The Da’wah To Islam by Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud

We have tried, in the different sections of this book, to give a complete and integrated vision that can form a program for any movement, party or group. We did not congest it with details; rather we gave the fundamentals that must be adhered to whilst leaving the details to the group and its mujtahideen. Today in this field of work there are many approaches that are not founded on a correct basis.

It can be said that many groups have not fullfilled the conditions required by the Shar’a. They are nothing short of gatherings of Muslims that wish to do partial work. They do not even solve the partial problems, and they fail to have a complete Shar’ee vision. Consequently, they do not carry Islam in a manner that would bring Islam into the daily life of the Islamic Ummah. Such groups are numerous to the extent that in a single country there may be hundreds of groups. They have become like shops and fields in which people exhaust their energies, and they make the people lose the correct direction and work. With the existence of so many of these groups (associations) that attract attention, only a few can be described as having a far-reaching vision of the objectives of Islam and the work to achieve them. If we disregard the groups that are like shops and fields from our appraisal, and instead focus on the large groups that are farsighted and undertake comprehesive work, then we must ask; does the Shar’a order the existence of one group, which encompasses all that it needs to do and does what is required? Or does the Shar’a permit more than one group, to work for change within the Shar’ee principles?

What is the correct viewpoint regarding partial work, and work that is complete and balanced? What is the correct viewpoint regarding the regional and universal approaches?

The unity, or plurality, of the Islamic work has generated a vast range of opinions, between acceptance and rejection. There are those who oblige the unity of the Islamic work for bringing change, and there are those who permit its plurality. If we refer the peripherals of the 9 Is it allowed to have more than one movement calling to Islam?

discussion to its foundations, then we will be able to distinguish the Shar’ee evidences from the rational justifications, so that we are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If we take a look at the opinion that obliges the unity of the Islamic work, then we shall see that for its protagonists the obligation comes with two points.

Firstly, the unity of the Islamic work is a Shar’ee obligation.

Secondly, the unity of the Islamic work is an organisational necessity.

1- As for it being a Shar’ee obligation, this is because of the following evidences:

a) In origin, the Muslims and the Ummah should be united. This is owing to His 􀀬 saying; “Truly! This, your Ummah is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, therefore worship Me (alone).” [TMQ 21:92]. His 􀀬 saying; “And verily! This, your Ummah is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, so keep your duty to Me.” [TMQ 23:52]. And his 􀁕 saying; “The similitude of the believers in their mutual love, compassion and sympathy is like that of a body. If one part of the body hurts then the entire body responds in sleeplessness and fever.” [Reported by Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad].

b) In origin, we have been urged to be united, and forbidden from having differences. This is owing to His 􀀬 saying; “And be not as those who were divided and differed among themselves, after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment.” [TMQ 3:105]. And His 􀀬 saying; “Verily, those who divided their religion and break up into sects, you (O Muhammad􀁕) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.” [TMQ 6:159].

c) In origin, we have been ordered to stick to the Jama’ah (community)

and not to groups. This is owing to his 􀁕 saying; “There will be flaws and faults, so whosoever wanted to divide the matter of this Ummah while she is gathered, strike him with the sword, whoever he may be.” [Reported by Muslim]. And owing to the noble hadith; “The Rasool of Allah 􀁕 called us and we gave him our bai’ah, so he said that he would take from us a bai’ah that entails us to hear and obey, willingly or unwillingly, in case of hardship and in evil circumstances; and that we would not dispute with the people in authority, unless we witness a kufr buwah (flagrant act of disbelief)

for which we have proof from Allah 􀀬.” [Reported by Muslim]. And his 􀁕 saying; “The jama’ah is mercy, and division is torment.” [Reported by Imaam Ahmad]. And his 􀁕 saying; “The hand of Allah is with the Jama’ah.” [Reported by Tirmizi and Nasa’i].

