The explanation of Mafaaheem Hizb-ut-Tahrir by Ash-Sheikh Haafizh Saalih - Part 6

Part Six - The explanation of Mafaaheem Hizb-ut-Tahrir by Ash-Sheikh Haafizh Saalih (rh).

Indeed this is the state and condition that we have reached and this is the reality of the Islaamic world, a reality which is witnessed by the senses whilst its decline is not hidden from anybody. However this does not mean that the Muslims have not been paying attention to this decline or that they have given in and surrendered to it. This is absolutely not what is meant because there have been many movements and many indeed which have been established in serious efforts to revive the state of the Muslim world or to stop its decline. However all of these failed and the Islamic world continues in its decline with speed towards the abyss whilst dark clouds threaten its environments and threaten the Islamic Ummah with extinction.

We have said that when the person senses the corruption of the reality that he is living in and the feelings (Ahaasees) of getting rid of this reality are activated within him that he begins to think about the process of change. When thinking about the process of change he finds that it is necessary for him to study the reality in addition to the reasons or causes that brought this reality into existence. This study includes acquiring knowledge related to the movements that preceded him and knowledge of the reasons and causes for their failure and this is so that he does not fall into the same errors that they fell in and so that he can benefit from their experiences. From this study we find that that the main reasons that led to the failure of these movements are three:

Firstly: A lack of understanding in respect to the Islamic Fikrah (thought) amongst those who undertook the work for revival in a precise manner.

Secondly: Lack of clarity in the Tareeqah (method) of Islaam that they had in respect to implementing its thought with a complete understanding.

Thirdly: Their lack of connecting the Islamic thought with the Islamic Tareeqah in a precise manner in a way which does not leave it open to separation.

These are the most important reasons that led to the failure of those movements and these are in addition to fundamental errors associated to the area of structuring which we summarised and detailed in the book ‘At-Takattul Al-Hizbiy’.

These represent the four points that we will summarize here as:

1) Not understanding the Fikrah.
2) Lack of clarity in respect to the Tareeqah.
3) The lack of awareness of those undertaking the work of the Takattul in respect to the thought and the method.
4) And finally the manner of binding (between its members) that these movements or structures undertook when structuring themselves.

As for these reasons (however) that we wish to discuss here then they relate to the reasons or causes of the failure of these Harakaat (movements) from the intellectual of thought based (Fikriy) perspective:

The first reason from amongst them is the lack of understanding the Islamic thought by those personalities undertaking the work to bring revival in a precise manner. Based upon this, the importance of the Da’wah carriers’ awareness of their thought in a manner where it is embodied within them as an awareness and within their conduct, becomes apparent. This requires the exertion of effort to understand it and comprehend that which has attached to it in terms of defects and what has overtaken it in respect to obscurities. By examining precisely that which has overtaken and occurred to the Islamic thought in respect to obscuring factors we find the following:

The obscuring factors:

After the area of the Islamic lands expanded and Islaam spread to most of the known lands at that time, after the mixing of the Muslims with others of neighbouring peoples and cultures (Hadaaraat), after reading these cultures and philosophies and after the non-Muslims felt secured and reassured about their existence within the shade of the State, at that time the intellectual struggle began between the Muslims and others from amongst the Christians who were armed with Greek logic and their philosophies.

The Muslims then responded refuting them with the same style that they were being attacked with. This manner of response compelled them to study this philosophy and to learn its manner of argument. However they did not stop at that but rather they studied those philosophies and translated their books. The Muslims discovered areas of knowledge and ‘Ilm which was new to them and as such they engaged with them passionately. It did not take long after that until the society became fragmented into competing intellectual (or thought based) factions like the Mu’tazilah, the Jabriyyah and the Ahl-us-Sunnah and all that branched out from these divisions. This led the thought to be affected by some obscurities from those philosophies that they had been influenced by. These include the sanctification of the ‘Aql (mind) and making it the judge for every single matter. Indeed and even greater that that they made it the judge over the Qur’aan Al-Kareem and the judge over the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy whilst leaving the establishment of the Hasan and Qabeeh to it. The influence and effect of this still remains amongst the Muslims amongst some of its thinkers (intellectuals) and the vast majority of the masses so for instance when somebody hears a Hukm Shar’iy that appears strange to him he declares it ‘irrational’ as if the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy has to be in agreement to the minds of the people. Just as this had an effect on some and generated obscurities there was also an effect which happened with another group who were influenced by the same subject as the Jabriyyah or let us say the subject of ‘unseen (or divine) fate’, the effects and influence of which still have an effect upon a large number of Muslims today.

