An Examination of the Method to Establish the Islamic State

The following is the translation of an Arabic article.

An examination of the Tareeqah (method)

There is no conflict or contradiction at all between what the Messenger ﷺ did to establish the State in Al-Madinah and the Hadeeth of the Messenger ﷺ:

مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ
“Whoever from you sees a Munkar then he should (or must) change it by his hand” (Muslim).

This Hadeeth makes it permissible for the Muslim who sees the Munkar (evil or wrong) to use force to change it if he is capable of decisively resolving the matter without negative consequences. If he was not capable by himself to change the Munkar, then he needs to increase by way of others to change it, upon the condition that the change happens in a decisive manner without resulting in a Fitnah:

وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ
And cooperate upon righteousness and piety (Al-Maa’idah: 2).

If the matter would lead to Fitnah greater than the standing Munkar, then not changing it is preponderant over changing it.

What the Messenger ﷺ did in Makkah and Al-Madinah, represented from one angle, increasing the number via others for the purpose of changing the Munkar. Then when Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj were added or attached to the Muhaajireen, and they became together capable of decisively resolving the matter by eliminating the Munkar and establishing the rule of Allah upon the earth, they did that and established the State in Al-Madinah without the spilling of a single drop of blood. That is because the Messenger ﷺ, in both Makkah and Al-Madinah, invited the people to Islaam and continued in his Da’wah until a wide group from the people believed alongside him and were enabled with him to eliminate the Munkar without negative consequences or ramifications, and so that’s what he did.

Specifying the Hadeeth of the Messenger ﷺ “Whoever from you sees a Munkar then he should (or must) change it by his hand” to specific cases, represents a specification without that which has specified it. That is because the wording “Man” [مَنْ] (whoever) stated within the Hadeeth is from the general expressions and covers all that has been placed for it to cover (i.e. in the utilisation of the language by the Arabs) and they utilised it to cover Al-Uqalaa’ (i.e. those possessing the faculty of the mind and reason) meaning that the address in the Hadeeth applies to every individual from amongst the people. It also includes non-Muslims however the expression “Minkum” [مِنْكُمْ] (from you) restricts the address to the Muslims alone.

Also, the expression “Munkar” [مُنْكَرًا] stated in the Hadeeth is Nakirah (indefinite) within the Siyaaq (context form) of Al-Ithbaat (affirmation) and the Nakirah in the Siyaaq of Al-Ithbaat falls under Al-Mutlaq (unrestricted or absolute) as has been stated by the scholars of Usool. This means that the Hadeeth in terms of its address is directed to all of the Muslims, whether as individuals or groups, and in terms of the Munkar it covers any or every Munkar, whether it was perpetrated by individuals, groups or states. This is the origin (understanding) in respect to the Hadeeth and it is not correct or valid for anyone to exclude anyone from this address or exclude a case from the cases of the Munkar, unless there is an evidence specifying the generality of the Hadeeth or restricted its unrestricted form. In respect to the discussion about the establishment of the Khilafah there is no Daleel to indicate that it has been excluded from the Hadeeth of changing the Munkar. Indeed, the evidence is established to indicate complete harmony between the Hadeeth and the Seerah of the Nabi ﷺ.

However, it is nevertheless stipulated in respect to those who assume the undertaking of the change to have the capability to do that. Therefore, whoever has the capability to change a Munkar that he sees, he is obliged to change it and it is not Halaal for him to remain silent over it. The meaning of capability (Al-Qudrah) is that the one who changes the Munkar is enabled to remove it without the occurrence of ramifications or consequences which are greater than the Munkar which he has sought out to change.

For example, whoever sees a man drinking alcohol and wants to change this, he begins by forbidding him and if he responds then that is all well and good. If he does not however respond positively, then he can use the power to make him stop from doing it, if he has the capability. If it is most likely or preponderant in his mind that he unable; either due to his weakness before the one engaged in the Munkar or that the person will bring others from his people to support him if he attempts that and then as a result a Fitnah would erupt between this people and that people, then in such a case or situation he would not be considered to be capable and it would not be obligatory upon him to change him by force or power (Quwwah). Indeed, in such a case it is not permitted for him to do that.  

That is because the result would be a new agitation or provocation of Munkars which are greater than the original Munkar. The Qudrah (capability) therefore means eliminating the Munkar from the reality without there being undesirable (Munkar) consequences or ramifications. It is obligatory upon the incapable to seek support of others if that is easy or can be facilitated, until they are capable together of removing the Munkar, because that is from Al-Birr (righteous conduct):

وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ
And cooperate upon righteousness and piety and do not cooperate in sin and aggression (Al-Maa’idah: 2).

It is not that he should just turn his back to the Munkar due to his being not capable and leave it at that.

The perpetrators of the Munkar are not equal as is known. Included amongst them are regular individuals, those who have influence or position, groups and states, and each of them is approached to change the Munkar which was perpetrated according to what by its nature will remove this Munkar. The Munkar of the individual can be changed by an individual whilst the Munkar of someone of influence or position may not be possible to remove except by someone like him in standing or by a group of people collectively. That is whilst the Munkar of the state is not removed except by a state or by a group. Therefore, if the Munkar is found and the one capable of removing it is also found, it is obligatory upon him to remove it. And if he was not capable it is obligatory to gather with him from the people and means of strength that will enable him to remove the Munkar without causing undesirable (Munkar) consequences or ramifications.

By returning to the Seerah, a clear harmony between what the Messenger ﷺ and his companions did and between what the Hadeeth about changing the Munkar dictates is apparent. As the Messenger ﷺ knew that he sought a state, he went out inviting the people and bringing them together and binding them with himself in preparation to establish the Islamic State. The actions and styles undertaken and employed by the Nabi ﷺ were in perfect or complete harmony with his (level of) power and of those who believed with him.

He invited the people until the mention of Islaam became widespread in Makkah and a small number believed in him who did not possess the strength or means to support that which he came with, just as he was not able to protect them. And so he commanded them to perform Hijrah to Al-Habashah to safeguard them whilst he did not push them to engage in confrontation with the Mushrikeen, due to what could result from that in terms of them being eliminated without accomplishing any benefit.

This action of his is in complete agreement with their realty and the Hadeeth of changing the Munkar. That is because they were incapable of changing the Munkar which was present and they were unable to repel the Munkar that was being practised against them. Therefore, the command of the Nabi ﷺ to them, to make Hijrah, was natural and that is indicated to by the fact that he did not command anyone from his companions, from amongst those who possessed the capability to repel the harm from himself, to undertake the Hijrah. And he himself did not undertake the Hijrah due to what he possessed in terms of Mana’ah (protective force). In addition, he did not command any of his companions from those who possessed the capability of speaking openly with the Da’wah to refrain from doing that.

So we saw, for example, that Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas, may Allah be pleased with him struck a Mushrik with a camel bone splitting his head open, just as we saw ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, come out in a challenging manner in respect to displaying his embracing of Islaam and Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him, striking Abu Jahl, whilst the Nabi ﷺ did not reproach any of them concerning what they did.

And we saw the Muslims in Makkah challenging Qurasih in respect to their Islaam after ‘Umar and Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with them, embraced Islaam, just as some of the Muslims who had migrated to Al-Habashah returned to Makkah when they heard of the increasing numbers of those who had believed alongside the Nabi ﷺ. These behaviours are clear in indication to indicate that the Muslims used to use their might and increased in utilising it as it increased through more people joining them in Islaam and within contexts or places that would be beneficial to the Da’wah and not where the reaction to that would be crushing blow from their enemy. All of that is in complete harmony with the mechanisms or workings of changing the Munkar as mentioned within the Hadeeth.

It has not been mentioned (i.e. within the Seerah and evidences) that the Muslims used the strength of force, whilst in this condition, to establish the Khilafah, because they were in origin incapable of protecting themselves and their strength which by its nature was required to establish the state was still weak in comparison to the strength preventing and standing in the way of its establishment. This behaviour and conduct of theirs is inline completely with the power and capability stipulated in the Hadeeth of changing the Munkar and there is no conflict between the two cases.

The Muslims and the Nabi ﷺ, in their state of weakness, strove hard to win over more of the disbelievers to their ranks, comprehending that the increase in their ranks would naturally increase their capability towards being able to change the Munkar and eliminate it.

