and ignorance to an age of intellectual
advancement glittering in the light of Islam whose sunrise was not
restricted to the Arabs but prevailed all over the world. Muslims
pursued in conveying Islam to the world, liberating in the process
Persia, Iraq, the domain of al-Sham, (Syria, Lebanon and Palestine),
Egypt and North Africa. These peoples had their own religion,
nationalities, languages, customs and traditions. All were different
from one another. The Persians differed from the Romans of Sham,
from the Copts of Egypt and from the Berbers of North Africa, they
lived under the rule of Islam, understood it, embraced it and became
one nation (Ummah), the Islamic Ummah. The success of the Islamic
ideology in melting these nationalities and people into one nation
was therefore unparalleled. This is in spite of the fact that the
ways of transportation was through camel and the means of
communication was word of the mouth and the writing of the pen.
Al-Fath, however was to remove by force the physical obstacles to
give the people free access towards what their minds and their
innate readiness drive them to. In this manner people entered Islam
in masses. On the other hand, the oppressive occupation of countries
alienates the occupiers from the conquered. For example, the
colonisation of the East by Western imperialism lasted for decades
without gaining any result. If it was not for the influence of the
deceptive Western culture and the oppression of its agents which
will soon vanish, then the restoration of the Islamic ideology would
be quicker than the blink of an eye.
Accordingly, the success of the Islamic ideology in forging all the
various people into one Islamic Ummah is without parallel. These
people have remained as Muslims even to this day, in spite of the
ideological and material invasion by the colonial powers and their
cunning ways of corrupting one’s creed and thinking. These people
will remain one Islamic nation (Ummah) till the Day of Judgement. It
has never happened that any people (or ethnic group) which had
embraced Islam have apostatised from it. As for the Muslims of
Andalus (Spain), they were massacred by the Courts of Inquisition,
the guillotine and burnt in ovens of the executioners. The Muslims
of Bukhara, the Caucasus and Turkistan met with the same disastrous
fate as those before them. The degree of success of the Islamic
ideology and the application of Islam by the Islamic State can be
ascertained by the evidence of all these people embracing Islam and
becoming one Ummah with a determined awareness regarding her
‘aqeedah.
The second matter which denotes the success of this ideology is the
fact that the Islamic Ummah was the leading nation in the world in
respect to civilisation, material advancement, culture and science.
For twelve centuries, dating from the seventh century AD. to the
middle of the eighteenth century AD., the Islamic State remained as
the leading and most powerful state in the world. Throughout this
period it was the flower of this globe and the rising sun amongst
the nations, a fact which confirms the success of this leadership
and the success of Islam in implementing its system and ‘aqeedah
upon the people. When the Islamic State and Ummah abandoned carrying
its ideological leadership, falling short in understanding and
applying Islam and neglected to convey the Islamic da‘wah, it lapsed
and declined among other nations. Therefore, we say that only the
Islamic intellectual leadership is correct and it alone should be
carried to the world. When the Islamic State, which carries this
leadership, is established, the success of this leadership will be
fulfilled today as it was before.
We have proven that Islam with its ‘aqeedah and the system which
emanates from it agrees with man’s nature. Consequently, Islam does
not view man as a mechanical being functioning accurately like a
machine and implementing the system without disparity on the basis
of fine mathematical measures. On the contrary, from the Islamic
perspective man is a social being applying the system with varying
capabilities and qualities.
Thus, it is natural for Islam, on the one hand, to narrow the gap
between people without making everyone equal while guaranteeing
tranquillity for all. On the other hand, it is also natural that
some individuals are found who deviate from the system and thus
don’t comply with it and others who do not respond or who turn away
from the system. Inevitably, there will be in the society evildoers
(fussaq), people who indulge in vices (fujjar), unbelievers (kuffar),
hypocrites (munafiqeen), apostates (murtadun), and atheists (mulhidun).
The important thing is that the society as a whole, from the point
of view of its thoughts, sentiments, systems (rules and regulations)
and people, is considered as an Islamic society which applies Islam
when these elements manifest themselves as Islamic. The evidence for
this is that it is impossible for anyone to apply a system at the
level of Muhammad’s (saw) application. In spite of this, at his (saw)’s
time there were disbelievers, hypocrites, apostates, atheists,
evildoers and people who indulged in vices. Therefore, no one can
claim that Islam was not applied completely or that the society was
non-Islamic. Yet the Islamic application is on man as a social
being, not a mechanical being.
Islam continued to be applied on the entire Islamic nation, Arabs
and non-Arabs, from the time the Prophet (saw) settled down in
Madinah till the colonial powers occupied the Islamic lands and
replaced Islam with the Capitalist system. Islam was practically
implemented from the first year of the hijrah until 1336 A.H (1918
AD) and the Islamic nation did not apply any other system than Islam
throughout this period.
