Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 2

Photo: Explanation of At-Takattul (Party structuring) series:

Part One:

Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizb Sheikh Al-Hawarey

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.

This where:
• 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 Aqueedah (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.
Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 

This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. 

To access Part 1 click here

2) 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 (Ghumood) and ambiguity (Ibhaam).

The subject of the Tareeqah (method) remains unclear in terms of understanding in respect to all of the movements until this day. Indeed they are virtually incapable of differentiating or distinguishing between the Fikrah (thought) and the Tareeqah (method) and between the Usloob (style) and the Waseelah (means). They envision any action from amongst actions to be the method and more precisely they do not distinguish between the Tareeqah (method) before achieving the goal and the Tareeqah after arriving to it and the manner of implementing the Fikrah (thought).

We have oft repeated that the ideology (Al-Mabda’) is the thought and the method (Fikrah wa Tareeqah). The Fikrah is the Aqueedah, its solutions (Mu’aalajaat) and carrying the Da’wah whilst the Tareeqah relates to protecting/preserving the Aqueedah and how to implement the solutions and how to carry the Da’wah. This relates to the ideology and it consisting of the thought and the method however our study and discussion here is related to the manner of how to make this ideology reach life and thereafter establishing its implementation.

Our because our discussion here revolves around the structures and their failure from the structural aspect and it does not revolve around their failure in regards to implementing their Fikrah (idea/thought) then the subject of Tareeqah here relates to the way that the Takattul should proceed in accordance to. This requires examining the Makki stage of the life of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in relation to the Islamic structures (groups) and the Ahkaam (legal rulings) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) established in addition to gaining awareness about the difference between that which is a Hukm (ruling) and that which is a Waseelah (means) or Usloob (style) to implement another ruling.

So openness in the conveyance is a Hukm Shari’iy (Legislative ruling) whilst the Messenger (saw) standing upon As-Safaa and calling the people until they had gathered is an Usloob (style) and the use of his voice in the call was a Waseelah (means). So the conveyance of the Shar’iy rule or warning about the colonialist plans represents a Shari’iy rule, the means is a publication and the style is wide challenging distribution.

So the Hukm Shari’iy is: The required action that is performed as it is (on its own merit (as an obligation)).

The Waseelah (means) is: It is the tool that is used (utilized) like a publication (leaflet), radio or microphone. This would be determined or defined by the age and circumstance.

The Usloob (style): It is the manner that is employed (utilised) to deliver the means and this is determined or defined by the nature of the work/action.

Therefore the subject or issue that has been mentioned in this paragraph does not relate to the Tareeqah in terms of the Fikrah and Tareeqah of the ideology (Mabda’). But rather it refers to the Tareeqah (methodology) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) followed to bring the ideology to the life.
This can be summarised as follows:
- A Takattul that is established upo an ideology with its Fikt=rah and Tareeqah (thought and method).
- It has an Ameer.
- This Takattul works to:

1) Produce people who believe in it.
2) Produce an Ummah or people that accept it.
3) Produce or find a power (force) that is capable of placing this ideology in the position where it can be implemented in life.

In addition there are a collection of rules that are related to the achievement of this objective:

1) Like committing to the intellectual Da’wah alone and distancing from using the material means
2) Obeying and implementing what this Takattul has obliged and what it has adopted in terms of thoughts.
3) Implement the decisions that it has taken.

Based upon this, these Takattulaat (structures) including those which are Islamic and those which are not, did not possess a vision (grasp) for the method that they should proceed in accordance with. What they performed of actions were reactions to what was occurring in the society (improvised actions without preceding understanding or planning in addition to imitating that which happens in the world like strikes, protests and the raising of slogans).

As for them being twisted (flexible) then this happens as a result of entering into bargaining and compromising with the rulers and people in positions of responsibility, or by joining with other Takattulaat (structures) or being drawn into joining the work of a front, organisation, association or something similar. If however these structures viewed that they did in fact have a specific method then this method was vague (Ghaamid) and not clear. So when they call for ‘Islamic Unity’ or ‘Arab Unity’ their method to achieve this is vague and they are incapable of how to reach this objective even if they are attempting to find it. As for the obscurity (Ibhaam) then this is reflected in the complete ignorance of this manner.

3) Those responsible for these structures were people driven by zeal (enthusiasm) and a desire for change as a result of the circumstances that the land is passing through or due to the realisation of the corrupt nature of affairs. So they go out with their zeal for change without the will and awareness being focused in them.

This is because the awareness (Al-Wa’ie) of the thought and method is the Jaw Al-Imaani (atmosphere of Imaan) that makes the person possessing it in a continuous state of zeal (Hamaas) when he binds his actions with the fundamental principle that they have emanated from. The lack of awareness makes him exposed to hesitation, inaction and bargaining (compromise). As for the will (Iraadah) then this comes from the strength of the belief (Imaan) in relation to the obligation of achieving that objective. It is distinguished from the desire (Raghbah) because it is a desire that is linked to a command that is obligatory to be implemented. As for the desire that is not connected to another factor then the most that this can reach to is zeal/enthusiasm. If that zeal then diminishes then the motivation wanes along with it and he sits back from the work as a result. If we were to closely examine that which these movements have left behind we will not find in them a trace of awareness or knowledge of what they wanted.

4) The bond that joined together the individuals of these movements was not a correct bond. It was usually restricted to a mere desire attached to forming a group.

The structured groups normally searched for people that have a position of standing within the society like Doctors, Engineers, those in positions amongst others who hold a social status. Likewise the member looks for a structure to affiliate to in order to strengthen his social standing. Due to the above we find many continuously moving from one Hizb to another either to perform some actions or to be included under a number of titles.

It could be stated here that the Aqueedah is the best bond that brings the people together. These words are correct but upon the condition that the Aqueedah is the basis of the Takattul (structure). This because all of the sons (members) of these structures are Muslims and they are brought together by the Islamic Aqueedah however they have not taken the Aqueedah as the basis of their structuring (group formation). This is from one angle and from another angle the Islamic Aqueedah is the basis upon the structuring was completed within the Islamic groups and movements. However they took it as a general idea and this is not sufficient to be a bond (that binds). This in the case where this Aqueedah holds the potential for a number of Islamic rulings to be derived that lead to a plurality of understandings and differences in relation to solutions and steps of action. This is because it is only natural that many different structures would emerge from this Aqueedah. For this reason it is necessary for a single Islamic group to have a specific culture for it meaning that it is necessary to adopt rulings for its objectives and a path that it proceeds along. All will be joined and brought together upon these rulings (Ahkaam) and it will be the bond of their joining together to achieve their objectives and unify the path that they proceed along. So it is not sufficient to state that the Aqueedah should be the bond that binds but rather it is the Aqueedah and the Hizbiy culture that is the bond that binds the members together so that the objective is unified, the work is unified and the path that is proceeded along is unified for everyone.

To access Part 3 click here

No comments: