لقد تبيّن أن الأدلة التي استُدلّ بها على وجوب وحدة العمل الإسلامي لا يصح الاستدلال بها. غير أن ذلك لا يعني أن الرأي الآخر، الذي يجيز تعدد الجماعات، قد أصبح مشروعًا؛ لأن نفي الشيء لا يُثبت نقيضه. ولا بد من أدلة تُبيّن صحة الاستدلال، ودقة الاستنباط. فما هي هذه الأدلة؟

It has been clarified that the evidences used to oblige unity of the Islamic work cannot be considered as evidence. However, this does not mean that the other opinion, which permits the plurality of groups, has become legitimate. This is because the negation of a matter does not prove its opposite. There must be evidences that demonstrate the correctness of the istidlaal (deduction), and precision of the istinbaat (inference). So what are these evidences?

إنَّ الأدلةَ التي تُجيزُ الخلافَ في الفروعِ (الأحكامِ) لا في الأصولِ (العقائدِ) كثيرةٌ لا تُحصى. وقد دلَّتِ السنةُ على جوازِ الخلافِ في الفروعِ، ولذلك نجدُ الصحابةَ يختلفونَ فيما بينهم، وكذلكَ التابعونَ وعلماءُ السلفِ الصالحِ. أمّا النهيُ عنِ الاختلافِ فقد جاءَ في خلافِ الكفارِ، وكان في أصولِ الدينِ لا في فروعِه، ومثالُ ذلكَ اختلافُهم في الأنبياءِ، ويومِ القيامةِ، والحياةِ، والموتِ، وكتبِهم، حتى صاروا فِرَقًا وأحزابًا وملَلًا ونِحَلًا، وخرجوا عنِ الحقِّ الذي أنزلَه اللهُ ﷻ على أنبيائِهم، وانحرفوا بأتباعِ أنبيائِهم. قالَ ﷻ: ﴿فَاخْتَلَفَ الْأَحْزَابُ مِن بَيْنِهِمْ فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن مَّشْهَدِ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ﴾ [مريم: ٣٧]. فحذّرنا اللهُ ﷻ بذلكَ مِنَ الاختلافاتِ كاختلافِ الكفارِ.

Indeed, the evidences that permit disagreement in the furu’ (rules) and not the Usul (beliefs) are innumerable. The Sunnah has indicated the permissibility of disagreement in furu’. Hence we find the Sahabah disagreeing amongst themselves, as well as the Tabi’in and the scholars of the Salaf (pious predecessors). As for the prohibition of disagreements, it came regarding the disagreements of the Kuffar, which was about the fundamentals of the deen and not in the furu’. For example the disagreements they had over the Prophets, the Day of Resurrection, life, death and their books, until they became sects, parties, and milal and nihal. They went away from the truth revealed by Allah 􀀬 to their Prophets, and deviated their Prophets’ followers. He 􀀬 said; “Then the sects differed, so woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of a great Day.” [TMQ 19:37] Thus, Allah 􀀬 warned us about the disagreements like those of the Kuffar.

قال رسول الله ﷺ يوم الخندق بإقراره اختلاف فهم الصحابة لقوله ﷺ: «من كان سامعًا مطيعًا فلا يصلين العصر إلا في بني قريظة».

The Messenger 􀁕 accepted, at the day of the trench, the different understandings of the Sahabah for his 􀁕 words; “Whosoever hears and obeys, let him not pray ‘Asr (prayer)

إلا في بني قريظة.” [سيرة ابن هشام] يُستنبط من هذا الحديث الأمور التالية:

except in Bani Qurayza.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham] The following things are deduced from this hadith:

1- المجتهد قد يخطئ وقد يصيب، وكونه مجتهدًا لا يعني أنه لا يخطئ.

1- The Mujtahid will make mistakes and get things right. The fact that he is a mujtahid does not mean he does not make mistakes.

2- القاعدة التي يستنبطها المجتهد تُعدّ حكمًا شرعيًّا، وإن كان قد أخطأ فيها.

2- The rule deduced by the Mujtahid is considered a Shar’ee rule, even if it was a mistake.

3- المجتهد الذي أخطأ لا يعلم أنه أخطأ، ولو علم لم يجز له البقاء على خطئه، بل إن فهمه أرجح في نظره من فهم غيره.

