Question
If I may, I would like to draw your attention to an article written by a movement who regard the establishment of a universal Islamic state as obligatory (fard) upon every Muslim. To them, universal Islamic state is the meaning of Khilafah.
The actual article is available online at http://www.khilafah.com entitled “The Islamic State”
I have a few queries regarding the content of the article. It states:
In Arabic, the word Al Dawlah means linguistically the “Ghalaba”, i.e. the supremacy, it is also a term used to indicate the change of time it is also said: The days have alternated or rotated, i.e. they have changed or Allah (swt) alternates it between people etc. States change and vary according to the change of concepts, the change of times and the change of peoples. The State is a word of terminology, which refers to an authority that commands and prohibits a group of people who live in a certain piece of land.
However, the definition of the state differs due to the difference of viewpoints and nations towards its reality.
The westerners for instance, despite the different viewpoints they hold towards the reality of the state and towards the type of rule within the state, whether this were religious, as was the case in the medieval times, or dictatorial or democratic, all agree that the state is reflected in the land, its peoples and its rulers, and that these three represent the cornerstones of the state. To them, the state is established over a specific peace of land, in which a specific group of people live permanently, and over whom a ruling authority presides.
As for the Islamic state, it is a ruling authority, and a political entity that looks after the citizens’ affairs according to the Shari’ah rules in other words, it is a Khaleefah ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed and carrying Islam as a Message to the entire world. Allah (swt) has decreed that the Islamic state should be the method to implement the Shari’ah rules and to carry Islam by way of Da’awa and Jihad as a Message of guidance and light to the whole world. The Islamic state does not consider its territory, nor its specific group of people as her cornerstones, although she has to have citizens for whom she runs their affairs, and a piece of land on which she is established however, her citizens are growing in numbers at all times, and they include different races and colours also the land over which she rules must not be confined within certain borders, but it must be expanding at all times. This is so because the Islamic state has a universal Message, and because Allah (swt) has ordered her to carry that Message to the whole world, and to invite all people, be they black, white, brown, yellow, Arab, non-Arab, European, American or Russian to Islam, and to enter into the Deen of Allah (swt). Therefore, any race and any people, who respond to the call, and believe in Islam, would become part of the state’s subjects, and their land becomes part of her land. Also, any land which the Islamic state carries the Message to and conquers by way of Jihad, that land becomes part of her land and under her authority and her rule, even if its people did not embrace Islam. The state as it stands, is born out of new thoughts on which it bases itself the authority in the state changes when these thoughts change once power is seized. For when the thoughts turn into concepts and convictions, one’s behaviour is affected, and he becomes fashioned by these concepts, thus his viewpoint vis-a-vis life would change, and consequently his viewpoint towards relationships and interests change as well. The authority is established in order to look after the people’s affairs, relationships and interests.
The Islamic state was established by the Messenger of Allah (saw) as soon as he set foot in Madinah, after he had taken the second pledge (Baya’a) of Al-Aqaba from the Ansar, a pledge of protection and war, and a pledge to hand the authority in Madinah to the Messenger of Allah (saw). The birth of the Islamic state was the result of a new Aqeeda and a host of new concepts adopted by those who believed in him (saw) these concepts generated in his followers a new viewpoint about life, which in turn changed their viewpoint towards relationships and interests. The Messenger of Allah (saw) built the Islamic state in Madinah on the basis of this Aqeeda, and on the concepts which emanated from it, despite the fact that the verses of legislation had not been revealed yet. She was therefore a new state, built on a new Aqeeda, and on a host of new thoughts and concepts. The Islamic state is unique in her nature, her structure, what she stands for and the basis on which she is built. She is completely different from the nature and the structure of all the existing states in the world. She is a state founded on the Islamic Aqeeda, the Aqeeda of “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”, which is a comprehensive thought about life, and according to which and to the concepts which emanated from it, the Muslims viewpoint about life has been determined this viewpoint leads to the belief that life is created by a Creator, and that it is conducted by the commands and prohibitions of the Creator. For the Muslims, it is a foregone conclusion that there is no legislator but Allah (swt), and that there is no sovereignty in this life and in this Islamic state except to the rule of Allah (swt), not to the Ummah, nor the people, nor the ruler. Sovereignty is rather to the law of Allah alone.
Do you agree with the above opinion?
“Therefore, the Ummah and the ruler alike, have no mandatory powers to legislate any rule or any system or any law other than that revealed by Allah (swt) upon His Messenger (saw). Even if the Ummah were to commonly consent on legislating any rule that contradicts one of the Islamic rules, her consent would have no value whatsoever. So, if for instance, the Ummah were to consent on legalising Usury, under the pretext that the economy and the trade could not prosper without it, or if the Ummah were to consent on legitimising sexual relationships outside marriage, under the pretext that it is personal freedom, or if she were to prohibit the killing of the apostate from Islam, under the pretext that his killing would violate human rights, or if the state was to consent to have more than one doctrine or belief as a state or the succession to power of Muslims or even secular parties under the pretext of democracy, all these types of common consensus, if they ever took place, wouldn’t have any consideration whatsoever, for they contradict the Islamic rules, the sovereignty of Shari’ah, and the belief that Allah is The Only Legislator, and not humans. The fact that the Islamic Aqeeda acts as the basis of the Islamic state, means that there is no place for anyone, be they rulers, judges, intellectuals, politicians, members of the Shura council, Ummahs council or parliamentarians to legislate any rule in order to organise people’s relationships, nor to adopt a constitution, or to adopt a system, or enact a state law to be implemented by the rulers in the Islamic state, if these were other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. It is also forbidden for the rulers to force people or even give them a choice in following systems and laws laid down by humans in order to run their affairs. When the Khaleefah according to his mandatory powers adopts a constitution or a system or a law, he must take these from the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), by way of either his own Ijtihad (exertion) or that of the Muslim jurisprudents and learned scholars.
This necessitates that the Islamic state’s constitution, her systems and laws be taken from what Allah (swt) revealed to His Messenger (saw), i.e. taken from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and what they may guide to from the Qiyas (analogy made on Shari’ah texts) and the general consensus of the Sahaba. It is therefore forbidden for the Islamic state to nurse any thought or to hold any concept, rule, constitution, law, or any criterion which does not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, and which is not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, or from a legitimate Qiyas or from the general consensus of the Sahaba. So it is therefore forbidden for the Islamic state to adopt the democratic way of life and the ruling systems democracy calls for, such as a multiplicity of beliefs, the succession to power of Muslims or those of secular belief, or the various types of freedoms, for all these do not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, nor are they taken from the Shari’ah rules, apart from the fact that they all contradict the Islamic rules. It is forbidden as well to have in the Islamic state any consideration to the concepts of nationalism, patriotism or autonomy (separation), because these concepts do not emanate from the Islamic aqeeda, and they all contradict Shari’ah rules, apart from the fact that the Islamic rules have abhorred and prohibited them and warned against adopting them. Furthermore, it is forbidden for the Islamic state to hold any monarchical, republican, dictatorial imperial concepts, for these do not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, and they are not taken from the Shari’ah rules, beside the fact that they contradict the Shari’ah rules. Allah (swt) has commanded all the Muslims, including the rulers, to abide by Islam and to comprehensively implement all of its rules exactly as they have been revealed Allah (swt) says:
do take all that the Messenger of Allah has brought to you, and do refrain and keep away from all that he prohibited for you, and fear Allah for Allah is swift in punishment [TMQ 59:7]
The Arabic word “Ma” in the verse is a form of generality, thus it indicates the obligation of acting upon all the duties, and to refrain from all the prohibitions. The request of taking and refraining in the verse is decisive and it is obligatory, because there is a conjunction acting as evidence about this at the end of the verse where Allah (swt) orders us to be pious and warns us against the severe punishment awaiting those who do not take all that the Messenger (saw) has brought and do not refrain from all that he (saw) prohibited. Allah (swt) has also ordered His Messenger (saw) to rule by what He revealed He (swt) says:
And rule between them by what Allah has revealed [TMQ 5:49]
This is a decisive command from Allah (swt) to His Messenger and to all the Muslim rulers after him, to rule by all the rules that He (swt) has revealed, whether these were commands or prohibitions, for again the word “Ma” in the verse indicates the form of generality, thus it engulfs all the revealed rules. Allah (swt) has also forbidden His Messenger, as well as all the Muslim rulers after him, from following people’s whims and submitting to their desires, for He (swt) says:
And do not follow their vain desires [TMQ 5:49]
He (swt) has also warned His Messenger (saw) and all the rulers after him against falling for people’s corruption and against being lured away from implementing what Allah (swt) has revealed to him. Allah (swt) has described he who rules by other than what He revealed as being a disbeliever if he were to believe in what he ruled by, or if he were to believe in the invalidity of what Allah (swt) has revealed. He (swt) says:
And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers [TMQ 5:44]
He (swt) described he who rules by other than what He revealed, without believing in what he rules by, as a fasiq (rebel) and dhalim (wrongdoer). The implementation of the Islamic rules must be complete, comprehensive and simultaneous, not gradual, for the gradual implementation flagrantly contradicts the Islamic rules, and this would render he who does not implement all of Allah’s rules, or he who implements some and ignores some of the rules, a disbeliever if he did not believe in the validity of Islam, or if he did not believe in the validity of even some of the Shari’ah rules which he had ignored it would also render him a rebel and a wrongdoer if he were not implementing all of the Islamic rules but he still believed in the validity of implementing Islam.
