Ukitazama Kitabu na Sunnah, utaona kwamba Uislamu umeamua masuala haya muhimu kwa uwazi, na kuamua hatua ya lazima kuhusiana nayo kuwa ni suala la uhai au kifo. Kwa mfano, Uislamu umeiona kuacha Uislamu, iwe ni kwa mtu mmoja au kwa kundi, kuwa suala muhimu. Umefanya hatua inayochukuliwa dhidi yake kuwa ya uhai au kifo, yaani toba au kifo. Hivyo, Uislamu umeamua suala pamoja na hatua yake. Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Yeyote atakayebadilisha dini yake lazima auawe." Pia imepokewa kwa mapokezi ya Ibn Mas'ud aliyesema: "Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: Damu ya Muislamu anayekiri kwamba hakuna mungu isipokuwa Allah na kwamba mimi ni Mtume wa Allah ﷺ haihalalishwi kumwagwa isipokuwa katika visa vitatu: mzinzi, muuaji wa mtu mwingine, na mwasi anayeacha jamaa." Suala hili lilikuwa kwa Waislamu dhana kuu na ukweli ambao walishikilia kwa nguvu. Waislamu walikuwa wakiutekeleza; hivyo walimwua mwasi aliyekataa kutubu. Masahaba walifanya hivyo huko Yemen wakati wa uhai wa Mtume ﷺ, pia walifanya hivyo baada yake ﷺ, na waliowafuata nao walifanya vivyo hivyo. Katika Hadithi ya Abu Musa, imepokewa kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alimwambia: "Nenda Yemen!" Kisha akamtuma Mu'adh ibn Jabal ajiunge naye. Alipomfikia, Abu Musa alimtupia mto na kumwambia: "Shuka." (kutoka kwenye ngamia wake). Mu'adh alipokuwa karibu kushuka, aliona mtu aliyefungwa; hivyo akauliza: "Huyu ni nani?" Abu Musa akajibu: "Alikuwa Myahudi, kisha akasilimu, kisha akarudi tena Uyahudi." Hapo Mu'adh akamwambia: "Sitaketi hadi auawe. Yeyote anayeacha dini yake lazima auawe." Abu Dawud alisimulia hivi: “Mtu mmoja aliyeacha Uislamu alipelekwa kwa Abu Musa, naye akamwalika atubu kwa takriban usiku ishirini; kisha Mu’adh akaja na kumwalika atubu lakini alikataa, hivyo akampiga shingo.” Al-Darqutni na Al-Bayhaqi walitoa yafuatayo: “Abu Bakr alimwalika mwanamke aitwaye Umm Qarfah atubu, baada ya kuukubali Uislamu kisha akauacha, lakini alikataa kutubu, hivyo akamuua..” Pia, wakati makabila mengi ya Waarabu yalipoacha Uislamu, wakimfuata Musaylamah, nabii wa uongo, Abu Bakr (r.a.) alichomoa upanga dhidi yao na akapigana nao hadi akawarudisha katika zizi la Uislamu.

If one were to review the Book and the Sunnah, he would find that Islam has determined these vital issues in an explicit manner and, determined the compulsory measure towards them as being a matter of life and death. Islam has for instance considered apostasy from Islam, be it by an individual or a group, as a vital issue. It has made the measure undertaken towards it one of life and death, that is either repentance or death. Hence, Islam has determined the issue and also the measure. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “He who changes his Deen must be killed.” It is also reported on the authority of Ibn Mas’ud who said, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, The blood of a Muslim person who professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am the messenger of Allah is not violable except in three instances: the adulterer, the slayer of another person and the apostate who abandons the group.” This issue was to the Muslims a dominant concept and a fact to which they held onto with a tight grip. The Muslims used to implement it, thus they would kill the apostate who refused to repent. The Sahabah did this in Yemen in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (saw), they also did this after him (saw) and those who succeeded them did the same. In the Hadith of Abu Musa, it is reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to him, “Go to Yemen!” Then he (saw) sent Mu’adh ibn Jabal to join him. When he reached him Abu Musa threw him a pillow and said to him: “Get down.(from your camel)” As Mu’adh was about to dismount, he noticed a man who was tied up; so he asked: “What is this?” Abu Musa replied: “He had been a Jew, he then embraced Islam and then he Judaised again.” Upon this Mu’adh said to him: “I shall not sit until he is killed. He who revokes his Deen must be killed.” Abu Dawud reported this as follows: “A man who apostasised from Islam was brought to Abu Musa, so he invited him to repent for twenty nights or so; then Mu’adh came and invited him to repent but he refused so he struck his neck.” Al-Darqutni and Al-Bayhaqi extracted the following: “Abu Bakr invited a woman called Umm Qarfah to repent, having embraced Islam and then apostasised, but she refused to repent, so he killed her..” Also, when many of the Arab tribes apostasised, following Musaylamah the false prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.) brandished the sword against them and fought them until he brought them back to the fold of Islam.

