Using physical power to change the Munkar (evil) depends on capability

The following is the English translation of a leaflet by Hizb ut-Tahrir published in 1989 followed by an answer to questions that arose from this important leaflet.

Forbidding The Munkar Is An Obligation And Using The Physical Power To Remove It Depends On Capability

Munkar (evil) is everything denounced and prohibited by Shar'a, like neglecting an obligation or committing haram. Forbidding munkar is a divine law (Hukm Shar'ai) prescribed by Allah the Supreme upon all Muslims, whether they are individuals, groups, parties, nation and State. Muslim narrated about Abi Said al-Khudri, he said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) say, 'Whoever of you had seen an evil (munkar) thing let him change it by his hand, and if he could not do that let him do that by his tongue, and if he could not do that let him deny it by his heart (i.e. hate it), and this is the weakest (degree of) faith'".

Allah the Supreme made it obligatory upon Muslims to establish from themselves parties and groups in order to enjoin the right conduct and forbid munkar. Allah said, "Let there arise from amongst you a group calling to the Goodness (al-Khayr) and enjoining what is good (al-Ma’ruf) and forbidding what is evil (al-Munkar); and those are the ones who will attain success" [TMQ Ale-Imran: 104].

Allah the Supreme has honoured this nation by making her the best nation that was raised up for mankind as she enjoins the right conduct and forbids munkar, and believes in Allah. He said, “You are the best of the nation raised up for mankind because you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah.” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 110]

Allah the Supreme has differentiated between the believers and the hypocrites on the basis of enjoining the good conduct and forbidding munkar. He said, "The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong and they forbid the right (conduct)". [TMQ At-Tawba: 67]

And He said, “The believers, men and women, are awliya (helpers, protectors, friends) of one another, they enjoin the ma’roof and forbid the munkar and they establish the salah.” [TMQ At-Tawba: 71].

Allah the Supreme has threatened Muslims by punishment if they remained silent about the wrong, and they did not act to change it and remove it. It was narrated about Huthaifa bin Al-Yaman about the Prophet (saw) he said, "(I vow) by the One in Whose hands my soul rests, you have to enjoin right and forbid the wrong, other wise Allah will be about to send upon you a punishment from Him, then you would pray to Him (ask Him) but He would not answer you". It was also narrated about Haitham, he said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) said, 'Any people amongst whom sins are committed, and they could change them but they did not (change), Allah will be about to bring a general punishment upon them'".

According to what Ahmed narrated, the Prophet (saw) said, "Allah will not punish the common people because of the action of particular people, unless (until) they see the wrong among themselves and they are able to change it but they do not. Once they have done that He would punish the particular people and the common people.”

So any Muslim who wittnesses a wrong thing - any wrong thing - in front of him, he has a duty to work for forbidding it and changing it by one of the three ways mentioned in the tradition (hadeeth) by Abi Said Al-Khudri according to his capability, otherwise he would be sinful.

Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong is an obligation upon Muslims under all the circumstances, whether the rules applied upon Muslims are Islam rules or the Kufr rules, and whether the ruler perfected the application of Islam rules or he misapplied them. Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong was practiced at the time of the Prophet (saw), at the time of the companions (sahaba), at the times of the Followers (Tabieen) and the Followers (Tab'ee at Tabi'een); and this law will remain until the Day of Judgement. The wrong (Munkar) may occur by individuals, or groups or by the State. The one who forbids the wrong and changes it is the state, the individuals and the parties.

Originally, in the Islamic State the ruler is the caretaker of the people's affairs by the rules of the Shar'a, and he is responsible by Shar'a to forbid the wrong things, whether practiced by individuals or groups. The Prophet (saw) says, "Imam is a shepherd (caretaker) and he is responsible about his citizens". Allah delegated him to force people whether individuals or groups, to perform all the obligations (duties prescribed upon them by Allah. If the matter requires using the force to compel them to perform these duties, he is obliged to use it. Allah, also, made it obligatory upon him to prevent people from committing the prohibited things. And if the matter requires using the force to prevent them from committing the prohibited things, it is obligatory upon him to use it. So the state is the origin for changing the wrong and removing it by hand, i.e. by force, because it is responsible by Shar'a about application of Islam and compelling them to obey its rules.

