The following is a translation from an Arabic leaflet.
1) It is noticeable that the Ummah is completely separate from the State i.e. from the rulers, and that the relationship between the masses and the rulers represents a relationship of two different groups where there is no relationship between the subjects and the State. In addition to that and beyond the fact that it is a relationship between two different groups it is also a relationship based upon hatred, opposition and contradiction in which there exists no rapprochement or anything that suggests that rapprochement or bringing them together is even possible in the future. This reality is what weakens the Ummah's entity in addition to weakening the State entity as well. This is because a herd (subjects) in the absence of a shepherd (a caretaker) from her would represent a flimsy building and structure. The State without subjects who stand as one row behind her would have a flimsy and weak existence which could be removed with the least amount of effort whilst being open to seeking support and assistance from the enemies of the Ummah.
2) This separation between the Ummah and the State was only natural and necessary in the days when the disbelieving States directly governed and ruled the lands and when the British mandate was applied upon them. However after the English authority was officially removed and when the Rulers of the lands who undertook the ruling were from the sons of the Ummah, at this time a justification no longer remained for the continuation of this separation. At that time is was obligatory to transform the relationships between the masses and the State to a state of cohesion between the shepherd and the flock (The ruler and citizens). Despite this the reality is that this separation and dislocation continued and still remains. The rulers are still representative of one group whilst the Ummah represents another with one antagonistic to the other. The Ummah looks to the Rulers as enemies just like they did with the English and perhaps they even felt the oppression stronger from them than they did from the English. On the other hand the rulers regard the Ummah as conspiring against them, wishing to eradicate them and as enemies to them. The Ummah conspires and plots against the State whilst the State conspires and plots against the Ummah. This is what places the Ummah in a state of despair in respect to being able to move forward a single step towards honour, might, prosperity and progress whilst it makes the thinking of the rulers restricted to that which will keep them upon their seats and in their positions of ruling and even this means seeking the assistance of the foreigner. They do not think about elevating the Ummah other than in hypocrisy whilst utilising styles that distance the Ummah from elevation and continuously places her in a weak condition allowing the rulers to remain dominant and in control over them.
3) This condition of separation between the Ummah and the State is the result of the Ummah not undertaking that which Allah (swt) had made obligatory upon her in regards to accounting the rulers and due to her lack of feeling and sensation that she (the Ummah) represents the source of the authority. If the Ummah had sensed and felt that she was the source of the Sultaan (authority) and undertook that which Allah had commanded her with in terms of accounting the rulers she would not have a traitor ruler who is an enemy to her in the position of ruling. In addition there would be no separation or dislocation between her and the ruler, she would not be in this state of weakness, in this broken up condition, backward decline and she would not still be under the influence and exploits of the disbelievers, even if the one directly ruling them was a Muslim from amongst the sons of the Ummah. For this reason it is necessary for the Ummah in order to be a single entity with the rulers and for her to be at one with the State, to undertake the obligation of accounting the rulers and to work with strength and seriousness to create change with the rulers or to change them. As long as she does not do this then there is no doubt that she will continue to quickly decline beyond the level of decline that we currently witness to the point where she will perish or be overlooking her destruction.