Imepokewa katika Al-Fateh kwa mapokezi ya Abdullah bin Sharik, kutoka kwa baba yake, aliyesema: "Ilisemwa kwa 'Ali (r.a.): 'Kuna watu hapa mlangoni mwa msikiti wanaodai kwamba wewe ni mungu wao'. Basi akawaita na kuwaambia: 'Ole wenu! Mnasema nini?' Wakasema: 'Wewe ndiye mungu wetu, muumbaji wetu na mtoaji riziki zetu.' Akasema: 'Ole wenu, mimi ni mja kama ninyi. Ninakula kama mnavyokula na ninakunywa kama mnavyokunywa. Kama ningemtii Allah, Yeye angenilipa akitaka, na kama ningemwasi, nilihofia kwamba angeniadhibu. Basi mcheni Allah na tubuni.' Bado walikataa kutubu. Siku iliyofuata waliletwa kwake, na Qanbar akaja na kusema: 'Wallahi, wamerudia kusema maneno yale yale.' Basi 'Ali (r.a.) akasema: 'Waingizeni.' Wakarudia tena maneno yale yale. Siku ya tatu 'Ali (r.a.) aliwaambia: 'Mkirudia tena maneno hayo nitawaua kwa njia mbaya kabisa.' Bado walikataa. Basi 'Ali akaamuru shimo lichimbwe kwa ajili yao kati ya mlango wa msikiti na jumba la kifalme; kisha akaamuru kuni zitupwe shimoni na kuwashwa moto. Kisha akawaambia: 'Nitawatupa humo ikiwa hamtatubu.' Bado walikataa, basi akawatupa humo." Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.) aliposikia habari ya kuchomwa kwao, alionyesha kutokubaliana kwake na kuchomwa huko, akasema kwamba walipaswa kuuawa. Ikrima ameripoti: "Kundi la waasi wa dini waliletwa kwa Amiri wa waumini 'Ali (r.a.), basi akawachoma moto. Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.) alisikia jambo hili akasema: 'Lau ningekuwa yeye, nisingewachoma moto kwa sababu Mjumbe wa Allah (ﷺ) amekataza hili kwa kusema: "Msiadhibu kwa adhabu ya Allah."' Ningewaua kwa sababu Mjumbe wa Allah (ﷺ) alisema: 'Yeyote atakayebadilisha dini yake, auawe.'" Katika siku za Al-Mahdi idadi ya wasioamini Mungu na waasi wa dini iliongezeka; naye alikuwa akiwaalika watubu, na yeyote aliyekataa aliuawa. Al-Mahdi aliua idadi kubwa miongoni mwao.

It is reported in Al-Fateh on the authority of Abdullah ibn Sharik on that of his father who said: “It was said to ‘Ali (r.a.): ‘There are people here at the door of the mosque who claim that you are their god’. So he (r.a.) summoned them and said to them: ‘Woe to you! What are you saying?’ They said: ‘You are our god, our creator and our provider.’ He said: ‘Woe to you, I am but a servant like you. I eat just like you and I drink just like you do. If I obeyed Allah He would reward me if He wished, and if I disobeyed Him I feared that He punished me so fear Allah and repent’. They still refused to repent. On the following day, they were brought to him and Qanbar came and said: ‘By Allah they went back to saying the same thing’. So ‘Ali (r.a.) said: ‘Let them in’. So they again said the same thing. On the third day ‘Ali (r.a.) said to them: ‘If you were to say the same thing again I shall kill you in the worst possible way’. They still refused. So ‘Ali ordered for a hole to be dug for them between the entrance of the mosque and the palace; then he ordered for wood to be thrown in the hole and lit up. He then said to them: ‘I shall throw you in if you do not repent’. They still refused, so he threw them in.” When Ibn ‘Abbas (r.a.) heard of their burning, he expressed his disagreement over their burning and said that they should have been killed. Akrama reported: “A group of apostates were brought to the Amir of the believers ‘Ali (r.a.) so he burnt them; Ibn ‘Abbas (r.a.) heard of this and said: ‘If I had been him, I would not have burnt them because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has prohibited this by saying: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah’. I would have killed them because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, ‘He who changes his Deen must be killed.’” In the days of Al-Mahdi the number of atheists and apostates increased; and he used to invite them to repent, and he who refused used to be killed. Al-Mahdi killed a considerable number from them.