It should not be said that the Nabi ﷺ was alone legally responsible or charged (Mukallaf) to carry the Da’wah or that he represented one matter whilst those who believed in him represented another. That is not said because he ﷺ did not express that meaning to any of them ever and none of them expressed that to anyone else either. Rather, his behaviour or conduct ﷺ and the conduct of his companions, may Allah be pleased with him, indicates to the opposite of that. That is because, right from the beginning, when they embraced Islaam, they went out to carry the Da’wah by their own accord and he ﷺ used to direct them, whilst none of them said that he was not Mukallaf (legally responsible or charged) to carry the Da’wah.

So we saw that Abu Bakr initiated the carrying of the Da’wah from himself and the Messenger ﷺ did not forbid him. Similarly, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, Sa’eed Bin Zaid, Hamzah Bin Abdil Muttalib, At-Tufail Ibn ‘Amr Ad-Dawsiy, ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab and Abu Dharr Al-Ghifaariy, may Allah be pleased with them all, in addition to the remainder of the Muslims, even including the delegation of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj and even those who made Hijrah to Al-Habashah, all of them engaged in carrying the Da’wah by their own accord, whilst the Messenger ﷺ used to direct them and not forbid them, and he did not say to them, and not once, despite the need for that, that they were not legally charged (Mukallaf) to carry the Da’wah.

They all used to behave and conduct themselves upon the basis that they were one Ummah which had one head who was the Nabi ﷺ, being commanded by his command and abstaining from what he forbade. He would direct them and foster them without distinguishing between them and himself, and this is evident within the Seerah with the clarity of the sun.

It was he ﷺ who directed At-Tufail, may Allah be pleased with him, to carry the Da’wah and being engaged in that and it was he who direct Mus’ab, may Allah be pleased with him, to go to Al-Madinah, and who permitted Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, to undertake the Hjrah from Makkah and did not permit him to undertake the Hijrah at the end of his era in Makkah. It was he ﷺ who directed the Muslims to make the Hijrah to Al-Habashah and who directed Abu Dharr saying to him: “Return to your people and inform them until my command reaches you” and who approved of the delegation of Al-Khazraj, following his first meeting with them, in respect to their resolve and determination to carry the Da’wah in their land.

It was he ﷺ who used approve of all of the conducts of all of the Muslims as a whole and their compliance to his command and his regulation of how they proceeded was clear and indicative that all of them were Mukallaf (legally charged) with carrying the Da’wah. Also, it indicated that they and the Nabi ﷺ were one thing or unit and not two separate groups. The fact that they persevered in the face of the punishment inflicted upon them in the way of Allah represents one of the strongest of indications that they knew that they were Mukallafeen (legally charged) and what the Sahaabah bore in terms of punishment in the way of the Da’wah is well-known and famous, and had they not been legally responsible and charged they would not have persevered through and borne all that they did.  

In addition, it should not be said that the Da’wah was (conducted in) stages. The correct view and understanding is that it represented one single action which was completely in harmony with the Hadeeth about changing the Munkar. That was the striving and work to win over the greatest number possible from among the people to their ranks, until they reached the power or strength that would enable them to raise high the Haqq (truth) and eliminate the Baatil (falsehood). That is because to make the Haqq (truth) prevalent it is necessary for there to be a power or force that will eliminate the force or power of the Baatil (falsehood) which is opposing it. This matter was perfectly clear within the minds of the Muslims.

As such, secrecy did not represent a stage (of the Da’wah) and that is not possible to have been the case. Rather, secrecy represents a style through which an action is undertaken whenever that is necessary. Also, if secrecy represented a stage, it would have been used and then disappeared, however we see that secrecy during his Seerah ﷺ was utilised from the first day of the Da’wah until its last day, and this by itself is sufficient to indicate that secrecy represents a style (Usloob) through which the Da’wah is carried whenever it is required or necessary.

The Nabi ﷺ undertook the Hijrah secretly to Al-Madinah following that which has been named the secret stage and his companions, may Allah be pleased with them, undertook the Hijrah in secrecy. He ﷺ met the Khazraj in secret in the Bai’at ul-Harb (second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah) and he invited the people during the beginning of the carrying of the Da’wah secretly just as he called them openly. Therefore, secrecy represented a style through which the Da’wah could be carried when required but it did not represent a stage and it could not possible do so. That is because it is not from the actions of carrying the Da’wah in origin but rather it is a style by which the Da’wah is carried, which was utilised from the first day until the last, whenever it was necessary or required.

Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, use repeatedly urge the Messenger ﷺ to go out to the Masjid but he ﷺ would reply: “O Abu Bakr, we are few in number”. He did not say to him that we have not finished the secret stage. Rather, he explained to him that the matter is connected to having a small or large number i.e. linked to weakness and strength, which by their nature would enable them to appear and manifest themselves openly without being crushed by their enemy.

This has also been indicated to by what ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, said to the Nabi ﷺ when he embraced Islaam, when he was urging him to be open with the Da’wah: “What is holding you back by my father and my mother? … for by Allah, there is not an assembly that I used to sit in during disbelief, except that I have displayed Al-Imaan in it, without awe or fear. We will not worship in secret after this day” and also within his statement: “O Messenger of Allah, are we not upon the Haqq (truth). If we die and if we live?” To which the Messenger ﷺ replied: “Indeed, by the one in whose hand is my soul, you are upon the Haqq if you die and if you live”. He (‘Umar) then asked: “Then what is the reason for concealment. By the one who sent you with the Haqq, you will go out (i.e. openly)”.

Similar to that is understood from the Islaam of Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him. That is because the Nabi ﷺ said to him: “O Abu Dharr, conceal this matter and return to your land. Then if it (i.e. the news) reached you that we have become prevalent, then come (to us)”. Then I (i.e. Abu Dharr) said: “By the one who has sent you with the Haqq, I will shout it out openly amongst them. He then went to the Masjid and announced his Islaam and was then beaten to the point of death had Al-Abbaas not intervened …”. Therefore, the dialogue between himself and the Nabi ﷺ does not at all indicate that there was a stage that must be adhered to, but rather it indicates that the issue was one of examining the style that should be followed for the carrying of the Da’wah, according to a manner that makes it appear and guarantees its well-being, in connection to the matter of small or large number (i.e. power).

In addition, concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ ﴿١﴾ قُمْ فَأَنذِرْ
O you who covers himself (with a garment). Arise and warn (Al-Mudath’thir: 1-2).

This was revealed before the end of what has been named the secret stage just as His Qawl Ta’Aalaa was:

تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِي لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ
May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he (Al-Masad: 1).

So, what is the meaning of “Then warn” and did the Messenger ﷺ convey “May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined …” secretly? Or did that happen after he gathered all of the people of Makkah and conveyed the new Deen to them?

In addition, Ash-Sheikh Taqiyudeen An-Nabhaani, who held the view of stages, stated in the book “The Islamic State”, that the Da’wah had been open from the very first day and that it was the Tanzheem (organisation) that had been secret. Therefore, is the secrecy of the organisation sufficient to support the claim of there being stages? And did the Nabi ﷺ even give up the secrecy of the organisation after that?

That is because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, as we have explained previously, continued to use secrecy until the last days before the establishment of the State, according to what was required or necessary. Also, what is the meaning of the Messenger ﷺ requesting some of those who became Muslim to conceal their Islaam, which they refused to do and then his approval of their rejection? What is the meaning of his silence over them, in this circumstance, in terms of the consideration of the existence of a matter in the Shar’a called the secret stage?

The same applies in respect to the seeking of support (Talab un-Nusrah). It was not a stage from among the stages of carrying the Da’wah to establish the State. That is because the meaning of Talab un-Nusrah, as found in the Seerah, is the searching for a new Majaal to carry the Da’wah within it. It has been mentioned within the Seerah that the Nabi ﷺ, following the death of his uncle, was no longer enabled to carry the Da’wah in Makkah as he had been prior to that. That is because the people of Makkah refused to respond to him in respect to what he invited them to. He therefore set off looking for a state other than the state of Quraish, so as to carry the Da’wah within it, just as he had been carrying it within Makkah prior to the death of his uncle. 