4) Indeed Islaam has made accounting the rulers Fard (an obligation) upon the Muslims and has commanded them to account them with the word of truth wherever they are without fearing the blame of the blamers (i.e. any consequences). As for the word of Haqq (truth) and declaring this openly then the Muslims in the second pledge of Al-'Aqabah whilst pledging obedience to the Messenger of Allah (saw) did so upon (the obligation of) speaking the word of Haqq (truth). In the text of the Bai'ah (pledge) the following was states: 'And that we will say the word of truth wherever we may be without fearing in Allah's way the blame of the blamers'. As for accounting the rulers and commanding them with the Ma'roof (that which Islaam has commanded) and forbidding them from the Munkar (that which Allah has prohibited), despite being present within the Aayaat of ordering the Ma'roof and forbidding the Munkar, there are also explicit texts that have come commanding the accounting of the rulers. 'Atiyah related from Abu 'Sa'eed (ra): The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'The best of Al-Jihaad is the word of truth to the Sultaan Jaa'ir (oppressive ruler)' and Abi Umaamah said: At Al-Jamratu-l-Uolaa (the first throwing) the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: 'O Messenger of Allah which Jihaad is best? He remained silent and then when he had thrown the second stone he asked him again but was silent again. Then when he had thrown the last stone and had placed his foot in the stirrup to ride away he said: 'Where is the questioner?' So he said: 'I am him O Messenger of Allah'. He (saw) said: 'The word of truth that is said to (or in the presence of) the Sultaan Al-Jaa'ir (the oppressive ruler)'. This text then relates to the ruler and the obligation of speaking the word of Haqq in front of him and the obligation of accounting him. The Messenger of Allah (saw) exhorted struggling against the oppressive rulers whatever was to happen and result in the path of doing that in terms of harm and even if that led to being killed. It has been related from him (saw) that he said: 'The master of martyrs is Hamza Ibn Abi Mutallab and a man who stood in front of an oppressive Imaam and then advised him and was then he (the Imaam) killed him (for that)'. This is from the most clearest and far-reaching forms of expression in respect to exhorting the person to bear harm and even to accept death in the path of accounting the rulers and struggling against the oppressive rulers.
5) Struggling against the Zhulm (oppression) of the rulers that we witness today and accounting those rulers for all of their actions and for their treachery and conspiring against the Ummah is a Fard that Allah (swt) has obligated upon us all as Muslims. Undertaking this Fard is what will remove the divisions and partitions existing between the Ummah and the Rulers and it is what will make the Ummah and the Rulers a single group on the same side and single bloc. This is what will guarantee to effect change upon the rulers and likewise guarantee changing them altogether if it is not possible to effect change upon them. This is the first path of revival because the revival cannot occur by other than the path of ruling when it is established upon the Islamic Aqeedah. And there is no way towards accomplishing that other than bringing about the rule upon the Islamic Aqeedah and establishing the rule upon that basis whilst there is no way towards accomplishing that other than by struggling against the oppressive rulers and accounting them.
7th Rabee'u th-Thaaniy 1386
24/07/1966.
1) It is noticeable that the Ummah is completely separate from the State i.e. from the rulers, and that the relationship between the masses and the rulers represents a relationship of two different groups where there is no relationship between the subjects and the State. In addition to that and beyond the fact that it is a relationship between two different groups it is also a relationship based upon hatred, opposition and contradiction in which there exists no rapprochement or anything that suggests that rapprochement or bringing them together is even possible in the future. This reality is what weakens the Ummah's entity in addition to weakening the State entity as well. This is because a herd (subjects) in the absence of a shepherd (a caretaker) from her would represent a flimsy building and structure. The State without subjects who stand as one row behind her would have a flimsy and weak existence which could be removed with the least amount of effort whilst being open to seeking support and assistance from the enemies of the Ummah.
2) This separation between the Ummah and the State was only natural and necessary in the days when the disbelieving States directly governed and ruled the lands and when the British mandate was applied upon them. However after the English authority was officially removed and when the Rulers of the lands who undertook the ruling were from the sons of the Ummah, at this time a justification no longer remained for the continuation of this separation. At that time is was obligatory to transform the relationships between the masses and the State to a state of cohesion between the shepherd and the flock (The ruler and citizens). Despite this the reality is that this separation and dislocation continued and still remains. The rulers are still representative of one group whilst the Ummah represents another with one antagonistic to the other. The Ummah looks to the Rulers as enemies just like they did with the English and perhaps they even felt the oppression stronger from them than they did from the English. On the other hand the rulers regard the Ummah as conspiring against them, wishing to eradicate them and as enemies to them. The Ummah conspires and plots against the State whilst the State conspires and plots against the Ummah. This is what places the Ummah in a state of despair in respect to being able to move forward a single step towards honour, might, prosperity and progress whilst it makes the thinking of the rulers restricted to that which will keep them upon their seats and in their positions of ruling and even this means seeking the assistance of the foreigner. They do not think about elevating the Ummah other than in hypocrisy whilst utilising styles that distance the Ummah from elevation and continuously places her in a weak condition allowing the rulers to remain dominant and in control over them.
