-
Religiousness is an Instinct
This is chapter 5 from the book “Islamic Thought”
There is live energy in man that drives him to undertake actions and requires satisfaction. This life energy has two aspects: one of them requires inevitable satisfaction, and man would die if it were not satisfied. This represents the organic needs, such as eating, drinking and response to nature’s call. The second one requires satisfaction, but man does not die because of not satisfying it, though he would be worried until he satisfies it; and this is the instincts, whose
action would be through a natural feeling that outbursts requiring satisfaction. However, the instincts are different to the organic needs in terms of agitation. This is because the organic needs are agitated from inside while what agitates the instincts or shows the feeling of need for satisfaction is either thoughts about what incites the emotions come to mind, or it is a tangible reality that makes the emotions requiring satisfaction. The procreation instinct (ghareezal-un-naw’) for example, is agitated by thinking of a beautiful girl, or of anything related to sex or to seeing a beautiful girl or anything related to sex. If nothing of that happened, then nothing would occur to agitate the instinct. Similarly the religiousness instinct (ghareezat-ud-dayyun) is agitate by thinking in the verses (aayaat) of Allah (swt), the Doomsday or what is related to that, the contemplation in the perfect creation of Allah (swt) in the heavens and the earth or what is related to that. Thus, the effects of the instinct appear when there is something of that which agitates it. We do not see such effects in case of the absence of what agitates it, or in case of transferring what agitates it from agitation by misinterpreting it in a way that makes the person lose the concept of its original characteristic that incites the instinct.Religiousness instinct is natural and constant, for it is the feeling of need to the Creator and the Sustainer, regardless of the interpretation of that Creator and Sustainer. This feeling is innate in man as a man, whether he believes in the existence of the Creator or he disbelieves in Him, but believes in the matter or the nature. The presence of this feeling in man is inevitable, because it is created in a man as part of his creation; and it is not possible to be secluded nor detached from him. This is religiousness.
The manifestation of this religiousness is sanctification (taqdees) of what is believed to be the Creator and Sustainer or what is conceived that the Creator and Sustainer incarnated in it. Sanctification could appear in its true manifestation, so it is called worship (‘ibadah). It might also appear in a lower form, which is reverence and glorification.
Sanctification is the ultimate heartly respect. It does not result from fear, rather from religiousness. This is because the manifestation of fear is not sanctification, it is rather flattering, escape of defence; all of that contradict the reality of sanctification. Thus, sanctification is manifestation of religiousness and not of fear. Therefore, religiousness is an instinct independent of the survival instinct, which fear is one of its manifestations. That is why man is religious, and we find him worship something since Allah brought him on the face of earth. He worshipped the sun, planets, fire and idols. He also worshipped Allah . We do not see in any age, a nation or a people without worshipping something. Even the peoples, which the authority forced them to abandon religiousness, they were religious and worshipping something,
despite the force imposed upon them. They suffered great deal of harm in pursuit of performing their worship. There is no force that can strip religiousness from man, remove from him the sanctification of the Creator and prevent him from worship. It can rather suppress that for a time. This is because worship (‘ibadah) is a natural manifestation of religiousness, which is a natural instinct in man.As regards to what appears on some atheists in terms of absence of worship or mockery of worship, the religiousness instinct in such people has been turned away from worshipping Allah to worshipping the creatures. Its manifestation has been thus made in sanctification of the nature, heroic gigantic things and the like. To achieve this distraction, distortion and erroneous explanation of things have been used. Therefore, kufr (disbelief) is more difficult than eeman (belief), because it is distraction of man from his innate nature (fitrah) and transferring it from its true manifestations. This would require a great effort. How much it is hard for man to turn away from what is necessary to his innate nature (fitrah).
Therefore, we find the truth (haqq) is revealed to the atheists, and they sense the existence of Allah (swt) and thus realise His existence by mind in a decisive way, you find them rush to eeman and feel with comfort and tranquillity; and a heavy nightmare that used to burden them would disappear. The eeman of such people would be strong and steadfast, for it came through sensation and certainty. This is because their mind was linked with their emotion, so they realised the existence of Allah (sw) in certainty, and they had certain feeling of his existence. Thus their innate nature (fitrah) met with their mind, thus producing strong eeman.
-
Q&A: The Jewish Entity’s Aggression Against Iran and Its Repercussions
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمAnswer to Question
The Jewish Entity’s Aggression Against Iran and Its Repercussions
(Translated)Question:
Al Arabiya published on its website on 27/6/2025: “Four informed sources said that the administration of President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of helping Iran access up to $30 billion to build a nuclear program for civilian energy production. The sources added that these discussions continued this week after the ceasefire agreement was reached. Trump administration officials confirmed that several proposals had been put forward, both preliminary and advanced, with one fixed, non-negotiable clause: “total cessation of Iranian uranium enrichment.”
Trump had announced the implementation of the ceasefire he proposed between Iran and the Jewish Entity. (“Netanyahu said he had agreed to Trump’s proposal. Reuters also quoted a senior Iranian official saying that Tehran had agreed to the ceasefire, mediated by Qatar and based on an American proposal.” (Al Jazeera, 24/6/2025)
All of this happened after Trump’s forces struck Iranian nuclear facilities on 22/6/2025, and after the Jewish entity launched a surprise, large-scale aggression against Iran on 13/6/2025. The question is: Why did the Jewish entity carry out this surprise aggression, when it only carries it out upon America’s order? Also, is not that Iran orbits in America’s orbit? So why did America participate in striking Iranian nuclear facilities? Thank you.
Answer:
For a clear answer, we will review the following points:
1- Yes, the Iranian nuclear program is considered a grave threat to the Jewish entity, and therefore it wants to eliminate it by all means. For this reason, it hailed President Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 agreement in 2018. The Jewish entity’s position was clear: it only accepts the Libyan model and Iran’s dismantling of its nuclear program, i.e. Iran abandoning its nuclear program entirely. It intensified its spies inside Iran for this purpose. On its first day, the Jewish entity’s attack revealed an army of agents inside Iran who monitor and cooperate with the Jewish entity’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, for a small price. They import drone parts, assemble them in small workshops inside Iran, and launch them at targets, including the homes of Iranian regime leaders. This scenario is similar to what happened to Hezbollah in Lebanon when the Jewish entity assassinated its leaders!
2- America’s position was the primary supporter of the Jewish entity, and indeed the driving force behind them against the Iranian nuclear project. However, Trump has put on the table to achieve this: a negotiated solution and a military solution. Thus, in April 2025, America and Iran headed to Muscat, Oman, for negotiations. The Trump administration praised them for the depth of the concessions made in the nuclear negotiations, as if a new nuclear agreement was just around the corner. Trump had set a two-month deadline to complete this agreement. Officials of the Jewish entity met with the American envoy to the region and the first negotiator for Iran, Witkoff, almost once before every meeting with the Iranian delegation, so that the American negotiator could brief them on what was happening in the negotiations.
3- The Trump administration has adopted the hardline views of some of its leaders, a view that is in line with the Jewish entity. This coincided with the emergence of hardline views in Europe as well. European countries were irritated that the US was negotiating with Iran alone, meaning that America would receive the lion’s share of any agreement with Iran, especially since Iran was tempting the Trump administration with talk of hundreds of billions of dollars that American companies could invest and benefit from inside Iran, such as oil and gas contracts, airline companies, and much more. These hardline views culminated in the emergence of a hardline report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced today, Thursday, June 12, 2025, that Iran had violated its obligations in the field of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons:“The UN nuclear watchdog IAEA has condemned Iran for being in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost two decades, diplomatic sources have said,” (Deutsche Welle, 12/6/2025). The Iranian Supreme Leader had previously refused to halt enrichment: (Khamenei said: “Since negotiations have come up, I want to give a warning to the opposing side. The American side that engages in these indirect talks and have discussions, should try not to spout nonsense…Saying things like ‘we won’t allow Iran to enrich uranium’ is way out of line. No one is waiting for anyone’s permission. The Islamic Republic has its own policy, its own approach, and it will continue to pursue it.” Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, said on Sunday that Washington would not accept any level of uranium enrichment in a potential deal with Tehran. “We cannot allow even 1 percent of an enrichment capability,” Steven Witkoff told ABC News. “Everything begins from our standpoint with a deal that does not include enrichment…” (Iran International, 20/5/2025).
4- With Iran’s refusal to stop enrichment and America’s insistence on stopping it, the US-Iranian negotiations reached a dead end, even if the negotiations were not declared over. However, with the issuance of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report on 12/6/2025, the Jewish entity accelerated a plan hatched at night with America and launched a surprise attack on 13/6/2025, during which it struck the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz, the largest Iranian uranium enrichment plant with 14,000 centrifuges. It also carried out a series of assassinations of Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard leaders, as well as nuclear scientists, and attacked missile launch pads. Regardless of the Jewish entity’s justification for its attack, which is that Iran has resumed nuclear weapons research and development, according to Netanyahu (RT, 14/6/2025). All of this is refuted by the many Iranian statements, that Iran does not plan to produce any nuclear weapons, and that it accepts any level of international monitoring to ensure the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. But it is also certain that the Jewish entity was waiting for the American green light to implement it, and when the entity saw that this window had been opened with the green light, it began the attack.
5- Thus, no sane person can imagine that the Jewish entity would carry out such an attack without a green light from America. This is absolutely impossible. (US Ambassador to ‘Israel’, Mike Huckabee, said on Thursday, “Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without a green light from Washington.” (Arab48, 12/6/2025). And after a 40-minute phone call between Trump and Netanyahu, “An Israeli official revealed to The Times of Israel on Friday that Tel Aviv and Washington had carried out “a multi-faceted misinformation campaign” with the active participation of Donald Trump, with the aim of convincing Iran that an attack on its nuclear facilities was not imminent. He explained that the ‘Israeli’ media at that time had received leaks claiming that Trump had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran, describing those leaks as “part of the deception operation.” (Al Jazeera Net, 13/6/2025). In addition to all this, America supplied the Jewish entity with special weapons prior to the attack, which were used in the attack: (“Media reports revealed that the United States covertly shipped approximately 300 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to Israel last Tuesday, according to US officials. According to the Jerusalem Post, “two US officials confirming that Washington had advance knowledge of Jerusalem’s plan to strike Iranian nuclear and military targets early Friday. The same officials said US ground-based air-defence assets later helped Israel intercept more than 150 Iranian ballistic missiles fired in response. A senior US defense official was quoted as saying that the Hellfire missiles “were useful to Israel,” noting that the IAF (Israeli Air Force) used more than 100 aircraft to hit senior Revolutionary Guard officers, nuclear scientists and control centres around Isfahan and Tehran.” (Jerusalem Post; RT, 14/6/2025).
6- Thus, the Trump administration misled Iran – while negotiating with it- to make the attack by the Jewish entity effective and impactful by shock and intimidation. American statements indicate this, that America wanted the attack by the Jewish entity to be an incentive for Iran to make concessions in the nuclear negotiations. This means that the attack was a tool of American negotiation. This is coupled with the American public defense of the attack by the Jewish entity and that it was self-defense, and the supply of weapons to the entity and the operation of American aircraft and air defenses to repel the Iranian response. All of this amounts to a semi-direct American attack. Among these American statements is Trump’s statement, during his statements to reporters on Sunday, while heading to the G7 summit in Canada, that, “Sometimes they have to fight it out.” “In an interview with ABC, Trump indicated the possibility of the United States intervening to support ‘Israel’ in eliminating the Iranian nuclear program.” (Arab48, 16/6/2025).
7- America is using war as a tool to subjugate Iran, as in Trump’s previous statement that“Sometimes they have to fight it out, but we’re going to see.” This is confirmed by Trump’s description of this attack, saying, “The Israeli attack on Iran was excellent.” He said, “We gave them a chance and they didn’t take it. They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you’re going to get hit. And there’s more to come, a lot more.” (ABC, 13/6/2025). Trump said, “The Iranians want to negotiate, but they should have done so before. I had 60 days, they had 60 days, and on the 61st day, I said, ‘We don’t have a deal.’” (CNN, 16/6/2025). These statements clearly indicate that America is the one that allowed the Jewish entity to launch this aggression, and even instructed it to do so. Trump wrote on the Truth Social platform: “Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign… Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again!” (RT, 16/6/2025). A Jewish entity official clarified regarding America’s participation in the bombing of the underground, fortified Fordow site in Iran: “The United States may join the military operation against Iran, noting that Trump indicated during a conversation with ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he would do so if necessary.” (Al Arabiya,15/6/2025).
8- And this is what actually happened. Early Sunday morning, 22/6/2025, Trump announced “the targeting of three Iranian nuclear facilities, confirming the success of the American strike. Trump pointed to the targeting of the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites, calling on Iran to make peace and end the war. For his part, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the American strike had “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” (BBC, 22/6/2025). Then, CNN revealed on Monday evening that Iran had attacked the US Al-Udeid base in Qatar with short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, indicating that US military aircraft stationed at the air base had been moved at the end of last week. Reuters also reported: “Iran gave advance notice to the U.S. via diplomatic channels hours ahead of the attack, as well as to Qatari authorities.” (Sky News Arabia, 23/6/2025). On Monday, Trump said, “I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice…which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.” (Sky News, 24/6/2025).
9- Then, after these attacks by America and the Jewish entity and the Iranian responses, where the material losses were massive in addition to the human losses: “An Iranian Health Ministry spokesman said that the Israeli strikes resulted in the martyrdom of 610 people and the injury of 4,746 others since the beginning of the conflict… According to the Israeli Health Ministry…The death toll since June 13th has risen to 28 people…” (BBC News, 25/6/2025), after these attacks, Trump, just as he started them by pushing the Jewish entity to attack Iran and participated in it, is now announcing a ceasefire, so that the Jews and Iran agree, as if Trump is the one managing the war between the two parties and also the one stopping it! “Trump announced the implementation of the ceasefire he proposed between Iran and the Jewish entity.” “Netanyahu said that he agreed to Trump’s proposal. Reuters also quoted a senior Iranian official as saying that Tehran agreed to the ceasefire with Qatari mediation and an American proposal.” (Al Jazeera, 24/6/2025). This means that this war that Trump started and then stopped was to achieve his goal of eliminating the effectiveness of Iran’s nuclear and missile weapons (in a statement to reporters before leaving to attend the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump said, “The nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed!” and it will never rebuild its nuclear program.” He continued, “Israel will not attack Iran… and the ceasefire is in effect.” (Al Jazeera, 24/6/2025).
10- As for Iran revolving in America’s orbit, yes, Iran is a state revolving in America’s orbit, seeking to achieve its interests by achieving America’s interests. Thus, it helped America occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and consolidate its occupation there. It also intervened in Syria to protect America’s agent, Bashar al-Assad, and did the same in Yemen and Lebanon. By doing so, it seeks to achieve its interests in these countries and become a major regional power in the region, even if it revolves in America’s orbit! However, they forgot that when America sees that its interests have ended in the orbiting state and wants to reduce its role and power, it pressures it diplomatically, and if necessary, militarily, as is happening with Iran in the recent attacks, in order to control the rhythm of the orbiting state. Therefore, through this attack, which was ordered and executed by the Jewish entity and with its support, it is eliminating the military leadership, especially the nuclear division and the advisors who have recently tried to have a say in dealing with the Jewish entity against America’s wishes. It does not care about these countries because it realizes that these countries will ultimately accept the solution crafted by America!
11- This is what began to appear publicly in the American plan after the ceasefire, which is to end Iran’s military nuclear weapons: (Four informed sources said that the administration of President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of helping Iran access up to $30 billion to build a nuclear program for producing energy for civilian purposes, easing sanctions and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds, all of which is part of an intensive attempt to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table, according to the American CNN network. The sources reported that key players from the United States and the Middle East held talks with the Iranians behind the scenes, even in the midst of a wave of military strikes on Iran and Israel during the past two weeks. The sources added. These discussions continued this week after the ceasefire agreement was reached. Trump administration officials confirmed that several proposals had been put forward, both preliminary and advanced, with one fixed, non-negotiable item: “a complete halt to Iranian uranium enrichment.” (Al Arabiya, 27/6/2025)
12- Finally, the calamity of this Ummah lies in its rulers. Iran was threatened with an attack, but it did not initiate an attack in self-defense, although an attack is the best means of defense against the Jews. Rather, it remained silent until its facilities were struck and its scientists killed, and then it began to respond. The same applies to the American attack. Then Trump announced a ceasefire, and the Jews and Iran agreed. After that, America held discussions and made proposals, and said that “a complete halt to Iranian uranium enrichment” is fixed and non-negotiable! We warn that this war could lead to any form of a “peace deal” with the Jewish entity, or the disarmament of Iran. As for the other rulers in the Muslim countries, especially those around the Jewish entity, enemy planes fly over their heads, bomb Muslim countries, and then return reassured without a single shot being fired at them!! They are at America’s disposal… they justify sitting idle, they sanctify borders, and they forgot or pretended to forget that the lands of Muslims are one, whether they are in the farthest reaches of the earth or the nearest! And that the peace of the believers is one, and their war is one, it is not right for their sects to divide them as long as they are Muslims… These rulers are doomed, for they think that by this subservience to America they will be saved, and they do not realize that America will isolate them and disarm them, if they pose a threat to the Jewish entity, as it did in Syria when it allowed the Jewish entity to destroy its military installations, and is doing the same in Iran. These rulers will inherit humiliation in this world and the Hereafter:
[سَيُصِيبُ الَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا صَغَارٌ عِنْدَ اللهِ وَعَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَمْكُرُونَ]
“The wicked will soon be overwhelmed by humiliation from Allah and a severe punishment for their evil plots” [Al-An’am: 124]. Will they comprehend? Or are they:
[صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ]
“…deaf, dumb and blind so they have no understanding.” [Al-Baqara: 171].
