Saturday, October 18, 2014

The Fikrah (thought) and the Tareeqah (method)

The following is a translation from the archives. 

The Tareeqah represents the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah which explains the manner of implementing the Aqeedah and the manner of implementing the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah. Allah (swt) has commanded Imaan in Waajib Al-Wujood (whose existence is obligatory) and He is Allah, and Imaan in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) whilst He (swt) forbade apostatizing from Islaam and commanded carrying the Islamic Da'wah to the world. Therefore the Ahkaam (rulings) which explain the manner of implementing these commands and prohibitions are from the Tareeqah (method) and they include for example the ruling for the Murtadd (apostate), the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad and the Ahkaam relating to the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists) and non-Arabs etc… And Allah (swt) has commanded chastity whilst forbidding Zinaa (fornication and adultery), and He has commanded the protection of the private property and forbidden thievery (as-Saraqah), and He (swt) has commanded the preservation of human life and forbidden killing it. The explanation of the manner of implementing these commands and prohibitions is from the Tareeqah and this is like the Hadd (prescribed punishment) for Zinaa, and for Saraqah (thievery) and the killing of the killer etc…

Allah (swt) has commanded the establishment of a Khalifah and He has prohibited for the Muslims to refrain from establishing the Khalifah for more than three days. He (swt) has commanded the establishment of Judges to settle the disputes and commanded the taking care of the people's affairs whilst He (swt) has forbidden acts of injustice (Mazhaalim) and forbidden deceit in trade, monopoly and oppression. The Ahkaam that explain the manner of implementing these commands and prohibitions are from the Tareeqah and they include the Ahkaam of trade, the Ahkaam of judiciary, the Ahkaam of the Bait-ul-Maal (treasury), the Ahkaam of (dealing with) acts of injustice and the Ahkaam of Hisbah (affairs related to the public well-being) etc…

Also Allah (swt) has commanding the feeding of the Fuqaraa and Masaakeen (impoverished and poor) and has forbidden for anyone to go to sleep whilst being hungry and the rules that explain the manner of how the money or wealth is provided to the poor and preventing them from going to sleep whilst hungry are from the rules of the Tareeqah. These include for example the Ahkaam of Nafaqaat (spending on others), the Ahkaam of Az-Zakaah and the Ahkaam of those who have a right upon the Bait-ul-Maal etc…

As such every Hukm (ruling) that explains the manner of implementing a command from the commands of Allah Ta'Aalaa or a prohibition from His prohibitions is from the Tareeqah. Therefore it should not be asked what the Daleel evidence) for the Talab Al-Jaazim (decisive request i.e. obligation) from the Shaari' (legislator) for the obligation of adhering to the Tareeqah is. This is because the Daleel (evidence) for it is the (same) Daleel that guides to the obligation of abiding by and adhering to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah which is well known. This is like His statement (swt):

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

So no and by your Lord they do not believe until the make you the judge between them in all that which they dispute about amongst them and then they find within themselves no resistance to what you have judged and submit with complete submission (An-Nisaa 65).

And His speech (swt):

وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

And whatsoever the Messenger brings to you take it and whatever he forbids you from abstain from it and fear Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment (Al-Hashr).

These are two from amongst many other well-known evidences related to this issue.

Allah (swt) did not reveal the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah to treat the problems whilst leaving the human to implement these rulings in the way that he sees fit. So He (swt) did not say don't steal, don't commit Zinaa, don't consume the property of others and do not drink Khamr for example and then just leave man to implement these rules. Rather He (swt) don't steal and then provided rules that explain the manner of implementing that prohibition and these include the Ahkaam of Saraqah, An-Nahab, As-Salab and Al-Ghasab (different types of taking property without right). Allah (swt) explained all of the necessary rulings for the implementation of these Ahkaam and He did not leave man with the right to put down any ruling, whether related to the provision of solutions and treatments to problems or related to the manner of implementing these treatments. Rather He (swt) explained and made them all clear for man.