Although the Muslims translated books of philosophy, science, and
different foreign cultures into Arabic, they never translated any
legislation, system, or canon of other nations for research or its
application. Considering Islam to be a system, some people applied
it well and others misapplied it; this depended on whether they were
observant or not in their comprehension of Islam or whether they
were negligent in carrying its intellectual leadership.
Consequently, the misapplication of Islam in some ages brought about
decline in the Islamic society, but this is something which no
system can avoid, because the application of the system depends on
man. However, the mis-application does not mean that Islam was not
implemented. Surely Islam was implemented and no other systems or
ideology was applied.
The crucial point is in the enactment of canons and systems applied
by the state. In this respect the state did not adopt any canon or
system alien to Islam. What occurred was the misapplication of some
of its rules by the rulers. However, notwithstanding this, one must
observe two points when surveying the implementation of Islam
throughout its history.
The first point is that history must not be taken from the enemies
of Islam who harbour hatred towards it. Instead history must be
taken from Muslims themselves after an extensive research so as not
to adopt a distorted image. The second point is that the
generalisation in study of the society should not be taken from the
history of individuals or from one aspect of the society. For
example, it would be wrong to judge the history of Ummayad era by
studying the history of Yazid’s era. Or to judge the history of the
Abbassid era from some incidents of their Khulafa’a.
Likewise, we must not judge the society of the Abbassid era from
Kitab al-A’Ghani (songs) which was written to narrate the stories of
recklessly extravagant people, poets and authors and start thinking
that the entire society was in a state of extravagance, sin,
asceticism and isolation. Nor can we judge the Abbasid era from
reading the books of mystics and conclude that the society was one
asceticism.
Rather, we have to study the society comprehensively without any
generalisation. We have to acknowledge that the history of the
Islamic society as a society in any era was never written. What has
been written is the affairs of the rulers and some officials. Those
who wrote this history were not trustworthy, they were either
slanderers or adulators and none of them deserves any credibility.
When the Islamic society is studied on this basis, i.e. to study it
from all its sides comprehensively it can be found to be the best
society. Since, it was so for the first, second and third centuries,
in fact, right up to the middle of the twelfth century hijrah.
One finds that the society applied Islam throughout all its ages
right up to the end of the Ottoman State as an Islamic state.
Notwithstanding this, history should not be taken as the source for
studying the system and fiqh. Additionally, the system should be
taken from the sources of jurisprudence and not history, since
history is not its source. Accordingly, when one wishes to
understand the Communist system, one does not draw conclusions from
the history of Russia, but from the books of the Communist ideology
itself. Likewise, if one wishes to understand the books of English
jurisprudence one should not take one’s understanding from the
history of England, but rather from the books of English
jurisprudence. This applies to any system or canon. Islam is an
ideology with its own ‘aqeedah and system. Consequently, those who
wish to understand it must not use its history as a source, neither
for knowledge nor for deducing rules, i.e., ahkam.
The study of Islam is taken from the books of Islamic Fiqh, and the
source for deducing its laws is its from its Shari‘ah sources. Thus,
history is not the correct source of the Islamic system, neither for
its study nor as a Shari‘ah source. It is therefore incorrect to
take the history of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab or ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul-Aziz or
Haroun al-Rasheed, whether from the historical events ascribed to
them or from the books written during their respective periods, as a
source for the ahkam Shari‘ah. If an opinion of ‘Umar is followed in
a question, it is followed in its capacity as a hukm Shari‘i deduced
and applied by ‘Umar, as is the case with the hukm Shari‘i deduced
by Abu Hanifah, Shafi‘i, Ja‘far and others. It is not adopted as an
historical event. History, accordingly, has nothing to do with
adopting or knowing the system or with ascertaining whether or not
the system was applied. Fiqh, rather than history, is the means of
establishing whether the system was applied because every period has
its own problems which were tackled by a system or not because
history only narrates events. In order to ascertain the system used
to solve problems one must refer to the fiqh. When reference is made
to the Islamic Fiqh, one neither finds in it any system taken by the
Muslims from others, nor any system chosen by the Muslims from
themselves. Instead, one finds it completely comprising of ahkam
Shari‘ah deduced from the Shari‘ah evidences. Muslims were very
careful to stop any impurities from creeping into the jurisprudence
through deficient opinions, i.e., through deficient ijtihad. They
even prohibited others from enacting the deficient (daif) opinion
even if it was ascribed to a mujtahid mutlaq (absolute mujtahid).
As a result, there is not one legislative text other than the
Islamic Fiqh throughout the Islamic world. Only one body of
jurisprudence in a nation, without any other accompanying text,
signifies that the nation did not use any other text in its
legislation. If it were permitted to give attention to history, this
would be confined to examining the way of applying the system.