O Muslims: You see and hear what your rulers have brought to you of humiliation, disgrace, and subservience to the kafir (disbelieving) colonizers, even the Jews who have been humiliated and are destitute occupy the Blessed Land! You undoubtedly know that you will have no glory except through Islam and the Islamic state, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), in which a Rightly-Guided Caliph leads you, behind whom you fight and by whom you are protected, and it will happen, Allah willing, at the hands of the sincere believers, and his (saw) words will come true:
«لَتُقَاتِلُنَّ الْيَهُودَ فَلَتَقْتُلُنَّهُمْ…»
“You will fight the Jews and will kill them” Then the earth will shine with the victory of Allah Al Qawi, Al Aziz, Al Hakeem (The Strong, The Mighty, The Wise).
In conclusion, Hizb ut Tahrir, the pioneer that does not lie to its people, calls upon you to support it and work with it to restore the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate) once again, so that Islam and its followers will be honoured; and kufr (disbelief) and its followers will be humiliated, and that will be the great victory.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]
“And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5]
3 Muharram 1447 AH
28/6/2025 CE -
Essentials of Political Understanding and Policymaking – Part 1
The following is a translated article from Arabic that appeared in al-Waie Magazine
Politics means taking care of affairs, and therefore every person is a politician, as every person takes care of their own affairs or the affairs of those under their care. However, the mind does not turn to this reality when the word “politician” is used. This is because a person who takes care of his own affairs only has no influence beyond his own affairs, and his thoughts do not extend beyond his needs. Rather, when the word “politician” is used, the mind turns to those who take care of the affairs of their nation, state, or more. These politicians’ influence extends to their nation, state, or more.
Politics has been described as the art of the possible. This description is true in one respect and false in another. If the meaning of the possible is considered the opposite of the impossible or the necessary, then this description is correct, as the politician does not deal with the impossible. However, if the description means that the politician deals with reality and starts from the possible as reality, i.e., that he is realistic, then this description is false. In fact, this type of politician is dangerous to their nations if they take over their leadership. Their policies draw from reality, and their view does not go beyond the existing reality. If the reality existing in these nations is created by their enemies, then they will not be able to escape the cage in which their enemies confined them. If this reality is created by them, then they will not be able to advance it or preserve its goodness, but will rather go back on their heels. The politicians who elevated their nations crossed the threshold of the reality in which their nations live. They drew a reality that their nations would advance, made it a goal, and formulated policies that led them to it. God has drawn for us an image of that politician who looks after the affairs of his nation and does not remain in the protection of corrupt reality. He is the bearer of the call, so He (swt) said:
And is one who was dead and We gave him life and made for him light by which to walk among the people like one who is in darkness, never to emerge therefrom? Thus it has been made pleasing to the disbelievers that which they were doing [Al-An’aam: 122]
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was the best example of this. When he was sent, he was sent to a people who had competed against each other in terms of their worldly power and weath and shed each other’s blood, but they were humiliated before the Persians and the Romans. The Messenger of Allah called them to emerge from the reality of humiliation and degradation to a reality in which they would sit on the throne of the world. An example of this is what happened when the leaders of Quraysh came to Abu Talib complaining to him about the Prophet of Allah. He asked him, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to him: “Uncle, I want them to agree on one word, the Arabs will submit to them, and the non-Arabs will pay them the jizyah.” [Musnad Ahmad, 2008] The politician who seeks to look after the affairs of his nation and state, and more than that, must be able to formulate policies in order to move from the crucible of theoretical understanding to practical influence. In order to be able to formulate policies, he must have a political understanding of events and a political understanding of international relations. He must have a special vision through which he looks at the world, and build policies on that basis.
Political understanding is as essential to those striving for renaissance as air is to humans. Those striving for renaissance in the Islamic nation must consider themselves in terms of what will come. They seek to establish a state for their nation that upholds a principle, striving to become a major power, then to sit on the throne of the world, becoming the foremost state in the world. The kingdom of this nation will then attain the extent of what God has entrusted to His Messenger on this earth.
For this to happen, a Muslim must strive to find the means to achieve it. These means must be coupled with his commitment to the legitimate path leading to the establishment of his state, and with his dedication to preparing himself and his community so that the state he establishes will be capable of competing with the great powers of this world, and then closing the gap like a page in history. This can only be achieved if the political understanding of the person working for renaissance is built on sound foundations, producing true results. Otherwise, the outcome will be an illusion and a fantasy that prevents him from emerging from the corner of his home and assuming leadership of the world.
The individual’s transition from working for renaissance to leading and ruling the world with Islam requires good policy formulation. This can only be achieved through sound political understanding, good goal selection, good action leading to these goals, and good linking of action to these goals, connecting cause to effect. Therefore, it has become imperative to establish important foundations that open horizons for anyone who finds within themselves the ability to pursue this field. Understanding the necessary foundations for political understanding alone is not sufficient for mastering this field, as observation and practice are essential to achieving mastery. Learning does not happen overnight, but requires training, patience, determination, and willpower. Learning after the need for it is more likely to entrench knowledge in the mind and make it firmly rooted in the heart. It turns the learner into a worker and learner, unlike learning without purpose or need, which is like someone who spins and unwinds what he has spun, or plants but does not benefit from what he has sown until his crops turn yellow and are destroyed by pests.
These articles shed light on the reality of political understanding and analysis, the reality of political awareness and policymaking, and the political information required. Readers must realize that they will not become politicians simply by reading them. Rather, they will become politicians only if they learn from them what benefits them and engage in follow-up, understanding, awareness, and influence.
I place this work at the disposal of the Islamic Ummah, the best nation brought forth for mankind. I dedicate it specifically to the bearers of the call who are diligently striving for renaissance, especially the young people who are seeking the path of correct political understanding. I discourage anyone who reads these articles from using them to become merely a political analyst, as this will have no impact in this life, and those who ask about them do so only out of curiosity. Rather, I ask everyone who reads them to use them as a means to raise the level of thinking within the nation and to use them as a tool of guidance, through which they can understand the political reality correctly, view it from the perspective of Islamic doctrine, and manage the affairs of the people. Allah is the guide to the right path.
Political Analysis
Political analysis is essential for anyone who wants to understand and deal with political reality, and it is essential for policymakers. Therefore, political analysis is extremely important for the group working to advance the nation’s progress and for the state. Sound political analysis protects the group, the state, and the nation from the risks surrounding them and enables them to adopt policies that ward off harm, mitigate the deceit of their enemies, or help them achieve their goals.
Political analysis is the production of political opinions on emerging political events. It is based on political information and connections. Political analysis is achieved through an understanding of political reality, not simply by giving the mind free rein to draw every possible picture related to a piece of news or event. If this is given free rein, it shifts from the framework of political analysis to one of imagination, speculation, and logical investigation. This pattern does not lead to truthful results. Conversely, if understanding is linked to correct political concepts, it leads to truthful results. This is because politics is the actions of politicians, and it is built on the visions and orientations of their countries, and the natures that they have been imprinted with throughout their history. Accordingly, understanding the reality of politicians, the nature of the visions and orientations that their countries hold, the natures they hold, and the nature of the current event, and linking them correctly based on correct political concepts, is an understanding, not speculation or imagination, but rather drawing a complete picture by assembling its small component parts within a clear framework. Accordingly, if some of the small parts are missing, their nature can be explored by looking at the adjacent parts of the picture, thus drawing the complete picture in the mind. This is political analysis.
Political analysis requires three elements: political information, constant knowledge of political news, and careful selection of political news. Hizb ut-Tahrir discussed this topic in detail in a bulletin dated March 27, 1974, entitled “Politics and International Politics.” It stated that political information “is historical information, especially historical facts, information about events, actions, and individuals related to them from a political perspective, and information about political relationships, whether between individuals, states, or ideas. This information is what reveals the meaning of political thought, whether it be news, action, a principle of belief, or a ruling. Without this information, a person cannot understand political thought, no matter how intelligent or brilliant they are, because the issue is one of understanding, not reason. As for knowledge of current news, especially political news, this is because it is information and news of current events, and because it is the subject of understanding and research, it is therefore essential to know it. Since life events inevitably change, renew, differ, and contradict each other, it is essential to constantly follow them in order to remain aware of them. That is, so that he remains standing at the train station that the train is actually passing through, and does not remain standing at a station that the train is not passing through now, but rather one that was passing through an hour ago and then changed, and it is now passing through a different station. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly follow the news in a necessary and consecutive manner so that he does not miss a piece of news, whether it is important or trivial. Rather, he must endure the trouble of searching in a haystack for a grain of wheat, and he may not find it.
Because he doesn’t know when important news will arrive and when it won’t, he must continue to follow all the news, whether it concerns him or not. These are interconnected links; if a link is lost, the chain is broken, making it difficult to understand the situation. He may even misunderstand the situation and link reality to a piece of news or an idea that has ended and is no longer valid. Therefore, it is necessary to follow news sequentially in order to understand politics.
As for selecting news, this is achieved by taking it, not simply by hearing it. He only takes in important news. If he hears that the French Prime Minister has traveled to London, he listens to it and takes it in. But if he hears that the German Chancellor has traveled to Berlin, or gone to Washington, or met with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he listens to it but does not take it in. He must distinguish between what he takes in and what he does not take in, even if he hears all the news. This is because taking in news that is beneficial to him, and not other news, even if it may constitute information. This is the pursuit of taking in, not merely hearing it. End quote.
News is obtained from reputable newspapers and respectable channels, as these newspapers and channels are keen to be trusted by the people, and especially by politicians. When obtaining their news and writing their articles, they are keen to communicate with those in charge of the events and those directly involved in them, and obtain information from reliable sources. However, it is not right to take the news as truthful, as the politicians in charge of events often intend to mislead in order to support their positions, conceal their objectives, or miss an opportunity for their enemies. Therefore, it remains incumbent upon the observer to trace the words and actions, and the occasions in which they were said, to identify the speaker and the doer, and link them to their preconceived notions. This will imprint on the mind the reality of the news, whether it is true or misleading.
News is also obtained from the mouths of politicians themselves, including leaders, foreign ministers, spokespersons for their countries, and those working in the field of national security. The observer must be concerned with tracking the realities of these individuals, or those sent by their countries to carry out relevant political, military, or intelligence missions. It is essential to know their biographies so as not to miss any element that constitutes the complete picture.
Although political analysis is important, it is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. Therefore, those working for the renaissance and those working within the state must use and familiarize themselves with political analysis, given its usefulness in their work. Every worker working for the renaissance of his nation must view his bloc as the leader of the change that will be global, and his nation as the one whose kingdom will achieve what God has concealed for His Messenger on earth, and his state as the state that will be the first in the world, and then the only one in the world.
To be continued…..
-
The rules of the method are controls for the path, while the means and methods are the basis of the path plans
The following is a translated article from Arabic that appeared in al-Waie Magazine.
Islam legislated the rules of the tariqa, not for its own sake, but to implement the rules of the idea. It ordered that the tariqa’s objectives be considered when implementing it, for it has no value without consideration of its objectives and consideration for their realization. Let us take as an example the rules of jihad and fighting, which are among the most prominent rules of the tariqa.
The rulings on jihad and fighting, the types of fighting, jihad by fighting, jihad by words, jihad with wealth, jihad of seeking, jihad of defense, when fighting is an individual obligation, when it is a collective obligation, and when it is recommended, the rulings on truces, peace, and prisoners, the rulings on treaties, those with treaties, those who have been granted protection, and those envoyed, the sanctity of killing children, women, and the elderly, the sanctity of demolishing temples and monasteries, the rulings on spoils of war and spoils of war, the prohibitions and permissible aspects of fighting, the types of permissible and prohibited weapons, the rulings on flags and banners—all of these and other rulings on jihad and fighting must be learned by rulers and mujahidin, from the emir of jihad to the most junior fighter, and they must master, adhere to, and implement them. But: Are they alone sufficient to achieve military objectives? Are they sufficient to achieve victory over the enemy? Do they replace the arts of war, fighting, and preparing equipment at the highest possible level? Do they replace trickery, cunning, and creativity in methods? Does it make keeping up with the latest military schools and combat theories unnecessary? Does it make modernizing weapons factories of all kinds unnecessary? Does it make it unnecessary to benefit from the expertise of experts, or even to purchase their expertise, even if they are from different religions and ethnicities?
The answer is clear: No, it definitely does not sing.
Also, when selecting military leaders, should they be the most pious and zealous? Or should they be the most competent and skilled in the sciences of war and the arts of combat, while ensuring they are pious and sincere?
The answer, based on the biography of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the biography of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the distinguished, successful rulers, is that the first thing to be taken into consideration when selecting military leaders is their capabilities, competence, and combat experience, provided that they are pious and sincere, not necessarily the most pious of the pious.
Whoever is deceived that being educated in the rules of the method, piety, and enthusiasm alone, without the means of strength, sufficiency, skill, and the arts of combat, is sufficient to achieve victory, then he has led his nation to the sources of destruction.
This is neither theoretical nor genius talk. It is what is indicated by the words of Allah the Most High: {And spend in the cause of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.} And He, the Most High, said: {And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy . }
Just as is the case with fighting and the rules and methods related to it, so is the case with carrying the call and its method and means.
If you are well-versed in the rules and evidence of the method, memorize them by heart, adhere to them, and do not deviate from them, then you have feared God Almighty in your conduct. However, complete piety comes from taking on more than adhering to the method, which is mastering and perfecting your work and being creative in achieving its objectives. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “God loves it when one of you does a job that he does it well . ”
It’s a genius of style.
The rules of the Tariqa, no matter how well you understand, comprehend, or master the inferences you draw from them, will not alone chart your course. They will not tell you when you wake up in the morning how to begin your da’wah day and venture into society to achieve the goals of your da’wah. They will not tell you how to overcome obstacles and barriers, how to infiltrate minds and souls, how to thwart conspiracies against your da’wah and your ummah, how to deliver a lecture, how to write a newsletter or article well, how to organize a successful conference, how to master the use of electronic communication tools, how to break the media blackout, how to excel in an intellectual or political debate, when to engage with the media and when to turn away, and how to prevent journalists or media professionals from distorting your words. The Tariqa will not tell you when the media is an opportunity and when it is a trap. The rules of the Tariqa will not tell you how to select the right person for the right task, nor how to lead a demonstration. It will not tell you about the difference between the methods of attracting segments of society, including educated people, students, the public, politicians, scholars, and merchants, nor about the levels, types, and forms of this attraction.
The rules of the tariqa were not legislated for their own sake, but rather for something else, to achieve specific goals. If the rules of the tariqa are implemented for their own sake, without regard for achieving their goals—or worse, if they are implemented with the understanding that they will achieve nothing—then their implementation is completely worthless and, indeed, extremely dangerous and harmful. Such implementation of the rules of the tariqa is like a military commander who throws his fighters into battle simply to fight, without setting any goals for this fight, thus destroying lives and destroying crops and livestock without achieving any real goal.
Carrying the call to resume Islamic life by establishing an Islamic state is one of the most difficult battles a group of people can fight. Indeed, it is the most difficult, arduous, and dangerous of all, especially in this era, when this mission is confronted by the world’s most powerful empires, the most cunning and deceitful from ancient history to the present day. These empires do not confront you with repression and brutality alone, with the response being mere steadfastness, determination, and perseverance. Rather, beyond brutality and repression, they wield cunning against Islam, employing cunning, satanic methods unparalleled in history. They have harnessed research centers and media outlets, and employed so-called social psychology, management sciences, media arts, and the production of documentaries and even entertainment films. They have mastered the manipulation of minds, innovated methods, diversified terminology, and infiltrated the nature of peoples and societies to deceive, manipulate, and lure them into their plots and schemes.
It is certain that the bearers of the call will not possess the material capabilities of their opponents before they come to power, nor will they have the same massive media machine they have. However, it is also certain that they can, without a doubt, use alternative media intelligently, acquire the sciences and arts of party and association management, study the new arts of radio oratory, and practice the production of documentaries and short clips, even if they learn them from their enemies, in their universities and institutes, just as the Companions learned to read and write from some of the polytheists of Quraysh, just as they learned to manufacture weapons from others, just as they adopted the method of the trench from the Persians, and just as Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted administrative methods (diwans) from the Romans and Persians.