Islaam is therefore a Fikrah (thought) and a Tareeqah (method). The Fikrah is the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam which explain the treatment of the problems of life. These include for example believing in the validity and applicability of Islaam, the belief in the Kitaab and the Sunnah and the belief in the corruption of Kufr and so on. They also include the like of the Ahkaam of trade, the Ahkaam of marriage, the Ahkaam of renting and leasing, and the Ahkaam of Salaah and so on. As for the Tareeqah (method), then it is represented in the Ahkaam which explain the manner of implementing the Fikrah (thought), in other words the manner of implementing the Aqeedah and the manner of implementing the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah like the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad, Ghanaa'im (spoils of war), Fa'i (booty) and the Ahkaam of the apostate (Mutadd) for example. They also include the like of the Ahkaam of Al-'Uqoobaat (punishments) like the Hudood, Al-Janaayaat and At-Ta'zeer, or the rules related to the Imaamah (leadership) like the rules related to judges and Hisbah, and the Ahkaam related to Da'wah, accounting the Rulers, ordering the Ma'roof and forbidding the Munkar and so on.

As such adhering to and abiding by the Tareeqah is Fard whilst not abiding by it is a sin. If it is not abided by and another method is adopted whilst believing that the (Islamic) Tareeqah is not valid or applicable, then this action would be Kufr (disbelief) and may refuge be sought in Allah from that. If the person did not abide by the Ahkaam of Islaam in their quality as the Tareeqah for the implementation whilst not believing in their suitability and validity like the cutting of the hand of the Saariq (thief) for instance, then he would have disbelieved. However if he did not abide by them due to laziness, neglect or in conformity to what is present or similar to this, then his action would be a Ma'siyah (sinful act of disobedience). It is from this perspective that the judgments of the rulers and judges are measured in respect to them being acts of disobedience of disbelief as the rule and judiciary are from the rules of the Tareeqah. So the judge who rules that the thief should be imprisoned instead of cutting his hand then the issue is examined. If he passed this judgement due to not believing that the cutting of the hand of the thief was valid and applicable then he would have disbelieved and apostatized from Islaam but if he did it to full in line with the wishes of the ruler whilst still believing in the validity of the Hukm of cutting the hand of the thief and its applicability, then in this case he would be someone who is disobedient and each case he would be sinful. The same applies also to the Hukaam (rulers).

Therefore abiding by the Tareeqah, i.e. the Ahkaam which explain the manner of implementing the Ahkaam is a matter which has reached the severity that Allah (swt) has stated in the Noble Aayah:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوك

So no and by your Lord they do not believe until they go to you for judgement (Al-Hashr)

The seriousness has reached the level that the one who does not believe in the Tareeqah has disbelieved and may Allah's refuge be sought from that.

26th Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa 1383
14/09/1963

General guidelines in relation to the obligation of accounting the rulers

The following is a translation from an Arabic leaflet. 

1) It is noticeable that the Ummah is completely separate from the State i.e. from the rulers, and that the relationship between the masses and the rulers represents a relationship of two different groups where there is no relationship between the subjects and the State. In addition to that and beyond the fact that it is a relationship between two different groups it is also a relationship based upon hatred, opposition and contradiction in which there exists no rapprochement or anything that suggests that rapprochement or bringing them together is even possible in the future. This reality is what weakens the Ummah's entity in addition to weakening the State entity as well. This is because a herd (subjects) in the absence of a shepherd (a caretaker) from her would represent a flimsy building and structure. The State without subjects who stand as one row behind her would have a flimsy and weak existence which could be removed with the least amount of effort whilst being open to seeking support and assistance from the enemies of the Ummah.

2) This separation between the Ummah and the State was only natural and necessary in the days when the disbelieving States directly governed and ruled the lands and when the British mandate was applied upon them. However after the English authority was officially removed and when the Rulers of the lands who undertook the ruling were from the sons of the Ummah, at this time a justification no longer remained for the continuation of this separation. At that time is was obligatory to transform the relationships between the masses and the State to a state of cohesion between the shepherd and the flock (The ruler and citizens). Despite this the reality is that this separation and dislocation continued and still remains. The rulers are still representative of one group whilst the Ummah represents another with one antagonistic to the other. The Ummah looks to the Rulers as enemies just like they did with the English and perhaps they even felt the oppression stronger from them than they did from the English. On the other hand the rulers regard the Ummah as conspiring against them, wishing to eradicate them and as enemies to them. The Ummah conspires and plots against the State whilst the State conspires and plots against the Ummah. This is what places the Ummah in a state of despair in respect to being able to move forward a single step towards honour, might, prosperity and progress whilst it makes the thinking of the rulers restricted to that which will keep them upon their seats and in their positions of ruling and even this means seeking the assistance of the foreigner. They do not think about elevating the Ummah other than in hypocrisy whilst utilising styles that distance the Ummah from elevation and continuously places her in a weak condition allowing the rulers to remain dominant and in control over them.