3- The Mujtahid who has made a mistake does not know that he has made a mistake. If he had known then he would not be allowed to remain in his error. Rather his understanding is more weighty, in his view, than the understanding of others.

4- المجتهد يُثابُ من الله ﷻ، سواءٌ أصاب أم أخطأ، وإن كان الأجرُ مختلفًا.

4- The mujtahid is rewarded by Allah 􀀬, whether he was right or wrong, though the reward is different.

اتفق الأئمة (العلماء) على أن الإثم يُرفع عن المجتهدين فيما يتعلق بالأحكام الشرعية في المسائل الظنية من الفقه.

The Imams (the scholars) agreed that the sin is removed from the Mujtahideen regarding the Shar’ee rules that pertain to speculative issues in jurisprudence.

قال القرطبي (رحمه الله) في تفسيره: «وما زال الصحابة يختلفون في أحكام الحوادث، مع بقائهم على الألفة». ونقل البغدادي في كتابه «الفقيه والمتفقه» عن عمر بن عبد العزيز ؓ قوله: «ما كنت أحب أن أصحاب محمد ﷺ لم يختلفوا، لأنهم لو لم يختلفوا لم تكن رخصة».

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) says in his tafseer; “The Sahabah still continued to differ regarding the rules of the incidents, though they remained in harmony.” Al-Baghdadi reported the following saying of ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul-’Azeez 􀁗 in his book ‘Al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqqih’; “I would have not been pleased if the Ashab (Companions)

وقد اختلف الصحابة في فروع المسائل، ولم يكن اختلافهم مذمومًا، فلو لم يكن بينهم خلاف لما كان هناك مجال لأن نختلف نحن. وقد أُلّفت كتب كثيرة على أيدي علماء المسلمين الكبار توضح أسباب الاختلاف وتبيّن وجوهه.

of Mohammed did not differ, because if they did not differ, there would not have been a permission (for us to differ).” Many books have been written by great Muslim scholar that clarify the reasons for disagreement.

من هذه الأسباب أن فهم الإنسان، بطبيعته، يختلف من شخص إلى آخر. فتتفاوت قدراتهم وتتفاوت فهومهم. ومن هنا وُجدت اجتهادات واستنباطات مختلفة منذ عصر الصحابة إلى يومنا هذا، وسيبقى ذلك إلى يوم القيامة. ومن هذه الأسباب أن طبيعة الشرع تُلزم المسلمين بالاختلاف، وفي ذلك رحمة.

One of these reasons is that man’s understanding, by his very nature, will differ from one person to another. Their abilities differ and so does their understanding. Hence, different ijtihadaat and istinbaat existed since the age of the Sahabah until our age today, and this will remain until the Day of Judgement. One of these reasons is the fact that the nature of the Shar’a forces the Muslims to differ, and there is a mercy in that.

اختلاف القراءات يؤدي إلى اختلاف في الفهم، فكل مجتهد يكون له فهم بحسب القراءة التي يقرأ بها. ومن ذلك الخلاف في آية الوضوء: هل تُغسل الأرجل أم تُمسح؟

- The difference in the qira’aat (readings) leads to differences in understanding. Every mujtahid will have an understanding in accordance to his reading. This is like the disagreement regarding the ayah of Wudu (ablution) in regards to whether the feet should be washed or be wiped?

اختلف العلماء والفقهاء في أحاديث بعينها، فقد يكون الحديث صحيحاً عند عالم ولا يكون صحيحاً عند آخر، وذلك بحسب المنهج الذي يتبعه العالم في قبول الأحاديث أو ردّها. فعلى سبيل المثال، لنأخذ حديث المرسل؛ فإن المحدّثين (علماء الحديث)، والأصوليين (علماء أصول الفقه)،

- The ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’ differed on certin ahadith. A hadith may be Sahih (authentic) for one scholar but not for another, depending upon the method employed by the scholar in accepting or rejecting ahadith. For instance let’s take the example of the Mursal hadith. The Muhaddithun (hadith experts), Usuliyyoon (scholars of the foundations of jurisprudence)

وقد اختلف فقهاء الأمة وأئمتها في الاحتجاج بالحديث المرسل، فذهب بعضهم إلى الاحتجاج به، ولم يأخذ به آخرون، معتبرين إياه حديثًا منقطعًا (أي حديثًا وقع فيه انقطاع في سلسلة الإسناد).

and Fuqahaa’ (jurists) from the a’immah of this Ummah, have differed on the use of Mursal hadith as proof. Some used it as proof whilst others did not, considering it a Munqati’ hadith (ie an hadith that had a break in the chain of transmission.)