The methods of addressing public opinion to shape and influence it are, in this era, a science taught in universities and institutes, and cannot be separated from the Sharia method, just as the economic system (economic legislation) cannot replace “economics,” and just as the system of government, which is one of the rulings of Sharia, cannot replace the science of administration and the arts of politics. If you delve into this science, it will tell you that there are methods for addressing society as a whole, methods for addressing its politicians, methods for addressing the younger generation, methods for addressing the military, methods for addressing minorities, and that these methods may require multiple – even if only formally – entities or frameworks that address each of them. Thus, a block is allocated for students that takes into account their abilities and choices so that they can integrate into it until they pass the stage of study and parental guardianship. For intellectuals, there are committees that organize their contributions and harness their energies. For merchants, there is a body that attracts and alerts them. For popular energies, there are leaderships that mobilize them… Thus, the forces of change are distributed between committed partisans, organized “framed” supporters, and responsive popular people…
In short, after understanding and adhering to the method, nothing will move you forward except creativity in methods, intelligence in them, and keeping up with its arts, “sciences,” and developments.
The method is the closest thing to controls for the call and its protection from deviation and error. It is the broad outline of the path. It is easy to adhere to it and not deviate from it, as long as there is sincerity to God Almighty and the determination to be upright and not deviate. As for the intelligent methods, their arts and “sciences,” they are the roadmap for the renewed journey. They represent the greatest challenge, and at their threshold lies failure or success. If deviating from the method is fatal deviation, then refraining from adopting effective methods and means and from keeping up with their arts and sciences is failure itself, and its result may be stopping at the beginning of the path or in the middle.
We must not forget, first and last, that above all of this, before, during, and after it, there is fear of God Almighty, sincerity of intention towards Him, and provisioning oneself for this noble task with spiritual energy, for there is no steadfastness, persistence, or progress in the midst of this savage, criminal world without the help and guidance of God Almighty.
-
Political Statements and Political Analysis
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Political Statements and Political Analysis
(Translated)The news necessary for analysis in general is the foundation of political thinking. In fact, it is the daily bread of politicians. Without it, politics cannot be understood, political analysis cannot exist, events cannot be discerned, and their purposes remain unknown.
The Islamic Ummah has long suffered from misinformation in political statements. This is so much so that it has lost vast regions due to the misinterpretation of such statements. The Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate), for instance, lost the Balkans not because of military weakness, but due to malicious and misleading political statements. Britain and its European allies manufactured the Balkan crisis out of nothing, solely through statements. They deceived the Ottomans into believing that sweeping popular uprisings were taking place in the Balkan states, demanding independence and secession. This is even though these claims had no real basis on the ground. There were neither uprisings, nor even demands for independence and secession. Yet the repeated dissemination of these statements convinced the Ottomans that powerful separatist movements were indeed active in the region. The state swallowed the bait and began to act accordingly, which led to its exhaustion and overextension. Eventually, nationalist movements did in fact spread and fill the region, even reaching the very heart of the state. This ultimately led to the complete secession of the Balkans and later, to the fall of the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate) itself.
To begin with, and in order to understand the importance of political statements in political analysis, it is essential to know the five key components of political analysis:
1- A political analyst must first follow-up on the events and incidents occurring in all countries around the world, gather news about them, and sort them based on importance and relevance, distinguishing between what is coincidental and what is intentional. With continued monitoring, experience, and the passage of time, this follow-up becomes expert. The analyst then develops the ability to select what is most important, and what is deliberate and significant.
2- The analyst needs prior foundational knowledge about the nature of events, incidents, places, people, and statements such as geographical, historical, political, and ideological information, in order to accurately grasp and deeply understand those events, incidents, and news reports.
3- As the analyst seeks to issue political judgments, it is essential that they adhere to two inseparable, and interconnected, principles:
a) Not isolating events from their circumstances, contextualization, and related factors, because separating events from what surrounds, and relates to, them strips them of their value, and detaches them from reality.
b) Avoiding generalization and sweeping comparisons, because generalization and analogical reasoning have no place in politics. In fact, they are a plague upon politicians, and among the most significant indicators of failure in political analysis.
4- Scrutinizing news and events involves, first, verifying their authenticity through reliable sources; second, linking them to the time they occurred; third, examining them within the context of the situation in which they took place; fourth, understanding the intended purpose behind their timing; and fifth, observing the immediate reactions to them, from all relevant and active parties.
5- Connecting the event, or news, to previously available information about it. Then linking the event to relevant analytical frameworks applicable to it and similar news. Finally issuing a judgment that is believed to be the closest to accuracy, and most consistent with reality.
The failure to adhere to these components in political analysis, and the improper handling of the massive volume of statements and news flooding today’s media and online social networks, along with the malicious methods used to shape and direct them, inevitably leads to a dangerous informational and political maze. This maze confuses minds, misleads intellects, diverts understanding from clarity, and steers thought away from sound judgment. The logical consequence is the occurrence of deadly political mistakes that mislead analysts in reaching accurate conclusions, causing them to fall into the traps of international intelligence agencies. This, in turn, has a devastating negative impact on the Ummah and on those striving for its revival.
Therefore, it is essential to adhere to these components most importantly, to closely monitor the flood of information related to events, to exercise caution when dealing with political statements issued by politicians in major and influential countries, and to make an effort to understand the intent behind these statements, before beginning to analyze them and before linking them to the established political frameworks known to us.
For example, American politicians issued statements suggesting that war with Iran was imminent. These were accompanied by the deployment of US aircraft carriers to the Middle East, along with shipments of multi-purpose missiles and weapons. At the same time, attention was drawn to the American-British base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, emphasizing that it is beyond the reach of Iranian missiles, and that it would play a major role in the upcoming war. These reports and events created an atmosphere of war and gave the impression that it was near. Then, suddenly, contradictory news emerged about direct negotiations taking place in Oman between American envoys to the Middle East, and Iranian officials. It was announced that the first round of talks had concluded with positive impressions, as if all the war-related information had merely been a natural prelude to launching a long series of negotiations between the two countries.
Likewise, information continues to pour in about the ongoing war by the Jews against the Gaza Strip, portraying that the people of Gaza have no options but displacement or death, and insisting on the need to surrender the weapons of the resistance and for its leaders to leave. Then, news emerges about the near success of negotiations sponsored by the United States. The same America that calls for turning Gaza into real estate projects now claims it will guarantee Hamas that the Jewish entity will commit to moving on to the second phase of negotiations, supposedly including an end to the war and a withdrawal from Gaza.
If political analysts had taken the politicians statements at face value the first time and built their analyses upon them, their conclusions would have been entirely contrary to reality. They would have fallen victim to deception in dealing with those waves of contradictory statements.
Therefore, before beginning any analysis, it is essential to wait patiently and carefully when receiving political statements. Only afterward should one move on to scrutiny, contextualized linkage, avoiding isolation of events, and refraining from generalizations.
-
Media is a Pillar from the States’ Pillars
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمMedia is a Pillar from the States’ Pillars
(Translated)Media has always had a clear impact on shaping public awareness, and directing it in a way that pleases the state. It has been instrumental in forming public opinion around particular issues, or thoughts either to highlight or oppose them. In Jahiliyyah Arab society, poetry served as a powerful and prestigious form of media. Leading poets held high social standing, due to their influence, and were sought after by some, and feared by others. As an example, a poet said,
كم خامل سما به إلى العلا، بيت مديح من بليغ ذلق “How many an indolent person has been elevated to the heights, by a house of praise from an eloquent and fluent poet.”
مثل بني الأنف ومثل هرم، وكالذي يعرف بالمحلق “Like the sons of Al-Anf and the pyramid, and the one known as Al-Muhallaq.”
وكم وكم حط الهجا من ماجد، ذي رتبة قعساً وقدرٍ سمق “And how many a noble person of high rank, and lofty stature has satire struck down.”
مثل الرَّبيع وبني العجلان، مع بني نمير جَمَرَات الحَدَق “Such as Al-Rabi’ and the sons of Al-Ajlan, with the sons of Namir, are but embers in the gaze.”
This poetic excerpt illustrates how eloquent praise can elevate someone of low status to great heights, like the examples of Banu Al-Anf and Al-Muhallaq, and how harsh satire can disgrace the noble, such as Al-Rabi’ and Banu Al-Ajlan. It reflects the immense influence of poetry in Arab culture, capable of both raising and ruining reputations.
The Arabs greatly revered tribal affiliation, and few among them would not take pride in their lineage, unless a shame or disgrace was associated with it, such as occurred with Banu al-Anf al-Naqa. However, even they were elevated in status, when praised by a poet, and thus rose in esteem.
قوم هم الأنف والأذناب غيرهم، ومن يسوي بأنف الناقة الذنبَ “They are Al-Anf, the nose, while others are merely tails, and who can compare the nose of a she-camel to its tail?”
This verse praises a once-ridiculed tribe.
Or as Jarir mentioned about Namir, which was a source of pride for those who claimed to be related to it, and he said,
فغض الطرف إنك من نمير، فلا كعباً بلغت ولا كلاباً “Lower your gaze for you are from Namir, you have not surpassed neither the tribe of Ka‘b nor dogs.”
Before Islam, Arab leaders had their poets, who would glorify their deeds, power, and authority through praise in poetry, while vilifying, belittling, and weakening their enemies through satire. Their poetry would spread among the people, which was exactly what the leaders desired. As a result, kings and leaders would honor these poets greatly, in a manner befitting their actions.
Hassan ibn Thabit was one of them. Hassan used to visit the Ghassanid kings, benefiting them with his poetry and benefiting himself from their wealth. However, when Islam came, he placed his poetry at the service of the Messenger of Allah (saw), using it to defend Islam, spread its risaalah (message), and satirize its enemies.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
«اهْجُوا قُرَيْشًا فَإِنَّهُ أَشَدُّ عَلَيْهَا مِنْ رَشْقٍ بِالنَّبْلِ» “Satirize Quraysh, for it is more severe for them than arrows being shot.” So he sent for Ibn Rawahah and said, «اهْجُهُمْ» “Satirize them.” He did, but the Prophet (saw) was not satisfied. Then he sent for Ka‘b ibn Malik, but again was not satisfied. Then he sent for Hassan ibn Thabit. When Hassan entered, he said, “It is time for you to call upon this lion who strikes with even his tail!” Then he stuck out his tongue and began to move it, and said, “By the One who sent you with the truth, I will tear them apart with my tongue just as leather is torn.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
«لاَ تَعْجَلْ فَإِنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ أَعْلَمُ قُرَيْشٍ بِأَنْسَابِهَا وَإِنَّ لِي فِيهِمْ نَسَبًا حَتَّى يُلَخِّصَ لَكَ نَسَبِي» “Do not rush. Abu Bakr knows the genealogies of Quraysh better than anyone, and I have lineage among them. So have him clarify my lineage for you.” Hassan went to Abu Bakr (ra) and then returned, saying, “O Messenger of Allah, he has clarified your lineage for me. By the One who sent you with the truth, I will extract you from them as a hair is pulled from dough.” Aishah (ra) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say to Hassan, «إِنَّ رُوحَ الْقُدُسِ لاَ يَزَالُ يُؤَيِّدُكَ مَا نَافَحْتَ عَنِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ» “Ruh al-Qudus will continue to support you as long as you defend Allah and His Messenger.” She also said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say, «هَجَاهُمْ حَسَّانُ فَشَفَى وَاشْتَفَى» “Hassan satirized them, and he brought healing and satisfaction.” Narrated by Muslim.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered the killing of certain disbelievers who composed poetry, because of the influence they had on people, against the Muslims. Among them were Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, and two female singers in Makkah, on the day of the Conquest, whom the Prophet (saw) commanded to be killed.
In our time, we are surrounded by the rapid advancement of technology. At the beginning of this era of modern technology, media consisted mainly of official state outlets, where each country had its own radio stations, television channels, and newspapers, whether fully official, or semi-official. However, as times changed, and the need arose for so-called independent media, often sponsored by states. Then, came the rise of social media, a powerful form of media that is unrestrained by any regulation, though at times deliberately manipulated. States are now faced with the challenge of trying to control this vast and complex landscape of media outlets.
In the Muslim World, most states have adopted a similar approach. It is is keeping government-run media alive in the face of strong competition from satellite channels, and social media platforms. There is no doubt that state-run media has become severely weakened, or appears weak in this competition. There was a time in the past when it was virtually the only media source available to the public, and it was strong for that very reason. It was the sole, or nearly sole, option for viewers, listeners and readers.
Today, these states, while still maintaining their official media institutions, are well aware that such outlets will never surpass a certain ceiling of influence over the public, and that ceiling is quite low. This is because those in power know full well that the competition is fierce, and that government media is plagued by stagnation, bureaucratic complexity, financial and administrative corruption, and a declining level of public trust in the rulers of these countries.
The next step was to launch so-called independent media outlets, through new laws that allowed a limited margin of media activity, involving figures from within the political medium, and others. These media outlets were secretly tied to the state in ways the public could not see, while being given a certain degree of freedom in their media work, which was enough to make them appear entirely different from official state media, in the eyes of the people.
Thus, if it is a news outlet, its news broadcasts would show less focus on the actions of the president and the government, compared to the official state media. Its programs would be bolder, its guests more diverse, and its reporters more professional, and open to a wider range of information sources. If it is an entertainment or variety outlet, it would be more liberal or rather, looser in moral boundaries in its talk shows, the personalities it hosts, and the dramas, songs, and movies it promotes through commercial advertisements. If it is a religious outlet, it presents a conservative image of religion, whether through its hosts, its content, its guests, or the pre-prepared material it broadcasts, whether that material is documentary, narrative, or entertainment in nature.
Regardless of the type or style of these media outlets, they aim to make certain individuals within the institution become well-known, even beyond the channel itself, whether through being hosted by regional or international networks, participating in media forums or festivals, preferably as speakers, or through other means of gaining fame. This, in turn, increases their acceptance and popularity among the local public.
Regardless of the type or style of the media outlet, its personnel are those who are content with the ruling system in the country, even if some of them claim dissatisfaction with the performance of those in power. Nevertheless, all of them are fundamentally satisfied with the system itself, and do not think beyond its framework. So it should come as no surprise if we learn that certain state agencies maintain close contact with all these media outlets, in order to regulate their output in a way that serves the state’s overall direction.
If one of these states succeeds in pushing this media sector to operate on a regional level, so that its audience extends beyond the country itself to the entire region, then that state has achieved a significant breakthrough, that is recognized on the regional stage. It also secures for itself a regional standing in the eyes of its patrons in the West.
What remains is the role of social media, which has entered every home, and become the focus of everyone’s attention. It has captured the interest of the general public on a massive scale, and as a result, every entity seeking to influence people has turned its attention to it creating platforms, influencers, YouTubers, pages, and more. Among these entities are the regimes that rule the countries. These regimes have gone beyond merely using social media as direct tools of influence. They have extended their reach to connect with other active platforms as well, ensuring that no content directed at the public strays from the regime’s overall policy of shaping public awareness.
However, social media contains security loopholes, that are difficult for regimes to control, and these fall into two main areas:
The first area concerns groups that are neither supporters, nor traditional opponents, of the regime. Instead they are groups that reject the regime’s very existence and work to overthrow it. The regimes are unable to control the content these groups produce for the public, as part of their influence aims to dismantle the collective awareness being shaped by the ruling states, whilst building a new direction in public awareness. Therefore, the main effort made by governments to counter the influence of these platforms has been to block their websites, though this has had only a limited effect.
The second area is that of the personal pages and accounts of individuals. On these platforms, people express what’s on their minds, and among them are individuals who follow those groups that reject the legitimacy of the current ruling regimes. The general public has become increasingly bold in speaking, and writing, on their pages, which has posed a major challenge to these regimes. In response, the states have taken security measures to intimidate the public, in the hope of closing this gap in the media sphere. These measures include enacting cybercrime laws, conducting security surveillance, and other forms of crackdowns.
Through all these measures, and their connections with media outlets and influential social media pages, the regimes in our countries have built a cohesive media system. The media system is aimed at controlling the direction of public awareness, steering people’s emotions in a way that protects the regimes during times of crisis, promoting a specific culture that serves the ruling authorities, and ensures their continued dominance, and combating any other culture they perceive as a threat to their rule, among other objectives.
The impact of this media system became evident during the Gaza War, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, when media outlets split into two distinct camps:
One camp supported the actions of the resistance in Gaza, or leaned toward it, in its coverage, while the other camp adopted an opposing viewpoint, even if indirectly. The public’s rejection of the second camp led them to gravitate toward the first camp, whether those media outlets were local or regional. However, both camps, especially the, first worked on a specific portrayal.
It was portraying the military efforts of the mujahideen in Gaza as a powerful force, capable of standing up to the military might of the Jews, needing only supporting fronts to distract the enemy, without directly entering into war. This is despite the fact that the Jews threw their full military weight into the war on Gaza, calling upon the support of the US, Europe, and regional and non-regional regimes, who backed them with equipment, supplies, and even manpower at times.
