This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
When the calamities descend upon the Ummah that are followed up by occurrences in which Zhulm (oppression) dominates and the affairs of the people are handed to those who are not qualified to undertaken them, the people begin to grumble and complain. This discontent transfers to becoming a general sensation and feeling of being oppressed. This sensation becomes embodied within some of the people which then drives them into activity and to move to repel the oppression, get rid of Fasaad (corruption), raise the status of their society and Ummah and to revive with her to reach the level that they wish for her to attain. It is only natural that these people will then resort to structuring (forming a group) so as to establish the capable strength required to bring change according to their estimation and for them to join upon a goal or an idea that they would gather round comprising of their goals and the path that they will proceed in accordance to.
Due to what our Islamic world suffers from in terms of decline and backwardness and what it endures in terms of oppression and abuse we see that many movements have come one after another that aim at stopping its decline, elevating its status and to revive with it to the highest elevation that befits it. However all of these movements for more than 100 years have failed to achieve what they strove for and the evidence for their failure is the reality of the Islamic world today. It has continued in its decline until it has reached the very bottom or near to that and we have not gained anything from these movements except for this unbridled and ardent desire to work for change. So we are able to say that the good that these movements left for us is the general feeling of the desire to make change and even if they have taken the Ummah to the brink of despair. However the one who examines the Ummah finds that it still has within it the noble qualities that allow it to accept a way out from what it suffers from, as long as it senses that there does exist a way to free themselves or that there is a reliable trustworthy leadership that it can follow or be led by.
The one who examines these Harakaat (movements) and has followed these attempts will find that they were not individualistic actions but were rather structures (Takattulat) or organisations that were structured upon a specific thought for the purpose of achieving a specific goal or objective. Despite this they failed.
The reasons for the failure of the movements and the previous attempts:
To become aware of the reasons or causes for failure it is necessary to study these movements from two angles:
1) The first angle is that of the Fikrah (thought) and objective that for its sake the gathering took place. Was this Fikrah (thought/idea) correct or incorrect?
2) As for the second angle then it is the angle of structuring. We do not mean here by the structural angle that which occurs inside the structure in terms of structuring (administration) but rather we mean the bases that any structure is established upon regardless of the thought that it has adopted or the path that is proceeds in accordance to.
So the structure any structure is established upon four bases which are:
1) The idea that comprises the aim and which the people are gathered upon.
2) The method that this structure proceeds along in the way to achieving its aim.
3) The people who are responsible for this structure in terms of the extent of their Imaan in its Fikrah (thought/idea) and Tareeqah (method).
4) How the affiliation of the people into the Takattul (structure) is completed.
Any flaw in any basis from amongst these bases will inevitably to the failure in arriving to the achievement of the aim which the Takattul (structure) is working to achieve. And by scrutinising all of these movements that have arisen within the last century we find that all of them have failed from the structural perspective due negligence in regards to these bases.
• They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).
• They did not know a Tareeqah (method) to implement their idea (Fikrah) rather their idea proceeded by improvised and twisted means. This is in addition to it being surrounded by obscurity and ambiguity.
• They relied upon people in whom the correct awareness had not been completed and the correct will was not focused within them. They were rather people possessing desire and zeal alone.
• Those people who undertook the burdens of the movements did not possess the correct bond between them. It was no more than a structure that was represented in forms of actions and a number of titles.
We will now examine in the following section each of these bases in some detail:
1) They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).
Yes it is necessary that every Takattul be based upon a Fikrah (idea/thought) and it can either be a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) or a Fikrah Kulliyah (comprehensive idea/thought). The general idea is the type that can be used as a basis for thought in many matters that come together in a single basis. As for the comprehensive idea, it can be used as a basis for everything. This is in relation to distinguishing between the general and comprehensive thoughts. Therefore the thoughts of nationalism, regionalism and patriotism are only general thoughts that do not encompass all aspects or areas of life. However the Fikrah Mabda’iyah (ideological thought) is a comprehensive idea that covers all aspects of life.