Hivyo basi, Waislamu, miongoni mwao wakiwa Masahaba, wale waliowafuata na Makhalifa, walikuwa wakimwua mwenye kuritadi. Walikuwa thabiti katika jambo hilo bila udhaifu wowote. Hata hivyo, Makhalifa walipodhoofika na uelewa wa Uislamu nao ukadhoofika, ulegevu katika kuwaua wenye kuritadi ukatokea, mpaka ukafiri wa kutoamini Mungu na kuritadi vikaenea, na hili likafikia kiwango ambacho baadhi ya waritadi walianzisha makundi na kuchukua dini isiyo ya Kiislamu. Matokeo yake, hofu ikaingia mioyoni mwa Waislamu, ingawa hili ni jambo la msingi kwa upande mmoja na jambo ambalo upatanishi na msamaha haviruhusiwi kabisa kwa upande mwingine.

Hence, the Muslims, among them the Sahabah, those who succeeded them and the Khulafaa’ used to kill the apostate. They were firm in the matter without any slackness. However, when the Khulafaa’ became weak and the understanding of Islam also weakened, slackness in the killing of the apostate occurred, until atheism and apostasy spread and this reached the point where some of the apostates established groups and adopted a Deen alien to Islam. As a consequence, the fear crept into the hearts of the Muslims, despite the fact that this was a vital issue on the one hand and a matter in which intercession and forgiveness were out of the question on the other hand.

Kwa hiyo, haikushangaza kwa mtu kama Mustafa Kemal kutangaza vita dhidi ya Uislamu, yaani kuritadi kutoka katika Uislamu, bila ya mtu yeyote wa kutekeleza hukumu ya Shari'ah juu yake; kwa sababu suala la uritadi halikuwa tena suala muhimu, na hivi ndivyo lilivyotokea. Kwa hiyo, ni wajibu kuliweka tena suala hili mahali pake stahiki na kulichukulia kuwa suala muhimu, kwa kuwaua kila mwenye kuritadi, hata kama watafikia mamilioni.

Hence, it was not surprising for a man like Mustafa Kemal to declare war against Islam, i.e. apostasise from Islam with no one to execute the rule of Shari’ah upon him; because the issue of apostasy was no longer a vital issue, and this is what happened. Therefore, it is imperative to put back this issue in its rightful place and consider it to be a vital issue, by killing every apostate, even if they numbered millions.

Hata hivyo, hii haimaanishi kwamba tunaweza kuwa wepesi katika kumhukumu mtu kuwa mtoka dini, kwa sababu tu anashikilia maoni yenye shaka; tunapaswa kuwa na uhakika kamili kabla ya kumhukumu kuwa kafiri na mtoka dini. Ikiwa anachosema kinamfanya kuwa mtoka dini kwa asilimia 99 na asilimia 1 haimfanyi kuwa mtoka dini, basi ile asilimia 1 ndiyo inapaswa kupewa kipaumbele, naye achukuliwe kuwa Muislamu, wala asihukumiwe kuwa mtoka dini. Hii ni kwa sababu Muislamu kimsingi ni Muislamu, na hapaswi kuhukumiwa kuwa kafiri au mtoka dini isipokuwa jambo hilo likiwa thabiti. Vilevile, hatupaswi kumtetea wala kutafuta visingizio vya kuondoa hukumu ya uasi kutoka kwake ikiwa ni mtoka dini kwa uhakika, kwa sababu hilo lingezuia kipimo cha uhai na kifo kinachopaswa kutekelezwa katika jambo nyeti.

However, this does not mean that we can be casual in judging a person to be an apostate because he carries a doubtful opinion; we ought to be decisively certain before we can judge him to be a Kafir and an apostate. If what he says makes him 99% an apostate and 1% does not make an apostate, then the 1% should take precedence and he should be considered a Muslim, and he should not be judged as an apostate. This is because the Muslim in essence is a Muslim and he should not be judged to be a Kafir or an apostate unless this was conclusive. Likewise, we should not make excuses for him or seek pretexts to remove the rule of apostasy from him if he were conclusively an apostate, because this would impede the measure of life and death to be undertaken in a vital issue.

Kwa hiyo, ikiwa Mwislamu atafanya kitendo kinachomtoa kwenye Uislamu, kama vile kuswali kanisani pamoja na Wakristo na kwa namna wanavyoswali, au akasema jambo linalomtoa kwenye Uislamu, kama vile: "Hadithi ya Ibrahim iliyotajwa katika Qur'an haikuandikwa na historia, kwa hiyo ni hadithi ya uongo", au akaamini jambo linalomtoa kwenye Uislamu, kama vile kuamini kwamba Uislamu si sahihi kwa zama hizi, au kuamini kutenganishwa kwa Dini na dola, au akatilia shaka ukweli usiopingika, hivyo kuwa mtoka Uislamu, kama vile kutilia shaka kwamba Qur'an ni maneno ya Allah, katika hali zote hizi na nyinginezo zinazofanana nazo, atakuwa amekuwa mtoka Uislamu bila shaka. Basi suala hili lazima lichukuliwe kuwa la muhimu sana, na kipimo cha uhai na kifo kinapaswa kuchukuliwa kulihusu, yaani ama kutubu au kuuawa.