In regard with changing the wrong by individuals, the individual who sees a wrong thing in front of him, such as to see a person who drinks alcohol, or steals or he is about to kill somebody or to commit adultery with a woman or any other wrong thing, the it is obligatory upon him to forbid this wrong, and to work for changing it and removing it; and he would be sinful if he failed to do that. If he was able even if most likely - to remove this wrong by his hand then he is obliged to start changing it and removing it. Thus he prevents the person from drinking alcohol, or from stealing, or from killing or from adultery. He has to prevent that and remove it by hand, because he is able to change it by hand, in fulfillment to the saying of the Prophet (saw), "Whoever of you sees a wrong thing, let him change it by hand (i.e. by force)".

Using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong depends on the actual capability - even if it is most likely - to change this wrong and to remove it by hand. If there was no ability to remove it, then the hand has not to be used, because using it as such would not achieve the aim it is used for, which is changing the wrong and removing it. So the place of using the hand, as mentioned in the hadeeth (tradition) depends on the ability to change the wrong actually. The evidence of this is that the hadeeth (tradition) make a transfer to forbidding the wrong by tongue (words) in case of the inability, i.e. incase of the inability to forbid the wrong and remove it by hand; where it said, "If he could not then let him forbid it by his tongue". Forbidding the wrong by tongue is not considered a changing of the wrong, it is rather a charging against the one who commits the wrong, i.e. denouncing his committing of the wrong. If he could not denounce by his tongue, then he has to hate that wrong by his heart and not to accept it.

This is in regard with the wrong committed by individuals or groups. But the wrong committed by the ruler, such as he treats unjustly or he takes the properties of the people by wrong, or he prevents the rights or he neglects some of the citizens affairs, or he slacks in performing some of her duties or he disagrees with any of the rules of Islam or any other wrong, then it is obligatory upon all Muslims to take him to task, and deny that of him, and to work to change that, as a nation, an army, parties, and individuals; and they will be sinful by remaining silent about that and by leaving the forbidding of wrong and changing it.

Forbidding the wrong and changing on him when he commits some wrong will be by taking him to task by tongue, according to what Muslim narrated about Umm Salama that the Prophet (saw) said, "There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some other. Whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of responsibility), and who denied he will be safe, but what about those who accepted (their wrong) and followed?" And it was also narrated by Abdullah bin Mas'oud, he said, "The Prophet (saw) said, 'Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the good and forbid the wrong, and to hold against the hand of the tyrant, and to force him on the truth truly and to limit him to the truth really, otherwise Allah will hit the hearts of some of you against others, then He will curse you as He cursed them". Similarly the Prophet (saw) made the saying of truth at the unjust ruler as the best jihad, when he replied the man who asked him, "Which is the best jihad?" He said "The word of truth at the unjust ruler".

Other hadeeths prohibited rebellion by arms against him except in one case which was excluded of the prohibition of armed rebellion against him, that is the case when he shows kufr, upon which there is a proof from Allah that it is undoubtedly a clear open kufr; i.e. if he showed ruling by clear kufr rules, and gave up ruling be the revelation of Allah. Auf bin Malik al Ashj'ayi reported, "I heard the Prophet (saw) say, 'The best of you Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you and who pray (call Allah to bless you) and you pray for them (call Allah to bless them), and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you.'" He said, "We said, 'O Prophet of Allah, should we not then declare war on them.' He said, 'No, as long as they establish the prayer among you'". What is meant by establishing the prayer is ruling by Islam, i.e. applying the rules of Shar'a, on the basis of naming the whole with the name of (its) part.

It was narrated about Umm Salama that the Prophet (saw) said, "There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some others; whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of responsibility), and who denied he will be safe but what about those who accepted (i.e. their wrong) and followed." They said, "Should we not then fight against them?" He said, "No, as long as they prayed". That is, as long as they applied the shar'a rules including the prayer, on the basis of applying the name of the part on the whole. It was also narrated about Ubada bin As-Samit, he said, "We gave the pledge (Bay'a) to the Prophet (saw) on hearing and obedience at the difficult and easy situation, on what we like and dislike and on preference over ouselves; and that we have not to dispute the people with their authority, unless you see an open kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah the Supreme; and that we have to say the truth for the sake of Allah".

The meaning of these three hadeeths, forbids the rebellion with arms against the ruler, except in the case when he does not govern with the revelation of Allah, i.e. in case he ruled with the laws of open kufr, upon which there is undoubted clear proof from Allah that it is kufr.

Thereupon, any Muslim ruler who does not govern with the revelation of Allah and governed, instead, with the clear kufr rules, it becomes obligatory upon all Muslims to rebel against him with arms, to remove him from the authority, and to remove the kufr ruling with which he governs and to put in application and execution the rules revealed from Allah.

The obligation of rebellion against the ruler with arms depends on the ability to remove him, and removing the clear kufr rules by the physical power - even if it was (only) most likely - because using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong matters - depends on the capability to remove the wrong actually by that force. So the place of action of the hadeeth which makes it obligatory to use the hand for changing the wrong, and the place of action of the two hadeeths which makes it obligatory to rebel with arms against the ruler who governs with the kufr laws are dependent on the capability of the physical power to change the wrong and the clear kufr and to remove it actually, even if it was most likely. But if the physical power was not capable actually, or most likely, to change the wrong and the kufr laws and to remove them actually, then it has not to be used, because its use then does not fulfill the aim for which the shar'a obliged using it, which is changing the wrong, and the kufr laws and removing them actually. At such situation, forbidding the wrong would be by tongue, and at the same time, effort has to be made to increase the power (force) so as to become capable - even if most likely - to change the wrong and the kufr laws actually, and at such point it has to be used. The whole nation (Ummah), if it unified its will, and the army with the physical (material) power which it possesses, and the large tribes which have the influence and the force (power), and the political parties which have great effective power in the army or in the large tribes or in the nation (Ummah), each one of these, once it possessed the capability to remove the ruler who governs with the clear kufr laws, and he does not govern with the rules of Islam, it becomes obligatory upon it by Shar'a to rebel against that ruler, so as to remove him, and to remove the kufr laws, and to restore the rule with the revelations of Allah.

This is one of ten fundamental laws of Islam, which we found a duty upon us to communicate to the people, so that they become aware of their matter according to its guidance. Surely Allah will fulfill His matter, but most of the people know not.

Hizb ut-Tahrir

28 Dul Qi'da 1409

1 July 1989

Q&A: Regarding The Leaflet Of "Denying The Munkar Is Fard And Using The Physical Power To Remove It Depends On The Ability".

Dear Brothers,

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

The leaflet of "Denying the munkar is fard ,and using the power to remove it depends on the ability" has raised many questions and enquiries, even criticism some of which amounted to describe the party of deviation , and some other criticism considered the contents of the leaflet as a radical change in the course and the method of action and adopted a new method, beside other enquiries and criticism. These questions, enquiries and criticism did not come from one person or from one place, rather they came from many people and from many places.

I honestly tell you dear brothers that these questions, enquiries and criticism were alleviation and peacefulness that brought delight to the soul, pleasure and tranquility to the heart, because they proved the commitment to the unity of thought, and unity of structure; and they proved that the shabaab enjoy a high level of honesty, sincerity and great endeavor to protect the party and to necessarily abide, as shabaab and a leadership, by the thought which we believed in, adopted and structured ourselves on its basis, and which we deduced by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and from those sources indicated by these two; and that any change or alteration has to depend on the divine evidences, otherwise it has to be rejected. All this is of the favour of Allah upon us and upon the people; and which preserves the unity of thought and the unity of structure (entity) and protects us from the error of deviation.