2- As for the necessity of unity from an organisational and human perspective, the reasons are many:

a) Islamic change is difficult, and dislodging the forces of jahiliyyah from their positions is not an easy matter. Realising the guardianship of Islam in the society - in respect of thought, behaviour and system - obliges us to unite the ranks into a merged entity and not one that is seperated.

b) The collusion between states against Islam and the Islamic movement obliges us, as a consequence, to face and oppose them in a united manner. Since the forces in the world that are hostile to Islam are cooperating and uniting their fronts, will it not be better for the forces of Islam in the Islamic world to call each other towards unity, so that they do not become easy prey, and so it is not easy to eliminate or crush them?

If the unity of the Islamic work were not a Shar’ee obligation in respect of the ideology, it would be so in order to protect the future of Islam and guard the Islamic activity against suspension, torture and extermination.

c) The local forces, and parties hostile to Islam are forming strong fronts alongside the Islamic world. These fronts do not cease studying, monitoring, planning and preparing at all sorts of levels. In view of this reality, is it an advantage for the Islamic forces to remain fragmented and scattered; or is it more appropriate that they rise above all the considerations and reasons that stand against their unity and solidarity?

These and other such justifications inevitably leave no room for doubt, reluctance or hesitancy in establishing one worldwide Islamic movement, which can be opposition on the appropriate level of thinking, organisation, planning and preparation.

These are the evidences and the justifications that oblige the unity of the Islamic work and forbid groups. We must proceed according to the method of Islam in Ijtihaad to understand the extent to which these evidences apply to the reality.

Previously, we have mentioned that the reality that the Muslims live today is one of dar al-kufr, and that it is an obligation to change it to dar al-Islam.We have discussed the fact that there must be a group that works to realise this matter, and that it must proceed in the footsteps of the Messenger 􀁕.

Before we discuss the Shar’ee evidences that the protagonists of this opinion relied upon, we must explain the reality of the group that wishes to engage in this work. Is it the Muslim community, or is it part of the Muslim community? In other words, is it a group from the Muslims?

To understand this point we say the following. Allah 􀀬 has enjoined on us obligations, which the Muslims must strive to establish. Some of these obligations are individual, meaning the Muslim can undertake them as an individual, and the sin is not removed from his neck until he undertakes them. The performance of some of the other obligations requires a group. From amongst this latter type of obligation is the fard to work for the establishment of the Islamic State. The establishment of the Shar’a of Allah 􀀬 is a fard, which is not within the capability of one individual alone; rather the hands must join together and the will of people must be united to establish it.

This is understood from the principle:

‘That which is necessary to fillfil a waajib is itself a waajib.’ This obligation is from the collective obligations that must be established. Neglecting it will cause the person who does so to be in great sin. However the nature of its establishment does not require all the Muslims; rather in needs those who are sufficient to fulfil the obligation, ie a group from amongst the Muslims. The fact that this group works for this fard removes the sin of negligence from its members, but the sin remains on the one who does not work.

This group from amongst the Muslims will undertake the establishment of the fard to realise the objective for which it was established, and it will be accounted on the correctness or error of the thoughts and adopted rules necessary for the work.

This group is not the whole Muslim community, because there are many individual Muslims who do not work with it. Rather they may be working with other groups (a point that we shall explain when we talk about the permissibility of having more than one group) or they may not even be working with any group.

This group is not the Khaleefah and nor can it take his position. The rules pertaining to the Khaleefah do not apply to it, and it does not have the right to carry out any function that is entrusted to the Khaleefah.

Rather, it is only a group from the Muslims, and the Islamic Ummah in her totality is the Muslim community (jama’atul muslimeen), which includes the groups, individuals and the Khaleefah.