Therefore, if a Muslim were to perpetrate that which renders him an apostate, such as praying in a church, with the Christians and in the way they pray, or if he were to utter something that renders him an apostate, such as: “The story of Ibrahim mentioned in the Qur’an was not narrated by history, thus it is a false story”, or if he were to believe in that which renders him an apostate, such as believing that Islam is not valid for this age, or such as believing in the separation of the Deen from the state, or if he were to doubt a conclusive fact, thus becoming an apostate, such as doubting that the Qur’an is the word of Allah, in all such cases and in other similar cases, he would conclusively become an apostate. Then the issue must be treated as a vital one, and the measure of life and death must be undertaken towards it, i.e. either repentance or death.

Vivyo hivyo, Uislamu umeifanya umoja wa Umma wa Kiislamu na umoja wa Dola kuwa miongoni mwa masuala muhimu sana, na umeifanya hatua inayochukuliwa kuelekea huo kuwa kipimo cha uhai na kifo; hivyo basi imeweka wazi suala hilo na kipimo chake.

Likewise, Islam has made the unity of the Islamic Ummah and the unity of the State one of the vital issues, and made the measure undertaken towards it a measure of life and death; thus it has determined the issue and the measure.

Hili linajidhihirisha katika mambo mawili: suala la kuwepo kwa Makhalifa zaidi ya mmoja, na suala la waasi. Imepokewa kwa mapokezi ya Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas kwamba alimsikia Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akisema: "Aliyemwapa Bay'ah (ahadi ya utii) Imamu, akimpa kiganja cha mkono wake na tunda la moyo wake, basi amtii kadiri awezavyo. Na mtu mwingine akija kugombana naye, basi mkate shingo ya mtu huyo." Pia imepokewa kwa mapokezi ya Abu Said Al-Khudri kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Ikichukuliwa Bay'ah kwa Makhalifa wawili, mwueni wa mwisho wao." Hivyo, ﷺ alifanya umoja wa Dola kuwa jambo muhimu sana alipokataza kuwepo kwa Makhalifa zaidi ya mmoja, na akaamuru kuuawa kwa yule anayejaribu kuanzisha uwingi katika Ukhalifa, isipokuwa akijiondoa. Pia imepokewa kwa mapokezi ya Arfaja aliyesema: "Nilimsikia Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akisema: 'Atakayekujia wakati jambo lenu limeunganishwa chini ya mtu mmoja, akikusudia kuleta mfarakano kati yenu au kugawanya jamaa yenu (Jama'ah), muueni.'" Hivyo, ﷺ alifanya suala la umoja wa Ummah na suala la umoja wa Dola kuwa jambo muhimu sana alipokataza kugawanyika kwa jamaa na akaamuru kuuawa kwa yule anayejaribu kufanya hivyo, isipokuwa akijiondoa.

This is manifested in two cases: one is the issue of the plurality of Khulafaa’ and the other is the issue of the rebels. It has been reported on the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’Aas that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “He who pledged his Bay’ah (oath) to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man.” It has also been reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If a Bay’ah has been taken for two Khaleefah’s, kill the latter of them.” Hence, he (saw) made the unity of the State a vital issue when he prohibited the plurality of the Khulafaa’ and ordered the killing of the one who attempts to establish a plurality in the Khilafah, unless he retracts. It has also been reported on the authority of Arfaja who said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “He who comes to you while your affair has been united under one man, intending to drive a wedge between you or fragment your group (Jama’ah), kill him.” Hence, he (saw) made the issue of the Ummah’s unity and the issue of the State’s unity a vital issue when he prohibited the fragmentation of the group and ordered the killing of he who attempts to do so, unless he retracts.

Kuhusu waasi, Allah (SWT) anasema:

As for the rebels, Allah (swt) says:

“Ikiwa makundi mawili miongoni mwa Waumini yatapigana, basi yapatanisheni; na likiwa moja lao linamdhulumu jingine, basi lipigeni hilo linalodhulumu mpaka lirejee katika Amri ya Allah” (TMQ al-Hujarat, aya ya 9). Hii ni kwa sababu pindi Imamah ya Waislamu inapoanzishwa, yaani pale Khalifa wa Waislamu anapochaguliwa, uasi dhidi yake ni haramu, kwa kuwa uasi husababisha mgawanyiko wa Waislamu, kumwagika kwa damu zao na kupotezwa kwa mali zao. Mtume wa Allah ﷺ amesema: “Yeyote atakayeasi Ummah wangu hali wamekusanyika pamoja, mpigeni shingo yake kwa upanga, awe ni nani.” Kwa hiyo, wale wanaojitenga na Imamu wanachukuliwa kuwa waasi. Wanapaswa kualikwa kutubia na shaka zao kuondolewa, lakini wakiendelea kukaidi, wauawe.