3) This condition of separation between the Ummah and the State is the result of the Ummah not undertaking that which Allah (swt) had made obligatory upon her in regards to accounting the rulers and due to her lack of feeling and sensation that she (the Ummah) represents the source of the authority. If the Ummah had sensed and felt that she was the source of the Sultaan (authority) and undertook that which Allah had commanded her with in terms of accounting the rulers she would not have a traitor ruler who is an enemy to her in the position of ruling. In addition there would be no separation or dislocation between her and the ruler, she would not be in this state of weakness, in this broken up condition, backward decline and she would not still be under the influence and exploits of the disbelievers, even if the one directly ruling them was a Muslim from amongst the sons of the Ummah. For this reason it is necessary for the Ummah in order to be a single entity with the rulers and for her to be at one with the State, to undertake the obligation of accounting the rulers and to work with strength and seriousness to create change with the rulers or to change them. As long as she does not do this then there is no doubt that she will continue to quickly decline beyond the level of decline that we currently witness to the point where she will perish or be overlooking her destruction.

4) Indeed Islaam has made accounting the rulers Fard (an obligation) upon the Muslims and has commanded them to account them with the word of truth wherever they are without fearing the blame of the blamers (i.e. any consequences). As for the word of Haqq (truth) and declaring this openly then the Muslims in the second pledge of Al-'Aqabah whilst pledging obedience to the Messenger of Allah (saw) did so upon (the obligation of) speaking the word of Haqq (truth). In the text of the Bai'ah (pledge) the following was states: 'And that we will say the word of truth wherever we may be without fearing in Allah's way the blame of the blamers'. As for accounting the rulers and commanding them with the Ma'roof (that which Islaam has commanded) and forbidding them from the Munkar (that which Allah has prohibited), despite being present within the Aayaat of ordering the Ma'roof and forbidding the Munkar, there are also explicit texts that have come commanding the accounting of the rulers. 'Atiyah related from Abu 'Sa'eed (ra): The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'The best of Al-Jihaad is the word of truth to the Sultaan Jaa'ir (oppressive ruler)' and Abi Umaamah said: At Al-Jamratu-l-Uolaa (the first throwing) the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: 'O Messenger of Allah which Jihaad is best? He remained silent and then when he had thrown the second stone he asked him again but was silent again. Then when he had thrown the last stone and had placed his foot in the stirrup to ride away he said: 'Where is the questioner?' So he said: 'I am him O Messenger of Allah'. He (saw) said: 'The word of truth that is said to (or in the presence of) the Sultaan Al-Jaa'ir (the oppressive ruler)'. This text then relates to the ruler and the obligation of speaking the word of Haqq in front of him and the obligation of accounting him. The Messenger of Allah (saw) exhorted struggling against the oppressive rulers whatever was to happen and result in the path of doing that in terms of harm and even if that led to being killed. It has been related from him (saw) that he said: 'The master of martyrs is Hamza Ibn Abi Mutallab and a man who stood in front of an oppressive Imaam and then advised him and was then he (the Imaam) killed him (for that)'. This is from the most clearest and far-reaching forms of expression in respect to exhorting the person to bear harm and even to accept death in the path of accounting the rulers and struggling against the oppressive rulers.

5) Struggling against the Zhulm (oppression) of the rulers that we witness today and accounting those rulers for all of their actions and for their treachery and conspiring against the Ummah is a Fard that Allah (swt) has obligated upon us all as Muslims. Undertaking this Fard is what will remove the divisions and partitions existing between the Ummah and the Rulers and it is what will make the Ummah and the Rulers a single group on the same side and single bloc. This is what will guarantee to effect change upon the rulers and likewise guarantee changing them altogether if it is not possible to effect change upon them. This is the first path of revival because the revival cannot occur by other than the path of ruling when it is established upon the Islamic Aqeedah. And there is no way towards accomplishing that other than bringing about the rule upon the Islamic Aqeedah and establishing the rule upon that basis whilst there is no way towards accomplishing that other than by struggling against the oppressive rulers and accounting them.

7th Rabee'u th-Thaaniy 1386
24/07/1966.

Q&A: The Islamic Nafsiyah, aware obedience and human behaviour

The following is a translation from the Q&A archives:

Answers to questions: The Islamic Nafsiyah, aware obedience and human behaviour.