The Messenger ﷺ has stated explicitly: “Is there someone who will take me to his people so that I can convey the Kalaam (speech) of my Rabb (Lord)?” It is very clear from the Hadeeth and its circumstances, that what has been described as “Talab un-Nusrah” (Seeking support) represents nothing other than an expression related to searching for a new Majaal for the Da’wah to be carried in, just as it had been carried in the old Majaal, and that it does not at all indicate to new actions, and hence has no relationship with a matter that has been called “stages”.

The matter that indicates that what has been called “Talab un-Nusrah” does not represent a stage (in the Da’wah) or a new action, is that the Nabi ﷺ first went out to Thaqeef and when he spoke to them, he did not request from them more than he had requested from his uncle Abu Taalib or what he had requested from the leaders of Quraish. This was his ﷺ statement to his uncle: “Allah sent me with it (i.e. Islaam) as a Messenger to the servants and you, O uncle, have the most right for me to extend advice to and to be invited to guidance and the most right to respond positively to me in respect to it and assist me upon it” whilst it has been recorded that he said to Thaqeef: “And then he invited them to Allah and spoke to them about what he had come to them for in respect to providing him support (Nusrah) upon Islaam and to stand with him against those who oppose him from his people”.

This is also evident in what he ﷺ said to the tribes when he presented himself to them: “He informed them that he is a Nabi who had been sent and asked them to believe in him and protect him until he makes clear to them (i.e. conveys)”. Therefore, his request ﷺ request to all three parties: “The Quraish, Thaqeef and the tribes”, was the same request and it was the same request that he made to his uncle. Consequently, if the situation was a such, then where is the stage and what is the new action?

In addition, the Nabi ﷺ addressed the people of Makkah explicitly when they mocked him whilst he was making Tawaaf around the Ka’bah stating: “Know that I have come to you with slaughter!”. He was therefore aware about what he had come with and what his matter will become in the future in terms of manifesting or becoming dominant and they (the Quraish) were aware that this was his demand or request (Talab) even before he presented himself to the tribes of “Nusrah”. Also, there is his statement to Abu Dharr: “When it (i.e. the news) reaches you that we have become dominant or prevailed, then come (to us)” which was also prior to the “Nusrah”. This indicates that the Messenger ﷺ was seeking the rule whilst he was in Makkah and that the Talab un-Nusrah (seeking of the Nusrah) did not represent a new stage for the purpose or sake of reaching the position of ruling. It was not even a new action, but rather, as we have mentioned previously, it represented the searching for another people to whom he could carry the Da’wah amongst, just as he had been carrying it in Makkah.

From amongst the most significant signs in respect to what has been claimed in respect to his seeking of the Nusrah, is what happened with the Khazraj, as the Messenger ﷺ did not request or seek the Nusrah from the Khazraj themselves. In the first meeting with them, he called them to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, presented Islaam to them, recited Qur’aan to them just as he did with other than them, and they hoped that through him, that Allah would bring together their people upon the Nabi ﷺ. In addition, in the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, he ﷺ did not stipulate upon them that they provide him with Mana’ah (i.e. preventative protection).

And the Talab un-Nusrah (seeking of the Nusrah) from the Ansaar, was initiated by Al-‘Abbaas, the uncle of the Nabi ﷺ, before he had embraced Islaam, which took place at the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, Therefore, the Messenger ﷺ himself, did not request the Nusrah (support) from those who actually provided the Nusrah to him, although his request from them to believe in him and the Deen that he had been sent with, did comprise providing the Mana’ah (protective protection) to him and for what he had come with to prevail and manifest.

This matter is evident and natural. The Quraish had understood it from the first days of the Da’wah and all whom he addressed with Islaam likewise understood it. There is no clearer evidence for that than the enthusiasm and zeal of many of those who embraced Islaam to manifest their new Deen. This indicates that the issue of stages has no reality to it at all. The work of the Messenger ﷺ from the first day of his being sent with his mission until the last day, represented a Da’wah to the people to have Imaan (belief) in the new Deen and to stand with him against those who opposed it i.e. it represented increasing the numbers by others, as previously indicated to, in order to eliminate the Munkar and establish the Islamic State in its place.

As for the point that the Messenger ﷺ did not utilise force in the establishment of his state, then this represents a strange view, in the case where how can such a matter be examined when he ﷺ didn’t even possess a power that could have been utilised? That is because the Messenger ﷺ did not possess power, through which states could be established, except after the Bai’at ul-Harb (i.e. second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah). Then we he gained possession of it, he did not delay in utilising it.

It is true that some of the Sahaabah had requested from him the use of force and that he refused their request. However, his rejection was logical and natural, because their strength, at the time when he refused this, was not sufficient to establish a state. Their use of force would not have accomplished anything other than the elimination of their group and its removal from existence without bringing any damage to the disbelievers. Such a matter is not lawful, not then and not now, not for the group and not even from the army of the Muslims, just as it is even lawful for the Islamic Ummah itself.

His rejection ﷺ was natural and in line with the capability stipulated in the Hadeeth of changing the Munkar. The Messenger ﷺ permitted the use of force only in accordance to that which could be beneficial for the Da’wah without it being a cause for the outbreak of an unequal confrontation with the disbelievers, which would lead to the crushing of the group and its removal from existence.

It should not be said that the Messenger ﷺ represents one matter and that those who believed in him from the Ansaar represent another. That is because when the Messenger ﷺ returned back to Makkah from Thaqeef he would present himself to the tribes, i.e. to the other peoples and states to carry the Da’wah amongst them, because the people of Makkah had not responded positively to him. He would call them to Allah and inform them that he was a Nabi who had been sent and ask them to believe in him and protect him (provide him with Mana’ah) so that he could convey to them. Whoever believed in him, after the occurrence of what was known as the seeking of Nusrah, was not treated by him ﷺ with any different treatment as compared to anyone of the Muslims who had believed with him prior to that. Therefore, from the perspective of the Da’wah, the Nabi ﷺ did not request from him anything more than he had requested from others and in respect to the treatment of the Messenger ﷺ towards them, it was exactly the same as his treatment and dealing with others.

So, in the very first meeting of the Nabi ﷺ with the Khazraj, he did not call them except to that which he called other than them to, in terms of belief, standing with him and assisting him upon what had come to him from Allah. And the response of the Khazraj to that was: “We have left our people whilst there are no people who have more hostility and evil between them. So, it may be (i.e. it is hoped) that Allah will bring them together via you. As such, we will go back to them and call them to your matter (i.e. Islaam) and show them what we have responded positively to you in respect to this Deen. Then if Allah brings them together upon it, there will be no manner more honoured than you”.

This was their statement and their answer to the Nabi ﷺ who was silent upon it just as he had been silent upon others, from those who had believed in Makkah from its people and from other than its people, before the Nusrah and after it (i.e. its so-called stage), whilst there is nothing within that to indicate that they were something and that the Nabi ﷺ and those who believed in him prior to that, represented something else altogether. He invited them just as he invited other than them and they responded in a similar way to how other responded and become part of his Jamaa’ah (group) just as others had become part of it.

Then we see that they returned to the Nabi ﷺ in the following year with 12 men and gave him the first pledge which was known as “Bai’at un-Nisaa’” (The pledge of the women). Within that, they gave the pledge to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Upon that we would not associate anything with Allah, that we would not steal, commit fornication (Zinaa), kill our children, bring a false accusation which we fabricated from between our hands or legs and that we would not disobey him in a Ma’roof (that which is good and correct) … (He ﷺ said:) If you are faithful in fulfilling (that) then you will be rewarded with Al-Jannah. And if anyone neglects (or go against) any of that, but you are taken in respect to it in this Dunyaa (i.e. punished for that), then that will be a Kaffaarah (expiation) for him. And if you cover or conceal it until the Day of Judgement, then your affair returns to Allah. If he wills he punishes and if he wills he forgives”.