“If two factions from among the believers fall into a quarrel, make peace between them; and if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah” (TMQ al-Hujarat, verse 9). This is because once the Imamah of the Muslims has been established, meaning when a Khaleefah for the Muslims has been chosen, rebellion against him is forbidden, due to the fact that rebellion leads to the disunity of the Muslims, the shedding of their blood and the squandering of their wealth. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “He who rebels against my Ummah while they are united strike his neck with the sword whoever he may be.” Hence, those who separate from the Imam are considered rebels. They should be invited to repent and their doubts should be dissipated, but if they persist, they should be killed.

Kwa kukataza wingi wa dola na uasi dhidi yake, na kwa kukataza mgawanyiko wa Ummah, umoja wa Dola na ule wa Ummah unakuwa jambo la uhai, kwa kuwa Allah (SWT) ameamua kuwa hatua inayopaswa kuchukuliwa dhidi yao ni hatua ya uhai na kifo. Kwa hiyo, yeyote anayefanya kitendo kama hicho ni lazima aidha atubu au auawe. Waislamu walitekeleza hili na walikuwa wakilichukulia kuwa miongoni mwa mambo muhimu zaidi na yenye uzito mkubwa zaidi. Hawakuwahi kuwa wapole katika hili kwa Muislamu yeyote, awe nani. Kwa mfano, ‘Ali (r.a.) hakuwahi kumwonea huruma Mu‘awiyyah. Zaidi ya hayo, ‘Ali (r.a.), Bani Umayya na Bani Abbas hawakuwahi kuwa wapole kwa Khawarij, na ushahidi uliothibitika kuhusu jambo hili ni mwingi usiohesabika. Hata hivyo, Khilafah ilipodhoofika na uelewa wa Uislamu ukapungua, Waislamu walinyamaza kimya kuhusu kujitenga kwa nchi za Kiislamu kutoka mwili wa Khilafah. Hivyo ukatokea mpasuko kati ya Waislamu, nao wakageuka kuwa dola kadhaa. Hili ni licha ya ukweli kwamba kujitenga kwa nchi yoyote kutoka mwili wa Dola ni jambo la msingi linalohitaji either kutubu kwa waasi, au kupigana nao vita, bila kujali gharama ya maisha au mali.

By prohibiting the plurality of the state and the rebellion against it, and by prohibiting the division of the Ummah, the unity of State and that of the Ummah becomes a vital issue, because Allah (swt) has decreed that the measure to be undertaken towards them is a measure of life and death. Hence, he who perpetrates such an act should either repent or be killed. The Muslims had implemented this and used to consider it to be amongst the most important and most critical of matters. They never used to be lenient in this towards any Muslim whoever he might have been, thus ‘Ali (r.a.) was never lenient with Mu’awiyyah. Moreover, ‘Ali (r.a.), the Umayyads and the Abbasids were never lenient with the Khawarij, and the established facts pertaining to this are innumerable. However, when the Khilafah became weak and the understanding of Islam declined, Muslims kept silent over the breakaway of Islamic lands from the body of the Khilafah. Thus a wedge was driven between the Muslims and they turned into several states. This is despite the fact that the breakaway of any land from the body of the State is a vital issue that stipulates either the repentance of the rebels, or the waging of war against them, regardless of the cost in lives or wealth.

Hali ilifikia hatua ambapo Waislamu waliishi katika nchi kadhaa, na Khilafah ikawa mojawapo ya nchi hizo. Hali ikazidi kuwa mbaya hadi baadhi ya Waislamu wakaanza kutoa wito wa kuwepo kwa muungano wa Kiislamu, yaani Dola ya Khilafah iingie makubaliano na nchi zilizojitenga nayo. Kwa njia hiyo, Dola ya Khilafah ingekubali kujitenga kwao na kuwa nchi nyingi; yaani kuunga mkono mgawanyiko wa Waislamu ili wageuke kuwa watu na mataifa kadhaa, licha ya kwamba hili lilikuwa suala la msingi wa maisha, na licha ya Hadith zilizo wazi kuhusu kutubu au kifo. Kwa hiyo, haikushangaza Mustafa Kemal alipotangaza kuigawa Uturuki na kuitenganisha na nchi nyingine za Kiislamu, na hata alipoonyesha kuunga mkono kukabidhi ardhi za Kiislamu kwa nchi za Kufr ziamue hatima yake, kwa sababu suala hilo lilikuwa limeshushwa kutoka kiwango cha suala la msingi. Hivyo msiba ukatokea, na Waislamu wakawa wasiojali kuishi katika nchi kadhaa, na kugawanyika katika watu na mataifa kadhaa. Yote hayo yalitokana tu na suala la umoja wa Ummah na suala la umoja wa dola kutochukuliwa tena kama mambo ya msingi, na hatua zilizochukuliwa kuyahusu hazikuwa tena hatua za uhai au kifo.

