How exactelly do you want to fight Mubarak? by killing your fellow muslim
who works in the police force? clearely this method is very wrong.
Ikhwan, and most of the muslim are not fighting Jihad against Rabin!!! thet
are fighting the zionest occupation of muslim land.
Q: What did Ikhwan do to ensure that they are on the TRUE islamic path?
Ikhwan follow the shari'a completely
in all of their actions and opinions. The Ikhwan have their own fiqh committee
which includes some of the most trustworthy scholars who are trusted by all
muslims. Even though the members of The Guiding Office (maktab al irshad),
the leading body of the Ikhwan, are very knowledgable brothers, on many
occasions they have asked the fiqh commitee for fatawa. In addition, they
seek advice from non-Ikhwan scholars in some matters.
Q: What is the Ikhwan's opinion of the current regimes in the Islamic world ?
Are they kufar regimes?
If so, why do the Ikhwan not fight them ?
Otherwise, on which fiqhi opinion do they depend on ?
The Ikhwan believe that nowadays the ultimate Haram is the
non-application of the shari'a. Any muslim who accepts this situation of
non-application is a sinner. The greatest sinners are those who have the
power to apply the shari'a but choose not to.
Whether this makes them kuffar or not will be elaborated upon next.
The Ikhwan have faced the question of takfir (calling someone a kafir)
of the governor and the rest of the muslim population at a very
critical time. Most of the members of Ikhwan were in jail at the time of Nasser
in Egypt. Some people started to question; how could this happen to us for
simply working for Islam ? How could the person who did this to us be a Muslim ?
Surely he is no longer a Muslim, and those who help him, and those
who accept him have also become non-Muslims.
The leader of the Ikhwan at the time, Br Hasan al Hudaibi, and the
majority of the Ikhwan did not support this line of reasoning, even though they
were tortured. This is a matter of aqida (beliefs) not a matter of hawwa
(desires). The argument was, and still is, as follows (this can be found in
al Hudaibi's book "Invitors, Not Judges" [Doa-a la quda]) :
Hence the Ikhwan believes that the problem with the current regimes
is the non-application of the shari'a, and not that the regime is kafir.
Q: Isn't there a verse saying that people who do not govern by the laws of Allah are kuffar?
What does Ikhwan think about that?
1) The verses in suratul Mai'da
{those who do not judge by the Law which Allah has sent down are indeed the
disbelievers (and in another verse "the unjust people", and in a third one
"the transgressors") }
refer to a person who thinks that his opinion, or any one else's opinion
is better than the law of shari'a. Or generally speaking, he believes
that the hukm or shari'a is wrong or denies the hukm. In this case he is
denying something which is necessarily known in Islam (Ma'lum min al din
bil darura) and hence is a kafir. This hukm is for all people, whether
governors or ordinary people.
2) If however, the person does not deny the hukm and believes it to be
correct, but made mischief and created injustice because of not applying the
hukm, then he is "unjust" (the second verse). On the other hand, if he does
not apply the hukm of Allah and he was never unjust, then he is
"transgressor" according to the third verse.
Refer to "Islam and our political status" by Abdel-Qader Audah
or to tafsir Ibn Kathir of the relevant ayats.
If we apply this rule to the current regimes in the Islamic world, we will
hardly find anyone who denies the shari'a. They certainly do not apply the
shari'a and perhaps they do not believe in it, but unless they publicly
state their disbelief in the shari'a, they cannot be called kafirs.
To go about openly saying that someone is a kafir, based on a certain opinion
or a certain scene/situation is very dangerous. This type of thinking was
originally developed by the Khawarij and is not the way of the Ahl al Sunnah
wal Jama'ah.
Q: Regimes that do not accept the implementation of the shari'a. Is it proper to fight these regimes ?
Islamically, this type of fighting is called Al Khuruj 'ala al Hakim.
The Islamic rule which governs this decision is:
"If changing an evil will lead to more evil then it is mandatory
not to change this evil".
The munkir of not applying the shari'a is surely a very big one, but will
fighting let us apply the shari'a ? Will it not create other types of munkir ?
History, and current actions, tell us the following facts :
- 1) During the fight, innocent people get killed and harmed unnecessarily.
- 2) You will destroy, or at least weaken, the Islamic society and country. The
economical and defence capabilities will be amongst the ones most seriously
affected.
- 3) You will give a bad impression about Islam and Islamic movements to
ordinary Muslims and non-Muslims.
- 4) In these situations, things often get out of hand and members of any group
sometimes misbehave and commit mischief.
- 5) Your enemies and the enemies of Islam will take the opportunity to
do their damage and place the blame on you.
- 6) There, the regimes are much stronger than any of the Islamic groups.
Accordingly, your chances of winning are almost nil.
- 7) You are destroying yourself and are giving the regime the chance to
attack anyone who is working for Islam.
- 8) The only one who is gaining is the enemy of Islam.
You will give them a chance to attack Islam, to be far more influential in
our countries, and hence the opportunity to implement their plans. For eg.
Egypt could be divided into 2 states...a christian state and the rest for
the Egyptian Muslims. Algeria could get a state for berbers etc
(divide and conquer techniques)
In conclusion, it can be stated that by fighting, in the current situation,
you will not change the munkir of not applying the shari'a but will instead
create other types of munkir.