Everything included in this (Bai’ah) is required from everyone who became Muslim from the people before the “Nusrah” and after it, whilst there is nothing contained within it indicating that the Nabi ﷺ and those who had believed with him, before that, represented something else. And when the need was seen for there to be someone to teach them, he sent Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair to Al-Madinah. He then undertook the carrying of the Da’wah in it just as the Messenger ﷺ and the rest of the Muslims in every place, used to carry the Da’wah, without any difference. They perceived the obedience to the Nabi ﷺ after that just as those who had believed in the Messenger ﷺ prior to that had perceived it. So, how can it be said that the people of Nusrah represent one thing and that the Nabi ﷺ and those who had believed in him prior to that represented another matter.

And in respect to the second Bai’ah (pledge) of Al-‘Aqabah, know as the Bai’at ul-Harb (pledge of war), the first to speak was Al-‘Abbaas, the uncle of the Nabi ﷺ, who was still upon disbelief at that time. In his speech he did not say other than the following: “O Ma’shar (assembly of) Al-Khazraj, verily Muhammad is from us, as you have known, and we have protected him from our people as much we could. He is in apposition of honour and protection (Mana’ah) in his land but he has refused except to ally with you and join with you. So, if you believe that you will be faithful to him in respect to that which he has invited you to, protecting him from those who oppose him, then assume the burden of responsibility of what you have taken. But if you see that you may surrender him and betray him or let him down after he has left to go to you taken him, then leave him now because he is in a position of honour and Mana’ah (protection) in respect to his people and land”.

This was the first speech delivered during the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah within earshot of the Nabi ﷺ. Al-‘Abbaas did not request within it for anything other than what the Messenger ﷺ already had provided and available to him in Makkah, and there was nothing in that indicating that they, as the people of Nusrah (support) were any different to those who had preceded them to having Imaan in the Nabi ﷺ.

Even clearer than that, is what Abu l-Haitham Ibn At-Taihaan said during the pledge: “O Messenger of Allah! Between us and men (i.e. the Jews), there are ties (i.e. agreements) which we would then sever. If Allah grants you victory, should we expect that you would return to your people and leave us?” The Messenger ﷺ smiled and replied: “No, rather the blood is blood (i.e. the right of retaliation) and when there is none there is none (i.e. if there is no retaliation to be had) [note: these two statements indicate the connection between the Messenger and the Ansaar and that they have become joined as the same people]. I am from you and you are from me (i.e. inseparable). I wage war against whom you wage war and make peace with those with whom you have made peace with”.

Therefore, we observe here that the Messenger ﷺ declared with complete unambiguity that he was their partner in war and peace before the state, whilst neither he or those with him in addition to those who gave the pledge to him did not indicate to anything else. As such, through the Bai’ah (pledge) all of the new Muslims and the old Muslims, the Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar, along with the Nabi ﷺ came to be one single body. What statement could be more explicit than his ﷺ declaring that he is a partner to them in respect to the use of force, through which a state was intended to be established?

The Nabi ﷺ did not appoint himself as an architect over them but rather explained to them that he was at their head in respect to fighting before the establishment of the state. That was whilst the Muslims had sensed what their situation had become in terms of power and they all, the Muhaajiroon and Ansaar, realised that the moment of decisive resolution had approached or drawn close, and that it represented a serious time in respect to them all and not the Ansaar only.

Therefore, neither the Messenger ﷺ or any of the Muhaajiroon adopted the role of the architect over the people. Rather, every action he undertook and every condition indicates that he and the rest of the Muslims are one single body. This means that it is the Jamaa’ah itself which utilises the force in respect to bringing change just as the Messenger ﷺ utilised it by his mere gaining possession of it, in a manner that is perfectly inline or in complete conformity with the Hadeeth of changing the Munkar. Indeed, perhaps (it could be said that) the Seerah of the Messenger ﷺ and his method in establishing the Islamic State reflects in an extraordinary harmonious manner the practical manifestation or image of the Hadeeth of changing the Munkar.

That is because if the Nabi ﷺ, who was the possessor of the Da’wah and the one who planned, thought out, arranged the meeting, made a covenant and declared that he was a partner in war, was not utilising force in respect to the establishment of the State, who then was it that utilised that? That is because the Messenger ﷺ did utilise the force, at the time that he came into possession of it, in relation to the establishment of the State, because he was the head of the matter or affair. However, he did not utilise it except in relation to that which it was capable of changing. This is a natural matter and even agrees with rationality, in the case where what is the worth or value of using force which is not capable of accomplishing anything?

Judging whether the Nabi ﷺ utilised force or didn’t utilise it, is only done in relation to after he attained it and not before he possessed it. Passing the judgment and making the claim that he did not use force prior to his possessing it, is an error. That is because he ﷺ did use it in respect to the establishment of the state based upon his mere possession or attainment of it and he did not delay in using it ever.

The above represents a summary of what happened with the Nabi ﷺ in relation to what is known as the Tareeqah (method) of the Nabi ﷺ to establish the Islamic State. The one who examines it, observes clearly that there is no conflict between the method and the Hadeeth of the Messenger ﷺ: “Whoever sees a Munkar …”. As for his statement ﷺ to Al-‘Abbaas Bin ‘Ubaadah: “We have not been commanded with that” when he said to him: “By the One who has sent you with the truth, if you wish we will descend upon Ahl Minaa (i.e. the Quraish) with our swords”, then this does not indicate that the Nabi ﷺ prevented (or forbade) him from fighting but rather it indicated the rejection of the view of Al-‘Abbaas to utilise force in this (specific) manner.

That is because the use of force does not mean that the Muslims descend upon the people in one go, in the absence of circumstances and conditions which need to be met. Therefore, there is no meaning in using this statement as an evidence to prevent or forbid fighting to establish the state. That is particularly because the Messenger ﷺ had been given the pledge over war. That is in addition to what can be understood from the offer of Al-‘Abbaas Bin ‘Ubaadah in terms of merely making clear the readiness to fight and even against all the people immediately or at once, in that this represented a reassurance to the Nabi ﷺ, making clear that their Bai’ah to him was serious and that they were ready to proceed upon it to its uttermost limits. It is also understood from the reply of the Messenger: “We have not been commanded with that”, in the case where he did not say: “You have not been commanded with that yet”, that this represents an evidence that they were all one single body.

In addition, those who say that the Nabi ﷺ did not utilise force in the establishment of the state, then even if they say that in theory, in practise they do utilise it. Otherwise, what is the meaning of their statement that they are the ones who contact the people of power, who organise them, direct them, specify the zero hour for them (i.e. to make the move) and that they are the ones who command them to engage in fighting is the matter requires it. Indeed, that they are the ones who specify for them what they do in respect to their military movement or mobilisation. If the one saying that he will do all of that is not utilising force, who then is considered to be utilising it? And if the commanding of those who respond positively to them from the people of power is not considered to represent them being incorporated into their ranks, even if it was concealed, then who are these people of power affiliated to then?

And is the weak who does not have power over anything whilst he is incorporated in the Halaqaat (study circles) considered to be part of the Jamaa’ah, whilst the one from the people of power under the command of the Jamaa’ah (group) is not considered to be from it? Is the issue an arbitrary one? Or does the issue represent an examination of a reality manifested upon the ground? That is because the reality manifested upon the ground is that anyone who is commanded by the command of the Jamaa’ah, is from it, whether he was placed in Halaqaat or not. That is because the Halaqaat (study circles) are a style from amongst the styles which could assist the one within the Jamaa’ah to be affiliated and regulated within it, just as it could not assist (or serve the purpose).

In addition, making the people of power (Ahl ul-Quwwah) one matter and the Jamaa’ah (group) another matter, leads to dividing the Muslims, in respect to what is obligatory upon them, into two groups or categories. That is because if the Muslim is not from the people of power, then he must join the group, and if he was from the people of power, then it is not obligatory upon him to join the group, even if it is obligatory for him to support it. That is in accordance to the view of those who have differentiated between the people of power and the Jamaa’ah, whilst the corruption in respect to this view is not hidden.

The important issue in respect to this matter is that the statement of the Messenger ﷺ:

مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَانِ

"Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan." (Muslim).

That this statement represents the Asl (origin and basis) and that there is no conflict between it and the method or way of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in respect to establishing the Islamic State. Indeed, whoever wishes to see the practical application of this Hadeeth manifested and represented upon the reality, then he should study the Seerah, as it represents the best example of the practical manifestation of this Hadeeth upon the reality.