I would ask you to kindly clarify something here. Is the article saying that anything contradictory to the Shar’iah and that any additional rule whatsoever which is not specified by the Shar’iah both prohibited to rule by in a state? Furthermore, does Islam specify a political system, which should be used?
Therefore, there should be no complacency in the implementation of all the Shari’ah rules, nor should there be any gradual implementation of the rules, for there is no difference between one obligation and another, nor is there a difference between a prohibition and another, nor between a rule and another the rules of Allah (swt) are equal and they must all be all implemented without any delay, postponement or graduation, otherwise the following verse would apply to those who do so. Allah (swt) says:
So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some. The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest of punishment on the day of Judgement. For Allah is aware of all you do [TMQ 2:85]
Would you kindly demonstrate whether the correct context and meaning of the verse is being applied here? Should there be no gradual implementation in any religious obligations, prohibitions and rules?
Therefore, there is no excuse for not implementing all of the rules of Islam pretexts such as the inability to implement the Islamic rules, or the absence of the appropriate circumstances, or the fact that the world public opinion is against the implementation of Shari’ah, or that the superpowers do not allow us to implement it, or any other trivial excuses that have no value whatsoever, are unacceptable. The Islamic state is a human state and not a holy one, and the Khulafa’ and Imams who run her are human beings, they have no holiness nor infallibility. It is the Ummah who appoints them and not Allah (swt), for Allah has ordained the authority i.e. the rule to the Ummah, and He (swt) has delegated the appointment of the Khaleefah to her by the Baya’a (pledge of allegiance), so that he undertakes the rule and the authority on her behalf. Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibnul A’as reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
Whoso pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as much as he can.
Abdullah Ibnu Omar reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “And whoso dies while there was no allegiance on his neck dies a death of the days of ignorance.
The Khaleefah implements the Shari’ah rules on behalf of the Ummah, and he who resumes the post of the Khaleefah would be entrusted with all the mandatory powers of rule and authority, and he would reserve the right to adopt the systems, laws and rules. He who undertakes the post of Khaleefah would merely be a human, it is possible that he could err, forget, lie, betray or rebel, he would not be infallible, for infallibility is exclusive to the Prophets and Messengers. The Messenger of Allah (saw) has informed us that the Imam, who is the Khaleefah, can make mistakes, and he could commit an injustice or a sin, which would make people hate him for it, or curse him he (saw) informed us that he may commit flagrant disbelief. All this contradicts infallibility and negates that the Imam and Khaleefah could be infallible. Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind which people fight and by which they protect themselves.
Muslim also reported on the authority of Auf Ibnu Malik that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:
The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, and who pray for you and you pray for them, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.
Bukhari also reported on the authority of Ubada Ibnus-Samit who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us so we gave him the pledge of allegiance. We pledge ourselves to him in complete obedience, in well and woe, in ease and hardship in preference over ourselves, and that we would not dispute with the people in authority and he (saw) said:
Unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief of which you have proof from Allah.