- من أسباب الاختلاف أيضاً تعارض الأدلة. فمثلاً، جاءت بعض النصوص تمنع استعمال شيء نجس أو محرّم لأغراض طبية، كما في الحديث: «إنّ الله ﷻ أنزل الداء والدواء، وجعل لكل داء دواءً، فتداووا ولا تتداووا بحرام»، [رواه أبو داود]، بينما جاءت نصوص أخرى تبيح استعمال النجس أو المحرّم، كما في الحديث:

- The conflict of evidences is another reason for difference. For example, some texts prohibited the use of something that is najas (impurity) or something that is haraam for medical purposes, as in the hadith, “Verily, Allah 􀀬 revealed the disease and the cure, and for every disease he has given a cure. So do not cure with the Haraam.” [Reported by Abu Dawud], whilst other texts permitted the use of the najas (impurity) or haraam substance, as in the hadith:

أنّ النبي ﷺ أذِن لعبد الرحمن بن عوف والزبير في لُبس الحرير لأنهما كانا يشكوان من الحكة»، وكذلك الحديث: «كان المسلمون يتداوون ببول الإبل ولا يرون بذلك بأسًا». [رواه البخاري] - وإذا لم يكن هناك نصٌّ صريح في مسألة ما، فإن الطريق إلى معرفة حكم الله تعالى هو الاجتهاد، والاجتهاد قاعدة ظنية تقبل الخلاف.

“That the Prophet 􀁕 permitted ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf and ah- Zubayr to wear silk because they suffered from itching” and like the hadith, “The Muslims used to use the urine of camels as medicine and they did not see anything wrong in that.” [Reported by Bukhari] - When there is no clear text regarding an issue, then the method of finding the rule of Allah 􀀬 will be by Ijtihaad, and Ijtihaad is a speculative rule prone to disagreement.

ومن أسباب الاختلاف أيضاً اتساع اللغة العربية في معانيها، ويتجلى ذلك في وجود الاشتراك (المشترك اللفظي)، والحقيقة، والمجاز، والمطلق والمقيّد، والعامّ والخاصّ.

- The expansive nature of the Arabic language in its meanings is also a cause for difference. The presence of Ishtiraak (homonyms), Haqeeqah (literal meaning), Majaz (the metaphorical), Mutlaq (absolute) and Muqayyad (restricted), ‘aamm (general) and Khaas (specific) illustrates this.

وبناءً على ذلك، فإن طبيعة اللغة العربية التي نزل بها الوحي هي أن تعبيراتها وتراكيبها تحتمل معانيَ متعددةً ودلالاتٍ متنوعة.

Thus, the nature of the Arabic language in which the revelation was sent down, is that its expressions and syntax are open to different meanings and diverse indications.

فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ ﷻ فِي شَأْنِ الْمُطَلَّقَاتِ: ﴿وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنْفُسِهِنَّ ثَلَاثَةَ قُرُوءٍ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٢٨]. وَلَفْظُ (قُرُوءٍ) فِي اللُّغَةِ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ يَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ بِمَعْنَى الطُّهْرِ، أَوْ بِمَعْنَى وَقْتِ الْحَيْضِ. فَأَيُّ الْمَعْنَيَيْنِ هُوَ الْمُرَادُ؟ وَكَانَ هَذَا أَحَدَ أَسْبَابِ اخْتِلَافِ الْفُقَهَاءِ فِي هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ.

Thus, the saying of Allah 􀀬 regarding the divorced women; “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three Quru.” [TMQ 2:228]. The word (quru’) in Arabic can mean either pure or the time of menstruation. But which meaning is intended? This was one of the reasons for the disagreement of the Fuqahaa’ (jurists) regarding this subject.