The situation reached the point where Muslims lived in several states and the Khilafah became one of these states; the situation even worsened to the point where some Muslims started to call for an Islamic league, i.e. to have the Khilafah state enter into agreements with the states which broke away from her. Thus the Khilafah State would approve of their separation and of becoming several states; i.e. to support the disunity of the Muslims so that they turn into several peoples and nations, despite the fact that this was a vital issue and despite the explicit Ahadith about repentance or death. Hence, it came as no surprise when Mustafa Kemal declared the dismemberment of Turkey from the rest of the lands of Islam, and even declared his approval of surrendering the Islamic lands to the Kufr states to decide their fate because the issue was relegated from the level of being a vital issue. Thus the calamity took place and the Muslims became indifferent towards having to live in several states, and being divided into several peoples and nations. This was only because the issue of the Ummah’s unity and the issue of the state’s unity were no longer regarded as vital issues and the measure undertaken towards them was no longer a measure of life and death.

Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kurudisha suala hili mahali pake stahiki na kulichukulia kuwa suala muhimu sana, ili kuzuia kugawanywa kwa nchi yoyote kutoka katika mwili wa Khilafah, hata kama hilo litasababisha miaka kadhaa ya mapigano, na hata kama litasababisha kuuawa kwa mamilioni ya Waislamu.

Hence, it is imperative to restore this issue at its rightful place and to consider it a vital issue, thus preventing the dismemberment of any country from the body of the Khilafah, even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims.

Vivyo hivyo, Uislamu umefanya udhihirishaji wa ukafiri wa wazi (Kufr) kuwa mojawapo ya masuala muhimu, na kufanya hatua zinazochukuliwa dhidi yake kuwa kipimo cha uhai na kifo; hivyo Uislamu umeamua suala hilo na kipimo chake. Muslim ameripoti katika Hadith ya ‘Auf ibn Malik kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: “Watawala watateuliwa juu yenu, nanyi mtawaona wakifanya mema pamoja na maovu. Yule anayechukia maovu yao hana lawama, yule anayeyakataa maovu yao pia yuko salama, lakini yule anayeyakubali na kuyafuata ameangamia.” Ikasemwa: “Ee Mtume wa Allah! Je, hatuwapigani kwa upanga?” Akasema: “Hapana, mradi wanaendelea kusimamisha sala miongoni mwenu.” Katika riwaya nyingine: “Wakasema: ‘Ee Mtume wa Allah, je, basi, hatutawapigana?’ Akajibu ﷺ: ‘Hapana, mradi wanaendelea kusimamisha sala miongoni mwenu.’” Bukhari ameripoti kwa mapokezi ya ‘Ubadah Ibn-us-Samit aliyesema: “Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alituita, nasi tukaapa Bay’ah kwake ya kusikia na kutii katika wakati wa furaha na wa huzuni, katika wepesi na katika ugumu na hali mbaya; kwamba hatutagombana na wenye mamlaka, isipokuwa tutakapoona Kufr ya wazi ambayo kuna ushahidi wa wazi kutoka kwa Allah.” Katika riwaya ya Al-Tabarani imesema: “Kufr dhahiri.” Na katika riwaya ya Ahmed, imesema: “Mradi hakuamuru ninyi kutenda dhambi ya wazi.” Pia imepokewa kwa mapokezi ya ‘Auf Ibn Malik kutoka kwa Al-Ashja’i aliyesema kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema: “Imamu bora wenu ni wale mnaowapenda nao wanawapenda, wanaowaombea dua nanyi mnawaombea dua, na Imamu mbaya zaidi wenu ni wale mnaowachukia nao wanawachukia, mnawalaani nao wanawalaani.” Tukasema: “Ee Mtume wa Allah, je, basi, hatuwapingi?” Akasema: “Hapana, mradi wanaendelea kusimamisha sala miongoni mwenu.”

Likewise, Islam has made the displaying of flagrant disbelief (Kufr) one of the vital issues, and made the measure undertaken towards it a measure of life and death; thus Islam determined the issue and the measure. Muslim reported in the Hadith of ‘Auf ibn Malik that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Amirs 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.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah! Should we not fight them with the sword?” He said: “No, as long as they continue to establish prayer amongst you.” In another narration : “They said: “O Messenger of Allah, should we not fight them then? He (saw) replied: “No, as long as they continue to establish prayer amongst you.” Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ubadah Ibn-us-Samit who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) invited us, so we pledged our Bay’ah to him to hear and to obey in weal and woe, in ease and in hardship and evil circumstances; that we would not dispute with the people in authority, unless we witnessed a flagrant Kufr of which there is a conclusive proof from Allah.” In Al-Tabarani’s narration it said: “evident Kufr.” and in a narration by Ahmed, it said: “As long as he does not order you to commit a flagrant sin.” It was also reported on the authority of ‘Auf Ibn Malik from Al-Ashja’i who said that the Prophet (saw) said: “The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and who pray for you and you pray for them, 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 Messenger of Allah shall we not then resist them?’ He said: ‘No, as long as they continue to establish prayer amongst you”.