These intellectual schools and what they engaged in and what they engaged the people in for a period that was not short divided the society into three groups or factions:

The Mu’tazilah were those who spoke about the greatness and highness (exaltedness) of the mind and made it the judge upon every matter. The Jabriyyah were those who had an influence over a large section of the people who surrendered to every calamity whilst considering it to be their fate and the Ahl-us-Sunnah were those who attempted to reconcile between the first two groups. The most prominent of issues in which they differed and disputed was the issue of Al-Qadaa Wal Qadr the effect of which is still present whilst the stumbling in regards to its understanding remains perpetual. The situation reached such a point amongst the Muslims that they made it a Rukn (pillar) from amongst the Arkaan of the Aqeedah.

This is what occurred as a result of the effect and influence of the Greek philosophy. As for the effect of the Indian (Hindu) philosophy then this took the Muslims in another direction and left other effects which were no less dangerous than the effects and obscurities that the Greek philosophy left. The Indian (Hindu) philosophy was established upon asceticism and punishing the body so that the Rooh can be elevated. So Muslims saw within this the Islamic thought of Zuhd (abstaining from worldly matters) and all Soofiy groupings were built upon this thought which came upon those remaining from amongst the people.

This obscurity and lack of clarity still remains present to this day even if some of its actual practise has lessened and its presence become rarer. However as a thought it still remains in existence and continues to circulate amongst the Muslims. So they say that the human is composed of (both) matter and spirit (Rooh) and for the Rooh to be elevated to its highest levels then it is necessary to weaken the body. This is whilst we were in no need for that which brought woes to the society in addition to laziness, apathy and suspension of productive material activity amongst the people.

There were also efforts undertaken by the intellectuals from amongst the sons of the Islamic Ummah to reconcile between these philosophies and Islaam despite the contradiction between them being completely and plainly clear. This is because Islaam is a Deen which Allah (swt) divinely revealed to His Messenger Muhammad (saw) whilst the philosophy is a product of the human mind and his effort. Said differently: Islaam’s source is the Wahi (divinely inspired revelation from Allah (swt)) whilst the source of this philosophy is the mind and this is exactly the same rebuttal and refutation that is provided to the one that attempts to reconcile between Democracy and Islaam or socialism and Islaam. This is because it is sufficient to say (and point out) that the source of democracy is the human mind and the source (Masdar) of socialism is the human mind. As for Islaam then its source is the Wahi from Allah (swt) and whether there is something that resembles Islaam or some of its thoughts and rulings or there is no resemblance it still remains contrary and contradictory to Islaam and it is not permitted to attempt to reconcile between them or bring them close together.

It is known that attempting to reconcile between two contradictory and opposing thoughts inevitably leads to giving one of them an interpretation and an attempt to explain it with a meaning that is contrary to its true original reality. A result of these attempts was that they went about interpreting the Aayaat of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem and then explain them upon the angle that suited and was in line with those philosophies and fit with those thoughts. This is exactly like what happens today in respect to the attempt to explain democracy with the meaning of Shooraa as Shooraa is a Hukm from amongst the Ahkaam of Islaam. Or it is said that the ruling system in Islaam is Shooraa and that the ruling system in democracy is (also) Shooraa and as such democracy is actually a part of Islaam!

This then represents the essence of the effort of those who undertook the attempt to reconcile between these philosophies and Islaam. I do not say that as an accusation or as slander as an observation of what the likes of Al-Faaraabiy, Al-Kindiy and Ibn Rush amongst others left and what the Mu’tazilah, Jabriyyah and Ahl-us-Sunnah. They were those whose main concern was to defend Islaam and refute its opponents. Out of their love for Islaam they attempted to show that Islaam says the same as what those thinkers from the Greek philosophers said. What they brought however ended up being no more than providing an Arabic explanation for the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle and if we were to scrutinize what the ‘Ulamaa of Kalaam left behind like the Jabriyyah and the Mu’tazilah then we will find that they did not depart from the opinion of the Stoics and Epicureans. It was then only natural (once upon this path) that each of these groups or sides would then resort to interpretation and explanations that would be in harmony with the opinion and view that they had arrived at.