As a result, viewers came to expect a decisive victory from the people of Gaza, and a crushing defeat of the Jewish army on the battlefield. However, as the war dragged on, and the killing and destruction increased, a sense of despair began to creep into people’s hearts.
People’s minds and emotions were then redirected to believe that Gaza’s need was purely humanitarian, not military. As a result, public attention became fixated on scenes of destruction, images of tents, displacement, starvation, and the bodies of martyrs left in the streets. The emotional impact on people was immense, as their compassion was genuine. The media skillfully steered these emotions toward calls for humanitarian aid, aid that would only reach Gaza with the approval and permission of the very criminals responsible for the genocide.
People were also directed to offer Dua for Gaza, rather than to send what would truly repel the harm of the Jews and their allies, the armies. Thus, these media outlets led the public toward treating the symptoms of the crisis, rather than addressing its root causes.
These media outlets diverted the people from calling for the mobilization of armies in support of the people of Palestine, even though the crisis in Palestine is, at its core, a military crisis. It would have been more appropriate, and necessary, for those specialized in such matters, namely the military forces in the region, to intervene. However, this was not what the tsars of these media outlets, nor the regimes backing them, wanted. In fact, this course of action was strictly forbidden, even though it had strong popular support at the beginning of the war.
Social media pages, run by individuals and groups dissatisfied with the existence of these regimes, played a significant role in calling for military intervention in the Gaza war. However, with the help of their tightly controlled media systems, these regimes succeeded in diverting the public away from this option.
These media outlets also played a role in attaching people’s hopes to political solutions being promoted, and to the delegations that came and went throughout the region, in the hope that they might bring an end to the suffering in Gaza and provide relief. As a result, the criminal, oppressive leaders of certain regional states were given status and importance. People forgot the truth, which is that no real relief can come from an oppressor who aids your enemy against you, and that true relief only comes by following the commands of Allah (swt) in resolving crises.
Throughout the war, people turned to Allah in Dua, yet the oppressors and their media convinced them to wait for relief to come from the political delegations of Qatar, Egypt, America, and others like them.
The public’s reliance on media during the Gaza war was evident, and their engagement with social media was intense, especially with platforms that provided the most live footage and breaking news. The weakness of the official state media institutions was clearly exposed.
This is a highly valuable lesson for those working toward change in the region. The powerful impact of media on the public must not be overlooked. In the upcoming Islamic State, by Allah’s Permission, the official media institution must be given full freedom to operate under a new leadership, made up of politically aware individuals, with expertise in media. The institution must be restructured to serve the overarching goals of implementing and spreading the Dawah of Islam.
Likewise, other media outlets operating under the authority of the newly established Islamic State must be reorganized in accordance with the Islamic system. They must be informed of the state’s public policies, media regulations, and the public image the society is expected to present. At the same time, constant surveillance over these outlets must be lifted, and direct communication between media and state agencies especially security agencies, must be avoided. However, there must be strict adherence to the Shariah Laws and firm commitment to the general policy of the Islamic State.
The Middle East is experiencing great turmoil. We ask Allah (swt) that it be resolved with the establishment of the great Islamic State, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), and that He (swt) supports those who will lead it. Every aspect of people’s lives is in need of recalibration, including the media.
-
Islam is a Fikrah (Thought) and a Tareeqah (Method)
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Islam is a Fikrah (Thought) and a Tareeqah (Method)
(Translated)
Al-Waie Magazine Issue 467
39th Year, Dhu al-Hijjah 1446 AH / June 2025 CE
Ustadh: Ahmad Al-Qassas – LebanonIslam has affirmed the presence of the vital energy within human beings. It is the vital energy that drives them to act, and carry out the deeds they perform in their lives. Based on its existence, Islam has established the systems and treatments that the vital energy demands. It has confirmed the existence of the innate instinct of religiosity in humans. Allah (swt) said,
[فَأَقِمۡ وَجۡهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفٗاۚ فِطۡرَتَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّتِي فَطَرَ ٱلنَّاسَ عَلَيۡهَاۚ لَا تَبۡدِيلَ لِخَلۡقِ ٱللَّهِۚ ذَٰلِكَ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلۡقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكۡثَرَ ٱلنَّاسِ لَا يَعۡلَمُونَ]
“So be steadfast in Deen in all uprightness O Prophet, the natural Way of Allah which He has instilled in all people. Let there be no change in this creation of Allah. That is the Straight Way, but most people do not know.” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum: 30].
And He (swt) said,
[وَإِذۡ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنۢ بَنِيٓ ءَادَمَ مِن ظُهُورِهِمۡ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمۡ وَأَشۡهَدَهُمۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمۡ أَلَسۡتُ بِرَبِّكُمۡۖ قَالُواْ بَلَىٰ شَهِدۡنَآۚ أَن تَقُولُواْ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَٰمَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنۡ هَٰذَا غَٰفِلِينَ]
“And remember when your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. Allah asked, “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” He cautioned, “Now you have no right to say on Judgment Day, ‘We were not aware of this.’” [TMQ Surah Al-A’raf: 172].
He also affirmed the existence of other instincts and bodily needs, as He (swt) said,
[زُيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ حُبُّ ٱلشَّهَوَٰتِ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ وَٱلۡبَنِينَ وَٱلۡقَنَٰطِيرِ ٱلۡمُقَنطَرَةِ مِنَ ٱلذَّهَبِ وَٱلۡفِضَّةِ وَٱلۡخَيۡلِ ٱلۡمُسَوَّمَةِ وَٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ وَٱلۡحَرۡثِۗ ذَٰلِكَ مَتَٰعُ ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَاۖ وَٱللَّهُ عِندَهُۥ حُسۡنُ ٱلۡمََٔابِ]
“The enjoyment of worldly desires, such as women, children, treasures of gold and silver, fine horses, cattle, and fertile land, all has been made appealing to people. These are the pleasures of this worldly life, but with Allah is the finest destination.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 14].
These physiological needs and bodily instincts constitute the human being’s vital energy, as he is naturally driven to satisfy them. Without the feeling of hunger and thirst, a person would not be driven to eat and drink. Without the sense of need for a Creator and Sustainer, he would not be driven toward reverence and worship. Without the desire for survival, he would not avoid dangers and perils, seek treatment for illness, or strive for ownership. Without the inclination toward the continuation of the human species, he would not establish family life, show affection to his offspring, parents, or siblings. Thus, this vital energy embedded in bodily needs and instincts is the source of human behavior.
Since the satisfaction of bodily needs and instincts requires behavioral guidelines that direct a person toward proper fulfillment, leading to happiness and well-being, distinguished from improper fulfillment that leads to misery, Allah (swt), the Creator of human beings, their needs, and instincts, revealed divine guidance to clarify for humanity the proper conduct for satisfying these needs.
By explaining the elements of the ‘aqeedah, foremost among them belief in Him as Creator, Sustainer, and Guide and then detailing the acts of worship through which a person worships his Creator, such as Salah (Shariah prayer), Sawm (Shariah fasting), Hajj (Shariah pilgrimage), and others, He (swt) organized the fulfillment of the instinct of religiosity, and the relationship between man and his Creator.
By prohibiting fornication and legislating marriage and its related Shariah rulings such as those concerning parenthood, kinship, and honoring one’s parents, He organized the fulfillment of the instinct for the preservation of the species.
By legislating ways of earning wealth, property rights, prohibiting theft and unjust consumption of others’ wealth, and affirming the right to self-defense and the defense of one’s property, even to the extent of using lethal force, He organized the fulfillment of the instinct for survival.
And by permitting the good things of food and drink, and forbidding what is impure among them, He organized the fulfillment of bodily, physiological needs. Thus, the examples mentioned above are not exhaustive. Islam has regulated the fulfillment of all of a person’s innate needs and instincts in a balanced manner, ensuring that no instinct or need dominates, or overwhelms, another.
Since the fulfillment of many of the innate human needs and instincts requires establishing relationships with others, in order to exchange mutually agreed-upon benefits, and to ward off anticipated dangers, it became necessary for people to form societies. Therefore, organizing relationships within society became an essential part of regulating the fulfillment of people’s innate needs. Without these needs, societies would not exist in the first place. This means that any system aiming to regulate human behavior must go beyond individual guidance, to addressing the human collective as a society, in addition to the instructions directed at individuals.
It also means that such a system cannot be implemented merely through the voluntary initiative of individuals who choose to follow its guidance and abide by its rulings. Organizing relationships within society requires that all its members adhere to this system. Hence, it is crucial that the system intended to regulate the fulfillment of innate human needs be accompanied by a clear method explaining how it can be brought into existence in real life, how it can be implemented and preserved.
Thus, Islam did not limit itself to presenting an idea that shows the proper way to fulfill instincts and bodily needs in humans. Instead, it went further to explain the method by which this ideology can be established in real life, implemented in society, spread throughout the world, and protected. For this reason, Islam is both an “idea and a method.”
Islam, which prohibited adultery (zina) as part of its regulation of the instinct for species preservation, followed this prohibition with the legislation of the hadd (prescribed punishment) for zina, a method for implementing this Shariah ruling. When it prohibited alcohol, theft, apostasy, and falsely accusing believing men and women, it accompanied these prohibitions with hadd punishments for those who violate them. When it forbade assault against lives and bodies, it followed that with the legislation of qisas (retaliatory punishment) rulings. It also legislated taʿzir (discretionary punishment) for other Shariah violations.
When Islam commanded the implementation of the Shariah in general, it clarified the only legitimate method for this implementation, the state, which it commanded to be established. It detailed how to establish this state and explained its system in both the Noble Qur’an and the Blessed Sunnah. Thus, the actions carried out by the Prophet (saw) from the beginning of his mission, until the establishment of the state in Madinah, are actions aimed at founding this state, and they constitute the only Shariah legitimate and practical method for establishing the Islamic state, in case of its absence.
The state that the Prophet (saw) established in Madinah, which expanded during his lifetime to encompass the Arabian Peninsula, became the practical model to be emulated for applying Islam throughout all eras, in terms of addressing human problems and regulating instincts. The extent to which this model is followed serves as the measure for success in implementing these systems and rulings.
Islam, which commanded the carrying of its Risaalah message to the world, also specified the method for doing so: Dawah and Jihad, both of which are undertaken by the state and form the basis of its foreign policy. Islam, which commanded holding rulers accountable, and changing them if they violate Islamic Shariah Law or misapply it, legislated a method for doing this as well namely, the Shariah obligation to establish political parties based on the Islamic ‘aqeedah, which monitor the state and the society’s awareness and culture, and fulfill the duty of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong through preaching, education, and accountability.
Islam, which obligated the defense of its Risaalah message and its protection, also legislated the Shariah method for this defensive Jihad, through which the enemies of the Islamic Ummah and its Islamic aqeedah are repelled.
Islam made no distinction between the rulings related to the idea and those related to the method in terms of the obligation to adhere to them. All of them are Shariah rulings revealed by Allah (swt) in His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw), and they fall under the meaning of His statement,
[ٱلۡيَوۡمَ أَكۡمَلۡتُ لَكُمۡ دِينَكُمۡ وَأَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلۡإِسۡلَٰمَ دِينٗاۚ]
“Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your Deen.” [TMQ Surah Al-Ma’idah: 3].
Therefore, it is impermissible to differentiate between the Shariah rulings related to the idea, and those related to the method, in terms of the Shariah obligation to abide by them. Both are part of the Deen by which Allah (swt) is obeyed. Allah (swt) says,
[يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱدۡخُلُواْ فِي ٱلسِّلۡمِ كَآفَّةٗ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ خُطُوَٰتِ ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنِ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ لَكُمۡ عَدُوّٞ مُّبِينٞ]
“O believers! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly and do not follow Satan’s footsteps. Surely, he is your sworn enemy.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah: 208].
And “Islam” in this verse refers to the whole of Islam. This distinction between the two types of Shariah rulings, those of the idea and those of the method, did not exist among the fuqaha (jurists) throughout most eras, from the time of Prophethood through the centuries that followed. So why do we adopt this distinction in our contemporary Islamic discourse? This is a very legitimate question. In fact, everyone exposed to this categorization is likely to raise it. While there is no objection to terminology itself, it is not permissible to introduce intellectual or juristic classifications, and terminologies, without practical necessity that is, merely for intellectual indulgence.
Therefore, we answer this question by saying: there are multiple reasons for this distinction, and the following is an explanation of that.
In the past two centuries, a notion has prevailed among many Muslim intellectuals, including some jurists, that Islam laid down Shariah rulings to regulate human behavior and address its problems, and that these rulings must be adhered to. However, they additionally argue that Islam merely suggested methods for implementing these systems and solutions. They claim that these methods were only suitable for the early periods of Islam, and that there is no need to adhere to them in the present age. They claim that we can adopt new methods and approaches that are more in tune with the modern era.
In the later periods of the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate), new opinions emerged that had not been known to earlier generations, throughout past centuries. Some scholars permitted to replace the hudud with ta’zir punishments. As a result, the Ottoman Penal Code was issued, which suspended the implementation of the hudud, and replaced them with discretionary punishments. This was done under the pretext that the objective of the Shariah is to prevent the committing of forbidden acts, and that the hudud are merely a means to achieve that end. Therefore, they argued, there is no harm in substituting one punishment for another, as long as the objective of deterring violations is achieved.
At that time, writers and authors went to great lengths in repeating discussions about the theory of Maqasid al-Shari‘ah (Objectives of Islamic law), which holds that Allah (swt) established Shariah legal rulings with specific purposes, and that these rulings revolve around their objectives existing when they exist and ceasing when they cease. As a result, they believed that the primary focus should be on the maqasid, rather than on the Shariah rulings themselves. This led to a neglect of the Shariah rulings under the pretext of observing the objectives (maqasid).
In reality, those who adopted this theory fell into several errors, which were further compounded by later and contemporary scholars, who neglected the conditions and boundaries observed by the early proponents of this theory.
The first of these errors is that they confused the Shariah legal analogical reason (‘illah) which the Lawgiver made the basis for a Shariah ruling, and upon which the ruling is dependent, with the objective (maqsad) of the ruling. The ‘illah is a specific attribute upon which the Shariah ruling is built, and to which it is attached, such that the ruling exists when the Shariah ‘illah exists, and but does not exist when the ‘illah is not present. The maqasid, on the other hand, are aims that the Lawgiver seeks to achieve through the Shariah rulings, but without making the rulings conditional upon the objectives, or allowing the objectives to influence or control the rulings. Thus, the non-fulfillment of a maqsad (objective) does not nullify the Shariah ruling, unlike the case with the ‘illah, without which the ruling does not exist.
The second error is the assumption that one can know the maqasid of rulings even in the absence of any Shariah evidence indicating them.
The third error is the belief that they are authorized to devise Shariah rulings that achieve the Shariah maqasid without requiring evidence from Islamic sources, going so far as to nullify the rulings established by the Lawgiver, claiming that changing realities demand the development of rulings and rejection of adherence to old methods. They promoted this with the oft-repeated slogan that “rulings change with the change of time and place,” which they falsely claimed to be a Shariah principle.
In the present reality we are living in, since the fall of the Islamic state and the Ummah’s exit from the sphere of the complete Islamic life, and under the pressure of Western culture, prevailing systems, and the organized assault on Islamic Shariah rulings, many Muslim intellectuals, including those calling for the resumption of Islamic life, both individuals and groups, have been defeated by this pressure. They have submitted to many ideas presented as alternatives to Islamic Shariah rulings especially those related to the rulings of the tareeqah (method).
Thus, the claim became widespread that Islam did not legislate a detailed system of governance, and that it is therefore acceptable for us to adopt any man-made political system that ensures consultation (shura) and justice. This opened the door to accepting the democratic system in its various forms, including republican, parliamentary, ministerial and constitutional monarchy.
Another common claim was that Jihad was used in the past because of the norms of international relations at the time and the limited means of communication. However, today, with the firm establishment of the idea of peoples’ right to self-determination and the advancement of communication, media, and outreach, there is no longer justification to carry the Islamic call through Jihad. Hence, Jihad is now deemed acceptable only in the case of repelling aggression.
Among those working to restore the Islamic state, a view has spread that Islam did not obligate us to follow a specific method for establishing the state, and that the actions the Prophet (saw) took to establish it were merely tactics, personal efforts, and human experiences, not binding upon us. They failed to recognize the clear difference between actions the Prophet (saw) undertook as a religious obligation, based on divine command, and those he performed permissibly, as choices of styles or tools to achieve a legitimate goal.
As a result, they began to pursue methods of change that contradict the Prophet’s Sunnah: sometimes through unregulated armed struggle, other times by embracing democracy and participating in governance that rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, and at other times by engaging in charitable activities to attract supporters and followers.