هذا يتعلق بالشريعة بوجه عام، فهل ينطبق شيء مما ذُكر على الموضوع محل البحث؟ وبعبارة أخرى: هل تسمح إباحة الخلاف في الأحكام الشرعية، التي أقرّتها الشريعة، بتعدد الحركات والجماعات والأحزاب العاملة من أجل التغيير؟ أم أن لهذا الموضوع أدلته الخاصة التي تخرجه عن الأصل العام؟

This is regarding the Sharee’ah in general. But does any of what has been mentioned apply to the subject under discussion? In other words, does the permissibility of disagreement in the Shar’ee rules, which is accepted by the Shar’a, allow the plurality of movements, groups or parties working for change? Or does this subject have its own specific evidences which exclude it from the original rule?

تقوم الجماعة أو الحزب على فهمٍ شرعيٍّ للنصوص التي تحتمل أن تُفهم على أوجهٍ متعددة، كما هو حال أيّ فهمٍ شرعيٍّ آخر، إلا ما كان متعلقًا بالأحكام القطعية. والأحكام الشرعية التي تتبناها الجماعة هي أحكامٌ مُستنبطة، يحتمل أن تكون صوابًا ويحتمل أن تكون خطأً. ولا يجوز للمسلم الذي يرى في جماعةٍ أخطاءً كثيرة أن يعمل معها، بل عليه أن ينصحها، وأن يبحث عن الجماعة التي يُبرئه العمل معها من الإثم عند الله ﷻ. وكما ذكرنا، فإن طبيعة الناس، وعلماءهم، والشرع، واللغة العربية، كلها تدل على جواز تعدد الفهوم، وهذا هو ما يسوّغ وجود أكثر من جماعة. ولا حرج في ذلك ما دام الأمر لا يتجاوز الاختلاف في الفهم، فإن كان كذلك صار العمل مع الجماعة أو الحزب الأقرب إلى الحق واجبًا.

The group or party is established on a Shar’ee understanding of texts that have the propensity to be understood in different ways, just like any other Shar’ee understanding is, except for that concerning the definite rules. The Shar’ee rules adopted by the group are Shar’ee rules that have been deduced, and are liable to be correct or mistaken. It is not allowed for a Muslim who sees many errors in a group to work with it. Rather he should advise it and search for the group that will relieve him of the sin in front of Allah 􀀬 through him working with it. As we have mentioned, the nature of people, their scholars, the Shar’a and Arabic language all indicate that it is permissible to have multiple understandings. This is what justifies the presence of more than one group. There is no harm in this, as long as it is not more than disagreement in understanding. In that case the work with the group or party that is closest to the truth becomes an obligation.

وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَانَ مِنْ قَبْلُ ... — no, let me give the proper translation of the text you sent. الإضافة إلى ذلك، هناك الآية:

In addition there is the ayah:

﴿وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ﴾ [آل عمران: 104] إنّ الأمر في هذه الآية يتعلق بوجوب إقامة جماعة على الأقل يكون عملها ما يلي: الدعوة إلى الخير (الإسلام)، والأمر بالمعروف، والنهي عن المنكر. ولا تعني الآية وجود جماعة واحدة فقط، وإلا لقال سبحانه: «أمة واحدة». بل المطلوب هو نوع من الجماعات يكون عملها الدعوة والأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر. وهذا الفرض هو من فروض الكفاية، ويتحقق وجوبه بوجود جماعة واحدة. أما إذا وُجدت أكثر من جماعة، فلا حرج في ذلك بسبب اختلاف الفهم في العمل المطلوب. وقد تكرر هذا الأسلوب في مئات الآيات والأحاديث، كقول النبي ﷺ: «من رأى منكم منكرًا فليغيّره بيده...»، فليس المقصود منكرًا واحدًا، وإنما نوع المنكر.

“And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khayr (Islam), enjoining the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). And it is they who are successful.” [TMQ 3:104] The order in this ayah is focussed on the obligation of establishing at least one group whose work will be the following; calling to the Khayr (Islam), enjoinng the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). The ayah does not mean the presence of one group. Otherwise He 􀀬 would have said: ‘Ummah waahidah (one Ummah).’ Rather what has been ordered is the type of group whose work will be da’wah, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar. This fard is a fard of sufficiency and its obligation is realised by the presence of one group. As for when more than one group exists, because of the different understandings of the work to be done, there is nothing wrong with that. This type of expression has been repeated in hundreds of ayaat and ahadith. For example the hadith; “Whosover amongst you sees a munkar, let him change it with his hand...” It does not mean one munkar, but the type of munkar.

