Assalamu alaikum,In your answer to bro Asim Awam question dated 25 th Dec 2000, you replied as follows “…This fourth condition is that of independent rule, which is an essential condition, in the Shari`ah, for Qitaal (i.e. armed conflict). Thus, in such conditions, the person organizing the said movement should already possess authority and rule in a piece of land, before he can lawfully involve himself in an armed conflict against an established rule…..” Are you justifying the division of ummah when prophet has clearly declared that we are one nation?! Apart from this, i have a comment to pass on that reply. You are giving general fatwas on Political revolution assuming every single nation/state existing in muslim lands are united as one. They are divided,theya re nto one anymore, if we really have to talk about political revolution, my humble opinion is we have to discuss each and every nation on its background and effects individually, case by case.
Your stated objections do not connect in any way to the stated opinion. There is not even a hint of division in the quoted statement. Simply, it states that a person should have control and military power in a sovereign nation which he leads before involving himself or others in war. This has nothing to do with dividing the Ummah (i.e. the Muslim community). Muslims all over the world are dealing with various issues and are not protecting themselves on a united front. In other words reality belies your position. It is not the words of the scholar that divide the Muslims it is the present reality that the Muslims have allowed themselves to fall in. The Ummah today is an Ummah of belief in Islam. No one with any sense of honesty or reality would claim that the Ummah is one nation of physical boundaries, military powers, governmental body or any such thing. If you read carefully the stated sentence it would be obvious that in fact it does support the unity of the Ummah even though this was not the aim of the answer. In contradiction to your stated objections you suggest the method of discussions that would go against what you said one sentence earlier. It is not clear whether you believe the Ummah is united or not but it is clear that you have misunderstood the reply. The answer was based on war waged by Muslims and what the correct conditions for them would be. As such it could be taken as the Muslims as an entire entity or Muslims in particular nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Palestine. Even with these there needs to be unity and independent rule and all the stated conditions. We can agree that today the Muslims are divided and each country could be discussed separately, however, this has little to do with the stated reply.
I hope I have clarified the issue.
God knows best.