The Muslim community is the Islamic Ummah that has been united and made into brethren by the Islamic ‘Aqeedah, and not by the Shar’ee rules. The Muslims differ in the furu’ (peripheral matters), without letting this difference affect their brotherhood. If the rules were the criterion of brotherhood, then one Muslim would not have been the brother of another Muslim. Any Muslim individual or group that leaves the Islamic ‘Aqeedah is considered as having left the Islamic Ummah, and it will be considered to be deviating into the fire. This is what is meant in the hadith of the Messenger 􀁕; “The one who leaves his deen and separates from the jama’ah (community).” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim], ie the Muslim community. This is also what is meant in the hadith of the Messenger 􀁕; “My Ummah will divide into seventy three sects. All of them will be in the fire except one.” They said: “Which sect is this O Rasool of Allah?” He 􀁕 said: “What I and my Sahabah are upon.” [Reported by Abu Dawud, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah and Ibn Hanbal] The Muslim community is the Islamic Ummah, which is one Ummah to the exclusion of the rest of the people. The blood and the property of the Muslims is one. They stand by each other, and they are one hand against the rest, even though their understanding and Ijtihadaat may differ.

Thus, there is a great difference between the jama’aatul muslimeen (Muslim community) and a group from the Muslims. It is wrong to bring evidences relating to the Muslim community and apply them to a group from the Muslims.

Thus, the saying of Allah 􀀬; “Truly! This, your Ummah is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, therefore worship Me (alone).” [TMQ 21:92]. And His 􀀬 saying; “And verily! This your Ummah is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, so keep your duty to me.” [TMQ 23:52]. And his 􀁕 saying; “The similitude of the believers in their mutual love, compassion and sympathy is like that of a body. If one part of the body hurts then the entire body responds to it with sleeplessness and fever.” [Reported by Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad].What is meant in these ayaat is the whole of the Islamic Ummah and not a group from the Muslims.

If any group considers its work to be that of the Muslim community, then this is a clear mistake and strange understanding, that will lead to dangerous consequences; not least of which is considering the one who is not with them as not being part of the brotherhood, and being like the one who has left his deen, separated himself from the community, and deviated into the fire.

As for their view that prohibits the presence of many groups, using the following evidences:

“And be not as those who were divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment.” [TMQ 3:105]. And His 􀀬 saying; “Verily, those who divided their religion and break up into sects, you (O Muhammad􀁕) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.” [TMQ 6:159].

These evidences are also not applicable to the reality for which they have been used.

These two ayaat have nothing to do with the subject of groups. Their subject is the beliefs and not the Shar’ee rules. The tafseer of ‘be not as those who were divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them’ is that it means the clear beliefs and definite proofs. It is the Jews and Christians that are being mentioned here:

‘It is they for whom there is an awful torment.’ Imam al-Baydawi says about this verse:

“Be not as those who divided and differed among themselves’ such as the Jews and Christians, who differed in: Tawheed (divine unity), removing any elements of tanzeeh (anthropormorphism) and the conditions of the Last Day, as defined by:

‘after the clear proofs had come to them.’ The signs and proofs that clarify the truth must be agreed upon. It is most apparent that the prohibition is specific to the division over the Usool (beliefs) and not the furu’ (ahkam), became to his 􀁕 saying:

“Whosoever made Ijtihaad and was right, he shall get two rewards and whosoever made a mistake, he will get one reward.” And ‘It is they for whom there is an awful torment.’ is a threat to those who were divided, and a warning to those who emulate them.” In other words, the group that works to change the reality is distinguished from other groups by Shar’ee rules. It differs from others, and other groups differ with it regarding the Shar’ee rules. It is a Muslim group and its ‘Aqeedah is Islamic. Its disagreement with others is not over ‘Aqeedah, rather it is to do with rules. That is why this ayah takes a person outside of the deen if he goes against the ‘Aqeedah of the Muslims, and not if he disagrees about rules. Definitely, this ayah has nothing to do with the subject of the plurality of Ijtihaad.

If it is said that the ayah is ‘aamm (general), and what is considered is ‘the generality of the wording and not the specificity of the cause’, we respond by saying that; ‘the generality does not go beyond the subject for which it was revealed’. It is general regarding the contradiction in beliefs and nothing else. This is from one perspective. From another perspective, their understanding contradicts the ahadith that permit difference in Ijtihaad. From a third perspective, their understanding means that separation from them is separation from the deen.