أبو الأعلى المودودی (رحمه الله) ذكر في كتابه «الإسلام والمبادئ الإسلامية» تحت باب: وجوب الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، ما يلي: «إن الظاهر من التبعيض في الآية: ﴿وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ﴾ ليس معناه أن المسلمين مأمورون بأن يكون فيهم جماعة تتولى واجب الدعوة إلى الإسلام والأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، بينما لا يجب في الأصل على بقية المسلمين أن يتولوا هذه المهمة. بل معناه أن الأمة يجب ألا تخلو في أي وقت من جماعة واحدة على الأقل تحفظ النور المنبعث من مصباح الحق والخير، وتكافح ظلام الشر وأخطار الباطل. فإذا لم توجد مثل هذه الجماعة بين المسلمين، فمن المستحيل أن تنجو الأمة من لعنة الله وعقابه الشديد، فضلاً عن أن تكون خير أمة أُخرجت للناس». استناداً إلى ما ذكرناه سابقاً:

Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the following in his book ‘Islamic concepts regarding religion and state’ under the chapter on: The obligation of enjoning the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar; “What is apparant from the partative in the ayah; ‘And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khair (Islam).’ It does not mean that the Muslims are ordered to have a group that will undertake the obligation of da’wah to Islam, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar, whilst it is not an obligation on the rest of the Muslims to undertake this task in origin. Rather its meaning is the obligation that the Ummah should not be at any time without -at leastone group that will guard the light coming from the lamp of truth and goodness, and struggle against the darkness of evil and dangers of falsehood. When no such group exists amongst the Muslims, then it is impossible for the Ummah to be saved from the curse and severe punishment of Allah 􀀬, let alone be the best Ummah brought forth for mankind.” Based on what we have mentioned previously:

يجب أن نعلم جيدًا أن كل ما أقرّته الشريعة فهو رحمة.

- We must know very well that whatever the Shar’a approves is a mercy.

إن كان قد تحوّل إلى فتنة فذلك بسبب سوء فهم المسلمين لا غير. انظروا إلى الفقه السامي لإمامين عظيمين من هذه الأمة؛ فقد ذُكر في «شذرات الذهب» أن تلاميذ الشافعي جاؤوه ذات يوم يشكون أنه يزور الإمام أحمد بن حنبل، بينما يتنازعون مع تلاميذه بسبب اختلافهم في الآراء. فقال الشافعي: «يقولون: أحمد يزورك وأنت تزوره، فأقول: الفضائل لا تفارق بيته».

If it turned into an affliction then that is because of the misunderstanding of the Muslims and nothing else. Look at the exalted Fiqh of two great Imaams of this Ummah; it has been mentioned in ‘Shuzuur az-Zahab’ (Fragments of gold) that the students of Shafi’i came to him one day complaining how he visits Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal, while they dispute with his students because of their differences in opinions. Shafi’i said; “They say; ‘Ahmad visits you and you visit him’, I say; ‘The virtues do not separate from his home.

إِنْ زَارَنِي فَبِفَضْلِهِ، وَإِنْ زُرْتُهُ فَذَلِكَ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ.

If he visits me, then thanks to him, and if I visit him, this is because of his grace.

In both situations the grace is for him.' A similar thing happened with the students of Imaam Ahmad and him. So Imaam Ahmad told them: "If we differ in lineage, then a knowledge which we have put in the position of a father unites us; If the water of the seas differ, we are all fresh (water) that streams out from one vessel." - Whosoever wishes to unite all the Muslims on one action, besides his negligence of the reality of Shar'a and the reality of people, we say to him what Imaam Malik said to Harun ar-Rasheed when Harun ar-Rasheed wanted to adopt Malik's understanding and mazhab (school of thought) and make it binding on the people and forbid them from (following) the understanding of others: "Do not make narrow for the Muslims that which Allah 􀀬 has made wide for them." - When the Kaafir states and the regimes under their control see a group or groups working seriously to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬, in addition to using harsh measures against them and spreading rumours, they try to derail these groups or cause them to fail by establishing groups which are under their control. If we assume that having more than one group is not allowed, this means the group must unite with all the other groups, and thus include the good and the bad. But what is required is the opposite, where we have to throw away the bad, and keep the good that benefits the people.