I will add to this by stating that it is not defined. So the structures that were formed include those that have been established upon the basis of Islaam (The glory of the Muslims), some have been established on the basis of nationalism (Might of the Arabs and Arab dignity) and some on a patriotic regional basis (Syrian etc...) amongst other ideas. These are all general ideas but they are undefined.
Therefore ‘The glory of the Muslims’, ‘Islamic might’, ‘Return to Allah’, ‘Islamic education’, Islamic brotherhood’, ‘Islamic revival’, ‘Arab revival’, ‘Independence’, ‘Arab unity’ and ‘The eternal message’ amongst other ideas and slogans, do not have a defined (or specified) meaning.
So in relation to the following statements for example:
‘Returning the glory of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘The honour/might (‘Izzah) of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Returning to Allah’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Tarbiyah (education/raising)’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic brotherhood’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah, Ghaamidah.
‘Islamic revival’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab revival’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Independence’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab Unity’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Unity’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
Therefore Ghumood (vagueness/obscurity) is not having knowledge of the aim/objective or the way to attain it. As for Shibhu Ghaamid (semi-vague) then its meaning is well-known but its features have not been made clear like the statements ‘Returning to Allah’ and ‘Islamic Tarbiyyah’.
As for the loss of the Tabalwur (crystallization) then the meaning of crystallization is transforming from a liquid state to a solid one like the crystallizing of salt from water. What is intended here in regards to lack of crystallization is an expression of the feelings and emotions of those affected by this and that the ideas were not embodied in them and indeed they were incapable of identifying and specifying its features if they had desired to explain the idea to the people. Therefore they relied upon slogans and stirring the emotions alone and this can be seen to be the reality of most of the movements that are currently present.
As for the loss of the Naqaa’ (purity), then in regards to the Islamic movements, they did not comprehend or perceive clearly what had been entered into Islaam in terms of western ideas. An example of this are the principles that were brought in related to the formation of the Shar’iah rulings that were taken from the Roman and French jurisprudence (Fiqh). There are a great number of western principles that are studied upon the basis that they are Islamic principles and bases. This is like the principle: ‘The custom rules (i.e. dominates)’ or ‘The origin in contracts are the intentions and meanings’ and ‘That which does not contradict Islaam is from Islam’ amongst others.
So An-Naqaa’ (purity) means distancing the foreign bodies from the fundamental thought so that it remains sound in its origins and branches. As for non-Islamic movements like nationalistic and patriotic movements, they have not truly comprehended the danger and seriousness of what they have carried of western thoughts. Indeed they have believed in (some of) these thoughts and have dedicated themselves to them like the ideas of Democracy and Freedom amongst others for example. This is in addition to attempting to explain and interpret Islaam in accordance to what suits and fits with these thoughts and then they claim that they are Islamic.
As for the Safaa’ (clarity) then this means the clarity of vision. And what is intended here in terms of clarity of vision means comprehending the linkage between the thought and the origin that it has emanated from or built upon. So in respect to Muslims and the carriers of the Da’wah the Safaa’ (clarity) of the thought means that every Hukm Shar’iy (ruling) that they call for is tied to the evidence that it has emanated from and that every thought that is called for is built upon the fundamental thought which is the Aqeedah (belief) of the Ummah. This was not fulfilled within these movements and they were unable to distinguish between Shuraa and democracy as a result. Indeed they were unable to differentiate between Shuraa being a Hukm Shar’iy that the human resorts to in order to arrive at a correct view irrespective of this human being a ruler or not a ruler. This is because Shuraa is a Mandoob (recommended) Hukm Shar’iy and it is a style to arrive at what is most probable to be correct whether this is a matter of ruling or other than a matter of ruling. Despite this it is still possible to hear those who are callers to Islaam stating that the system of ruling in Islaam is the system of Shuraa and following from this it is true democracy.
As for non-Muslims from amongst those whom do not have a defined idea then the work with them is greater and harder because they have taken the western ideas just as they are without regard for whether these ideas are suitable for their nation and society or not suitable and they remain upon this state whether it relates to their fundamental thoughts or their styles.
To access part 2 click here