Sheikh Abu Islam Yusuf Shaqeero, Palestine

Due to the multiple requests received, the Arabic original is now included below.

نظرة في الطريق

لا تعارض إطلاقا بين ما فعله الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لإقامة الدولة بالمدينة ، وبين حديث الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم : (من رأى منكم منكرا فليغيره بيده..) ، ذلك أن حديث من رأى منكم منكرا فليغيره بيده ، يجيز للمسلم الذي يرى المنكر أن يستعمل القوة لتغييره إن كان قادرا على حسم الأمر من غير تداعيات سلبية ، فإن لم يكن قادرا وحده على تغيير المنكر فله أن يتكثر بغيره لتغييره ، شريطة أن يتم التغيير حسما  من غير فتنة : (وتعاونوا على البر والتقوى) ، فإن كان الأمر سيؤدي إلى فتنة أعظم من المنكر القائم ، فترك تغييره أولى من تغييره.

 وما فعله الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بمكة والمدينة ، هو في وجه من وجوهه تكثر بالغير من أجل تغيير المنكر ، فلما انضاف الأوس والخزرج إلى المهاجرين ، وصاروا جميعا قادرين على حسم الأمر بسحق المنكر وإقامة حكم الله في الأرض ، فعلوا ذلك وأقاموا الدولة بالمدينة من غير أن تراق قطرة دم واحدة . فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بمكة والمدينة دعا الناس إلى الإسلام ، واستمر في دعوته حتى آمن معه فريق عريض من الناس ، أمكن معه سحق المنكر من غير تداعيات سلبية ففعل.

وتخصيص حديث الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم" من رأى منكم منكرا.." بحالات معينة ، هو تخصيص من غير مخصص ، فلفظة (مَن) الواردة في الحديث هي من ألفاظ العموم وتستغرق جميع ما وضعت له ، وقد وضعتها العرب لاستغراق العقلاء ، أي أن الخطاب في الحديث هو لكل فرد من الناس ، حتى أنه يتناول غير المسلمين ، إلا أن قوله (منكم) جعل الخطاب في المسلمين وحدهم.

 ولفظة (منكرا) الواردة في الحديث هي نكرة في سياق الإثبات ، والنكرة في سياق الإثبات من المطلق كما هو عند الأصوليين ، وذلك يعني أن الحديث من حيث الخطاب موجه لكل المسلمين أفرادا كانوا أم جماعات ، ومن حيث المنكر يتناول أي منكر سواء الذي يفعله الأفراد أو الجماعات أو الدول ؛ هذا هو الأصل في الحديث ، ولا يصح لأحد أن يخرج أحدا من هذا الخطاب أو يخرج حالة من حالات المنكر ، إلا أن يأتي بدليل يخصص عموم الحديث أو يقيد مطلقه . وبالحديث عن إقامة الخلافة فلا دليل يدل على أنها مستثناة من حديث تغيير المنكر ، بل إن الدليل قائم على انسجام تام بين الحديث وبين ما ورد في السيرة.

غير أنه يشترط فيمن يتولى التغيير القدرة على ذلك ، فكل من كان قادرا على تغيير منكر يراه فإنه يجب عليه أن يغيره ، ولا يحل له السكوت عنه . والقدرة معناها أن يتمكن من يغير المنكر من إزالته من غير تداعيات منكرة أكبر من المنكر الذي شرع في تغييره.

 فمن رأى رجلا يشرب خمرا مثلا وأراد أن يغير عليه  فإنه يشرع في نهيه ، فإن استجاب فبها ونعمت ، وإن لم يستجب فإن له أن يستخدم القوة لإيقافه عن فعله إن كان مستطيعا ، فإن غلب على ظنه أنه لا يستطيع ، إما لضعفه أمام صاحب المنكر أو أنه إن أنكر عليه فإنه سيستعين عليه بآخرين من قومه ، وتثور بالتالي بين أهل هذا وأهل ذاك فتنة ، فإنه في هذه الحال لا يعتبر قادرا ولا يجب عليه التغيير بالقوة ، بل لا يجوز له ذلك.

 

لأن الذي سيحصل إنما هو إثارة جديدة لمجموعة من المناكير هي أكبر من الذي كان ، فالقدرة تعني محق المنكر من الواقع من غير تداعيات منكرة ، ويجب على غير القادر أن يستعين بغيره إن كان ذلك متيسرا ، حتى يقدروا جميعا على إزالة المنكر ، لأن ذلك من البر : (وتعاونوا على البر والتقوى ولا تعاونوا على الإثم والعدوان) ، لا  أن يدير ظهره للأمر بوصفه غير قادر والسلام.

وفعلة المنكر ليسوا سواء كما هو معلوم ، فمنهم الأفراد العاديين ومنهم ذوو الشأن ومنهم الجماعات ومنهم الدول ، وكل منهم إنما يسعى لتغيير المنكر الذي يفعله ، بما من شأنه أن يزيل هذا المنكر . فمنكر الفرد يمكن لفرد أن يزيله ، ومنكر ذوي الشأن قد لا يزيله إلا مثله أو مجموعة من الناس ، ومنكر الدولة لا يغيره إلا دولة أو جماعة ، فإن وجد المنكر ووجد من هو قادر على إزالته وجب عليه إزالته ، وإن لم يكن قادرا وجب عليه أن يؤلف معه من الناس والقوى ما يلزمه لإزالته من غير تداعيات منكرة.

 وبالرجوع إلى السيرة يظهر الانسجام جليا بين ما فعله الرسول وصحبه ، وبين ما يقتضيه حديث من رأى منكم منكرا ؛ فلأن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يعلم أنه يريد دولة ، فقد راح يدعو الناس ويؤلف بينهم ويربطهم بشخصه تحضيرا لإقامة الخلافة ، وكانت أفعاله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأساليبه تتسق تماما مع قوته ومن آمن معه.

فقد دعا الناس حتى فشا ذِكر الإسلام بمكة ، وآمن معه نفر قليل لم تكن لهم حيلة بنصره على ما جاء به ، ولم يستطع  هو أن يحميهم كذلك ، فأمرهم بالهجرة إلى الحبشة حفاظا عليهم ، ولم يدفعهم إلى ساحة المواجهة مع المشركين ، لما قد يترتب على ذلك من سحقهم من غير أي فائدة.

 وفعله هذا يتفق تماما مع واقعهم وحديث تغيير المنكر ، فهم لا يستطيعون تغيير المنكر الموجود ، ولا يستطيعون دفع المنكر الذي يمارس على أشخاصهم ؛ فكان أمره صلى الله عليه وسلم لهم بالهجرة طبيعيا ، ويدل على ذلك أنه لم يأمر بالهجرة أحدا من أصحابه  ممن كان يستطيع رد الأذى عن نفسه ، ولم يهاجر هو لما كان فيه من منعة ، ولم يأمر أحدا من أصحابه ممن كان يستطيع الجهر بالدعوة بالكف عن الجهر بها.

فسعد بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنه يضرب مشركا بلحي بعير فيشج رأسه ، وعمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه يتفنن في إظهار إسلامه ، وحمزة رضي الله عنه يسلم علنا ويضرب أبا جهل ، ولم ينكر صلى الله عليه وسلم على أي منهم ما كان يصنع.

 وها هم المسلمون بمكة يعازون قريشا في إسلامهم بعد إسلام عمر وحمزة رضي الله عنهما ، والذين هاجروا إلى الحبشة عاد قسم منهم إلى مكة بعدما سمع بكثرة الذين آمنوا مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، في تصرفات واضحة الدلالة على أن المسلمين كانوا يستخدمون عزتهم ويزيدون في استخدامها كلما ازدادت بدخول أناس جدد معهم في الاسلام ، وفي الموطن الذي من شأنه أن يكون نافعا للدعوة من غير أن يكون لذلك ردة فعل ساحقة من عدوهم ، وذلك منسجم تماما مع آلية تغيير المنكر الواردة في الحديث.

ولا يرد أن يستخدم المسلمون القوة وهم على هذا الحال لإقامة الدولة ، لأنهم أصلا يعجزون عن حماية أنفسهم ، وقوتهم التي من شأنها أن تقيم الدولة ما زالت ضعيفة بالنسبة إلى القوة التي تحول دون قيامها ، وتصرفهم هذا يتسق تماما مع القدرة المشروطة في حديث تغيير المنكر ، ولا يوجد أي تعارض بين الحالين.