Q: Some will say "We will not have that type of fighting....we will have a
revolution (inqilab). Revolution is easier and we will have the opportunity
of doing whatever we want.". What do Ikhwan think about that?
Well, is it not enough for us to have these "revolutionary" military regimes
in our lands ? Some in the name of nationalism, others in the name of watania
you want one in the name of Islam ?
You tried it before in some Islamic countries and failed....we all know
the results. Please stop this type of playing.
Even if we assume that you could succeed, how would you prevent someone
else from revolting against you, also in the name of Islam ?
In the 50's and 60's in Syria, there were revolutions every few months,
all with the same message but with different faces. Is this what you want
in the 90's in the name of Islam ?
Besides, take iran as an example, a revolution will give opportunists a chance,
they will bite into the the Islamic system and rapes and corruption will get into
the system, on the other hand, applying change step by step will uncover the
true intentions of those opportunists! You can fool some the people for some time,
but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Generaly we can discribe revelutors as :
- 1) They could not deal with other people easily.
- 2) The rulers are distanced from the population.
- 3) They do not have capable people to run the country, therefore they depend
on others, whom they believe will not take their power from them, irrespective
of whether they are best fit for the position or not.
- 4) A lot of the munafiqeen (hypocrites) will join the new system, doing and
saying anything that will fit with the new leaders' ideas.
- 5) Due to all of these reasons, the new regime will not be able to run the
country properly, regardless of whether they are good people or not.
- 6) Hence a lot of corruption will be created.
Actually you did not prepare the society to apply Islam and to face
the results of doing that. What will you do if you are faced with strong
opposition ? Will you put the opponents in jail and torture them, like the
current regimes ? Or will you let them work against your unpopular government ?
Inspite of all of this, could you guarantee that if the enemies of Islam
worked against you, your people will not be the first to kick you out ?
Due to this, and a lot more, the Ikhwan chose the correct way:
to change the society, to spread Islam and Islamic ideas amongst the grassroots,
to strengthen the Islamic societies and countries (and not weaken them), and
to prepare the societies for the challenges of having an Islamic state.
Simultaneously, we need to build ourselves, in all aspects, spiritually
as well as politically, and to have people who understand well the problems
faced by our countries, and the solutions for these problems.
Q: What is wrong with being in parliament in an Islamic country, representing
Muslims and working for their benefits, opposing anything against Islam ?
A question was once raised to one of our members of parliament : since you are
a minority, you are incapable of changing the course of events in the
parliament. His unexpected answer was that they are affecting
the decisions quite strongly. The government takes into account the Ikhwani
feelings on an issue before doing anything, for they know that the Ikhwan's
opinion will not only affect the ordinary people outside the parliament, but
will (and has) also influence the MP's from the government party. Not all of
the government party members are corrupt; many will follow if it is clear
to them that what the Ikhwan said is Islamically correct. Hence it becomes a
chance to do da'wa to the MPs and therefore to the rest of society through the
media.
Q: Is it allowed for the Muslims to have Multiple States ?
Ikhwan believe that Islamic states should unite, that is the final goal, but for
Ikhwan can't change the universe all at one time, if two Islamic states are established
rushing into unity may lead to a fast break up, Ikhwan believe that high level cooperation
should be achived, then next step is the merging.
Q: What is the view of Ikwan on the foreign policy of the Islamic state?
High level cooperation with Other Islamic states to lead to unity, supporting
Islamic changes in thier muslim states and support Ismaists all arround the world.
Apply shri'a to the forign policy.
Q: What will the Ikwan do when the regimes formally sign peace with the Jews,
will they remain in Parliament and give more legitimacy to these regimes?
Yes they probably will, but they continue to fight these treaties and if they can
they will cancel them inshallah.
Q: Are you saying that if a government overthrow brings an "Islamic" state in
Egypt, Bosnian and Iraqi problems will be solved right away ?!!
No, but it will put us on the way to solving these problems! Ikhwan beleive that the reason
for our misery today is that we do not obey Allah and we do not follow his laws and
his orders. An islamic state will inshallah put us on the right path.
Parts of an Interview With The Leader Of Ikhwan in Egypt Al-Hudaybi
From Cairo, AL-WAFD Arabic Newspaper, Date 09 February 1994
Raghib : Are you seeking to gain power?
Al-Hudaybi : All political forces and parties seek power; this right is not
exclusive to a certain party or group. But this should be done in a legitimate
way through genuine democracy and free elections. It is the right of every
Egyptian political force to seek power, and we are one of them.
Raghib : What about your relations with Muslim Brotherhood groups abroad?
Al-Hudaybi : The Islamic Brotherhood emerged in Egypt. People in various Arab
and nonArab countries then accepted its principles either through books or
immigration. They shared the group's thought and policy and established groups
in their own countries. Here, we find great similarity in thought and way of
acting, but every group adapts according to the circumstances of its country.
The Questions were all asked by people on MSA net and on the Muslim Newsgrops.
- Press Here to return to the Muslim Brotherhood Movement Homepage.