Sometimes, history contains political events from which the
application of the system can be seen. Even this should not be taken
except after a thorough research undertaken by Muslims.
History has three sources: History books, archaeological objects,
and narration. Historical books should not be considered as a source
because they are influenced by the political conditions of the time.
They are filled with lies, either supporting the rulers and other
people of their era or attacking those of the past. A recent example
of this is the history of the Allawide family in Egypt. Prior to
1952 it had a bright picture in history books, but after 1952 its
image was dark. The same applies to the history of other political
events now and in the past. For this reason, history books should
not be considered as a source for history, even if they were
biographies written by their people.
Archaeological objects (excavation, and antiquities) would provide
historical facts if studied honestly. Although they by themselves do
not provide a historical timeline, they however denote occurrence of
some events. If one observes the Islamic antiquities found in their
countries, be they buildings, instruments, or any other thing, one
can conclude that nothing was present in the Islamic world except
Islam, the system, and rules of Islam. Additionally, the Muslims way
of life and actions conducted were Islamic.
As for the third source narration, it is a correct source which can
be relied on if the narration was correct and the method followed in
collecting the narration was the same as the method followed in
collecting the ahadith.
This is the manner in which history should be recorded. The Muslims
followed this method of narration when they commenced writing. The
classical books of history, such as al-Tabari’s History, Ibn
Hisham’s Sirah, etc. were written according to this method. Muslims
should not teach their children from the books of history written
that use books of history as their source. An overview of the
application of the Islamic system should not be taken from those
books of history either. In conclusion, it is evident that Islam
alone was implemented and nothing else was applied throughout all
the periods.
However, since the end of the First World War which ended with the
Allies victory culminating with the announcement of Lord Allenby,
the commander of the campaign when occupying Jerusalem (al-Quds) in
which he stated: "Now the Crusades are over". The Kafir colonialists
have applied upon us the Capitalist system in all our daily life
matters, to perpetuate the victory they achieved over us. We must
therefore get rid of this rotten and corrupted system by which the
colonialists grasp our countries. We have to completely uproot it,
once and for all, so that we can resume the Islamic way of life.
It is a low superficial thinking to replace our system by any system
and it is a shallow thinking to consider that if the nation applied
the system without its ‘aqeedah it would save her. The Ummah must
embrace the ‘aqeedah first and then apply the system emanating from
the doctrine. The implementation of the system and embracing of the
doctrine will constitute its salvation. This applies to the Ummah
which is built upon this ideology and the state which is established
on this basis.
As for the other people and nations, it is not necessary that they
adopt the ideology as a prerequisite for applying the ideology upon
them. The nation which embraces the ideology and conveys it to
others can apply it on any people or nation, even if they do not
believe in it. Since, the ideology will result in the revival of
that nation or people and will attract them to believe in it. Thus
embracing the ideology is not a condition for those on which it is
applied it is rather an essential condition for those implementing
it.
It is dangerous to adopt nationalism in conjunction with Socialism.
Socialism cannot be separated from its materialist doctrine, because
it will not be productive or influential. Neither can Socialism be
adopted together with its doctrine, since it is a negative thought
which contradicts man’s nature. Furthermore, its adoption would mean
that the Islamic nation would have to abandon the Islamic ‘aqeedah.
We cannot adopt Socialism and simultaneously retain the spiritual
aspect of Islam. This would result in neither Islam nor Socialism
being adopted, by virtue of the fact that they contradict each other
and whatever was adopted would be incomplete. Similarly, we cannot
adopt the system of Islam devoid of its ‘aqeedah from which its
system emanates as this means the adoption of the system devoid of
spirit. Instead, we must adopt Islam wholly with its doctrine and
systems and convey its intellectual leadership when we carry the
da‘wah for it.
Accordingly, there is only one way to attain our revival which is
the resumption of the Islamic way of life and there is no way to
resume the Islamic way of life except through establishing the
Islamic State. This cannot be achieved unless we totally adopt Islam
both as an ‘aqeedah, which solves the greatest problem and upon
which man’s view point in life is determined and the system which
emanates from this doctrine.
The basis for this system is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His
Messenger. Its cultural treasures are the: fiqh, hadith, tafseer,
Arabic language and others. No method can achieve this except by
carrying the intellectual leadership for the Islamic da’wah and
completely implementing Islam in all fields. Once the intellectual
leadership has been transmitted to the nation as a whole and to the
Islamic State, we embark upon carrying the intellectual leadership
to the world. This is the only way to achieve the revival: to convey
the Islamic intellectual leadership to Muslims so as to resume the
Islamic way of life and to deliver it to all of mankind by means of
the Islamic State thereafter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright ©2000 - Adduonline.com, All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed.
This page was last updated on
08/22/2003.
| |