 ولقد كان المسلمون والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في ضعفهم يسعون جاهدين لكسب المزيد من الكفار "أسلمتهم" إلى صفهم ، إدراكا منهم بأن الزيادة في صفوفهم من شأنها أن تزيدهم قدرة نحو تغيير المنكر وسحقه.

ولا يقال أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان مكلفا وحده بالدعوة ، أو أنه شيء ومن آمن معه شيء آخر ، لا يقال ذلك لأن صلى الله عليه وسلم لم ينطق هذه العبارة لأحد منهم ابدا ، ولم ينطقها أي منهم لغيره كذلك ، بل إن تصرفاته صلى الله عليه وسلم وتصرفات أصحابه رضوان الله عليهم تدل على خلاف ذلك تماما ، فإنهم وعن بكرة أبيهم عندما كانوا يسلمون كانوا يبادرون إلى حمل الدعوة من أنفسهم ، وكان صلى الله عليه وسلم يوجههم ، ولم يقل لأي منهم إنك لست مكلفا بحمل الدعوة.

 فقد بادر أبو بكر رضي الله عنه إلى حمل الدعوة من نفسه ، ولم ينهه صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وعلي بن أبي طالب وسعيد بن زيد وحمزة بن عبد المطلب والطفيل بن عمرو الدوسي وعمر بن الخطاب وأبو ذر رضي الله عنهم جميعا ، وسائر المسلمين حتى وفد الأوس والخزرج بل وحتى من هاجر إلى الحبشة ، كلهم كانوا يبادرون إلى حمل الدعوة من أنفسهم ، وكان صلى الله عليه وسلم يوجههم ولم يكن ينهاهم ، ولم يقل لهم ولو مرة واحدة "مع الحاجة إلى ذلك" أنكم لستم مكلفين بحمل الدعوة.

وكانوا جميعا يتصرفون على أنهم أمة واحدة لها رأس واحدة هو النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، يأتمرون بأمره وينتهون بنهيه ، يوجههم ويرعاهم دون أن يفرق بين أحد منهم ، بل دون أن يفرق بينهم وبين نفسه وهذا ظاهر في السيرة ظهور الشمس.

 فهو عليه الصلاة والسلام الذي وجه الطفيل رضي الله عنه في حمل الدعوة ومبادرته لذلك ، وهو الذي وجه مصعب رضي الله عنه كذلك للذهاب إلى المدينة ، وهو الذي أذن لأبي بكر رضي الله عنه بالهجرة من مكة ، وهو الذي لم يأذن له بالهجرة أواخر عهده بمكة ، وهو الذي وجه المسلمين إلى الهجرة للحبشة ، وهو صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي وجه أبا ذر : (ارجع إلى قومك وأخبرهم حتى يأتيك أمري) ، وهو من أقر وفد الخزرج بعد لقائه الأول بهم على عزمهم حمل الدعوة في بلدهم.

وهو صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي كان يقر تصرفات سائر المسلمين كلها ، وكان امتثالهم لأمره وتسييره لهم واضحا ودالا على أنهم جميعا مكلفون بحمل الدعوة ، وأنهم والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم شيء واحد وليسا فريقين منفصلين . على أن تحملهم للعذاب في سبيل الدعوة هو من أبلغ الدلالات على علمهم بأنهم بها مكلفون ، وما تحمله الصحابة من العذاب في سبيل الدعوة معلوم ومشهور ، ولو لم يكونوا مكلفين ما تحملوا الذي تحملوه .

 كذلك لا يقال أن الدعوة كانت مراحل ، فالصواب أنها كانت عملا واحدا متفقا تماما مع حديث تغيير المنكر ، وهو السعي لكسب أكبر عدد ممكن من الناس إلى صفهم ، حتى يبلغوا من القوة ما يمكنهم به إعلاء الحق وسحق الباطل ، فإظهار الحق لا بد له من قوة تسحق قوة الباطل الذي يعترضه ، وكان هذا واضحا تماما في ذهن المسلمين.

فالسِّرية لم تكن مرحلة ولا يمكن ان تكون ، وإنما هي أسلوب يؤدى به العمل حيثما لزم ذلك ، وأيضا فإن السِّرية لو كانت مرحلة لاستعملت ثم اختفت ، لكننا نرى السرية في سيرته صلى الله عليه وسلم قد استخدمت من أول يوم في الدعوة وحتى آخر يوم ، وهذا وحده كاف للدلالة على أن السرية أسلوب تُحمل به الدعوة متى لزمت.

 فقد هاجر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سرا إلى المدينة بعدما سمي بالمرحلة السرية ، وهاجر أصحابه رضي الله عنهم سرا ، وواعد الخزرج في بيعة الحرب سرا ، ودعا الناس في بداية حمل الدعوة سرا كما دعاهم علنا . فالسرية كانت أسلوبا تُحمل فيه الدعوة حيث ما لزم ، ولم تكن مرحلة ولا يمكن أن تكون ، إذ هي ليست من أعمال حمل الدعوة أصلا ، وإنما هي أسلوب تحمل به الدعوة ، استعمل من أول يوما وحتى آخر يوم حيث ما لزم.

فقد كان أبو بكر رضي الله عنه يلح على الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بالخروج إلى المسجد ، وكان صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول له : (يا أبا بكر إنا قليل) ، ولم يقل له إننا لم ننه المرحلة السرية ، وإنما  كان يبين له أن الأمر مقترن بالقلة والكثرة ، أي بالضعف والقوة التي من شأنها أن تمكنهم من الظهور من غير أن يسحقهم عدوهم.

 ويدل على ذلك أيضا أن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه عندما أسلم قال للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وهو يحضه على الجهر بالدعوة : (ما يحبسك بأبي أنت وأمي) ، فوالله ما بقي مجلس كنت أجلس فيه بالكفر إلا أظهرت فيه الإيمان ، غير هائب ولا خائف ، لا نعبد سرا بعد اليوم ؛ وقوله أيضا : (يا رسول الله ألسنا على الحق إن متنا وإن حيينا ، فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم : بلى والذي نفسي بيده إنكم على الحق إن متم وإن حييتم ، قال ففيم الاختفاء والذي بعثك بالحق لتخرجن).

وكذلك ما روي في إسلام أبي ذر رضي الله عنه ، فقد قال له النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : (يا أبا ذر اكتم هذا الأمر وارجع إلى بلدك فإذا بلغك ظهورنا فأقبل ، فقلت والذي بعثك بالحق لأصرخن بها بين أظهرهم ، ثم ذهب إلى المسجد وأعلن إسلامه ، وضُرب ليموت لولا أن أدركه العباس..) ؛ فالحوار بينهم وبين النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يدل إطلاقا على أن هناك مرحلة لا بد من التقيد بها ، وإنما يدل على أن المسألة مسألة بحث في أسلوب يُتَّبع لحمل الدعوة ، على نحو يظهرها ويضمن سلامتها ربطا بالقلة والكثرة في عددها.

 على أن قوله تعالى : (يا أيها المدثر قم فأنذر) هو قبل انتهاء المرحلة السرية ، وكذلك قوله تعالى : ( تبت يدا أبي لهب وتب) هو قبل انتهاء المرحلة السرية أيضا . فما هو معنى قوله تعالى : (فأنذر)؟ وهل بلغ الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم قوله تعالى : (تبت يدا أبي لهب وتب) سرا؟ أم كان ذلك بعد جمعه لأهل مكة كلهم وتبليغهم بالدين الجديد.

ثم إن الشيخ تقي الدين النبهاني رحمه الله تعالى "وهو من الذين قالو بالمراحل" ، قد قال في كتاب الدعوة الإسلامية أن الدعوة كانت علنية من أول يوم ، وأن التنظيم هو الذي كان سريا ، فهل سرية التنظيم تكفي للقول بالمرحلية؟ ، وهل تخلى صلى الله عليه وسلم عن سرية التنظيم أصلا بعدها؟.

 فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم" كما بينا سابقا" ، بقي يستخدم السرية في التنظيم حتى آخر يوم قبل قيام الدولة "حيث ما لزم" ؛ ثم ما هو معنى أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم عندما كان يطلب من بعض من أسلم أن يستر إسلامه فيأبى ، ويقره الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم على رفضه ؛ ما هو معنى سكوته عليهم إذا كان هناك من اعتبار في الشرع لشيء اسمه المرحلة السرية؟.

وكذلك طلب النصرة ، لم يكن مرحلة من المراحل في حمل الدعوة أو في إقامة الدولة ، ذلك أن معنى طلب النصرة  الوارد في السيرة ، معناه البحث عن مجال جديد لحمل الدعوة . فقد جاء في السيرة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبعد وفاة عمه أبي طالب ، لم يعد متمكنا من حمل الدعوة بمكة كما كان يفعل ، فأهل مكة قد أبوا الاستجابة له فيما دعاهم إليه ، فراح يبحث عن دولة غير دولة قريش ، يحمل فيها الدعوة كما كان يحملها بمكة قبل وفاة عمه.

 وقد قالها صلى الله عليه وسلم صراحة : (هل من رجل يحملني إلى قومه لأبلغ كلام ربي فإن قريشا منعتني أن أبلغ كلام ربي) . وأوضح جدا من الحديث وظروفه ان ما وُصف بطلب النصرة ، ما هو إلا عبارة عن بحث عن مجال جديد تُحمل فيه الدعوة كما كانت تحمل في المجال القديم ، وأنه ليس فيه أعمال جديدة على الأطلاق ، وبالتالي فلا علاقة له بشيء اسمه مراحل.

وما يدل على أن ما أطلق عليه طلب النصرة ليس بمرحلة ولا عمل جديد ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خرج أول ما خرج من مكة إلى ثقيف ، وعندما كلمهم لم يطلب منهم أكثر مما طلب من عمه أبي طالب أو من سادة قريش ، فهذا قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعمه : (.. بعثني الله به رسولا إلى العباد وأنت أي عم أحق من بذلت له النصيحة ودعوته إلى الهدى وأحق من أجابني إليه وأعانني عليه) ، وقوله لثقيف : (فدعاهم إلى الله وكلمهم بما جاءهم من نصرته على الإسلام والقيام معه على من خالفه من قومه).

 وأيضا قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين كان يعرض نفسه على القبائل : (يخبرهم أنه نبي مرسل ويسألهم أن يصدقوه ويمنعوه حتى يبين لهم) ، فطلبه صلى الله عليه وسلم من الثلاث جهات "ثقيف وقريش والقبائل" هو نفس الطلب ، ومن عمه كذلك نفس الطلب ، وإذا كان الحال كذلك ، فأين هي المرحلة وما هو العمل الجديد؟.

ثم إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قد خاطب أهل مكة صراحة عندما غمزوه وهو يطوف بالكعبة : (اعلموا أني إنما جئتكم بالذبح) ، فهو يعلم بما جاء به وما سيؤول إليه أمره من الظهور ، وهم يعلمون أن هذا طلبه قبل عرض نفسه على القبائل "النصرة" ، ثم قوله لأبي ذر : (إذا بلغك ظهورنا فأقبل) هو ايضا قبل النصرة ؛ وذلك يدل على أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يطلب حكما وهو بمكة ، وإن طلب النصرة لم يكن مرحلة جديدة من اجل الوصول الى الحكم ، ولا حتى عملا مختلفا ، وإنما "كما أسلفنا" هو بحث عن قوم آخرين يحمل الدعوة فيهم كما كان يحملها بمكة.

 وإن أهم المعالم فيما زُعم أنه طلب للنصرة هو ما حصل مع الخزرج ، والخزرج بالذات لم يطلب منهم الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم النصرة ؛ ففي أول لقاء معهم دعاهم إلى الله عز وجل وعرض عليهم الإسلام وتلا عليهم القرآن كما كان يفعل مع غيرهم ، وتمنوا هم فيه أن يجمع الله قومهم على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وفي البيعة الأولى لم يشترط عليهم صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يمنعوه.

وطلب النصرة من الأنصار إنما كان أول ما كان من العباس عم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قبل إسلامه ، وذلك في الإجتماع لبيعة العقبة الثانية ، فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم نفسه لم يطلب النصرة ممن نصره بالفعل ، غير أن طلبه صلى الله عليه وسلم منهم الإيمان به وبالدين الذي جاء به ، إنما يتضمن منعته وإظهار ما جاء به من دين.

 وهذا أمر ظاهر وطبيعي كانت تفهمه قريش نفسها من أول يوم في الدعوة ، وكان يفهمه كل من خاطبه صلى الله عليه وسلم بالإسلام ، وليس أدل على ذلك من حماسة كثير ممن أسلموا في إظهار دينهم الجديد ، ما يدل على أن مسألة المراحل لا وجود لها مطلقا . فعمل الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من أول يوم للبعثة إلى آخر يوم إذن ، هو دعوة للناس إلى الإيمان بالدين الجديد والقيام معه على من خالفه ، أي هو تكثر بالغير "كما سلف" لسحق المنكر وإقامة الدولة الإسلامية مكانه.

أما أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يستخدم القوة في إقامة الدولة فهو قول عجيب ، إذ كيف يُبحث مثله ولم تكن معه صلى الله عليه وسلم قوة يستخدمها أصلا؟ ، فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ما ملك القوة التي من شأنها أن تقيم دولا إلا بعد بيعة الحرب ، وعندما ملكها لم يتأخر في استخدامها.

 صحيح أن بعض الصحابة قد طلب منه استخدام القوة وأبى عليهم ذلك ، إلا أن رفضه كان منطقيا وطبيعيا ، لأن قوتهم حين رفضه صلى الله عليه وسلم لم تكن كافية لإقامة دولة ، وهم لن يفعلوا باستخدامهم القوة إلا شيئا واحدا ، هو محق الجماعة وإزالتها من الوجود من غير أي نكاية بالكفار ، وهذا ليس مشروعا لا في ذلك الحين ولا الآن ، لا للجماعة ولا حتى لجيش المسلمين ولا حتى للأمة الإسلامية نفسها.

فرفضه صلى الله عليه وسلم طبيعي وينسجم مع القدرة المشروطة في حديث تغيير المنكر ، وقد كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يسمح باستخدام القوة فقط بالقدر الذي يمكن أن يكون نافعا للدعوة ، من غير أن يكون سببا في اندلاع مواجهة غير متكافئة مع الكفار ، تؤدي إلى سحق الجماعة من الوجود.

 ولا يُقال أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم شيء ومن آمن معه من الأنصار شيء آخر ، فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم عندما رجع من ثقيف إلى مكة كان يعرض نفسه على القبائل ، أي على شعوب ودول أخرى يحمل الدعوة فيهم ، لأن أهل مكة لم يستجيبوا له ، وكان يدعوهم إلى الله ويخبرهم أنه نبي مرسل ويسألهم أن يصدقوه ويمنعوه حتى يُبين لهم ، ومن كان يؤمن به بعدما عرف بطلب النصرة ما كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يعامله معاملة تختلف عن أي واحد من المسلمين الذين آمنوا معه قبل ذلك ؛ فمن حيث الدعوة لم يطلب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم منهم أكثر مما طلب من سواهم ، ومن حيث معاملة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لهم فقد كانت تساوي تماما ما كان مع غيرهم.

فها هو النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في أول لقاء مع الخزرج ما دعاهم إلا لما دعا إليه غيرهم ، من التصديق به والقيام معه وإعانته على ما جاء من الله به ، وها هم الخزرج في جوابهم يقولون : (إنا قد تركنا قومنا ولا قوم بينهم من العداوة والشر ما بينهم فعسى أن يجمعهم الله بك فسنقدم عليهم فندعوهم إلى أمرك ونعرض عليهم الذي أجبناك إليه من هذا الدين فإن يجمعهم الله عليه فلا رجل أعز منك).