The Nafsiyah:

The Islamic Nafsiyah is where the inclination (mayl) for things and actions is built upon the basis of Islaam. Therefore when passing judgement upon a particular person in respect to him possessing an Islamic Nafsiyah or not, if that person had an aversion to Islaam in terms of his inclinations towards things and actions then it could be judged that he does not possess an Islamic Nafsiyah. However if that person made his inclinations (muyool) towards things and towards actions built upon the basis of Islaam and yet there were gaps existing within him that occurred from him on some occasions like if he was to not pray Fajr before the rising of the sun due to sleep and then made Qadaa for it, or if he glanced at a woman and took delight in that glance extending and repeating it but then regretted that and pulled himself away or if he was to act wrongly in some of his dealings with people but then retracted them or if he was prone to lying in small issues amongst other similar actions, then these gaps (Thugrah) must be treated but they do not at the same time make the Nafsiyah of that person un-Islamic. This means that it is not permissible for a Muslim to accuse the like of this person by saying that his Nafsiyah is not Islaamic. Rather his Nafsiyah is an Islamic Nafsiyah which has gaps in it that must be treated because if they were to be repeated and if they remained within him his Nafsiyah would then become un-Islamic in the future due to his aversion to Islaam (in those issues). However, as long as these remain (only) as gaps then his Nafsiyah would remain as an Islamic Nafsiyah. A number of gaps have been related in relation to the Sahaabah (rah) so for instance there is the example of the relations some of the Sahaabah had with their wives in Ramadhaan and the performance of the associated Kaffaarah (act of expiation) and there is also the example of the incident when the Messenger (saw) turning the head of Fadl Bin Al-'Abbaas away from a young woman when he saw that he was repeating his glance towards her with desire. There are numerous examples of incidents that occurred which revealed gaps in the conduct of the Sahaabah (rah) and yet these did not lead to their Nafsiyahs being discredited in any way or make them people possessing un-Islamic Nafsiyahs. Therefore, just as being silent over the gaps is incorrect whilst be necessary to treat them, accusing those who have gaps of their Nafsiyahs being shed or stripped of Islaam and accusing them of possessing un-Islamic Nafsiyahs is (also) incorrect. It is a danger for the Da'wah and the Hizb to demand from the people to be angels because that is impossible and similarly it is dangerous to take that as a weapon to justify focusing with determination upon the gaps because of the fear that they would lead to an aversion to Islaam. Rather the Hizb attempts to treat every individual in which these gaps exist by alerting him and by pursuing him and then if he is does not rectify himself in the manner that Allah has commanded and they are not removed from him then the Hizb will leave him completely (i.e. administratively).

The aware obedience:

Understanding the meaning of a thing or matter in a correct manner accompanied by the belief (I'tiqaad) that the understanding is his, makes the person proceed towards it in accordance to his understanding of it whilst understanding the meaning of the State (Dawlah) makes the existence of the conduct based on obedience indispensable in itself. Similarly understanding the meaning of the Ummah makes the existence of conduct based on obedience indispensable in itself just as understanding the meaning of the Hizb makes the existence of conduct based on obedience indispensable in itself. The obedience is a fundamental matter for the existence of discipline and order whether this is within a State, the Ummah or the Hizb and it is from the most important manifestations indicative of the Hizbiy discipline and keeping order or the general discipline and order within the State and the Ummah.

For this reason the Qur'aan came with numerous Aayaat urging and exhorting obedience despite the presence of the Wahi (divine inspiration/revelation), miracles, the Message and the personality of the Messenger (saw) which are all sufficient to instil obedience. And the obedience which the Qur'aan came with is obedience that the entity of the State, the Ummah and the Hizb are all established upon its basis. At the same time it explains the characteristic of obedience, this is when it becomes a natural attribute to undertake the obligation of obedience whenever it is possible to do so in addition to being an attribute that forbids obedience at the time when this obedience would be harmful to the Ummah and to the ruler. So we find the Qur'aan when mentioning the nature and character of obedience stating:

أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ

And obey Allah and the Messenger.

فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي

So follow me and obey my command.

اسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا

Hear and obey.

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ يُدْخِلْهُ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ

And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will be entered into gardens beneath which rivers flow.

مَنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ

Who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ

And whosoever obeys Allah and the Messenger then they are those whom Allah has bestowed his favour upon.

And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

مَنْ يُطِعِ الأَميرَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي

And whoever obeys the Ameer has obeyed me.

In these Aayaat and this Hadeeth Allah (swt) has commanded obedience in a Mutlaq (absolute and unrestricted) manner. The command of obedience has therefore come without restriction and qualification however the Messenger (saw) whilst explaining obedience to them (the Muslims) he made them understand that what is intended by obedience here is the obedience based upon awareness and not blind obedience.

