This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
This is the condition in which these Harakaat (movements) lived and by which they intended to go out and revive the Ummah upon its basis. It is an obvious matter that the one who does not have something cannot pass it on to others, so when the stores of zeal were exhausted they ended in failure and then other movements arose from their ruins and their fate was the same as those that preceded them. Had the Ummah not had what it had and had its Aqueedah not been a practical Aqueedah that leads to structuring (naturally) then all of these movements would have ended in despair which would have afflicted the Ummah and killed her spirit towards the work and forming structures to perform it. This is what (the enemies) had wanted however Al-Hamdu Lillah the blood that runs in her veins prevents her from reaching the level of despair and indifference or lack of caring. This is despite its existence amongst a large section from amongst the people.
All of this is because it was only natural for these movements to fail because they were not established upon a clear and defined idea, they were not aware of a method that would lead them soundly, they were not formed upon people possessing awareness and they were not formed upon the correct bond.
These are the main reasons that led to the failure of all the movements and attempts that were present in the Islamic world from the angle of structuring in addition to that which we have summarized in relation to these four points. As for the detail behind this then the one who is observant will find that these movements were either Islamic or Nationalistic (Qawmiyah).
So the Islamic movements (Harakat) were and still remain established upon the call (Da’wah) to Islaam in an open manner:
There are those that call the Muslim to commit to the practise of the ‘Ibaadaat and for him to regulate the relationship between him and his Rabb whilst prohibiting the political work. They do not have any conception or visualisation for the Islamic society, Islamic State or other than these.
And there are those who call to Islaam with the call to return to Allah without specifying it.
And there are those who call to Islaam, the study of the Islamic Aqueedah and understanding the Aqueedah (belief).
And there are those who call to Islaam with the call of reforming the individual so as to reach from that the reformation of the society.
And there are those who belief that the way of escape (from the bad situation) and reviving the Muslims is by making them one Ummah where their states are bound together under an Islamic league.
All of the above attempt to interpret Islaam in a way that agrees with the prevailing present situations, the standing systems/regimes to the point where they made a principle from which they launched from and this was their statement: ‘The changing of the Ahkaam with the changing of the Azmaan (times) is not denounced/repudiated’. They built a lot upon this principle to the point where they made clear Kufr ideas into Islamic ideas like democracy and freedom amongst other thoughts. So their process was interpreting the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam and its texts by the fundamental concepts that they held with the argument of bringing Islaam closer to the minds. This was despite the aim behind doing this being the acceptance of these systems, thoughts and rulings by the people and their approval of them.
As for the national movements (Al-Harakaat Al-Qawmiyah), then after the success of the west in separating eastern Europe (Balkans) from the body of the Islamic State, by using nationalistic thoughts, they then implanted these ideas into the hearts of the Arabs and Turks aiming to rip apart the unity of the Muslims and form nationalistic states upon the ruins of the Islamic State. These movements were directed directly by the west and would convene their meetings in London and Paris. They would call for revival upon the basis of nationalism taken from the Europe their model example, that these states were established upon a nationalistic basis and revived upon a nationalistic basis in addition to freeing themselves from the religious thoughts which then as a result allowed them to revive. Therefore it was (in their view) necessary to establish an Arab unity for the Arab Ummah to revive upon its basis. Similarly the Turks viewed that their revival must necessarily be established upon the nationalistic basis.
There were intense and sharp discussions that appeared in the newspapers and press between the people of these two movements, the Islamic and nationalistic, around an imaginary idea which was: Which of the two is better and most appropriate? An Arab league or an Islamic league? It was as if the problem was the division of lands whilst this division had not existed prior to the first world war. Despite this these discussions were intense and this was either out of ignorance or in an attempt to mislead the public opinion and divert it from the correct sound thinking in relation to revival and the way in which it is reached or achieved, despite the dominant motivation being to mislead and divert. They finally arrived at the formation of the Arab League in the year 1945 so what was the result of this? And did it change anything in the reality? This is because the intended purpose was to divert the minds from the serious thinking about the Islamic State or about the basis that the revival of nations is based upon.
Alongside the nationalistic and Islamic movements, patriotic movements (Harakaat Wataniyah) were formed in different parts of the Islamic world. This was a reaction to the occupation of the disbeliever’s occupation of the Muslim lands and their taking over control of them. So revolutions took place and actions demanding revolution and independence to expel the disbeliever and keep the Kaafir presence from the nation’s land. They mobilised the street in Iraq, Shaam and Palestine amongst others for the sake of independence, so their demand (in reality) was one of installing and confirming the puppets of the agents of the disbelievers in the seats of ruling. So King Faisal was appointed in Iraq whilst Abdullah was appointed in Jordan and the republic in Syria. In this way the leaderships directed the situation to re-enforce the hold of the Kaafir (disbeliever) by way of re-enforcing the agents in the positions of leadership amongst the people and the re-enforcement of their rule, systems and laws.
In addition these agents with their tyranny, oppression, the corrupt systems that they came with and the bad economic situations that they created, they pushed the people to establish movements or engage in actions and revolutions that led as a result to further strengthen the foothold of the disbelievers and their agents. All of this was a result of the absence of the thought and the method from the minds of those who were involved in these movements.
To access part 4 click here
To access part 4 click here