Now let us, dear brothers, return back to the subject of the leaflet, the motivation to issuing it and the purpose of it, and to explain that it does not contradict that we adopted, and that it was not meant to make any change or alteration by that leaflet.

The motive to issue that leaflet was a question that came from some of the shabaab who carried out discussions with some sincere Islamic groups, where the asked an explanation about the hokm of using the physical power to remove the munkar. An answer (a reply) was sent to them, in which a distinction has been made between the work to resume the Islamic way of life and establish the Khilafah, the group must abide by the Seerah of the Prophet (saw) in his course of action in Makkah till he established the state in Al-Medina.,i.e. to abide by the three stages which the Prophet (saw) followed. Then it was explained to them the subject of enjoining the good and denying the bad (munkar). It was later on decided to send the subject of the hokm of denying the munkar to the shabaab and to the people.

The purpose of answering this question from the shabaab and then passing this answer to the rest of the shabaab and to the people, is to explain that what the Islamic groups do of using the physical power the way they practice, and what they adopt, is an action contradictory to the subject of the hadiths related to the duty of denying the munkar by hand (by power), and to the hadiths which make it obligatory (upon muslims) to rebel against the ruler when the open kufr, that we have a proof from Allah on it, appears; and to let the shabaab continue discussing this matter with the Islamic groups so they may convince them and gain them (to the party); moreover to motivate the ummah to practice its duty of removing the rules of kufar and restoring the rule by the revelation of Allah. The purpose had not been other than these matters by any case.

Therefore it was not the aim to give up the method which the party adopted, and to adopt a new course of action (method), a matter which never, even slightly crossed the mind.

In regard with the agreement (non contradiction) of the contents of the leaflet with our adoption is explained as follows:

1.When the leaflet dealt with the munkar practised by individuals, it mentioned that the one who removes it by hand(power) is the state and the individuals; and it did not mention the groups, understanding that removing by hand the munkar practiced by the individuals is not of the function of the groups.

When it also mentioned the removing of individuals to the munkar by hand, it stated specifically certain munkars, which are not allowed according to the laws of the state. Thus stealing, making adultery and murder are not allowed in the Muslim lands, therefore it is a duty upon every Muslim person who sees a person trying to steal from a place at night, or he sees a man drawing a women for making adultery with her or drawing a person to kill him, he is by shar'a, if he is able to prevent this munker by his hand (power), on duty to stop it. If he did not stop it, he will be sinful in view of Allah, because he did not perform a duty decreed to him by Allah.

But in regard with the munkars which the laws of the state allow for women in the public life, such munkars are of the ruler's munkars though they originated from individuals, because they are practiced according to the law and system which the ruler applies. Such munkars are removed by removing the system which allows them, not by destroying the bank or ruining the disco, nor by preventing the woman who does not wear the legal (shar'ai) dress from going out in the public life, by the individuals.

It happened that an answer for a question (without a date) has been issued at the time of the late (Taqiuddin an-Nabahani), in which he explains that enjoining the good and denying the evil is an individual duty on every Muslim and not a collective duty; and this is the text of the answer:

Enjoining the good and denying the evil is an individual duty on every Muslim and not a collective duty, because it means the good as it is (good) and the evil as it is (evil), not a particular good nor a particular evil. If the reality of this point is understood, then there would be no sufficiency in performing that, as it occurs in every place and it is repeated in every time; and because the ahadiths came to explain the sin on the side of the individual who ignores htat. The Prophet (saw) said, "Whoever of you had seen an evil he has to change it (prevent it) by his hand, if he could not (do so) he has to prevent that by his tongue(speaking), and if he could not (do so) then he has to change it (i.e. deny it) by his heart, and this is the weakest iman". So look in his saying "Whoever of you had seen" so he makes it obligatory on the one who sees, and he (saw) says "of you" and he did not say "if you (as a community) see". And the one who orders about good and forbids and evil, if he ordered and forbade a person but the person did not abstain (form the evil), then it is haram on him to eat with him, drink with him, and sit with him as long as he did not abstain from the evil. This matter is different than the case of the worker (da'i) to resuming the Islamic way of life, so if he asked a Muslim to work for resuming the Islamic way of life but he did not accept to it in its capacity as a collective duty, the da'i is allowed to eat with him, drink with him and sit with him. But within the work for resuming the Islamic way of life are certain actions which are considered of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and so they have their rule (hokm). so holding strongly against the hand (power) of the tyrant (zalim) until he gives up his zulm is an individual duty; but working to resume the Islamic way of life as it is, is a collective duty, though some of its actions are individual duties; and delivering the call (da'wa) is a collective duty.