Kuanzishwa kwa Swala kunaakisiwa katika kuanzishwa kwa Dini; pia ni sawa na kutawaliwa kwa Uislamu na kudhihirishwa kwa ibada zake. Kufr dhahiri ni Kufr inayodhihirishwa katika vitendo vinavyofanywa na mtawala, yaani utawala wa Kufr. Kwa hiyo, maana iliyomo nyuma ya Hadithi hizi ni kwamba Khalifa anapaswa kupingwa na Waislamu iwapo ataanza kuiacha njia ya utawala wa Uislamu na iwapo atashindwa kuzitekeleza ibada zake, na kwamba anapaswa kupigwa vita nao iwapo ataanzisha utawala wa Kufr. Pia, Waislamu lazima wawakabili wenye mamlaka iwapo wataona Kufr dhahiri. Kuwakabili kunamaanisha kuanzisha upinzani hata kama hilo litasababisha mapigano nao. Imetajwa katika Al-Fateh: "Wanachuoni wamekubaliana juu ya wajibu wa kumtii Sultani aliye na nguvu na kushiriki Jihadi pamoja naye; kwamba kumtii ni bora kuliko kumwasi, kwa kuwa hilo linaokoa maisha na kutuliza wananchi; hata hivyo wametoa kutoka katika hili hali ambapo Kufr dhahiri inadhihirishwa na Sultani, ambapo katika hali hiyo ni haramu kumtii, badala yake apigwe vita na wale walio na uwezo, kama ilivyotajwa katika Hadithi." Imam al-Shawkani aliandika katika kitabu chake kiitwacho Nayl al-Awtar, "Wale wanaoshikilia maoni kwamba ni wajibu kupinga madhalimu kwa upanga na kupambana nao, walitumia kama ushahidi maandiko ya jumla yaliyomo katika Kitabu na Sunnah." Kwa hiyo, suala la wajibu wa kutawala kwa Uislamu na kuzuia utawala wa Kufr ni suala la msingi, kwa sababu Allah (SWT) amefanya kipimo kinachopaswa kuchukuliwa kuhusiana nalo kuwa kipimo cha uhai na kifo; kwa hiyo yule asiyetawala kwa Uislamu na anayetawala kwa mfumo wa Kufr, ni lazima ajirudi au auawe.

Establishing prayer is reflected in the establishment of the Deen; it is also tantamount to the rule by Islam and the manifestation of its rites. The flagrant Kufr is the Kufr manifested in the actions performed by the ruler, i.e. the rule by Kufr. Hence, the concept behind these Ahadith is that the Khaleefah ought to be resisted by the Muslims if he started to deviate from the rule of Islam and if he failed to uphold its rites, and that he ought to be fought by them if he established the rule of Kufr. Also, the Muslims must challenge the people in authority if they witness a flagrant Kufr. Challenging them means generating the challenge even if this led to fighting them. It is mentioned in Al-Fateh: “The scholars have agreed upon the obligation of obeying the dominant Sultan and of performing Jihad alongside him; that his obedience is better than rebellion against him, for this would spare lives and appease the populace; however they excluded from this the case where the flagrant Kufr is displayed by the Sultan, in which case it would be forbidden to obey him, he should rather be fought by those who are capable, as mentioned in the Hadith.” Imam al-Shawkani wrote in his book entitled Nayl al-Awtar, “Those who hold the opinion that it is obligatory to resist the wrongdoers with the sword and struggle against them, they used as evidence the general texts in the Book and the Sunnah .” Hence, the issue pertaining to the obligation of ruling by Islam and preventing the rule of Kufr is a vital issue, because Allah (swt) has made the measure that should be undertaken towards it a measure of life and death; thus he who does not rule by Islam and rules by a Kufr system should either retract or be killed.