In both situations the grace is for him.’” A similar thing happened with the students of Imaam Ahmad and him. So Imaam Ahmad told them; “If we differ in lineage, then a knowledge which we have put in the position of a father unites us; If the water of the seas differ, we are all fresh (water) that streams out from one vessel.” - Whosoever wishes to unite all the Muslims on one action, besides his negligence of the reality of Shar’a and the reality of people, we say to him what Imaam Malik said to Harun ar-Rasheed when Harun ar- Rasheed wanted to adopt Malik’s understanding and mazhab (school of thought) and make it binding on the people and forbid them from (following) the understanding of others; “Do not make narrow for the Muslims that which Allah 􀀬 has made wide for them.” - When the Kaafir states and the regimes under their control see a group or groups working seriously to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬, in addition to using harsh measures against them and spreading rumours, they try to derail these groups or cause them to fail by establishing groups which are under their control. If we assume that having more than one group is not allowed, this means the group must unite with all the other groups, and thus include the good and the bad. But what is required is the opposite, where we have to throw away the bad, and keep the good that benefits the people.

- ولما كان هذا الاقتراح (وجوب توحيد العمل الإسلامي وتحريم تعدد الجماعات) مخالفًا لواقع الشرع، والطبيعة البشرية، واللغة التي نزل بها الوحي.

- Since this suggestion, (the obligation of uniting the Islamic work and prohibiting the plurality of groups) contradicts the reality of the Shar’a, human beings and the language in which the revelation was sent down.

ذلك أمرٌ لا يمكن تحقيقه، وإن الخوض فيه سيبقى صرفًا عمّا هو أهمّ، وهو العمل على إقامة الخلافة. والقولُ بأنّ الله ﷻ لا ينصر المسلمين إلا إذا اتّحدوا حكمٌ لا أساس له، وهو قولٌ غير مقبول. بل إن الله ﷻ لا ينصر المسلمين ما لم يتمسّكوا بالشرع، ويعتصموا بحبل الله، ويأتمروا بأمره، وإنه ﷻ لَيَنصرهم ولو كانوا قليلين؛ فإن الرجل الواحد الملتزم بالحق يعدل كثيرًا، بينما الجماهير الكثيرة الواقعة على الباطل كـ"زَبَدِ البحر".

Then this is an impossible suggestion to realise. Discussing it will remain a distraction from what is more important, which is the work to establish the Khilafah. The statement that Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims, unless they unite, is an baseless judgement that is unacceptable. Rather, Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims unless they adhere to the Shar’a and hold fast to the rope of Allah 􀀬 and fulfill His command. Allah 􀀬 will help them even if they are few. For the one person committed to the truth counts as many, while the many people who are on the falsehood are like the scum (of the sea).

بَقِيَ أَنْ نُنَبِّهَ كَلِمَةً فِي هَذَا الْمَوْضُوعِ، وَهِيَ أَنَّ وُجُودَ الْخَلِيفَةِ وَالدَّوْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِيَّةِ أَهَمُّ جَانِبٍ يَجْمَعُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، فَلَا اجْتِمَاعَ بِدُونِهِ. سَتَبْقَى الْأَفْهَامُ مُخْتَلِفَةً، وَلَكِنَّنَا مَأْمُورُونَ بِطَاعَةِ الْخَلِيفَةِ. الْإِمَامُ يَتَبَنَّى الرَّأْيَ، وَبِتَبَنِّيهِ يَفْصِلُ فِي النِّزَاعِ، وَلَكِنَّهُ لَا يَمْنَعُ الْخِلَافَ وَلَا يُزِيلُهُ. وَيَجِبُ أَنْ يُطَاعَ أَمْرُهُ عَلَنًا وَسِرًّا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ. أَمَّا أَمِيرُ الْحِزْبِ، فَتُطَاعُ أَوَامِرُهُ دَاخِلَ الْحِزْبِ، وَهُوَ يَفْصِلُ فِي النِّزَاعِ بَيْنَ أَعْضَاءِ الْحِزْبِ لَا بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَامَّةً.

It remains to mention a word on this subject, that the presence of the Khaleefah and the Islamic State is the most important aspect that unites the Muslims; there is no unification without it. The understandings will remain different, but we are ordered to obey the Khaleefah. The Imaam adopts, and by his adoption he settles the dispute, but he does not prevent the dispute or remove it. His order must be obeyed openly and secretly by the Muslims. As for the Ameer of a party, his order is obeyed within the party and he settles the dispute between the members of the party and not the Muslims at large.