Some even concluded that all Islamic Shariah rulings can be applied without the Islamic state. They claimed that preaching and moral guidance are enough to encourage people to adhere to acts of worship, obligations, and recommended deeds, and to avoid prohibitions and disliked acts. They asserted that Islamic private schools, institutes, and universities can teach Muslims Islamic culture and sciences. They asserted that that charitable organizations, endowments, and voluntary zakat funds can meet the needs of the poor. They claimed that Islamic financial institutions and investment companies can apply Islamic economic laws and offer Shariah-compliant services to Muslim investors. They also added that Shariah courts can govern personal status and social transactions according to Islamic law; and that Muslims can agree upon scholars or juristic bodies to arbitrate in disputes. They even claimed that modern media and communication tools, satellite channels, the internet, etc. are sufficient to carry the Islamic message to the world.
These assertions and claims strip Islam of the attribute of sovereignty that Allah intended for it, as He said,
[هُوَ ٱلَّذِيٓ أَرۡسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلۡهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلۡحَقِّ لِيُظۡهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوۡ كَرِهَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكُونَ]
“He is the One Who has sent His Messenger with true guidance and the Deen of truth, making it prevail over all others, even to the dismay of the polytheists.” [TMQ Surah At-Tawbah: 33].
And as the Prophet (saw) said,
«الإسلام يعلو ولا يعلى»
“Islam is supreme and nothing shall surpass it.”
Such individuals whether out of neglect, or willful ignorance, fail to see that the systems implemented by the ruling authority, in any society, control its relationships by force, and stamp them with their character. These systems play the greatest role in shaping the identity of society and its way of life. In fact, those institutions established by these wishful thinkers whether charitable, educational, financial, or media-based cannot even exist or function except by permission of the state, under its man-made laws, and in line with the policies of rulers appointed to serve the interests of major world powers and to spread their culture and lifestyle.
They have also forgotten, or chosen to forget, that no system of life and society can be applied except through authority and governance, and that it is impossible for two systems to coexist in one society, especially when one of them is Islam.
Hence, it is essential to clarify that Islam is not merely a set of spiritual, moral, or behavioral guidelines that people follow voluntarily, without regard for the dominant system governing their lives. Instead, Islam is a comprehensive system for life, society, and the state. It provides solutions to human problems arising from their vital energy, and the relationships this energy demands. Islam includes a method that explains to those who embrace this system how to implement it, spread it, and protect it.
In summary, the aqeedah that provided a comprehensive view of this worldly life what precedes it, what follows it, and its relationship to both has resolved…
In summary, the aqeedah that resolved the greatest existential question for human beings by providing a comprehensive view of this life, what comes before it and after it, and their interrelation along with the divine rulings that regulate human affairs and address human problems as such, are what we refer to by the term “Shariah rulings of the idea.”
As for the Shariah rulings that Islam legislated as a method to implement these solutions in real life and society, to propagate them globally, and to preserve and defend them these are what we refer to by the term “Shariah rulings of the method.”
Thus, the Shariah rulings on worship that regulate the satisfaction of the human instinct for devotion, the Shariah rulings of the social system that govern family relationships and the interaction between men and women and the consequences of that interaction, the Shariah rulings of the economic system that clarify property laws and regulate economic relations, as well as the Shariah rulings on food, clothing, manners, and ethics all these fall under Shariah rulings of the idea.
On the other hand, the Islamic state and its institutions, the system of governance, and the rulings related to it such as the establishment of schools, the state treasury (Bayt al-Mal), media institutions, courts, penal laws including hudud, qisas, and ta’zir, foreign policy, and the rulings on Jihad are all part of the Shariah rulings of the method.
Likewise, the obligation to establish political parties, and their responsibility to monitor the intellectual and emotional state of society, hold rulers accountable, engage in Dawah, and carry out enjoining maroof (good) and forbidding munkar (evil), whether done by the state or the parties are all from the Shariah rulings of the method.
When we closely examine the Shariah rulings of the idea and the method, we find a clear distinction between them. The rulings of the idea were legislated to regulate human affairs, and therefore, adherence to them and implementing them is legally required for their own sake.
In contrast, the Shariah rulings of the method, having been legislated as a means to implement, propagate, and preserve the Shariah rulings of the idea, are not required for their own sake. It is not permissible to undertake them without ensuring that they achieve their intended outcomes. Instead, the Shariah rulings of the method must be carried out in a way that leads to the realization of their intended goal: the implementation of the Shariah rulings of the idea in real life, even though it is possible and conceivable that the desired outcomes might not be achieved in some instances.
The Islamic state is not an end in itself, nor is it the ultimate goal that Muslims must achieve. Instead, it is a method for taking care of people’s affairs that is, for implementing Islam in society and conveying its message to the world. Therefore, when establishing the state and forming its institutions as defined by the Shariah, as well as in determining the policies it adopts, it is essential to ensure the proper implementation of the Islamic system and the proper carrying of Islam’s Risaalah message to the world.
In order to ensure the proper functioning of this state, and to preserve the role it is meant to play, Shariah obligates Muslims to offer sincere advice to the state. In fact, they must take the initiative to hold it accountable whenever the need arises, since the state is acting on their behalf in implementing Islam and conveying its Risaalah message. This accountability was not left to be merely voluntary or individual. Instead, the Shariah obliges Muslims to establish at least one political party whose specific function is to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. Allah (swt) says,
[وَلۡتَكُن مِّنكُمۡ أُمَّةٞ يَدۡعُونَ إِلَى ٱلۡخَيۡرِ وَيَأۡمُرُونَ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَيَنۡهَوۡنَ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِۚ وَأُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلۡمُفۡلِحُونَ]
“Let there be a group amongst you who call others to goodness, encourage what is maroof (good), and forbid what is munkar (evil). It is they who will be successful.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 104].
Imam Ibn Kathir said in his commentary on this verse, والمقصود من هذه الآية أن تكون فرقة من الأمَّة متصدّية لهذا الشأن، وإن كان ذلك واجبًا على كل فرد من بحسبه “The meaning is that there should be a group from within the Ummah dedicated to this task, even though it is obligatory upon every individual to do so according to their ability.”
At the forefront of this duty is commanding the rulers to do what is maroof (good) and forbidding them from doing what is munkar (evil) because the uprightness of the state brings immense good, while its corruption leads to widespread harm and devastation. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
«أفضل الجهاد كلمة حق عند سلطان جائر»
“The best Jihad is a word of truth spoken before a tyrannical ruler.”
Accordingly, political structures that are established on the basis of the Islamic aqeedah are not commanded by Shariah for their own sake. Instead, they are among the Shariah rulings of the method legislated for the sake of something else, whether in the presence of the Islamic state or in its absence.
As for the case when Islamic life exists under the Islamic state, the role of these political structures is to monitor the rulers, advise them, and hold them accountable whenever they fall short, act unjustly, or oppress. Their role also includes guardianship over the society’s culture and collective public awareness, in order to ensure that it continues to be shaped by Islamic culture and its sentiments, and to guard against the infiltration of any cultural or civilizational influences alien to Islam into the public customs, and consequently into public opinion and societal relations. For the extent to which an Islamic society is influenced by non-Islamic ideas and emotions determines how much its Islamic way of life becomes disturbed and begins to drift away from Islamic living. Islamic history is the clearest testimony to this principle.
As for the case when Islamic life is absent, as is the reality of the Ummah today, then it is assumed that these political structures, and the intellectual and political work they carry out, must serve as the Shariah legitimate and practical method for resuming the Islamic life, through the establishment of the Islamic state.
Therefore, the actions carried out by the structure, based on the Shariah rulings of the method derived from Shariah evidence, starting from its formation, the building of its study circles, the process of ideological culturing within the circles, addressing society, confronting non-Islamic ideas, politically challenging the ruler, all the way to seeking nussrah (military support) for establishing the Islamic state, none of these actions are to be undertaken for their own sake. Instead, each must be carried out with careful attention to achieving the objectives for which they were legislated. Otherwise, these actions would be merely symbolic and pointless exercise and indeed, a waste of time.
The structure must be a real and effective one, not just a formal or superficial structure. This can only be achieved if it is formed upon a specific culture and method, adopted and adhered to by all its members without exception, and if it possesses an administrative structure that regulates its progress toward the objectives. The formation of its circles, and the ideological culturing within them, must always be guided by the purpose for which they were originally established.
What is intended is the formation of Islamic personalities and sincere carriers of the Dawah. Public discourse must be conducted with the aim for which it was legislated in mind namely, to change the prevailing customs, and then reshape them according to Islamic concepts, ultimately leading to the formation of Islamic public opinion.
Political struggle must also be carried out with its intended purpose in view: to expose colonialist domination plans, unveil the treachery of the rulers and their violations of the Shariah, and to bring down their false legitimacy.
As for seeking nussrah (military support), it must be undertaken with the aim for which it was legislated: to bring Islam into actual implementation, namely, to bring it to the position of governance and authority.
Jihad, which is among the most noble and significant rulings of the tareeqah (method), is not undertaken for its own sake. Instead, it must be carried out with the realization of the objectives for which it was legislated such as repelling a disbelieving enemy from Islamic lands, conquering lands of kufr (disbelief) in order to transform them into lands of Islam, weakening the enemy to avert its danger or to pave the way for its defeat, or instilling fear in the enemy to deter it from aggression against the Ummah and its interests.
Allah (swt) says,
[وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُم مِّن قُوَّةٖ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ ٱلۡخَيۡلِ تُرۡهِبُونَ بِهِۦ عَدُوَّ ٱللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمۡ وَءَاخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ يَعۡلَمُهُمۡۚ]
“Prepare against them what you believers can of military power and cavalry to deter Allah’s enemies and your enemies as well as other enemies unknown to you but known to Allah.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal: 60].
And He (swt) says,
[وَقَٰتِلُوهُمۡ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتۡنَةٞوَيَكُونَ ٱلدِّينُ كُلُّهُۥ لِلَّهِۚ]
“Fight against them if they persecute you until there is no more persecution, and your devotion will be to Allah alone.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah: 193].
And He (swt) says,
[وَمَا لَكُمۡ لَا تُقَٰتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡمُسۡتَضۡعَفِينَ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ وَٱلنِّسَآءِ وَٱلۡوِلۡدَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَآ أَخۡرِجۡنَا مِنۡ هَٰذِهِ ٱلۡقَرۡيَةِ ٱلظَّالِمِ أَهۡلُهَا وَٱجۡعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيّٗا وَٱجۡعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا]
“And what is it with you? You do not fight in the cause of Allah and for oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, “Our Lord! Deliver us from this land of oppressors! Appoint for us a saviour; appoint for us a helper—all by Your grace.” [TMQ Surah An-Nisa: 75].
The rulings on punishments such as hudud (fixed punishments) and qisas (retaliatory punishments) were only legislated to deter offenders, and others whose souls may tempt them to commit crimes, evils, and violations. Allah (swt) said,
[وَلَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡقِصَاصِ حَيَوٰةٞ يَٰٓأُوْلِي ٱلۡأَلۡبَٰبِ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَتَّقُونَ]
“There is security of life for you in the law of retaliation, O people of reason, so that you may become mindful of Allah.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah: 179].
And He (swt) said,
[ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِي فَٱجۡلِدُواْ كُلَّ وَٰحِدٖ مِّنۡهُمَا مِاْئَةَ جَلۡدَةٖۖ وَلَا تَأۡخُذۡكُم بِهِمَا رَأۡفَةٞ فِي دِينِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأٓخِرِۖ وَلۡيَشۡهَدۡ عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٞ مِّنَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ]
“As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in enforcing the law of Allah, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment.” [TMQ Surah An-Nur: 2].
Thus, Allah (swt) commanded that a group of the believers witness their punishment to fulfill the objective for which the hudud was legislated: that they serve as a deterrent example for others who may be tempted to commit indecency.
However, our statement that Islam is an idea and a method, and that the Shariah rulings related to the method are binding Shariah rulings, does not mean that Islam has legislated a detailed ruling for every aspect of the idea, to clarify how it is to be implemented. Instead, it means that the rulings related to the method which Islam has legislated are binding upon us, just like all other Shariah rulings, just like the Shariah rulings of the idea itself. It is not permissible to neglect them under the pretext that they are rulings legislated for the sake of something else, and not for their own sake, or under the claim that rulings can change with time and place.
Accordingly, when the Shariah legislates a ruling from among the rulings of the idea, without legislating a detailed method for its implementation, then Muslims are authorized to choose the means and styles suitable for carrying out that ruling, in the required manner. This is where the importance of distinguishing between the method (tareeqah) and the means and styles (wasa’il wa asalib) comes in.
The rulings of the method are obligatory because the Shariah has mandated them, and provided Shariah evidence for them therefore, Muslims are obligated to adhere to them and have no choice in whether to adopt them or not. As for the means and styles, they are permissible actions or tools the Shariah has indicated their Shariah permissibility, and not their obligation, so Muslims may choose whichever is more appropriate among them to implement the Shariah rulings of the idea. An example is the best way to clarify this.
Islam has obligated those who possess the nisab (minimum amount) of wealth to pay zakat on their wealth, and it made the state the method for collecting zakat funds and distributing them to their legitimate recipients. Allah says,
[خُذۡ مِنۡ أَمۡوَٰلِهِمۡ صَدَقَةٗ تُطَهِّرُهُمۡ وَتُزَكِّيهِم بِهَا]
“Take zakah from their wealth in order to purify them and sanctify them with it.” [TMQ Surah At-Tawbah: 103].
So, Islam commands the head of state to collect zakat from the Muslims.
However, Islam did not specify a detailed manner for how zakat should be collected. Therefore, the state is permitted to adopt any styles and means that are permissible by Shariah in order to implement this obligation. This is why the styles and means differed between the time of the Prophet (saw), and those who came after him. New means and styles emerged and developed, with changing times.
A notable example of this is what the Khalifah al-Rashid (Rightly-Guided Caliph) Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) did when he established the Diwans (administrative registers), a qualitative step forward in this domain.
An example of this is that Islam has made the Bay‘ah (pledge of allegiance) the Shariah method for appointing the general leader of the Muslims, the Khalifah (Caliph). It is the only legitimate and binding method for Muslims. The Bay‘ah is a consensual contract between the Muslims and the one being pledged to lead, whereby he governs the affairs of the people both domestically and externally according to Shariah.
No one is permitted to assume the Khilafah (Caliphate) through mere seizure of power (ghalabah), hereditary succession (wilayat al-ahd), or any other means. The Bay‘ah, which Islam legislated as the method for appointing the Khalifah (Caliph), affirms that authority belongs to the Ummah.
However, this method was not accompanied by detailed instructions on how it should be carried out. Thus, the form and manner of implementation differed among the Khulafaa ar-Rashidun (Rightly-Guided Caliphs) (ra), while the Companions (ra) has unanimous consensus on the legitimacy of each of their pledges of allegiance.
In our present time, various styles and means can be adopted to implement the selection and the bayah (pledge of allegiance) to the Khalifah (Caliph). For example, the Ummah may be represented by elected delegates through ballot boxes, who would be the ahl al-hall wal-‘aqd (people of authority and decision) or the Council of the Ummah. Alternatively, the Ummah may directly carry out the selection itself through elections. A third possibility is to split the process between the Ummah and its representatives: the Council of the Ummah would shortlist the candidates, and then the Ummah would choose one of the nominated candidates through direct voting.
And among the examples of the difference between the method (tareeqah) and the means and styles (wasaʾil wa asalib) are:
The political structure working to resume Islamic life is commanded to address society and politically struggle against the rulers. These are binding Shariah rulings of the method that fall under the method of establishing Islamic life, as the Prophet (saw) mandated this in accordance to the text of the Noble Qur’an. However, the Shariah legal evidences did not specify detailed procedures for public Dawah and political struggle, so it is permissible to choose lawful means and styles that ensure the implementation of these two duties.
The Prophet (saw) in Makkah employed multiple styles, including standing on a mountain to address the people, organizing processions through the neighborhoods of Makkah, speaking to people in markets, gathering places, and in front of the Kaaba. In our time, public addresses, lectures, conferences, satellite channels, radio broadcasts, the internet, publishing books, magazines, leaflets, marches, and conferences can all be used. These are all permissible means and styles that can be employed to fulfill the Shariah of addressing society and engaging in political struggle.
In summary, Islam is an ideology composed of both an idea and a method. The idea refers to the creed (aqeedah) and everything related to it, thoughts, information, and the Shariah rulings that stem from it which regulate human behavior as a human being. As for the method, it consists of the Shariah rulings that explain how to implement these solutions in real life, in order to establish a society that lives an Islamic way of life. It also outlines how to spread the ideology throughout the world to bring the rest of humanity into the Islamic society, and how to preserve, safeguard, and defend the ideology.
As for the means and styles, they are the permitted things and actions that Muslims may adopt as ways to implement rulings for which the Shariah has not specified a particular method of execution. It is not obligatory to adhere to a specific style or means; rather, it is permissible to choose what is most suitable, easiest, and most effective among them for implementing the Shariah rulings provided that they are not substitutes for the rulings of the method, and that there is Shariah evidence indicating their permissibility. Allah (swt) says,
[قُلۡ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُحِبُّونَ ٱللَّهَ فَٱتَّبِعُونِي يُحۡبِبۡكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَغۡفِرۡ لَكُمۡ ذُنُوبَكُمۡۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٞ رَّحِيمٞ]
“Say, O Prophet, “If you sincerely love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive your sins. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 31].