3) This condition of separation between the Ummah and the State is the result of the Ummah not undertaking that which Allah (swt) had made obligatory upon her in regards to accounting the rulers and due to her lack of feeling and sensation that she (the Ummah) represents the source of the authority. If the Ummah had sensed and felt that she was the source of the Sultaan (authority) and undertook that which Allah had commanded her with in terms of accounting the rulers she would not have a traitor ruler who is an enemy to her in the position of ruling. In addition there would be no separation or dislocation between her and the ruler, she would not be in this state of weakness, in this broken up condition, backward decline and she would not still be under the influence and exploits of the disbelievers, even if the one directly ruling them was a Muslim from amongst the sons of the Ummah. For this reason it is necessary for the Ummah in order to be a single entity with the rulers and for her to be at one with the State, to undertake the obligation of accounting the rulers and to work with strength and seriousness to create change with the rulers or to change them. As long as she does not do this then there is no doubt that she will continue to quickly decline beyond the level of decline that we currently witness to the point where she will perish or be overlooking her destruction.
4) Indeed Islaam has made accounting the rulers Fard (an obligation) upon the Muslims and has commanded them to account them with the word of truth wherever they are without fearing the blame of the blamers (i.e. any consequences). As for the word of Haqq (truth) and declaring this openly then the Muslims in the second pledge of Al-'Aqabah whilst pledging obedience to the Messenger of Allah (saw) did so upon (the obligation of) speaking the word of Haqq (truth). In the text of the Bai'ah (pledge) the following was states: 'And that we will say the word of truth wherever we may be without fearing in Allah's way the blame of the blamers'. As for accounting the rulers and commanding them with the Ma'roof (that which Islaam has commanded) and forbidding them from the Munkar (that which Allah has prohibited), despite being present within the Aayaat of ordering the Ma'roof and forbidding the Munkar, there are also explicit texts that have come commanding the accounting of the rulers. 'Atiyah related from Abu 'Sa'eed (ra): The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'The best of Al-Jihaad is the word of truth to the Sultaan Jaa'ir (oppressive ruler)' and Abi Umaamah said: At Al-Jamratu-l-Uolaa (the first throwing) the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: 'O Messenger of Allah which Jihaad is best? He remained silent and then when he had thrown the second stone he asked him again but was silent again. Then when he had thrown the last stone and had placed his foot in the stirrup to ride away he said: 'Where is the questioner?' So he said: 'I am him O Messenger of Allah'. He (saw) said: 'The word of truth that is said to (or in the presence of) the Sultaan Al-Jaa'ir (the oppressive ruler)'. This text then relates to the ruler and the obligation of speaking the word of Haqq in front of him and the obligation of accounting him. The Messenger of Allah (saw) exhorted struggling against the oppressive rulers whatever was to happen and result in the path of doing that in terms of harm and even if that led to being killed. It has been related from him (saw) that he said: 'The master of martyrs is Hamza Ibn Abi Mutallab and a man who stood in front of an oppressive Imaam and then advised him and was then he (the Imaam) killed him (for that)'. This is from the most clearest and far-reaching forms of expression in respect to exhorting the person to bear harm and even to accept death in the path of accounting the rulers and struggling against the oppressive rulers.
5) Struggling against the Zhulm (oppression) of the rulers that we witness today and accounting those rulers for all of their actions and for their treachery and conspiring against the Ummah is a Fard that Allah (swt) has obligated upon us all as Muslims. Undertaking this Fard is what will remove the divisions and partitions existing between the Ummah and the Rulers and it is what will make the Ummah and the Rulers a single group on the same side and single bloc. This is what will guarantee to effect change upon the rulers and likewise guarantee changing them altogether if it is not possible to effect change upon them. This is the first path of revival because the revival cannot occur by other than the path of ruling when it is established upon the Islamic Aqeedah. And there is no way towards accomplishing that other than bringing about the rule upon the Islamic Aqeedah and establishing the rule upon that basis whilst there is no way towards accomplishing that other than by struggling against the oppressive rulers and accounting them.
7th Rabee'u th-Thaaniy 1386
24/07/1966.
Comments