These Ahadith serve as a clear indication that the Imam or the Khaleefah can make mistakes, and he can commit a sin, which indicates clearly that the Imam or the Khaleefah are not infallible. Therefore, Allah (swt) has ordered the Muslims to hold the ruler accountable this He (swt) made their right, for the ruler has no holiness, and no infallibility, and because he may make mistakes, and he may commit a sin and even acts of disbelief, despite the fact that he is their representative in rule and authority, and despite the fact that it is them who appoint him.
You have elaborated before on the above basis of opinion. Does the difference of interpretation lie entirely in the meaning of the word Khilafah?
When the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: What is the best Jihad? He (saw) replied: “A word of truth uttered before a tyrant man of authority.”
He (saw) also said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza Ibnu Abdul-Muttalib, and a man who stood up to a tyrant Imam to command him and prohibit him and was killed.”
In the Sunan (book of Hadith) of Abu Dawood on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Mas’ud, the Messenger of Allah (saw) is reported to have said: “No by Allah, you shall command what is right and forbid what is evil, and you shall hold the hand of the oppressor and you shall curb him and confine him to following the truth.”
In another narration of Ibnu Mas’ud’s Hadith he (saw) added: “Or Allah shall strike animosity between your hearts and then He shall curse you just like He cursed them.”
Islam commands us in some cases to go further than just holding the ruler accountable with our tongues, it commands us to take-up arms against the Khaleefah if he showed acts of flagrant disbelief that was not there in the first instance, as mentioned in the narration of Ubada Ibnus-Samit: “And that we shall not dispute with the people in authority” and he (saw) said: “Unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief of which you have proof from Allah.”
Is this true? If not, could you please specify the correct context and meaning of the sayings?
Thank you kindly…
Answer
Before presenting my analysis of the author’s stipulations, I would consider it beneficial to summarize and enumerate the major contentions of the cited author. The important points of the article are as follows:
-
According to the Islamic concept of ‘state’, the Islamic state is one, which is ruled by the laws of the Shari`ah. An Islamic state is not restricted by geographical boundries;
-
The ruler and the legislature of an Islamic state do not have the authority to pass any laws other than those revealed by God, upon His messenger. Every law of an Islamic state must be based upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh);
-
The implementation of the Islamic rules in a Muslim state MUST be ‘complete, comprehensive and simultaneous’ and ‘not gradual’;
-
The Khaleefah is appointed by the ‘Ummah’. Being a human being, he is prone to errors and mistakes, as grave as can be; under some circumstances, Islam ‘commands’ us to fight against the Khaleefah and to try to remove him from office.
In the following sections, I will present my analysis of the author’s contentions, in the light of the bases that he has presented in his writings. Each of the points shall be dealt with under its respective heading.
1- The Concept of ‘Islamic State’
The author contends that in contrast to the general concept of state, an Islamic state, in reality, is not a geographical entity. The author writes:
This is so because the Islamic state has a universal Message, and because Allah (swt) has ordered her to carry that Message to the whole world, and to invite all people, be they black, white, brown, yellow, Arab, non-Arab, European, American or Russian to Islam, and to enter into the Deen of Allah (swt).
It is indeed the inherent responsibility (according to his position and abilities) and desire of every Muslim to guide his fellow human beings to the path of eternal success and salvation. A Muslim state, being mainly comprised of and managed by Muslims, should, in turn, try to organize the propagation of Islam at the collective level. However, the point that ‘Allah has ordered the Islamic state to carry the Universal Message of Islam to the whole world’ requires substantiation from the primary sources of the Shari`ah. Obviously, without a clear directive from the primary sources of the Shari`ah, nothing can be termed as ‘obligatory’.
Nevertheless, even if it is accepted, for the sake of this discussion, that God has, indeed, ‘ordered’ the Islamic state to carry the Universal Message of Islam to the whole world, it only implies that the ‘Message of Islam’ is not restricted to any geographical boundaries. It does not, by itself, imply that an Islamic state knows no geographical boundaries.
The author writes:
Therefore, any race and any people, who respond to the call, and believe in Islam, would become part of the state’s subjects, and their land becomes part of her land.