-
The Believer’s Need for Steadfastness
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The Believer’s Need for Steadfastness
(Translated)Allah (swt) said,
[يُثَبِّتُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ بِٱلۡقَوۡلِ ٱلثَّابِتِ فِي ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَا وَفِي ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِۖ وَيُضِلُّ ٱللَّهُ ٱلظَّٰلِمِينَۚ وَيَفۡعَلُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يَشَآءُ]
“Allah keeps firm those who believe, with the firm word (al-qawl ath-thaabit), in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. And Allah sends astray the wrongdoers. And Allah does what He wills.” [TMQ Surah Ibrahim: 27]
The noble ayah contains three sentences. In the Arabic language, it is known that a sentence is a set of words that carries a meaning and expresses a thought. Thought is a judgment about a reality, and it becomes a concept for a person, when they understand the reality of the thought and believe it.
Thus, the Quranic verse contains three concepts that a Muslim is required to adopt: 1. Allah’s (swt) granting of steadfastness to the believers with the firm word (al-Qawl ath-Thabit) in this worldly life and in the Hereafter 2. Allah’s (swt) leading the wrongdoers astray. 3. Allah (swt) does whatever He wills.
Regarding the first concept in the first sentence, Ibn Ashur says, وَالْقَوْلُ، الْكَلَامُ. وَالثَّابِتُ الصَّادِقُ الَّذِي لَا شَكَّ فِيهِ. وَالْمُرَادُ بِهِ أَقْوَالُ الْقُرْآنِ لِأَنَّهَا صَادِقَةُ الْمَعَانِي وَاضِحَةُ الدَّلِيلِ، فَالتَّعْرِيفُ فِي الْقَوْلِ لِاسْتِغْرَاقِ الْأَقْوَالِ الثَّابِتَةِ. وَالْبَاءُ فِي بِالْقَوْلِ لِلسَّبَبِيَّةِ. وَمَعْنَى تَثْبِيتِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهَا أَنَّ الله يسر لَهُم فيهم الْأَقْوَالِ الْإِلَهِيَّةِ عَلَى وَجْهِهَا وَإِدْرَاكَ دَلَائِلِهَا حَتَّى اطْمَأَنَّتْ إِلَيْهَا قُلُوبُهُمْ وَلَمْ يُخَامِرْهُمْ فِيهَا شَكٌّ فَأَصْبَحُوا ثَابِتِينَ فِي إِيمَانِهِمْ غير مزعزعين وعاملين بِهَا غَيْرَ مُتَرَدِّدِينَ. وَذَلِكَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ظَاهِرٌ، وَأَمَّا فِي الْآخِرَةِ فَبِإِلْفَائِهِمُ الْأَحْوَالَ عَلَى نَحْوٍ مِمَّا عَلِمُوهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا، فَلَمْ تَعْتَرِهِمْ نَدَامَةٌ وَلَا لَهَفٌ“The word (al-qawl) means speech, and ‘firm’ (al-thabit) means truthful, without any doubt. What is meant by it are the words of the Qur’an, for they are truthful in meaning and clear in evidence. The definite article in ‘the word’ (al-qawl) denotes comprehensiveness of all firm words. The preposition ‘bi’ in bi’l-qawl indicates causation. The meaning of Allah’s (swt) making those who believe steadfast through it is that Allah (swt) facilitates for them the divine words in their proper form and enables them to understand their proofs until their hearts are reassured by them, and no doubt ever enters them. Thus, they become steadfast in their faith, unshaken, and act upon it without hesitation. This is evident in worldly life; as for the Hereafter, it is by them finding circumstances similar to what they learned in the world, so they feel no regret nor grief.”
It is clear to anyone with insight the necessity of steadfastness for the believer in this life, in the grave, and on the Day of Judgment, and his need for Allah’s granting him steadfastness, for this world is a place of trial and temptation.
Allah (swt) says,
[وَنَبۡلُوكُم بِٱلشَّرِّ وَٱلۡخَيۡرِ فِتۡنَةٗۖ وَإِلَيۡنَا تُرۡجَعُونَ]
“And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anbiya 35]
And He (swt) says,
[أَحَسِبَ ٱلنَّاسُ أَن يُتۡرَكُوٓاْ أَن يَقُولُوٓاْ ءَامَنَّا وَهُمۡ لَا يُفۡتَنُونَ]
“Do the people think that they will be left to say, ‘We believe’ and they will not be tested?” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum 2]
Every believer is exposed to trials from time to time of various kinds. This is affirmed in the hadith found in Sahih al-Jami narrated by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman from the Messenger of Allah (saw), «تُعرَضُ الفِتَنُ على القُلوبِ عَرْضَ الحَصِيرِ عُودًا عُودًا، فأيُّ قلبٍ أُشْرِبَها نُكِتَتْ فيه نُكتةٌ سَوداءُ، وأيُّ قلبٍ أنْكَرَها نُكِتَتْ فيه نُكتةٌ بيضاءُ، حتى يصِيرَ القلبُ أبيضَ مثلَ الصَّفا، لا تَضُرُّه فِتنةٌ ما دامَتِ السمواتُ والأرضُ، والآخَرُ أسودَ مُربَدًّا كالكُوزِ مُجَخِّيًا، لا يَعرِفُ مَعروفًا، ولا يُنكِرُ مُنكَرًا، إلا ما أُشْرِبَ من هَواه»“Temptations will be presented to the hearts like a reed mat, stick by stick. Any heart that absorbs them will have a black mark put in it, and any heart that rejects them will have a white mark put in it, until the heart becomes white like a stone, unaffected by any trial of temptation so long as the heavens and the earth endure. However, the other becomes black, dusty, like an overturned vessel, not recognizing good nor rejecting evil, except what is in accord with its desires.”
Indeed, Allah even bestows His favor upon His Messenger (saw) by granting him steadfastness so that he does not incline towards the disbelievers. Allah (swt) says,
[وَلَوۡلَآ أَن ثَبَّتۡنَٰكَ لَقَدۡ كِدتَّ تَرۡكَنُ إِلَيۡهِمۡ شَيۡٔٗا قَلِيلًا]
“And if We had not strengthened you, you would almost have inclined to them a little.” [TMQ Surah Al-Isra 74].
The “firm word” includes the statement of tawhid (monotheism) “La ilaha illa Allah – There is no God but Allah,” as Ibn Abbas (ra) said. It also includes the words of the Qur’an, as Ibn Ashur stated, and it encompasses everything that stems from the Islamic creed and everything built upon it, for it is the standard by which a Muslim measures every word and every action.
Describing the word as “firm” indicates steadfastness and commitment to that word, so as to produce uprightness, which Allah (swt) commanded His Messenger (saw) and the believers with, in His saying,
[فَٱسۡتَقِمۡ كَمَآ أُمِرۡتَ وَمَن تَابَ مَعَكَ]
“So remain steadfast as you have been commanded, you and those who have turned back with you.” [TMQ Surah Hud: 112].
Allah’s granting steadfastness to those who believe is a reality both in the life of this world and in the Hereafter.
As for the second concept in the verse — Allah’s leading the wrongdoers astray — Ibn Ashur says, وَيُضِلُّ اللهُ الظَّالِمِينَ، أَيِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، أَيْ يَجْعَلُهُمْ فِي حَيْرَةٍ وَعِمَايَةٍ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ. وَالضَّلَالُ: اضْطِرَابٌ وَارْتِبَاكٌ، وَالظَّالِمُونَ: الْمُشْرِكُونَ، قَالَ تَعَالَى:
[إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٞ]
“And Allah leads the wrongdoers astray, meaning the mushrikeen, that is, He leaves them in bewilderment and blindness in this world and in the Hereafter. Misguidance is disturbance and confusion, and the wrongdoers are the mushrikeen, as Allah (swt) said,
[إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٞ]
“Indeed, associating others with Allah is a great injustice.” [TMQ Surah Luqman: 13]”
The misguidance attributed to Allah (swt) is in the form of allowing, facilitating, and gradually leading on, not compulsion, because Allah (swt) holds people accountable for the deeds they perform within the domain over which they have control: if good, then it is good; and if evil, then it is evil. This is indicated by His saying,
[فَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيۡرٗا يَرَهُۥ*وَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٖ شَرّٗا يَرَهُ]
“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” [TMQ Surah Al-Zalzalah: 7–8] and other similar verses.
What further confirms that Allah’s leading the wrongdoers astray is by way of allowing, facilitating, and leading them on is His statement,
[قُلۡ مَن كَانَ فِي ٱلضَّلَٰلَةِ فَلۡيَمۡدُدۡ لَهُ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنُ مَدًّاۚ]
“Say, ‘Whoever is in error — the Most Merciful will prolong his span [in error]” [TMQ Surah Maryam: 75].
This misguidance from Allah (swt) is specific to those characterized by wrongdoing, as is indicated by linking the ruling to a derived term (مشتقّ), the subject case (اسم الفاعل) al-ẓalimin (“the oppressors”). In the usool of fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence), linking a ruling to a derived term evidences that the cause lies in the source of derivation, here, wrongdoing. Thus, as long as the servant persists in wrongdoing, he deserves misguidance until he turns away from his wrongdoing and repents to Allah (swt).
It is more appropriate to understand ẓulm (oppression) here in its general sense, so that it includes polytheism (shirk) and disbelief (kufr), as well as wrongdoing against oneself, and committing sins, since there is no specific qualifier that restricts ẓulm to mean only polytheism.
As for the statement of Allah (swt),
[إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٞ]
“Indeed, associating others with Allah is a great injustice” [TMQ Surah Luqman: 13] it indicates that polytheism is described as ẓulm, and indeed as a great ẓulm, but it does not mean that ẓulm is limited exclusively to polytheism. This is what the rules of Arabic grammar mandate.
Accordingly, anyone who is characterized by any form of wrongdoing deserves to be led astray, and prolonged in that state until he repents from it, whether it is polytheism and disbelief, or an evil deed, or wrongdoing against oneself. Allah (swt) said,
[قُل لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓاْ إِن يَنتَهُواْ يُغۡفَرۡ لَهُم مَّا قَدۡ سَلَفَ]
“Say to those who disbelieve that if they desist, they will be forgiven for what has passed.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal: 38] and He (swt) also says,
[وَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ سُوٓءًا أَوۡ يَظۡلِمۡ نَفۡسَهُۥ ثُمَّ يَسۡتَغۡفِرِ ٱللَّهَ يَجِدِ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٗا رَّحِيمٗا]
“And whoever does evil or wrongs himself, then seeks Allah’s forgiveness, will find Allah All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [TMQ Surah An-Nisa: 110].
As for the third concept in the noble Quranic verse, it is that Allah (swt) does whatever He (swt) wills. He (swt) is capable of all matters; nothing can prevent Him, none can overturn His judgment, and none can repel His command. He (swt) does with His creation whatever He wills.
This concept comes as a confirmation of what preceded it: Allah (swt) grants steadfastness when He (swt) wills to grant it, and He (swt) leads astray when He (swt) wills to lead astray. Indeed, He (swt) is not to be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.
The verse contains a rhetorical nuance, namely the explicit mention of the subject case in all three sentences, as the Divine Name, “Allah makes firm,” “Allah leads astray,” and “Allah does what He wills.”
Ibn Ashur says about this, وَإِظْهَارُ اسْمِ الْجَلَالَةِ فِي وَيُضِلُّ اللهُ الظَّالِمِينَ وَيَفْعَلُ اللهُ مَا يَشاءُ لِقَصْدِ أَنْ تَكُونَ كُلُّ جُمْلَةٍ مِنَ الْجُمَلِ الثَّلَاثِ مُسْتَقِلَّةً بِدَلَالَتِهَا حَتَّى تَسِيرَ مسير الْمثل“The explicit mention of the Name of His Majesty in ‘Allah leads astray the wrongdoers’ and ‘Allah does whatever He wills’ is intended so that each of the three sentences stands independently in its meaning, until it flows like a proverb,” in addition to emphasizing the importance of the subject, Glorified and Exalted is He, and His Power to do whatever He wills.”
Finally, we point out that some mufasiroon among them al-Ṭabari, al-Qurṭubi, and others mentioned that the Reason (sabab) for the Revelation (nuzool) of the verse was the questioning of the deceased by the two angels in the grave. However, this does not necessitate restriction, because of the principle that, العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب“the consideration is given to the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause (sabab),” as established in the usool ul-fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence).
Thus, Allah’s making the believers firm is a reality both in this world and in the Hereafter; Allah’s leading astray is a reality for the wrongdoers as long as they persist in their wrongdoing; and Allah does whatever He wills, as indicated by the generality of the connecting pronoun (ism mawsool) “whatever.”
We ask Allah (swt) to guide us and all the Muslims to the truth, and to make us and them steadfast upon the truth until we meet Him (swt) while He is pleased with us.
-
Humanism is a Satanic Call to Abolish Religions
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Humanism is a Satanic Call to Abolish Religions
(Translated)https://www.al-waie.org/archives/article/19803
Al-Waie Magazine Issue 466
39th Year, Dhul-Qi’dah 1446 AH / May 2025 CEThe United States is not satisfied with its colonialist capitalist policies in its relations with the world alone. America also seeks to spread cultural agendas, and leads satanic campaigns that collectively represent a new religion. Its main tools in promoting these agendas are the United Nations and the international organizations and institutions affiliated with it. It uses international agreements related to political, economic, and social life, as well as civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as means to embed its cultural ideas deep within societies.
In a previous article published in Issues 438–440 of Al-Waie Magazine entitled “The United Nations Calls for a New Global Religion That Unites All Faiths,” I outlined the main features of the new global religion that America and the United Nations want to impose on the world. It is based on the creed of pantheism (the unity of existence), adopts the idea of religious pantheism as a mode of worship, and seeks to replace the social system, or personal status laws, with sexual libertinism and chaos.
In this article, we address the concept of humanism, considering it the bond that America and the United Nations want to establish among people in place of the bond of faith in religion. They seek to make this idea shape how people view one another, regulate relationships between individuals in public life and between individuals and the state, and determine each country’s perspective and stance toward other nations and peoples.
It is important to first clarify that the term “humanism” (الإنسانوية) is different from the term “humanity” (الإنسانية), even though some advocates of humanism use the term “humanity” or “humanist doctrine.”
Humanitarianism is a value that holds significance in Islam, and Islam commands its realization. However, the value of humanitarianism is not a religion that defines what is good or evil, nor is it a foundation upon which thoughts are built. Humanism, on the other hand, is a concept that contradicts religion. In fact, humanism is intended to replace religion. Therefore, it is essential to be cautious and not to confuse these terms.
Humanism is an ancient concept, and the meanings associated with it have evolved over time. For this reason, it is difficult to provide a single, precise, and comprehensive definition of the term. Humanism goes beyond merely addressing the humanitarian aspect. It adopts its own worldview, based on the centrality of the human being in existence. It emphasizes the value of the human as the center of the universe, and from this centrality, all thoughts must be derived to serve the human being and liberate him from any constraints that limit his freedom, including religious teachings and laws. This has sparked numerous and intense objections against it.
Arab humanist scholars attempt to trace the roots of humanism within Islamic heritage, claiming that this tendency existed in early Islamic tradition, and was not solely a product of the Western Renaissance. They argue that it is a shared aspect of human thought throughout history, even if expressed in different forms. They cite certain texts, correspondences, and treaties written by some Muslim Khulafaa’ (Caliphs) as evidence among them, the famous letter of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) to his governor Malik al-Ashtar, whom he appointed over Egypt. They cling to a particular phrase from that letter, الرعية صِنْفَانِ؛ إِمَّا أَخٌ لَكَ فِي الدِّين وإِمَّا نَظِيرٌ لَكَ في الْخَلْقِ “Citizens are of two types: either your brother in the Deen or your equal in creation.”
The frequent references by humanist thinkers to the stances and statements of prominent historical Islamic figures reflect their emphasis on the human value that Islam commands to uphold. However, this does not indicate the presence of modern humanist thought among Muslims. Although Islam affirms the humanitarian value, it did not instruct that this value be made a foundational concept for defining relationships between people or for determining societal systems and legislation. There is no evidence that any Khalifah (Caliph), alim, thinker, or philosopher in Islamic history treated the value of humanity as a Deen, or as a foundation for thoughts, or as the basis for human relations, as is established in contemporary humanist thought.
Researchers of humanism, whether advocating for it or critiquing it, often seek to trace its historical origins and determine where and how the idea first emerged. However, I do not see much benefit in delving into the historical origins of this concept. What truly matters today is understanding what modern humanist thought has settled upon, so that we may grasp the dangers of this ideology and how to guard against it. What concerns us is the set of ideas being promoted by humanists today around the world, including in the Islamic world.