As for the second ayah; “Verily, those who divided their religion and break up into sects, you (O Muhammad􀁕) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.” [TMQ 6:159] Ibn Katheer said; [Mujahid, Qatadah, ad-Dahhaak and as-Suddi said; ‘This ayah was revealed regarding the Jews and Christians.’ ‘A’ishah 􀁗 narrated that the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 told her:

“They are the people of Bid’ah (innovation) and they were shi’ah (factions)” ie sects like the people of milal (different religions) and nihal (different creeds), whims and misguidance. Allah 􀀬 cleared His Messenger 􀁕 from what they were upon. In the reading of Hamzah and al-Kasa’i, that ‘Ali b. Abi Talib said regarding the ayah:

‘Verily, those who divided their religion’ ie they abandoned their religion with which they were enjoined, and they are the Jews and Christians; ‘You (O Muhammad 􀁕) have nothing to do with them in the least.’] Al-Baydawi says: [ie they became divided, so some of them believed and some disbelieved and they split up over this.] Indeed, disagreement in the beliefs is different from the furu’ (rules).

Regarding beliefs, the disagreement in these evidences and many others has been forbidden, so that we do not become like the Jews and Christians, who differed over their Prophets and left their deen to follow bid’ah (innovation) and falsehood, and became sects, ie milal and nihal.

This is explained by the saying of Allah 􀀬:

“But they differed - some of them believed and others disbelieved.” [TMQ 2:253].

Thus, the subject is one of Imaan and Kufr. As for disagreement in the furu’ (the rules) there are numerous evidences that permit different understandings within the text and its meaning but not outside it. This matter is known by necessity by the Muslim scholars. It is too simplistic and naive to use the evidences prohibiting disagreement in beliefs as a proof for the prohibition of plurality of groups, as long as these groups are based on the Shar’ee rules.

As for the evidences:

“There will be flaws and faults, so whosoever wanted to divide the matter of this Ummah while she is gathered, strike him with the sword, whoever he may be.” And “Whosoever divides is not one of us.” And “The Rasool of Allah 􀁕 called us and we gave him our bai’ah, so he said that he would take from us a bai’ah that entails us to hear and obey, willingly or unwillingly, in case of hardship and in evil circumstances; and that we would not dispute with the people in authority, unless we witness a kufr buwah (flagrant act of disbelief)

for which we have proof from Allah 􀀬.” These evidences are related to the Khaleefah, his bai’ah, obedience to him and the prohibition of rebelling against him, except in a situation where he manifests open kufr.

If someone comes to fight him, wishing to divide the unity of this Ummah, then let him be struck with the sword, whoever he is. These evidences have no connection, whether close or remote, to the subject of the group from the Muslims. The group does not take the same rules of the Khaleefah nor does it represent him, rather it only works to establish the Khaleefah and account him.

The ahadith “The hand of Allah is with the jama’ah.”, and the hadith, “The jama’ah is mercy, and division is torment”, have nothing to do with prohibition of plurality of groups. Muslims will feel the mercy, living under the shadow of the Muslim community or a group from the Muslims. As for the separation and division, it enables Shaytan to get closer to the Muslim, upon which the following saying of the Messenger 􀁕 applies:

“Indeed, the wolf only eats the straying sheep.” This implies the punishment. There is nothing in the mantuq (wording) or mafhum (meaning) of these two ahadith that indicates the obligation of uniting the Islamic work to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬.

These are the Shar’ee evidences that are used to prohibit plurality of groups, and none of them apply to what has been cited.

As for the rational justifications that have been mentioned, and the negative effects of having many groups; none of this prevents, prohibits or obliges anything. Rather what prevents, prohibits or obliges is only the Shar’a. The bad reality is understood as it is and its essence is understood precisely. Then we go to the Shar’a to get the evidences, which oblige or prohibit, for treating this reality. Hence, we cannot take any Shar’ee rules from the reality.