This statement of the author is completely unfounded. The fact is that the acceptance of the call to Islam by any group of people, race or nation does not effect their political entity – unless they collectively decide to do so – it only effects their religious entity. Obviously, a Muslim living under a non-Muslim rule does not become a subject of any Islamic state, merely by his acceptance of Islam. Like the previous point, the author requires to substantiate this point through a clear directive of the Shari`ah.
The author writes:
Also, any land which the Islamic state carries the Message to and conquers by way of Jihad, that land becomes part of her land and under her authority and her rule, even if its people did not embrace Islam.
Once again, this point is without substantiation. Whether or not the geographical areas conquered by another state become a part of the conquering state is dependent on the prevalent international treatises and laws. Since before the times of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions (ra) until only a few decades back, the conquered territory would generally become a part of the conquering state. However, under the prevalent international laws, the conquered territory does not become a part of the conquering state. It is a religious obligation of all Muslim states, which have agreed to this law, to abide by it under all circumstances, as nothing contained in these laws is against any of the clear directives of the Shari`ah.
The fact is that an Islamic state, like any other state is a geo-political entity. However, because an Islamic state is a geographical collectivity, which mainly comprises of and is ruled and managed by Muslims, it naturally follows that, like the individual lives of the Muslims, the collectivity should also be administered and run in accordance with the directives of the Shari`ah, which relate to it.
2- The Legislative Authority of the State
The author is of the opinion that any laws not entailed in the Shari`ah cannot be legislated in an Islamic state. The author writes:
For the Muslims, it is a foregone conclusion that there is no legislator but Allah (swt)…
This is not a very accurate representation of the requirement of the Shari`ah. As I have already clarified in one of my earlier responses, the Shari`ah does not require Muslims to restrict their legislations to those specified in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. On the contrary, the Shari`ah only requires us to refrain from legislating any laws, which are contrary to the directives entailed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, it is not that the legislator is only God, but that the ultimate and the absolute rule rests only with God. Had the case been as the author has represented, the Muslims would not even be able to make any civilized traffic laws in their countries, as these laws are not entailed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
The author writes:
Therefore, the Ummah and the ruler alike, have no mandatory powers to legislate any rule or any system or any law other than that revealed by Allah (swt) upon His Messenger (saw). Even if the Ummah were to commonly consent on legislating any rule that contradicts one of the Islamic rules, her consent would have no value whatsoever.
As stated earlier, this is a complete misrepresentation of the requirements of the Shari`ah. When the Prophet (pbuh) sent Mu`aaz ibn Jabal (ra) as his representative to Yemen, he asked Mu`aaz how would he decide among his subjects. The companion replied:
أقضي بما في كتاب الله
I will decide according to the Book of God.
The Prophet (pbuh) asked: ‘If you do not find any guidance regarding the particular issue in the book of God, then what will you do?’ The companion replied:
فبسنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
Then I will decide according to the Sunnah of the messenger of God.
The Prophet (pbuh) asked: ‘If you do not find any guidance regarding the particular issue, even in the Sunnah, then what will you do?’ The companion replied:
أجتهد رأيي ولم الو جهدا
Then I will strive hard to make an opinion on my own.
The mere fact that there are issues about which one may not find any guidance in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and that in such issues an individual (in individual matters) and an administrator or legislature (in collective matters) will have to form his/its own opinion, keeping in view the spirit of the Shari`ah as well as the general benefit of the Muslim community, evidences the fact that the only requirement of the Shari`ah, relating to an Islamic state is to refrain from passing and implementing any legislations, which are against the clear directives and stipulations of the Shari`ah.
The author writes:
It is therefore forbidden for the Islamic state to nurse any thought or to hold any concept, rule, constitution, law, or any criterion which does not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, and which is not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, or from a legitimate Qiyas or from the general consensus of the Sahaba.
Seen in the light of my foregoing clarification, it should be quite easily derived that what is essential is not that an Islamic state cannot promote any thought, concept, rule, constitution or law, which does not emanate from the Islamic beliefs. On the contrary, what is inherently essential is that any thought, concept, rule, constitution or law, which is contrary to the Islamic beliefs, should not be promoted by the Islamic state.
The author writes:
So it is therefore forbidden for the Islamic state to adopt the democratic way of life and the ruling systems democracy calls for, such as a multiplicity of beliefs, the succession to power of Muslims or those of secular belief, or the various types of freedoms, for all these do not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, nor are they taken from the Shari’ah rules, apart from the fact that they all contradict the Islamic rules.
