Saturday, March 15, 2014

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 11

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 10 click here

By making the disbelievers personality the high example for the Muslims and due to the competition between the disbelievers to drain the blood of the Muslims, seeking help from the disbeliever became a natural matter and consequence and indeed it became (in their eyes) and essential indispensable) matter. The French took up aiding the Palestinians in their revolution whilst the English did the same in respect to the Syrians and Lebanese in their revolution and so on. It became a matter of certainty for the politicians that they were unable to achieve any goal or any objective without relying upon the foreigner’s help. It was as seeking help and reliance upon the disbeliever had become a ruling from amongst the rulings of the (Shar’iy) method! This was exactly the same as the propaganda stating that it is not possible for a person to become a Minister, parliamentary member or authority in a large company unless he was a Free Mason. This then drove the people who held ambitions to look into free masonry and its gatherings hoping that this will allow them to achieve their ambitions. 

The same applied to the agents as they became certain that they could not arrive at the position or ruling or attain a seat in ruling or achieve a great interest unless they relied upon the foreigner. This led to most of the Takattulaat (Party structures) to seek and rely upon help of the foreigner whatever the foreigner’s nationality was and regardless of their covetous desires and ambitions. The media began to propagate and call for this without giving consideration to or comprehending that this represented the greatest of treacheries and highest of betrayals or that tying their issue with others necessarily meant political suicide. This would be the case if we actually understood that we do indeed have an issue of our own or understood what our issue actually was. In any case it would be considered political suicide and the reason for this is that suicide means that the person intends to kill himself. The group, party or person that places their issue into the hands of someone else is as if they have committed political suicide i.e. killed themselves politically. This is because my issue is my issue alone and it is only natural that it would be in opposition to and contradict with the issues of others. Placing it in the hands of others means that I will never be able to arrive at the achievement of my issue and the foreigner would never be able to help me in my issue at the top of which is the aim of expelling the foreigner! Is it conceivable that the foreigner would aid me and ease the way towards accomplishing the achievement of the issue that includes within its fundamental aims his expulsion from the land?! It is for this reason that we say placing the issue in the hand of the foreigner can only mean political suicide and a death sentence for the Takattul (Party/group) or its failure or treachery to the Ummah. Therefore any Takattul that is poisoned by the idea of reliance upon the foreigner or propagates this idea will never be successful.

Similarly the society was poisoned with Wataniyah, Qawmiyah (Nationalism) and socialism in addition to being poisoned by narrow regionalism whist making the here and now the focus of the work. They were also poisoned with the idea of the impossibility of establishing an Islamic State and the impossibility of unifying the Muslim lands. This is due to the animosity that they cultivated within the breasts between the people of the Islamic world in terms of regional, patriotic and nationalistic hostilities or in terms of what they claimed existed in relation to differences in civilisation, race and language despite all of them belonging to one single Ummah who are bound by the Islamic Aqueedah from which a System (of life) emanates. They also poisoned them with false political thoughts and ideas like: ‘Take what you can get’, ‘The Ummah is the source of the authorities’ and ‘The sovereignty belongs to the people’. This was despite the fact that it was obligatory to be clear and for it not to be absent from the mind for even an instant, that the sovereignty belongs to the Shar’a (Islamic legislation) and does not belong to the people. It is essential to focus in the minds that the sovereignty belonging to the people is a Kufr idea. It turns the people into a deity (Ilaah) that legislates the systems of life and laws for the people. The sovereignty to the people is the capitalist Aqueedah (belief in life) and it is also practised by communism. So the people in communism or the representatives of the people are the ones who put down the legislations and laws. Similarly in the capitalist system, the parliament which is called the legislative authority is the body that lays down the systems and enact the laws.

As for what the Islamic Aqueedah has come with, then the Tashree’ (Legislation) or the placing down of systems and laws and the way that the life of the individual and society proceeds, all of this is only from Allah. The role of the human is only to understand that which has come in the Kitaab of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) to extract the rulings that explain the systems and make clear the laws by the Ahkaam Ash-Shari’ah which a Muslim cannot do without. 
Allah (swt) stated:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُبِينًا

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error (Al-Ahzaab 36).

If this thought was clear in the minds and occupied the focus of the Imaan of the Ummah then the Ummah would have rejected any legislations that were placed down by any man whether this was done in the Parliaments or any other direction or entity. However the poisoning of the thoughts of the Ummah with the like of this thought has made her far away indeed from her Islaam and her Imaan in it.

They also poisoned the Muslim with other erroneous false thoughts like: ‘The Deen is to Allah and the nation is to everyone’ and ‘We are united in our pains and sufferings’ and ‘The Nation is above everything’ and ‘Honour (might) belongs to the Nation’ in addition to similar thoughts.

They also poisoned the mind of the Muslim with pragmatic and reactionary thoughts like: ‘We take our system from our reality’, ‘Accept the reality’ and ‘We need to be realistic’ amongst other similar thoughts.

As for stating pragmatic and reactionary thoughts then the wordings: (Raj’iyah) reactionary, reactionary thinking, they are reactionaries, those reactionaries etc... All of these are misleading and taken away from their true meaning and those who relay them today are only referring to the old ideas that are buried in the past and by this they mean Islaam and accuse the Muslims of being reactionaries. They mean that the Muslims in their beliefs, solutions, systems, viewpoint in life are only returning to the past and referring to it and as such are Raaji’oon (reactioanaries) by way of this returning back. This is what those who mislead and have been misled have intended and as such it is necessary to define the meaning of this word and clarify its true reality and meaning. As for the true meaning, Raj’iyah means: ‘Proceeding in life in accordance to instinctive reaction and placing down systems and solutions based on the instinctive reaction’. So who provided the freedom to the instincts and made Freedom his fundamental law from which he would extract all the laws that govern life. This is the person who is Raj’iy (reactionary) because he has regulated his life in accordance to the instinctive reaction and left the sovereignty to the instinct that takes control over life and he viewed happiness as attaining the largest amount of sensual gratification and pleasure i.e. the satisfaction of his instincts. This is the true meaning of the word: ‘Raj’iyah’ (reactionary) and as for the view that they have gone with stating that it is the return to the backwardness of the past to organise and regulate the present, and by this they intend to cast doubt upon Islaam and the Muslims. Then in regards to this we will return to the past and the time before Islaam so that we can examine the life of the human being in that time and how he regulated it?

To be Continued.....

No comments: