The Shar’a, which Allah 􀀬 revealed and expounded, was not left as just clear thoughts, rather the legislator wanted it to be a tangible reality. Thus, He 􀀬 revealed practical rules whose purpose was to preserve its existence in the reality, and prohibit what the Shar’a prohibits, and the method for that is the State. Thus, He 􀀬 ordered its establishment to protect the Shar’a. Allah 􀀬 put laws for the ruler; He 􀀬 ordered him and forbade and commanded him to establish the deen and guard over it. He 􀀬 ordered the Ummah to obey him in this and account him if he was neglectful. He 􀀬 demanded this from the Ummah, as individuals and parties. The Rasool of Allah 􀁕 said; “The master of martyrs is Hamza, and a man who stood up to a tyrant ruler to enjoin him (with the good) and forbid him (of the evil) and got killed.” [Reported by al-Haakim]. He 􀁕 said; “The best Jihaad is the word of truth spoken to a tyrant ruler.” [Reported by Ibn Maajah and Nasa’i]. He 􀁕 also said; “Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the ma’roof and forbid the munkar, and hold at the hand of the tyrant, and force him on the truth and restrict him to the truth.” [Reported by Abu Dawud and Tirmizi]. Nobody can force the unjust ruler on the truth and restrict him to it, except those who have might and power, ie a group or party because individuals are not able to do this.

The Sahabah and the Fuqahaa (jurists) in the past knew that the Islamic State was the essential prerequisite for that; through its existence the rules are applied and through its loss the rules disappear. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), when he was asked about the fundamental matter (Islam); “How will it continue?” He said; “As long as the leaders are on the correct path.” Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned on the authority of al-Fadeel from ‘Iyaad and Ahmad b. Hanbal; “If there was a du’a (call) that Allah 􀀬 would accept, then we would have made it for the ruler (sultan).” Islam is a deen for all people, which contains within it the khayr (good)

for the whole of mankind, and not just for one people to the exclusion of another. Its creed is universal and so is its system. It also contains a method for conveying it to the world, through the presence of a State that applies Islam and conveys it to the world. The Islamic State, in turn, is known that it must exist, so that it can undertake what is incumbent on it. So what is its task? Who will establish the State if it does not exist?

Who will correct its course, if it deviated?

As for the task entrusted to it by Allah 􀀬, it is the establishment of the whole deen. Thus the State is responsible for the application of the deen, whether the individual rules or the collective rules, whether the individual obligations or the collective (sufficiency) ones. It is responsible for establishing the deen, ie establishing the ma’roof and removing the munkar practically. Thus, if the Muslim does not pray, the State will order him to pray, otherwise he will be punished. Similarly, if he does not pay Zakah, make Hajj or fast, all of such individual obligations and their likes, the State is obliged to guard over their presence and account those neglecting them. This also applies to the collective obligations. If the State does not secure all the interests which the Ummah require in terms of providing medicine, engineering, education and others, whose existence requires management, coordination and distribution of assignments; if the obligations whose existence is divided among the Ummah, such as Jihaad and Ijtihaad, the establishment of which the Lawgiver entrusted and commanded the Khaleefah with; if there is any negligence from his side in these matters, the Ummah must account him on that and force him to address it. The Lawgiver has determined precise rules in this regard. He 􀀬 prohibited the Muslims to rebel against the Khaleefah, except in case he displayed the bawah (open) kufr.

It is fundamental in the Islamic State that the ruler is the guardian over the affairs of people with Shar’a rules. According to the Shar’a, he is responsible for preventing the munkaraat, whether they occur from individuals or groups. Thus, the Messenger 􀁕 said; “The Imaam is a Shepherd and (only) he is responsible for the citizens.” [Agreed upon]. Allah 􀀬 charged him with the responsibility of forcing people, whether individuals or groups, to undertake all the obligations which have been ordained by Allah 􀀬.When a certain matter requires force for its performance, he is obliged to use force. Similarly, Allah 􀀬 has obliged him to prevent people from committing haraam, and if such a matter requires the use of force to prevent them from committing the haraam, he is obliged to use force. Thus, in principle the State changes the munkar and removes it with the hand ie force. This is because according to the Shar’a, it is responsible for the implementation of Islam and compelling the people to abide by its rules.

However, if the ruler commits a munkar - such as committing injustice, appropriating the wealth of others through false means, withholding people’s rights, neglecting the affairs of citizens, failing to do an obligation, contradicting one of the rules of Islam or any other such munkar - it is an obligation on all the Muslims to account him and reject the munkar he did, and work as individuals and groups to make him change it; otherwise they would be sinful if they remained silent and left the munkar without changing it.

Forbidding the munkar and changing it when he commits a munkar is via accounting with the tongue. This is due to what Muslim narrated from Umm Salamah that the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 said:

“Ameers will be appointed over you, and you will find them doing good deeds as well as bad deeds. The one who hates their bad deeds is absolved from blame, the one who disapproves of their bad deeds is also safe, but the one who approves and follows is doomed.” Ibn Mas’ud also narrated that the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 said:

“Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the ma’roof and forbid the munkar, and hold the hand of the tyrant, and force him on the truth and to constrain him to the truth.” in another narration it says:

“Or Allah will strike the hearts of some of you against others, then He will curse you as He cursed them.” [Reported by Abu Dawud]. Similarly, the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 made speaking the truth before a tyrant ruler the best Jihaad, when he answered the man who asked him; “Which Jihaad is the best?” He said:

“The best Jihaad is the word of truth spoken to a tyrant ruler.” [Reported by Ibn Maajah and Nasa’i]. This is also due to the ahadith which prohibit rebellion against him by taking up arms, except in one case which is the exception to that; it is when he displays open kufr (kufr bawah) that has a proof from Allah 􀀬 that it is a flagrant kufr in which there is no doubt. That is when he rules with rules of clear kufr and abandons the ruling by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed. It is narrated by ‘Awf b. Maalik al-Ashja’i that he heard the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 saying; “The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and who you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” We asked: “O Rasool of Allah shall we not then challenge them?” He said: “No, as long as they continue to establish prayer among you.” [Reported by Muslim].

What is meant by establishing the prayer is ruling by Islam, ie applying the rules of the Shar’a, by indicating the whole through naming the part (bab tasmiyat al-kull bismil juz’a). Umm Salamah narrated that the Rasool of Allah 􀁕 said; “Ameers will be appointed over you, and you will find them doing good deeds as well as bad deeds. The one who hates their bad deeds is absolved from blame, the one who disapproves of their bad deeds is also safe, but the one who approves and follows is doomed.” They said: “Should we not fight them?” He 􀁕 said: “No as long as they pray.” [Reported by Muslim]. ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit said; “The Rasool of Allah 􀁕 invited us so we pledged our Bai’ah to him to hear and obey in weal and woe, in ease and in hardship and in preference over ourselves; that we would not dispute with the people in authority, unless we witness flagrant Kufr of which we have a conclusive proof from Allah. And that we would speak the truth in all circumstances, fearing the blame of nobody in the path of Allah.” [Reported by Muslim] The understanding of these ahadith is that they forbid rebellion against the ruler by the use of arms, except when he rules with the rules of clear kufr for which we have proof from Allah 􀀬 that this is a flagrant kufr in which there is no doubt.

All of this is when the Muslim ruler is present and then he fails to do his duty. Or when there is a situation where he rules by clear kufr - even if it is one rule. In such a situation, the Ummah as individuals and groups are obliged to stand in his way and prevent him even by the use of arms.

So what about the situation when there is no Muslim ruler in the first place, and there is no dar al-Islam? It is natural then that all the rules entrusted with the ruler will be suspended, and corruption and vice will become widespread; bad morals will become common, and corrupt relationships would emerge; the munkaraat would increase and spread, and the maroof would decrease and diminish. The Muslims will become weak, their standing would diminish and their power would wane. They will be like the lion without biting teeth or claws. They will become a picture without a reality; and neither the picture of eating fills a stomach, neither does the picture of the lion terrify.

In such a situation - which is the situation today - the Ummah should establish a Khaleefah who will rule by what Allah 􀀬 has revealed, because his presence is fard, but who will undertake the responsibility of establishing the Khaleefah and how would this be done? Here comes the discussion of the obligation of having Islamic groups whose work is to enjoin the ma’roof and forbid the munkar.