2. When the leaflet talked about the evil which occurs from the ruler, the text which came in the three paragraphs, which started to say "and all this is of the evil which occurs from individuals or groups; but the evil which occurs from the ruler . . ." upto the beginning of the fourth paragraph which starts by saying, "and the duty (obligation) of rebellion against him depends on the ability" this text agrees with the text that came in the dossier under the subject of "Obedience is obligatory upon muslims to the ruler even if he committed zulm (unjust treatment), pages 65-70. As an example of the agreement is the text which came in page 68 line 22 that states "the ahadeeth indicate by their meaning the command of declaring the war against him and fighting against him and disputing his authority if this case (open kufr) occurred. The indication by meaning is equally legitimately binding as the indication by text, so these ahadeeth are an evidence that the law-giver demanded (from muslim) to declare war against the rulers, to fight them and dispute their authority if open kufr appeared".

In regard with the last paragraph in the leaflet, which made the confusion, it starts by saying, "And the Ummah in its totality, if it unified its will . . .etc", if its text was examined then there would be no confusion. When the groups were mentioned, the text limited their undertaking if they got the capability in three cases. The first: if they had an effective great power in the army. The second: if they had and effective great power in the large tribes. The third: if they had an effective great power in the Ummah. These three cases will not be available for any party except through the political strife which will not be achieved unless we go though the three stages including seeking the nusrah (support), because making the effective great power in the army, and the large tribes would not result except through the nusrah, and making that in the Ummah would not result except through the long political strife.

But in regard with the Ummah and the large tribes, their motion depends on having the public awareness and the public opinion that they must move to demolish the laws of kufr and to restore the rule with the revelation of Allah. This matter would not result to the army and the tribes except by the leadership of a political party that practices political struggle, and the political actions.

By this explanation it is evident that there is no any contradiction between the contents of the leaflet and the adopted (thought). However the practical situation in regard with the party since 1965 until now, is that it gathers the material power though the way of the nussrah people to change the rules of Kufr and to restore the rule with the revelation of Allah, from within the system not from the outside, despite that it considers the home (dar) in all muslim lands as home of kufr not a home (dar) of Islam. It appears as if this practical situation and what the party practiced through many trials, all was absent from the mind when the questions, enquiries and criticism were made.

In regard with the obligation of preparing the material power which is capable to remove the Kufr law and restore the rule with the revelation of Allah, it is in our regard through the way of nussrah actions as we adopted, following the method of Rasool Allah (saw) in his course, and not through arming and military training of the party and its shebaab.

This is what we wanted to explain to you dear brothers in this letter, in reply to your questions, enquiries and criticism. And it appears from it that there is no any contradiction with what we adopted, and no giving up of the adopted method, and then, there is no new adoption of a new method.

We pray to Allah to provide us with help from Him, and to guide us all to the best of our matter (affairs) and to protect us of the error and deviation, and to support us with His deen and delivering His call till the day we meet Him, and not to waste any of our actions, nor disappoint any of our requests and hopes, and to make our work sincere to Him, and to speed to us the relief, and honour us in the near future with a strong mighty victory from Him, by which He enables us to establish the Islamic Khilafah and to raise the Islamic banner and to restore the ruling with His revelation. The last of our prayers.

25 Muharram 1410 26 August 1989