 هذا هو قولهم وجوابهم للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي سكت عليه مثلما سكت على ما سواه ، ممن آمن به في مكة من أهلها وغير أهلها قبل النصرة وبعد النصرة ، ولا يوجد فيها ما يدل على أنهم شيء وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن آمن به قبل ذلك شيء آخر ،  فقد دعاهم كما دعا غيرهم ، وجاوبوه بما يشبه أجوبة غيرهم ، وأصبحوا جزءا من جماعته كما أصبح غيرهم.

وها هو وفدهم يعود إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في العام الذي يليه باثني عشر رجلا ، بايعهم صلى الله عليه وسلم البيعة الأولى التي عرفت ببيعة النساء ، وفيها أنهم بايعوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (على أن لا نشرك بالله شيئا ولا نسرق ولا نزني ولا نقتل أولادنا ولا نأتي ببهتان نفتريه من بين أيدينا وأرجلنا ولا نعصيه في معروف فإن وفيتم فلكم الجنة وإن غشيتم من ذلك شيئا فأخذتم بحده في الدنيا فهو كفارة له وإن سترتم عليه إلى يوم القيامة فأمركم إلى الله إن شاء عذب وإن شاء غفر).

 وكل ما فيها مطلوب من كل من أسلم من الناس قبل النصرة وبعدها ، ولا يوجد فيها ما يدل على أنهم شيء وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن آمن معه قبل ذلك شيء آخر . ولما رأى الحاجة إلى من يعلمهم الإسلام بعث معهم مصعب بن عمير إلى المدينة ، فمارس فيها حمل الدعوة كما كان يمارسها صلى الله عليه وسلم مع سائر المسلمين في كل مكان من غير أي اختلاف ، وقد كانوا يستشعرون طاعة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على بعده ، تماما كما كان يستشعرها غيرهم ممن آمن معه قبل ذلك . فكيف يقال أن أهل النصرة شيء وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن آمن معه قبل ذلك شيء آخر.

وفي العقبة الثانية المعروفة ببيعة الحرب ، كان أول من تكلم فيها العباس عم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وكان يومها على كفره ، ولم يقل في كلمته إلا الآتي : (يا معشر الخزرج إن محمدا منا حيث قد علمتم وقد منعناه من قومنا ممن هو على مثل رأينا فيه فهو في عز ومنعة في بلده وإنه قد أبى إلا الانحياز لكم واللحاق بكم فإن كنتم ترون أنكم وافون له بما دعوتموه إليه مانعوه ممن خالفه فأنتم وما تحملتم من ذلك وإن كنتم ترون أنكم مسلموه وخاذلوه بعد الخروج إليكم فمن الآن فدعوه فإنه في عز ومنعة من قومه وبلده).

 هذه هي الكلمة الأولى في بيعة العقبة على مسمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، لم يطلب فيها العباس إلا ما قال أنه متوافر للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بمكة ، وليس في ذلك ما يدل على أنهم كأهل للنصرة مختلفون عن أي ممن سبقهم إلى الإيمان بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.

وأوضح من ذلك فإن أبا الهيثم ابن التيهان حين قال في البيعة يا رسول الله : (إن بيننا وبين الرجال حبالا وإنا قاطعوها فهل عسيت إن أظهرك الله أن ترجع إلى قومك وتدعنا؟) . فتبسم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم قال : (بل الدم الدم والهدم الهدم أنا منكم وأنتم مني أحارب من حاربتم وأسالم من سالمتم).

 فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم يعلنها بكل صراحة أنه شريكهم في الحرب والسلم قبل الدولة ، ولم يشر إلى أنه  ومن معه شيء ومن بايعهم شيء آخر ، فأصبح بالبيعة كل المسلمين جديدهم وقديمهم مهاجرون وأنصار مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم جسما واحدا ، فأي قول أصرح من إعلانه صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه شريك لهم في استخدام القوة التي يراد إقامة الدولة بها؟.

ولم ينصب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نفسه مهندسا عليهم ، بل بين لهم أنه على رأسهم في القتال قبل قيام الدولة ، وقد استشعر المسلمون ما آل إليه حالهم من القوة ، وأدركوا جميعا مهاجرين وأنصارا  بأن لحظة الحسم قد اقتربت ، وأنه أوان الجد بالنسبة لهم جميعا وليس للأنصار وحدهم.

 فلم يلبس النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا من معه من المهاجرين ثوب الهندسة على الناس ، بل إن كل فعل له وكل سكنة تدل على أنه وسائر المسلمين جسم واحد ؛ ما يدل على أن الجماعة ذاتها هي التي تستخدم القوة في التغيير ، كما استخدمها صلى الله عليه وسلم بمجرد أن ملكها على نحو يتفق تماما مع حديث تغيير المنكر ؛ بل وربما كان في سيرته صلى الله عليه وسلم وطريقته في إقامة الدولة الإسلامية ، تصويرا لحديث تغيير المنكر في كافة أشكاله الممكنة على نحو يندر تكراره.

على أنه إذا لم يكن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو صاحب الدعوة ، والذي رسم وخطط ودبر وواعد وعاهد وأعلن أنه شريك في الحرب ، إذا لم يكن مستخدما للقوة في إقامة الدولة فمن هو الذي استخدمها إذن؟ . فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم قد استخدم القوة "عند امتلاكه لها" في إقامة الدولة لأنه هو رأس الأمر ، إلا أنه لم يستخدمها إلا لما كانت قادرة على التغيير ، وهذا أمر طبيعي ، بل إنه حتى يتفق مع العقل ، إذ ما هي قيمة استخدام قوة لا تقوى على تحقيق شيء؟.

 ومحاكمة فعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن كان استخدم القوة أم لم يستخدمها ، إنما تكون بعد حصوله عليها لا قبل ذلك ، ومحاكمته والزعم بأنه لم يستخدم القوة قبل أن يملكها هو مغالطة ، فإنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قد استخدمها في إقامة الدولة بمجرد أن ملكها ، ولم يتأخر في ذلك أبدا.

هذا هو ملخص ما حصل مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فيما عُرف بطريقة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في إقامة الدولة . ومن تتبعه يلاحظ بوضوح أنه لا يوجد أي تعارض بين الطريقة وحديث الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم : (من رأى منكم منكرا..) ، وأما قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم للعباس بن عبادة : (لم نؤمر بذلك) ، عندما قال له : والذي بعثك بالحق لو شئت لنميلن على أهل منى بأسيافنا.. ، فإنه لا يدل على أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يمنعه من القتال ، وإنما يدل على رفض وجهة العباس في استخدام القوة هكذا.

 فإن استخدام القوة لا يعني أن يميل المسلمون على الناس ميلة واحدة ، ومن غير ظروف وأحوال معينة لا بد من توافرها ، وبالتالي لا معنى للاستدلال بهذه العبارة على منع القتال لإقامة الدولة ، خاصة وأن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم كان قد بايع على الحرب ، ذلك فضلا عما يمكن أن يُفهم من عرض العباس بن عبادة من مجرد بيان الإستعداد للقتال ولو لكل الناس فورا ، على أنه طمأنة للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وبيان له أن بيعتهم له جدية ، وأنهم مستعدون للمضي فيها إلى أبعد الحدود ؛ وكذلك ما يمكن أن يفهم من رد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عليه : (لم نؤمر بعد) ، فلم يقل له لم تؤمروا بعد ، وذلك دليل على أنهم جميعا جسم واحد.

على أن الذين يقولون أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يستخدم القوة في إقامة الدولة ، فإنهم وإن قالوا ذلك نظريا فهم يستخدمونها عمليا . وإلا ما معنى قولهم بأنهم هم الذين يتصلون بأهل القوة ، وهم الذين ينظمونهم ، وهم الذين يوجهونهم ، وهم الذين يحددون لهم ساعة الصفر ، وهم الذين يأمرونهم بمباشرة القتال إن لزم ، بل ويحددون لهم ما يصنعون في حركتهم العسكرية ؛ وإذا لم يكن من يقول بأنه يفعل كل ذلك مستعملا للقوة ، فمن هو الذي يستخدمها إذن؟ ، وإذا لم يكن ائتمار من يستجيب لهم من أهل القوة انتظاما في صفوفهم "وإن كان مغيبا ، فإلى من ينتمي هؤلاء إذن؟

يوسف شريف شقيرو