Perhaps the most concise summary of humanist thought can be found in the work of the British humanist scholar Stephen Law, in his book “Humanism: A Very Short Introduction” published in 2011 and translated into Arabic in 2016. In it, Stephen Law outlines the key ideas upon which humanists generally agree. In his essay, “What is Humanism?” published on 7 January, 2014, stated that “most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view,” and continued to state as follows:
“1. Humanists place particular emphasise on the role of science and reason. They believe that, if we want to know what is true, reason and science are invaluable tools – tools we should apply without limit. No beliefs should be placed beyond rational, critical scrutiny.
2. Humanists are atheists. That is not to say that they must be atheists in the positive sense, however. Humanists need not deny there is a god or gods. But they do not sign up to belief in a god or gods. Humanists tend to be similarly sceptical about the existence of other supernatural agents of the sort that many religions suppose exist, such as angels and demons.
3. Humanists suppose that this is very probably the only life we have. There is no heaven or hell awaiting us. Nor are we reincarnated.
4. Humanists usually believe in the existence and importance of moral value. Humanists tend to have a particular interest and concern with moral and ethical issues. Most Humanists believe that actions can be objectively morally right or wrong. They therefore deny that the existence of objective moral values entails the existence of God. So far as knowledge of right and wrong is concerned, Humanists place strong emphasis on the role of science and/or reason…
5. Humanists emphasize our individual moral autonomy and responsibility. They insist each individual must ultimately take responsibility for making moral judgements, even if that judgement is that that individual ought to stick with the moral framework handed to them by a tradition or community. They suppose that, convenient though it might be if we could each could hand over responsibility for making tough moral decisions to some external religious, political or other leader or authority, that cannot be done (except perhaps in some very special cases)…
6. Humanists are secularists in the sense that they favour an open, democratic society and believe the State should take neutral stance on religion. The State should not privilege religious over atheist views, but neither should it privilege atheist views of those of the religious. Humanists believe the State should protect equally the freedom of individuals to hold and promote both religious and atheist points of view…
7. Humanists believe that we can enjoy significant, meaningful lives even if there is no God, and whether or not we happen to be religious…”
Stephen Law mentions that there are other views commonly associated with humanism, but not necessarily embraced by all humanists. Instead, they may critique or reject them.
These include, in his words:
“Speciesism. Humanists, as defined above, are not obliged to believe that only human beings matter, morally speaking….
Utilitarianism. Many Humanists are drawn to some form of consequentialism, and some would probably describe themselves as utiiitarians. True, almost all Humanists believe that happiness and suffering matter, morally speaking, and should certainly be taken into account when weighing up ethical questions…
Scientism. Some Humanists embrace scientism – the view that every meaningful question can in principle be answered by application of the scientific method…
Naturalism. Humanists are not obliged to embrace naturalism, the view that the natural/physical reality is the only reality there is, and/or that the natural/physical facts are the only facts that there are…”
Stephen Law affirms the conflict between humanism and religion, and highlights the eagerness of humanists to build relationships with religious individuals and institutions in order to facilitate the achievement of secular humanist goals. He asserted, “Many Humanists would go further and insist that, in some respects, our lives may become rather more meaningful in the absence of gods and/or religion. Some argue that religions can sometimes act as an impediment to our leading meaningful lives by, for example, leading us not to think hard about the Big Questions; forcing us to live a certain way out of fear cosmic punishment; and/or wasting our lives promoting false beliefs because of a mistaken expectation of a life to come… The thought that religion is a necessary underpinning for morality is also contradicted by history… Moreover, while religious belief may be a powerful social adhesive, it comes with risks attached… While there can be benefits to religious belief, and there are plenty of anecdotes about people whose lives have been dramatically “turned around” by religion, there would also appear to be benefits to a more Humanist approach to moral education and raising moral citizens.”
These are the prevailing humanist thoughts among Western humanists, and they are the very same ideas being promoted in the Islamic World under various other campaigns that oppose Islam. These thoughts have preachers and advocates within the Muslim world. Many openly promote them under the banner of the humanist doctrine, while others do not explicitly declare their adherence to humanism, but knowingly or unknowingly promote humanist thoughts as part of other movements that aim to undermine Islam, such as the call to reform religion, or reinterpret religious texts through a modernist lens.
Those who call for humanism from within the Muslim community often recycle the language and concepts that define humanism, but they try to appear as though they are not opposing Islam or rejecting its rulings. Some may believe in Allah and identify as Muslims, yet they avoid discussing matters of creed in terms of Iman and evidence, or rejection and denial. They call for abolishing the Islamic bond of Aqeedah (doctrine) and establishing instead a bond based purely on humanism. They strongly criticize anyone who insists that religious creed is the correct basis for human relations, and see no problem in confining Iman merely to the heart.
They advocate for excluding the divine Deen from consideration in any aspect of human relations. In their view, humanism is the new “religion” that will put an end to wars. Through this “religion,” peace will prevail among nations, the wounds caused by wars and religious conflicts will be healed, and societies will be driven toward material progress.
Among the contemporary figures who promote and theorize humanism is Mohammed Arkoun (from Algeria), who writes his ideas in French, as he is part of the Western intellectual framework. Another is Abdel Rahman Badawi (from Egypt), the author of “A History of Atheism in Islam.” Also among them are Rasoul Mohammed Rasoul and Mohammed Habash, the latter being a student of his uncle, his wife’s father, Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaro, who served as the Mufti of Syria under the Ba’athist regime for four decades.
There are other humanist advocates as well, but Mohammed Habash is perhaps the most vocal proponent of humanism in the Islamic World. He persistently promotes humanist ideas that are in clear conflict with Islam. A review of his views reveals just how dangerous and deviant humanist ideology can be.
Humanists who affiliate themselves with Islam adopt the seven core humanist principles summarized by Stephen Law, along with several other ideas commonly associated with humanism. However, they face a challenge when it comes to atheism and agnosticism, which are central to Western humanist thought. To reconcile this, they classify belief in God, atheism, and agnosticism all as forms of subjective, faith-based acceptance. As a result, believing humanists do not rely on conclusive rational evidence to affirm their faith. They are content with emotional or instinctive belief without examining evidences, arguing that since atheists and agnostics exist, they too must have some form of justification for their stances, and that all such stances in faith must be respected.
These believing humanists selectively adopt from religion only what aligns with humanist ideals and reject what contradicts them without applying any scholarly or methodological standards in accepting or rejecting religious texts. For instance, Mohammed Habash claims to believe in Allah and in Islam. He reads the Qur’an and cites verses that suit his narrative, interpreting them according to his own perspective. He accepts certain hadiths and rejects others not based on Shariah juristic principles such as the strength of the chain of transmission or linguistic interpretation, but solely based on whether they conform to humanist thinking. For him, the only criterion is compatibility with humanist ideology.
He has no problem with atheism and sees no issue in criticizing religions, including Islam, considering this part of the freedom of expression that he champions. He views “human brotherhood” and “national unity” as bonds that connect him with polytheists and atheists alike.
In Mohammed Habash’s book “Neighbors on One Planet”, under the chapter titled “Neighbors: Muslims and Communists”, he writes, “Workers of the world, send blessings upon the Prophet…” It is a deliberately provocative title to discuss common ground between Islam and communism. He then describes his participation in an event hosted by the leadership of the Communist Party in Syria, where he gave a speech including the statement, “I am not here to preach a red Islam, nor do I claim that our communist comrades have become devout and started organizing pilgrimage groups. But I insist that what unites us is far greater than what our enemies believe. And without hesitation, I say: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and zakat are conditions for entering Paradise. However, they are not conditions for entering the homeland. The homeland belongs to all its children. Let us work together to build the earth and leave the matter of judgment to Allah.”
Mohammed Habash [1] has written several books promoting humanist thought, which he refers to as “the humanist doctrine.” He has also published many of these ideas in articles in Arab newspapers, on numerous programs aired on Arab satellite channels and radio stations, as well as on his Facebook page. Among his books are: “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam,” “Islam Without Violence,” “The Democratic Prophet,” “A Prophet for Humanity,” “We Share More Than We Think,” “Islam Without Wars,” “Corporal Punishments and Human Dignity,” “Neighbors on One Planet,” and many others. In nearly all of these works, he repeats the same humanist ideas.
From the titles of his books and a close examination of his statements, it becomes evident that Mohammed Habash’s works are saturated with Western humanist ideas, as summarized by Stephen Law. He claims that the commonalities between religions are greater than their differences and rejects the concept of the “Saved Sect”—the belief that after the mission of Muhammad (saw), no one enters Paradise except those who believe in and follow him. According to Habash, all good people regardless of which religion they follow, even if they are atheists are among the people of Paradise.
In his book “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam” (2021), he writes, “I am convinced that Allah does not wrong even by the weight of a mustard seed, whether it is a Muslim or a non-Muslim, and if it is a good deed, He multiplies it and grants a great reward from His bounty.”
He strongly criticizes what he calls the “culture of hatred widespread among Muslims.” In his view, a Muslim should not hate or dislike a disbeliever merely for their disbelief. He rejects the concepts of loving and hating for the sake of Allah, insisting that love and hatred should not, from a humanist standpoint, be based on one’s belief or creed. Rather, disapproval or dislike should be due to one’s actions and behaviors.
He also opposes the Islamic concept of al-wala’ wa-l-bara’ (loyalty to believers and disavowal of disbelievers). He harshly condemns preachers who focus on this concept or include the idea of disavowing disbelievers and showing loyalty to believers in their sermons, lectures, or writings.
In “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam”, he states, “The idea of the human family and the brotherhood of the children of Adam must be manifested by promoting human fraternity, reducing wars, and spreading peace.”
He expresses this idea through various phrases, such as, “All of humanity are the dependents of God and one family under Him.”
In his framework, human brotherhood takes precedence over the brotherhood of faith, and over the principle of al-wala’ wa-l-bara’.
Like Western humanists, Mohammed Habash places strong emphasis on elevating the value of the human being to a central, even supreme position in existence to the extent that prophethood itself, in his view, exists for the sake of the human being. He frequently states that “the human is God’s main project on this planet.”
In his book “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam,” he writes, “There has never been a religious or political movement in history that did not speak of the human being as the essence and ultimate goal. Thus, the humanist doctrine is an intellectual and social trend that can be traced across all human societies, and it can clearly be found in all sacred texts. It is a perspective that views the human being as both the center and the goal, and considers the achievement of human happiness as the measure of true religiosity and political direction. Therefore, speaking of the human being as the center and goal is a given.”
He also says, “I used to call for faith… but today I call for the human being.” “The goal is not religion, but the human being.”
In his book “Neighbors on One Planet,” he asks, “When will we be able to decode the dialogue between those who believe in God in the heavens and those who believe in the human on earth?”
He frequently uses expressions such as “faith in God and in the human being” or “we believe in the human.”
For humanists, the human being is the essence of existence and more important than religion or Shariah. In fact, according to this view, Shariah can be altered to conform to the human being’s happiness and well-being, as defined by Western notions of happiness and welfare.
In his book “Women Between Shariah and Life,” Mohammed Habash argues that Islamic Shariah rulings contain clear and harsh discrimination against women, such as those concerning guardianship, testimony, and the prohibition of travel without a mahram (male guardian). He believes such rulings place women under oppressive male guardianship. He also claims that the current marriage and divorce system, as prescribed by personal status laws, shows a blatant imbalance in gender equality and women’s rights, and calls for bold ijtihad (independent reasoning) to restore women’s rights and human dignity.
He criticizes the imposition of the hijab on women. Notably, when discussing hijab, he does not distinguish between hijab, jilbab, and niqab. He writes, “The jurists unanimously agreed that the hijab is a noble Islamic etiquette.”
He then poses the question, “Is the command to wear the hijab an obligation or a recommendation?”
And he answers, “We choose to consider it a recommendation!”
He concludes, “In summary: we should leave the matter of hijab to the woman. It is her choice, her freedom, and her responsibility. We should explain to her the religious facts and let her know that religion is ease, not hardship; mercy, not punishment. My message is that we should respect both the veiled and the unveiled, and we should call respectfully for modesty and chastity without extravagance, and we must make religion more accommodating for people.”
Humanism rejects the punishments prescribed in Islam particularly the hudud (fixed penalties) on the grounds that they are harsh, inhumane, and incompatible with free rational choice, innate human nature, the higher values of religion, and human rights. In his book “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam,” Mohammed Habash writes, “Perhaps the most problematic aspect in presenting the humanist doctrine in Islam is the issue of the harsh hudud punishments, which involve torturing the body, such as execution, crucifixion, stoning, and amputation. These are extremely severe penalties that cannot be understood within a humanist framework because they are not intended to reform the offender, but rather to destroy them entirely or partially. They are typically justified on the basis that the destruction of one individual leads to the reform of society, thus achieving a humanist outcome in the end, even if the immediate result appears to be torture and cruelty.”
Since abolishing the hudud contradicts clear and established Islamic Shariah rulings, Habash attempts to support his call for their abolition by claiming that such a move was made by prominent early figures like Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, and that this is the view of some of the greatest ulema in Islamic history.
Habash states, “Many people think that the call to change the hudud—from flogging, stoning, amputation, and crucifixion to rehabilitative punishments—is a concern of Westernized secular movements… and religious leaders still view such a call as disbelief in what Allah has revealed… In my new book ‘Justice, Not Revenge’, I documented fifteen clear positions from eight of the most prominent ulema in Islamic history, who explicitly called for the suspension of corporal hudud punishments and the transition to rehabilitative penalties.”
Humanists adopt secular democracy, and Mohammed Habash proudly identifies as a secularist who advocates for democracy even going so far as to describe the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as a “democrat.” He calls for freedom of expression, even when it includes rejection or criticism of Islam. According to humanists, democracy arises from the innate virtues and values of human nature. Since they claim that human nature is naturally inclined toward monotheism (tawḥid), they consider democracy to be part of the true religion.
Habash quotes his teacher, Jawdat Saʿid, as saying, “Democracy is a form of pure monotheism and an expression of the upright religion.”
Humanists argue that critics of religious belief must be cautious in the tone and manner of their critique, ensuring that it does not come across as mockery, or personal ridicule, of those who hold religious beliefs.
Humanism views individual morality as a purely rational matter that requires no religious justification. Human reason or science can independently determine what is moral, based on human experience across different peoples and cultures. Humanists acknowledge that people vary in their moral insight; some may possess broader moral knowledge, making them more trustworthy judges of right and wrong. Certain individuals might have important moral wisdom, and some of that wisdom may even be found in specific texts.
When Mohammed Habash wrote about morality in his article “On the Theology of Ethics… A New Vision,” his discussion focused entirely on the experiences of philosophers throughout different eras and regions, without citing any religious texts. He went further to claim the right to critique Islam and the Qur’an in the realm of ethics, because Islam treats morality as divine commands and prohibitions, with consequences of reward or punishment in the afterlife.
Habash argues that this focus on reward and punishment represents a regression in the concept of ethics, reducing it to a material transactional exchange. He views religious reward as driven by physical, instinctual desires such as sex, pleasure, wine, and intoxication and sees religious punishment as irrational cruelty. In his article, he writes, “We truly need a tour through moral philosophy as presented by the Enlightenment philosophers, and then we must reflect on the regression we brought upon ourselves when morality became a purely transactional system, conditioned by reward or punishment. Rewards took the form of bodily, instinctual desires sex, pleasure, wine, and drunkenness. As for punishment, it strayed far into a cruel realm, where skins are flayed, only for the angels of torment to replace them with new ones so the condemned can continue to suffer for eternity, forever and ever.”
Humanism rejects Jihad, particularly Jihad al-Talab (offensive Jihad), because humanism is a religion of nonviolence. From the humanist perspective, Jihad constitutes a form of violence especially Jihad al-Talab, which is associated with concepts they deem “inhuman,” such as Jizya (tax for non-Muslims under Muslim rule). They claim it directly contradicts what they describe as the core values of Islam: justice, mercy, and benevolence.
According to their argument, Jihad al-Talab is no longer applicable in the modern world, since freedom of religion exists globally, and Muslims can spread the message of Islam peacefully through wisdom and kind preaching, especially using modern technological tools. They argue that today’s reality renders offensive Jihad obsolete.
In the introduction to his book “Islam Without Violence,” Mohammed Habash writes, “Nonviolence is a magical word, with followers, prophets, and saints in every land. Yet here in the East, it is persecuted, treated as an idea that contradicts hudud (Islamic legal punishments) and Jihad. Islam is seen as following the logic of ‘an eye for an eye,’ and that ‘killing is the best deterrent for killing.’ Verses such as ‘In retribution, there is life, O people of understanding,’ and ‘Fight the disbelievers entirely as they fight you entirely,’ and ‘When you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks,’ and ‘Fight them until they submit’ these are invoked.”
He concludes from this that Jihad al-Talab is a form of violence that has no justification.
And as you, dear reader, can observe from the quote above, Habash subtly undermines divine Islamic Shariah rulings, Qur’anic verses, and Prophetic hadiths by portraying them as contrary to modern humanist ethics.
It is worth noting that the religion of Humanism contradicts Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the concept of the struggle for survival, which is an inseparable part of its theory, where the fittest or strongest survives. It considers human beings to be just like other living creatures, and assumes that conflict between human groups of different racial origins is inevitable, so that the groups with superior traits can dominate. Therefore, conflict and violence are central components of Darwinism, which stands in direct opposition to the principles of Humanism.
In conclusion, what has been presented outlines the core principles of Humanism. Upon examining them, it becomes clear that Humanism constitutes a religion that seeks to replace all others, particularly Islam. It openly admits to excluding religions, which means it is, by nature, a doctrine of disbelief (kufr). It equates the true religion with abrogated and distorted ones, places belief and atheism on the same level, and rejects divine revelation as a source of authority in life. It denies Islamic laws that are firmly established by conclusive evidence in both transmission and meaning.
The real danger lies in the promotion of partial humanist thoughts that often deceive ordinary Muslims, who may not realize that such thoughts are part of a larger ideological system rooted in Humanism. The way to confront this is by refuting these partial ideas and reaffirming the centrality of Islam which is what Humanism seeks to undermine.
Finally, it must be stated that Humanism can never be practically applied as a cohesive social system, it remains a misguided individual phenomenon, often carrying contradictory ideas even outside the framework of Humanism itself. While humanists preach love, and claim to harbor no malice toward anyone, their slips of the tongue often reveal what lies hidden in their hearts. True love cannot exist without hating its opposite and this becomes clear in the way they speak about Muslims who reject humanist ideology and hold firmly to the Shariah as it was revealed by Allah (swt).
This all shows that Humanism is nothing more than a purely satanic illusion. It can never manifest in collective reality. Instead, it is a gateway to kufr (disbelief), disguised with attractive and embellished rhetoric, deceiving only those who “take the devils as allies instead of Allah and think that they are rightly guided.”
As Allah (swt) says,
[وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِيٍّ عَدُوًّا شَيَاطِينَ الإنْسِ وَالْجِنِّ يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ مَا فَعَلُوهُ فَذَرْهُمْ وَمَا يَفْتَرُونَ]
“And so We have made for every Prophet enemies, devilish humans and jinn, whispering to one another with elegant words of deception. Had it been your Lord’s Will, they would not have done such a thing. So leave them and their deceit.” [TMQ Surah Al-An’am 6:112].
Footnote:
[1] In 2010, Habash was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Craiova, one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Romania. This honorary degree is granted only once every two years. The university awarded this honor to Dr. Mohammed Habash in recognition of his research and efforts in interfaith dialogue—particularly his book “The Biography of Prophet Muhammad”. The university translated the book into Romanian and designated it as required reading for students in its theology faculties.
-
Introduction to the book: The Objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi
The following is a translated article from Arabic that appeared in al-Waie Magazine.
The book “The Objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi” has recently been published, authored by Professor Mahmoud Abdel Hadi Faour. Al-Waei Magazine offers its readers an introduction to this book, which it finds to be a serious, profound, and disciplined research into the principles of jurisprudence. In it, the author endeavored to investigate and delve into the truth of this idea or theory of Imam Al-Shatibi, while remaining analytical and objective to the utmost degree.
This valuable book clearly demonstrates and thoroughness of its documentation and investigation. The author does not attribute to al-Shatibi any opinion, intended meaning, principle, or explanation of a text important to his methodology, unless he links this to texts by al-Shatibi that conclusively prove the truth of his purpose and intent. Indeed, the reader interested in this matter will sense the great effort expended in dividing and arranging the chapters and topics of this book, such that the previous one paves the way for the subsequent one, and the subsequent one builds on the previous one, in a coherent, convincing, and useful intellectual style. This enables the reader to understand and comprehend the reasons and circumstances for the emergence and development of the concept of the objectives of Islamic law, and then to understand and comprehend the concept of the objectives of Islamic law according to Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him).
One of the most important and precise things the author did after explaining and clarifying this idea was to present and explain the most important rules and principles considered in Al-Shatibi’s methodology, such as: the origin of the consequences of actions, the rules of public interest (al masalih al mursalah), juristic preference (al istihsan), blocking the means (sadd al jarai’ey), the rules of the original (asl) and the predominant (ghalib), and removing harm (dwarar). The author presented all of this in an explanatory and applied manner for Al-Shatibi’s methodology in establishing the rules and principles, and in understanding the Shari’a. This is the most important objective of Al-Shatibi in writing his book (Al-Muwafaqat), and in clarifying the new aspects of his methodology in the principles of jurisprudence.
In numerous places throughout his book, the author demonstrates the significant difference, indeed the contradiction, between the true nature of al-Shatibi’s methodology and the claims or visions advocated by many in our time for the development of jurisprudence, or even the principles of jurisprudence, by invoking al-Shatibi and his methodology. This was one of the author’s motivations for delving into this thorny subject and clarifying the true nature of the concept of objectives according to Imam al-Shatibi, as he states in his introduction:
The researcher looked into (Al-Muwafaqat) and studied it from beginning to end, and from end to beginning. It contains depth, and its author is intentional, and it needs to be looked at and re-looked at, so be it. The researcher focused on it and looked at it carefully. The result was that Al-Shatibi is slandered by one group, and is not understood by another. The result is that Al-Shatibi is innocent of what is attributed to him regarding interests and objectives. The researcher continued studying Al-Shatibi through (Al-I’tisam), and found that those who use him as a screen to hide behind are innovators in his view. Al-Muwafaqat does not agree with them, and Al-Shatibi warns against them and attacks them and their approach. From here arose the motivations for researching this topic, which are, in brief:
1- Religion is a duty and a trust in the neck of everyone who understands it. The researcher saw it as his duty to clarify that the objectives of Sharia do not contradict Sharia, nor do they invalidate its rulings. If the objectives are objectives of Sharia, then they are a branch of it, and Sharia is the origin, and it is not right for the branch to refer to the origin in invalidation. It is necessary to confront every thought or proposal that calls for wasting Sharia or transgressing its boundaries, especially if it is done in the name of Islam.
2- Since some people have clung to Al-Shatibi and his Muwafaqat, and attributed to him what he does not say, but rather what he has always warned against, it was necessary to clarify the truth of this matter, and that there is no way to cling to Al-Shatibi or his Muwafaqat for those who want to change or alter the rulings of the Sharia under the pretext of its objectives, whether with good intentions and purpose, or with bad intentions.
3- Since there has been much talk about Al-Shatibi and his idea of the objectives or his theory of them, and about his innovation in how to understand the Sharia, and research has been presented in this regard and around it, in books, on the pages of magazines and newspapers, and on satellite TV screens, and the researcher finds that they are all far from Al-Shatibi and his idea or his method or his innovation, he feels that he must clarify what he sees as correct in this matter. (From the author’s introduction).
If what is widely circulated among researchers is true, that the book (Al-Muwafaqat), in which Al-Shatibi included his idea of the objectives and his method of ijtihad, is a difficult book, indeed very difficult. Al-Shatibi himself pointed to this and advised that his book should only be studied by those who are well-versed in the sciences of Sharia, otherwise the blessing contained in it will turn against them. If this is the case, then the author, after briefly explaining the emergence and development of the science of the principles of jurisprudence, then the emergence of the idea of the objectives of Sharia, and the discussions and debates of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence – before Al-Shatibi – then he simplified it and presented it in a documented and easy-to-understand manner for anyone interested and seeking to understand the objectives.
There are many noteworthy points in the book, including, for example, the author’s emphasis on al-Shatibi’s understanding of the objectives, which confirms that contemporary discussions on this matter and their warnings about al-Shatibi’s methodology and innovations are far removed from al-Shatibi and his methodology. Al-Shatibi divided the objectives into two categories: the objectives of the Lawgiver and the objectives of the legally obligated. He divided the objectives of the legally obligated into four categories, of which the objectives of Islamic law are one. Meanwhile, contemporary scholars do not address or research anything other than the objectives of Islamic law. Furthermore, the content of their research, when they do discuss it, is mostly the objectives of the legally obligated, not the objectives of Islamic law.
Likewise, most contemporary discussions overlook what al-Shatibi considered the fourth type of objectives, which is the objective of the Lawgiver for the worship and obedience of His servants. In fact, the other three objectives were only discussed for the sake of achieving this objective, which is for people to worship their Creator: { And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me .} [Adh-Dhariyat: 56]. Likewise, one of the most precise things the author did was to verify the meaning of every word or term used by al-Shatibi that is important or influential in understanding his methodology or innovation. He clarified and documented al-Shatibi’s intent with terms such as: cause, effect, wisdom, reason, origin, partial, branch, meanings of rulings, original objectives, subsidiary objectives, and others. The author also highlighted the meaning that Al-Shatibi intended by induction, how to apply it, his requirement of certainty in the principles, how to benefit from this from induction, and how the induction method is one of the most important pillars of Al-Shatibi’s idea, which is something that contemporary advocates of renewal (tajdeed) completely ignore and neglect.
Thus, the author guides his reader step by step, leading him to understand the meaning of the objectives as intended by al-Shatibi. He then explores how an objective is considered a legitimate objective, how it can be suspended or rejected, and how the levels of the objectives of the Shari’ah vary, with one being considered a necessity, another a need, and another an improvement. He also explains al-Shatibi’s method of arranging the objectives within a single level, such as preserving religion, life, reason, lineage, and wealth. The author explains that the Grand Imamate (the Caliphate), for example, is a necessity in the level of preserving religion, as is jihad, prayer, and all the other pillars. All of this is according to al-Shatibi.
One of the most important points to note in our introduction to this book is the author’s definition and explanation of what al-Shatibi meant by the terms “maslahah” (interest) and “mafsadah” (corruption). He explains how “maslahah” (interest) is a legitimate objective that a person obligated to obey a law may consider in legislation, and how it can be merely an objective of the person obligated to obey a law, depending on his own fortunes, inclinations, and whims. The book conclusively examines, investigates, and proves that “maslahah” (interest)—according to al-Shatibi—is what has been proven by Islamic law to be an objective of the Lawgiver, regardless of whether it conforms to the objectives of creation or not. Thus, there is no ambiguity in al-Shatibi’s approach, which states that the correct way is to say “Shari’ah is maslahah” (interest) and not “maslahah is Shari’ah” (interest), as many people imagine is the meaning intended by al-Shatibi. The author also explains the intended meaning of terms such as “considered” (al-mu’tabar), “mursal” (dismissed), and “mulghā” (abrogated), as well as the types of consideration in the phrase “considered maslahah” (interest) or “mursal” (dismissed). The author also clarifies the meaning of “middle ground” (wasat) and “wasatiyyah” (moderateness) according to al-Shatibi with definitive texts from al-Muwafaqat. He elaborates on how to determine the middle ground in any given issue, explaining that it is not something that falls between the extremes of excess and deficiency, or anything similar. Rather, excess and deficiency are identified after the middle ground is identified. As for how the middle ground is identified, the author cites al-Shatibi’s statement: «والتوسط يُعرفُ بالشرع» “Moderation is identified by the Shari’a.”
The book also highlights Al-Shatibi’s position on some fatwas or the rules adopted by some muftis: such as facilitation due to hardship, alleged necessities or needs, and the permissibility of choosing between schools of thought or fatwas. He rejects all of them, and Al-Shatibi even attacks them strongly.
The book also highlights Al-Shatibi’s position on custom or traditions, as he calls them, and the extent of their consideration in Sharia, and the statement that rulings change with the change of customs, interests, time, or place, and the issue of the absence of some rulings in Sharia, or what some claim about the existence of a vacuum in Sharia. The author explains Al-Shatibi’s position on all of this and other things, in interesting and useful research, and documents that with texts by Al-Shatibi, including his saying: Among the characteristics of Sharia are “generality and consistency; therefore, the Sharia rulings apply to the actions of those obligated in general, even if their specific individuals characteristics are endless. No action is imposed, nor movement, nor stillness is claimed except that Sharia governs it individually and in combination, which is the meaning of its being general.” Among its characteristics, as Al-Shatibi says, is also: “Establishment without disappearance; Therefore, after its completion, you will not find in it any abrogation or specification of its generality, nor any restriction of its absoluteness, nor any lifting of any of its rulings, neither according to the generality of those obligated, nor according to the particularity of some of them, nor according to any situation. Rather, whatever has been proven as a cause is always a cause and cannot be lifted. Whatever was a condition is always a condition, whatever was obligatory is always obligatory, or recommended is recommended. And so are all rulings; they do not cease or change. Even if it were assumed that the obligation would continue indefinitely, its rulings would be likewise. Among the sayings of al-Shatibi that the author also cites: “Because the Shari’ah is intended to be eternal even if it were assumed that the world would continue indefinitely, and the obligation is thus, there is no need for anything more in the Shari’ah.”
In the book there is a study under the title: (لا يجوز مخالفة الأحكام بحجة المقاصد) (It is not permissible to contradict the rulings under the pretext of objectives), which is a condition according to Al-Shatibi in order to consider the objectives and to validate the application of the method. In fact, the objective is not considered a legal objective if it contradicts the rulings, which is what Al-Shatibi refers to a lot in his book (Al-Muwafaqat), and it is some of what Al-Shatibi means by his saying that it is necessary to apply the generalities and the particulars together, and it is one of the principles according to Al-Shatibi that the author explained to us clearly, and he showed that it is a condition for Al-Shatibi’s method in the principles of jurisprudence.
In this book, the author traces many of the opinions, understandings and meanings held by many contemporary researchers and writers on the principles of jurisprudence, including those who edited the book Al-Muwafaqat, which they mistakenly attribute to Al-Shatibi. He demonstrates their error and sometimes their contradiction with Al-Shatibi. He relies on analysis, connection and reasoning based on Al-Shatibi’s texts and their applications, using an intellectual and objective approach. He also rejects what some have claimed about contradictions in Al-Shatibi’s texts, explaining that this is a delusion on their part and due to their lack of understanding of some of those issues, as well as Al-Shatibi’s meaning by some important terms in his methodology, such as “maslahah” (interest), “mafasadah” (corruption), and the “maslahah” (interest) understood in common parlance, etc.
The author concluded his book with the tenth chapter, which he divided into three sections. In the first, he summarized the concept of objectives according to Al-Shatibi, presenting its pillars, meaning, and Al-Shatibi’s approach to understanding the Sharia according to it. In the second and third sections, he discussed it in a manner of usooli discussion. He discussed the issue of induction (istinbaat) as a method versus deduction, and Al-Shatibi’s purpose of semantic continuous transmission (tawatur ma’nawi) in his method versus semantic continuous transmission in the terminology of Hadith. He also discussed Al-Shatibi’s position on fundamentals and the necessity for them to be definitive, as well as his position on individual reports (ahad) and conjectural indications. He also discussed the principle of rationalization (ta’leel), which is the rationalization of Allah’s actions and rulings, according to Al-Shatibi and some of his predecessors who held this view. He also discussed, in a deep and precise intellectual style, the issue of (objectives and causes), and the difference between objective and cause, removing the confusion and obfuscation that results from mixing them up.
At the end of the book, the author praised Al-Shatibi as a scholar and an enlightened mujtahid, despite his disagreement with him in some of the new things he presented as a new approach to the principles of jurisprudence, and that was in some of the pillars of his approach. Speaking about the love he developed for Al-Shatibi while accompanying him on the journey of (Al-Muwafaqat), he said: “This is because the researcher developed a love for a man who combined genius and faith, knowledge and morals, ambition and piety. His mind rose, and his soul, filled with fear and hope, led him to rise with it. He coveted the coveting of the devout and working people, and his soul rose, and his mind, filled with thought and wisdom, led him to rise with it. So he became ascetic like the grateful worshippers, and the refined mind met the sublime soul in the person of a believer, so the encounter gave birth to the love of God, and faith bore fruit with its sweetness, and the traveler was steadfast on His path. When the seeker saw the traveler’s stumbling and the roughness of the paths, mercy and compassion were added to the love and affection, as he saw the great scholar and the enlightened visionary, the end of the path turning him away from the path, and blinding him to the subtle results of the truths. So he wished that he were his student and companion, who would guide him with two eyes, and suffice him what distracts him from seeing, or turns him away from perception, for the great, great, and pious are rare, and pass by far apart, and there is no infallibility after the Prophet (may God bless him and his family and grant them peace), so that they should be helped in obeying God and served in serving God’s command, is from righteousness and obedience, and that one should strive to correct them with politeness, and enlighten them with wisdom, and to obey them and draw near to them with sincerity for God. And piety is a great deed, as great as their deeds, and as beneficial as their production, and it is a rarer opportunity than theirs. Indeed, their error and slip are a loss for those with them and those around them, even if they are rewarded.
I can say that the book (The Objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi) by Professor Mahmoud Abdel Hadi Faour is the first book that dealt with the subject of the objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi, and which was able to explain and simplify the book (Al-Muwafaqat).
The book is 576 pages long.
Originally published on the June 2006 edition