So he (saw) said:

لَا طَاعَةَ لِمَخْلُوقٍ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ الخَالِق

There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the creator.

Therefore the aware obedience is the obedience which is within the bounds and limits of Islaam. When he (saw) explained the obedience that is required ne made clear that it is the aware obedience the meaning of which is obedience which is within the limits of Islaam and not the obedience in the matter in which the person undertaking it is convinced and is in agreement with it. The fact that it is aware is that it is understood that he obeys within (the bounds of) the ideology and this is the meaning of the statement of the Messenger (saw): 'There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the creator'.

As for when Islaam demands the obedience it demands it in absolute way (Mutlaqan). So it says: 'Obey' and it does not restrict it by anything and as such when it demands the obedience it demands the absolute obedience without restriction of qualification. It is obligatory on Muslims to understand when it is demanded from them that it has been demanded in an absolute and unrestricted manner. However he (saw) focused in their minds that the meaning of this absolute obedience is the aware obedience i.e. the obedience within the limits of Islaam. Islaam did not suffice requesting the obedience from the Ummah so that the moral characteristic of obedience would be natural within her but rather it also forbade her explicitly from some forms of obedience.

Allah (swt) said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا إِنْ تُطِيعُوا فَرِيقًا مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ يَرُدُّوكُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ كَافِرِينَ

O you who believe if you obey a group from amongst those who have been given the Book they would turn you back after your belief so that you become disbelievers.

وَلَا تُطِعْ مَنْ أَغْفَلْنَا قَلْبَهُ عَنْ ذِكْرِنَا وَاتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ وَكَانَ أَمْرُهُ فُرُطًا

And do not obey the one whom we have locked his heart from our reminder and who follows his desire whilst his affair was ever in neglect.

وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ

And if you were to obey most of those upon the earth you would be misguided away from the path of Allah.

فَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ

So do not obey the disbelievers.

وَلَا تُطِعْ مِنْهُمْ آَثِمًا أَوْ كَفُورًا

And do not obey from amongst them the one who is sinful or ungrateful.

فَلَا تُطِعِ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ

So do not obey the deniers.

وَلَا تُطِعْ كُلَّ حَلَّافٍ مَهِينٍ

And do not obey every wretched oath maker.

All of these Aayaat forbid obedience to people of specific characteristics or descriptions.

Allah (swt) has made this clear to us so that the obedience is shaped and formed within us in a manner that brings a general order and discipline. This is so that this general order can become manifested within the reality of any body or entity whether this is the Ummah, the Hizb or the State. And it is also so that we distance the discipline from those areas in which discipline will lead to harm for the entity or body if the obedience was present. For this reason the Muslim must when responding to the command of Allah to be obedient, to abstain from the obedience to those whom Allah has forbidden obedience to. In this way the entity or body will be shaped and formed in a sound manner and the general discipline and order will exist soundly. Islaam did not find this alone to be sufficient but rather it addressed the ruler and made clear to him the limits of his obedience to the Ummah in regards to the danger that can harm her. So it forbade him from obeying her or obeying individuals from her in that which he sees to be harmful for her.

Allah (swt) said:

لَوْ يُطِيعُكُمْ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ لَعَنِتُّمْ

If he obeyed you in many matters then you would surely be in trouble (Al-Hujuraat 7).

So He (swt) negated obedience of the Messenger (saw) to them in many of the matters as a protection and to prevent hardship and difficulty from befalling them. Therefore when the obedience has been commanded it is absolute and not restricted to the agreement of the one being commanded or his disagreement whilst the one being commanded understands that he obeys within the limits and bounds set by Islaam. When he knows that he is obedient he must understand about the obedience that it is the obedience that Allah has commanded him with and this is the obedience of the one who has been given the authority and right to be obeyed. 'And whoever obeys his Ameer then he has obeyed me'. And he must understand that obedience to the disbelievers and those who lead astray cannot be allowed to happen because it would mean the worst of harms. As for the Wali Al-Amr (the one who is in authority) then he acts in accordance to that which is in the interest (Maslahah) of the Ummah and he does not obey them in what he sees to be against their interest however all of this must occur within the limits set by Islaam. What is intended by the limits of Islaam is that which is Qat'iy (decisive/definite) to be from Islaam whilst that which is Zhanny (indefinite) is not considered being from these limits. Therefore if for example the person in authority viewed that leasing land was not permitted whilst the one under his authority viewed that it is permissible, then when the one in authority forbids the leasing of land it is obligatory for the one under his command to obey him and even if it was contrary to his opinion. This is because the command of the Imaam raises (removes) the dispute and analogy is made for all those who are in (legitimate) positions of authority. Therefore it is not said that this command is contrary to Islaam and as such I will not obey it in the case where he may be truthful in that he views that it is contrary to Islaam whilst the person in authority views that it is from Islaam. This cannot be said because this is considered to be Tamarrud (rebelliousness/insubordination) but rather it is obligatory for this command to be obeying as long as it has a Shubhat-ud-Daleel (semblance of an evidence) connecting it to Islaam as perceived by the one in authority who has commanded it upon that basis. Insubordination and being rebellious or disobedient to the one in authority is a great sin as explained in the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (saw): 'Whoever obeys the Ameer then he has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the Ameer then he has disobeyed me' and it is established that every group of three (embarking on a journey) choose an Ameer for themselves making obedience to him obligatory.

