Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring).
(The components of the Society and the correct thoughts about changing it).
The explanation of this is that if we were to reform the individual completely to the extent that the percentage of those who we have reformed reaches 90%. These would be those who have believed in Islaam with an Aqueedah that is certain, clear and enlightened and without added any speculative matter to it. They would be committed to the ‘Ibaadaat in its most complete form including both the obligations and Nawaafil (recommended acts). So in regards to the Salaah he performs the obligatory prayers, the Naafilah Mu’akkadah and the Naafilah which are not Mu’akkadah, he performs the night prayer and he does not perform the Witr prayer until Fajr is near. He spends from his wealth in Zakaah and he gives Sadaqah of more than a third of his wealth whilst not leaving an orphan or a poor person except that he helps him. He fasts the fast of Daawud (as) (every other day) in addition to the blessed month of Ramadhaan and he performs Hajj and ‘Umrah most years of his life. All of this is in respect to the acts of ‘Ibaadah (worship). This is in addition to the recitation of the Qur’aan which is his daily bread and his supplication to Allah when he is standing, sitting and lying on his side. So is there anything remaining after all of this? As for his Akhlaaq (morals) then they are the morals of the Qur’aan where he is characterised by every good characteristic that Allah (swt) has mentioned in His Qur’aan. And as for his Mu’aamalah (dealing) with the people then his measure is the Halaal and the Haraam and as such he never engages in Haraam in his dealings.
If we were to suppose that we had fashioned the majority of the Muslims upon this model would their society then become an Islamic society? This is whilst it still accepts to be ruled by the systems of Kufr which are controlled and dominated by disbelievers. And there is nobody who will implement the Hudood (or punishments) upon the Faasiq, Faajir and the one who commits the major sins, and where the lands in which they live are being pillaged by others and where they have no power or force that can be relied upon to carry the Da’wah to the world. So is their society in this condition an Islamic society and is their society considered to be Islamic if they do not have a political entity and State that applies and implements the systems of the society? Would they have an Islamic society whilst they do not have a Khaleefah whom they have deputised on their behalf to implement Islaam internally, to establish the Hudood (proscribed punishments), protect the borders of the land and safeguard its security from any aggression, to prepare and ready the armies and prepare the readiness to carry the Da’wah to the world?
The answer to all of these questions is no and one thousand times over no.
Therefore the society is a collective grouping of people who have permanent relationships between them and the existent of permanent relationships is inevitable within any collective grouping that has agreed to live upon a certain single piece of land upon the earth. However the existence of these relationships is not established unless they are built upon thoughts that they have agreed upon to regulate and organise these relationships. And by the existence of these thoughts and their commitment to them feelings that are in harmony with these thoughts are generated within the breasts of these people. So they are angered when someone strays outside of these thoughts and are pleased when someone abides by what they have agreed upon.
So when they agree upon the satisfaction of the procreation instinct by marriage you will see the village happy and joyful when one of their sons abides by this thought and the village will engage in celebrations and singing. However if the opposite happened and one of them attempted to violate what they had agreed upon and wanted to satisfy his procreation instinct by other than the manner they had agreed like committing Zinaa (fornication) for example or an inappropriate relationship with a woman, then in this case the village will rise up against him and he may even be killed. This applies in the same way to every thought that the collective grouping has agreed upon so for instance in regards to the exchange of goods, if one of them violates their agreement everyone will be angry and will label him as a Haraami (criminal) and attempt to punish him. However for the sake of keeping the matter orderly and regulated this collective will deputise on their behalf an Ameer, Sheikh, Chief or chosen official who will take responsibility of overseeing the implementation of those thoughts that they have agreed upon. This is the nature of the formation of the societies and there is no other way in which they are formed whereas if thousands were to be gathered upon the deck of a ship this would not represent a society. This is because they do not subscribe to the same thoughts and their feelings are not unified nor have they agreed upon a single system. Rather they merely submit to the system that exists on the boat and they do not delegate on their behalf someone who will overlook the implementation of what they have agreed upon because they have not agreed upon anything in the first place. We summarise and conclude by saying that the society is a collective group from amongst the people who have permanent relationships between them which are regulated by unified thoughts and unified (or common) feelings upon the basis of which a single system is formed and they delegate or deputise one from amongst them to supervise the implementation of that system on their behalf. From this it has become clearly evident that the components of the society are its thoughts, feelings and the system that emanates from these thoughts in addition to a deputy who is delegated on their behalf to take the responsibility over implementing the system (i.e. a ruler).
Therefore the reformation of this society occurs by the reformation or correction of these components whilst the corruption of the society occurs through the corruption of these components. It can be said that the society represents an ‘Urf ‘Aamm (a general or public custom) as when the thoughts and feelings are deep rooted and focused within the people they form through their unity a general or public custom (‘Urf ‘Aamm) that embodies the power of the law and indeed on many occasions it possesses a more powerful effect than the law itself. It becomes like a watcher and monitor over the conducts of the individuals and the rulers and the ruler fears the ‘Urf ‘Aamm just as it causes fear in the individual.