In matters relating to the collectivity, the principle of decision making, as given in the Qur’an (Al-Shooraa 42:38) is:
وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ
Their affairs are based on mutual consultation.
This really implies that in all matters where there is a difference of opinion, the opinion adhered to by the majority of the Muslims (or their representatives) would prevail. Thus, if the majority of the Muslims of a particular state believe that ‘democracy’ or ‘multiplicity of beliefs’ etc are against the teachings and beliefs of Islam, then obviously such a law would be legislated and vice versa. One may, however, ask that if the majority of the Muslims or even the whole of them were to decide something, which, in my or the author’s or any individual’s opinion is clearly against the teachings of Islam, then what would have to be done. Even in such a case, the law would be passed and implemented according to the opinion of the majority. The individual, however, would be allowed the opportunity to convince the majority and, consequently, alter the legislation through the majority. This is a clear corollary of the cited verse. The Prophet (pbuh) is also reported to have said:
فإذا رأيتم اختلافا فعليكم بالسواد الأعظم (ابن ماجه، كتاب الفتن، باب السواد الأعظم، رقم الحديث ٣٩٤٠)
When you see a difference of opinion, follow the opinion adhered to by the majority.
Furthermore, if the law forces the individual to do something, which is against any clear directive of the Shari`ah, then the individual must remain obedient to the directives of the Shari`ah and refuse obedience to the ruler (legislature) in all such cases where obedience to the rulers (legislature) necessarily translates into disobedience toward the Almighty. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
لا طاعة في معصية الله (المسلم، كتاب الإمارة، باب وجوب طاعة الأمراء في غير معصية وتحريمها في المعصية، رقم الحديث ٣٤٢٤)
There is no obedience [to an authority] in a matter, which results in disobedience toward God.
The principle of following the majority in matters of difference does not imply that the majority is always right. On the contrary, it is a principle for the practical resolution of any difference of opinion that may exist between the Muslims or their representative. It only implies that an individual or a minority group, however influential he/it may be, does not have the authority to override the opinion of the majority.
Thus, whether it be the selection or the removal of the head of the state, the promulgation, implementation or amendment of any laws or the interpretation, implementation or application of the directives of the Shari`ah relating to the collectivity, all the decisions, relating to the collectivity should be taken in the light of the stated principle and no individual (whether an Islamic scholar or a ruler) should be allowed to override the decision of the majority.
3- Implementation of Islamic Laws – Gradual or Simultaneous
The author contends that irrespective of the condition of the collectivity, an Islamic state must, under all circumstances, implement the rules of the Shari`ah completely, comprehensively and simultaneously. The author writes:
The implementation of the Islamic rules must be complete, comprehensive and simultaneous, not gradual…
This contention of the author is not only against the basic wisdom required for the ultimate complete implementation of Islam, but is also clearly contradictory to the Divine Wisdom in the gradual revelation of the Qur’an. Explaining the reasons for the gradual revelation of the Qur’an, Umm al-Mo’mineen Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said:
إنما نزل أول ما نزل منه سورة من المفصل فيها ذكر الجنة والنار حتى إذا ثاب الناس إلى الإسلام نزل الحلال والحرام ولو نزل أول شيء لا تشربوا الخمر لقالوا لا ندع الخمر أبدا ولو نزل لا تزنوا لقالوا لا ندع الزنا أبدا (البخاري، كتاب فضائل القرآن، باب تأليف القرآن، رقم الحديث ٤٦٠٩)
Initially what was revealed was one of the Mufassal1 Surahs, in which there was reference to heaven and hell, till when people started entering the folds of Islam, directives regarding the Halaal and Haraam were revealed. Had the prohibition of liquor been initially revealed, people would then have said: ‘We would not quit drinking liquor’. And had the prohibition of fornication been initially revealed, people would have said: ‘We would never leave fornication’.
It is quite clear that even the All-Powerful, All-Wise and the All-Knowing God, in His revelation of the book gave due consideration to the condition of his addressees as well as their strength of faith and their commitment with their moral and spiritual well being. It clearly follows that a wise and a truly well wishing administrator should also give due consideration to the condition, the development and the commitment of his subjects with Islam, in implementing the Islamic laws upon them. Just like a teacher, who in delivering his lectures, is always mindful of the standard of understanding and knowledge of his addressees, an inconsiderate administrator is quite likely to develop an aversion in his subjects toward Islam and its beautiful teachings. Thus, when the Prophet (pbuh) sent Mu`aaz ibn Jabal (ra) as his representative to Yemen, he gave him the following directive:
إنك ستأتي قوما أهل كتاب فإذا جئتهم فادعهم إلى أن يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله فإن هم أطاعوا لك بذلك فأخبرهم أن الله قد فرض عليهم خمس صلوات في كل يوم وليلة فإن هم أطاعوا لك بذلك فأخبرهم أن الله قد فرض عليهم صدقة تؤخذ من أغنيائهم فترد على فقرائهم (البخاري، كتاب الزكاة، باب أخذ الصدقة من الأغنياء وترد في الفقراء حيث كانوا، رقم الحديث ١٤٠١)
You shall soon reach a group of the People of the Book; when you reach them, call them to witness that there is no god, except the One God and that Mohammad (pbuh) is the messenger of God. Then, when they submit to this, tell them that God has made offering five prayers in a day and night mandatory upon them. Then, when they submit to this, tell them that God has made the payment of Zaka’h mandatory upon them, which shall be taken from their rich and shall be distributed among their poor.
It is reported in a number of narratives that when the Prophet (pbuh) would send any of his companions with an assignment, he would direct them in the following words:
يسروا ولاتعسروا وبشروا ولا تنفروا (صحيح البخاري، كتاب العلم، باب ما كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يتخولهم بالموعظة والعلم كي لا ينفروا، رقم الحديث ٦٧)
Make things easy for people do not subject them to hardships. Give them glad tidings do not make them averse [toward Islam].
The author writes:
… for the gradual implementation flagrantly contradicts the Islamic rules, and this would render he who does not implement all of Allah’s rules, or he who implements some and ignores some of the rules, a disbeliever if he did not believe in the validity of Islam, or if he did not believe in the validity of even some of the Shari’ah rules which he had ignored it would also render him a rebel and a wrongdoer if he were not implementing all of the Islamic rules but he still believed in the validity of implementing Islam.
This is a completely unfounded contention. There is a world of difference between ‘rejecting a directive of the Qur’an’ and ‘gradual implementation of Islam’ in view of educating, training and preparing the Muslim subjects for the ultimate complete implementation of the Shari`ah.
The author contends that the gradual implementation of Islam would make a person subject to the following warning of the Qur’an:
“So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some. The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest of punishment on the day of Judgement. For Allah is aware of all you do” [TMQ 2:85]”
This is clearly a misinterpretation on the part of the author. The verse is not with reference to the issue of ‘gradual implementation of the Shari`ah‘, but actually relates to being selective in belief and practice. The case of ‘gradual implementation’ is obviously not one of being selective in belief and/or practice. The verse, therefore, does not apply to any strategy of ‘gradual implementation’ of the laws of God.
4- Fighting Against the Ruler – Is it Obligatory Under Any Circumstances?
The author contends that Islam has directed us to take up arms against our rulers if they are guilty of openly rejecting the Shari`ah. The author writes:
Islam commands us in some cases to go further than just holding the ruler accountable with our tongues, it commands us to take-up arms against the Khaleefah if he showed acts of flagrant disbelief that was not there in the first instance, as mentioned in the narration of Ubada Ibnus-Samit: “And that we shall not dispute with the people in authority” and he (saw) said: “Unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief of which you have proof from Allah.”
This, once again is an inaccurate representation of the directive of the Islamic Shari`ah. What the Qur’an and the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) actually imply is that it is prohibited to take up arms against a ruler, unless he is guilty of flagrant rejection. This only implies that if the ruler is guilty of flagrant rejection, the prohibition of the Shari`ah is removed. It would be absolutely incorrect to interpret the removal of this prohibition to take up arms against the ruler as an obligation to do so.
I hope this would cover all the important points covered by the author.
March 11, 2001
- The Surahs from the Surah Qaf till the end of the Qur’an are called the Mufassal Surahs. [↩]