Human behaviour:

It must be clear that the origin of the Sulook (conduct/behaviour) is the Taaqah Al-Hayyawiyah (vital (life) energy. It is the vital energy that drives and demands satisfaction and so the human undertakes movement, speech or action for the sake of satisfaction. This is the origin of the Sulook (behaviour) and so the Sulook is satisfaction. However that which specifies this behaviour is the concept (Mafhoom) and not just the Fikr (thought) alone. This is because the Fikr (thought) does not have an effect upon the behaviour unless the person believes in it and binmds this belief to the energy i.e. unless it becomes a concept from amongst the concepts held by the person. Therefore the statement that the behaviour or conduct (Sulook) of the person is in accordance to his concepts is a statement that is certain and not open to doubt. This is because belief in the thought (Fikr) when it is bound and connected to the energy (Taaqah) means that it is not possible for the behaviour to not be in accordance to it. However there are some thoughts, the belief in which is tied to the energy in a strong way which make it hard to believe in another thought that would remove them or it is difficult to remove their effects except after the passing of some time. In this case the thought would remain without being transformed into a concept or it is transformed in a manner that is not smooth or in an intermittent way. This is most often the case with the most deeply rooted concepts and these require extra attention and effort whilst possibly requiring some time.

Following on from this, the Fikr (thought) is the result of the 'Aql (mind) and it is not the Sulook (conduct) and the Sulook is the result of the Taaqah (energy) and it is not the Fikr (thought), just as the thinking was not the inclination and the 'Aqliyah was not the Nafsiyah. So there exists an energy (Taaqah) that requires satisfaction and there is a mind that thinks. They are two different matters but when they are tied where the conduct is in accordance to the thought it would represent the personality (Shakhsiyah). If however they were not bound and remained disconnected and separate then there would merely have been inclinations and thoughts.

However the behaviour being in opposition to the thought happens most often in respect to the partialities and as such do not have an effect upon the Shakhsiyah (personality). Rather it has an effect upon some of the behaviours on some occasions. In the expedition of Bani Mustalaq the Ansaar called against the Muhaajiroon whilst the Muhaajiroon called against the Ansaar when the pride of tribalism and partisan prejudice manifested in the two groups. On this occasion the Sulook (conduct) was disconnected from the Fikr (thought) where the concept held by these two groups was at this time not a concept i.e. it was separated from being tied to the energy (Taaqah). This led to each of the groups conducting themselves and behaving in accordance to their inclinations (Muyool) and not in accordance to their thoughts reflecting that their deep-rooted concepts had been agitated. This however did not change or have an effect upon the Shakhsiyah (personality) of the Ansaar or the personality of the Muhaajiroon and it was not long until the concept returned to being a concept and not just a thought alone. Therefore the disconnection of the conduct from the thought on some occasions does not have an effect upon the Shakhsiyah (i.e. as being distinct and remaining Islaamic).

As for the statement regarding the human possessing two opposing and contradictory concepts towards a single thing or matter then this is an incorrect statement. The person cannot have except one single Mafhoom (concept) and that is the thought (Fikr) which its belief is connected to the Taaqah ((Vital) energy). As for the other (i.e. reason for the conflict) then it represents a thought and not a concept in this situation i.e. that which is related to the behaviour and conduct. Similarly the statement that the person has two viewpoints in life is also an incorrect and erroneous statement. The person does not have except a single fundamental concept about life and this is the fundamental thought that transforms into a concept and there is none other than this. If something else is found other than that then it merely represents a thought and not a concept.