So when we want to reform and correct a certain society then we must work to reform and correct the ‘Urf ‘Aamm within it by way of correcting the thoughts and emotions that exist in it which would lead to the changing of the systems that are applied and the ruler who implements those thoughts. So the immediate work is the operation of correcting the ‘Urf ‘Aamm and this takes place by making clear the corruption of the present general thoughts, explaining their corruption so that the people are convinced of their corruption and move towards changing them. As a result their view towards the ruler would change and they will move in the direction of his removal. This is the method to change the society and correct it. It is not the method of the individual as the method of reforming the individual differs completely from this method.
Having said this is it necessary for the individuals of the group, Takattul or Hizb that is assuming the responsibility of this process of change to have their own Aqaa’id (beliefs), Ibaadaat (worships), Akhlaaq (morals) and Mu’aamalaat (dealings) reformed. They cannot accept a corrupted element within their ranks because he will not be of their kind. So the process of reforming the individual would only relate to the members of the Takattul or the Hizb whilst the Takattul or Hizb proceeds in its collective capacity upon the method and path of reforming the society.
The lack of clarity of this understanding amongst the associations made them stumble along their path and they did not lead to anything that could possibly accomplish the revival of the Ummah. This is especially because they were affected by what was concentrated in the minds of many of the reformers and scholars of morals in terms of the individual being built or destroyed only by his morals. So the upright morals make him strong, upright, effective and productive in addition to being a worker for the good, uprightness and reform. Whereas the blameworthy morals make him weak and laid back possessing no benefit or goodness whilst giving no importance in his life to anything apart from the satisfaction of his desires and his own selfishness. So where they understood that the collective is only built or destroyed by the individual and the individual is only built or destroyed by his morals then in that case they proceeded upon the path of reforming the individual by the method of reforming his morals.
This wrong understanding held by the scholars of Akhlaaq and the reformers made their mistake twofold: The mistake of thinking that the society is composed of individuals and the mistake of correcting the individual by way of the morals. We have already mentioned and indicated that the Akhlaaq (morals) are a description or characteristic from amongst the characteristics of the individual and that they do not represent the basis of his life and behaviour or conduct. So if there was a person whose morals were like the morals of the Prophets but he was an atheist, would we then consider him to be upright? Or does he remain a disbeliever with no goodness in him? This is because the basis of the human’s life is his Aqueedah and as for the remainder of his actions and characteristics then it is possible to correct them whilst his faults and crookedness within them does not take him outside of Islaam. So if an individual with a sound Aqueedah exhibited a bad moral characteristic or indeed many bad morals, then this would not take him outside of being a Muslim. It is easily possible to correct him as long as his Aqueedah is sound and correct. So the statement that says that the individual is only built by his morals and is only destroyed (brought down) by his morals, is an incorrect statement.
And what is a sorry state of affairs is that this thought, the thought of: ‘Reform the individual and the society will be reformed’ and the thought of reforming the individuals by way of the Akhlaaq, it is unfortunate that in spite of the failure of all of the movements that were established upon the basis of this thought, that these thoughts are still convincing to the masses and that many associations are still be set up upon its basis proceeding upon the same methodology and style.
This is despite the reality being that the means (Wasaa’il) to reforming the collective grouping are not the same means to reforming the individual and even if the individual is a part of this collective. This is because the corruption of the collective grouping (Jamaa’ah) emanates from the corruption (Fasaad) of the collective sentiments (Mashaa’ir) and from the corruption of its intellectual and spiritual environments. It also comes from the incorrect concepts that the collective holds or said differently, from the corruption of the ‘Urf ‘Aamm (public/general custom).
As for the corruption of the collective feelings or sentiments (Mashaa’ir): This means that its feelings have not become one (unified) so they do not erupt and are agitated when they see Kufr implemented over them and their collective feelings are not agitated when they see their sons sliding into the prohibited matters or when they see that the system that is applied over them is blatantly not from Islaam (i.e. Kufr).
As for the corruption of the intellectual and spiritual environments: This means that we find that the western thoughts or thoughts of disbelief have found a way into their minds. These thoughts have blended into their thoughts (Islamic thoughts) so they called to democracy, freedom and socialism and attempted to blend them together at times and sometimes presented them as they were, generating as a result corrupted spiritual atmospheres. This was because of the absence of linking these thoughts to their Aqueedah and replacing this linkage with the measure of benefit. They began to look at the Hukm Shari’iy in terms of the benefit that it contained and not in terms of its emanation from their Aqueedah. Indeed they fled from the clear Shari’ah rule if the benefit was not apparent in it according to what their minds found suitable. In addition some incorrect concepts crept in like the permission of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) being entrusted with the Muslim’s affairs or the possibility of changing the rules of Islaam in accordance to the changing of times in addition to other incorrect ideas that led to the corrupting of the ‘Urf ‘Aamm (Public/general custom). The public custom no longer effected out society and indeed individualism became absolute within its life and indifference in regards to the life of people became a fundamental thought between them. As such the most prominent customs held by Muslims were removed and here I mean the duty of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong. So it was not acceptable for anyone to be ordered with the Ma’roof (right) and fornidden from the Munkar (wrong) and you hear a response to those who attempt to perform this like: ‘What’s this got to do with you?’ for example. This therefore is what we mean by the corruption of the ‘Urf ‘Aamm (public/general custom).
To be Continued, Insha'Allah......