Waislamu wameamrishwa wasinyamaze kuhusu utawala kwa kitu kisicho kile ambacho Allah (SWT) ameteremsha, kwa sababu ni jambo la msingi na muhimu. Hata hivyo, uchamungu ulipodhoofika katika nafsi za Waislamu na ufahamu wao wa Uislamu ukadhoofika pia, ikawa rahisi kwao kunyamaza kuhusu Khulafaa’ na watawala pale walipotawala kwa Kufr katika jambo moja tu. Udhaifu wao ulipozidi, waliona ni rahisi kunyamaza kuhusu watawala pale walipotawala kwa Kufr katika mambo kadhaa. Matokeo ya muda mrefu ya kimya hicho yalikuwa kwamba watawala walithubutu kutekeleza Kufr waziwazi. Waislamu huko Misri walinyamaza wakati mtawala alipotekeleza sheria ya kiraia ya Kifaransa na kufuta hukumu za Shari’ah. Waislamu walinyamaza katika Dola ya Kiislamu wakati kanuni za Kufr zilipoanzishwa kama katiba kwa Waislamu mwaka 1909. Ingawa mwanzoni waliasi dhidi yake, baadaye walinyamaza. Haikuwa jambo la ajabu Mustafa Kemal alipoiharibu Khilafah na hukumu zote za Uislamu na kutangaza utawala wa Kufr. Hii ilitokana na ukweli kwamba Waislamu hawakuliona tena jambo hili kuwa la msingi, hivyo msiba ukatokea, na ikawa rahisi kwa Waislamu kushuhudia Kufr iliyo wazi bila kuinua upanga kuiondoa; ikawa rahisi hata kwao kutawaliwa na Kufr bila kuilaani. Zaidi ya hayo, wengi wa Waislamu walikubali hukumu za Kufr, wakazizoea, na kwa hiari yao wakaziacha hukumu za Uislamu. Hali hii ilifikia hatua ambapo Waislamu walikubali Kufr na kuitaka, pamoja na kunyamaza juu yake na kutoinua upanga dhidi yake. Yote haya yalitokana tu na ukweli kwamba suala la kutawaliwa na mfumo wa Kufr halikuwa tena jambo la msingi, na hatua iliyochukuliwa kulihusu haikuwa tena ya uhai na kifo.

The Muslims are ordered not to keep silent over the rule by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, because it is a vital issue. However, when piety weakened in the souls of the Muslims and their understanding of Islam also weakened, it became easy for them to keep silent over the Khulafaa’ and the rulers if they ruled by Kufr in one single matter. When their weakness increased, they found it easy to keep silent over the rulers if they ruled by Kufr in several matters. The long term consequence of this silence was that the rulers had the audacity to implement Kufr in a flagrant manner. The Muslims in Egypt kept silent when the ruler implemented the French civil law and abolished the Shari’ah rules. The Muslims kept silent in the Islamic State when the rules of Kufr were established as a constitution for the Muslims in 1909. Though they revolted against them at first, but they went silent afterwards. It came as no surprise when Mustafa Kemal destroyed the Khilafah and all the rules of Islam and declared the rule of Kufr. This was because the Muslims no longer regarded this issue as a vital one, thus the calamity occurred and it became easy for the Muslims to witness the flagrant Kufr without brandishing the sword to remove it; it even became easy for them to be ruled by Kufr without condemning it. Worse than that, the majority of Muslims accepted the rules of Kufr, became accustomed to them and relinquished the rules of Islam by choice. This situation reached the point where Muslims accepted Kufr and called for it, in addition to keeping silent over it and not brandishing the sword against it. All this was only because the issue of ruling by a Kufr system was no longer a vital issue, and the measure undertaken towards it was no longer that of life and death.

Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kuirejesha suala hili mahali pake stahiki na kulichukulia kuwa suala la msingi, ili kuzuia utawala wa mfumo wa kikafiri, hata ikiwa hilo litasababisha miaka kadhaa ya mapigano, hata ikiwa litasababisha kuuawa kwa mamilioni ya Waislamu na kufa shahidi kwa mamilioni ya Waumini.

Hence, it is imperative to reinstate this issue in its rightful place and to consider it a vital issue, so that the rule by a Kufr system would be prevented even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers.

Therefore, the perception of all the vital issues which Allah (swt) had outlined and determined, and the perception of the life and death measures which He (swt) had made obligatory, has weakened. The linkage of these issues to the Islamic Aqeedah has also weakened, and they were relegated from their position to the point where they were no longer perceived as being very critical Shari'ah rules, for which arms should be taken up. Thus, they were relegated from the position in which Allah (swt) had placed them, meaning they were relegated from the position of the vital issue. Consequently, the measure which the Shari'ah had decreed towards them was no longer deemed to be the resistance by force and the brandishing of the sword to remove the rule of Kufr and restore the rule of Islam. Therefore, the issue of destroying the Khilafah, thus removing the system of Islam, was not perceived as a vital issue. The fact that this was indeed a vital one was not dominant over the atmospheres and the souls. So Mustafa Kemal went ahead with his action, destroyed the Khilafah and wiped out Islam from the political map without anyone taking up arms against him and fighting him. Therefore, the Kuffar's destruction of the Khilafah and their removal of the system of Islam from existence occurred with this ease and simplicity, before the eyes of millions of Muslims. Had the Muslims been at the time aware that this issue was a vital one, upon which the fate of the Muslims and the fate of Islam depended, and that the inevitable measure towards it was to take up arms and fight Mustafa Kemal, they would not have been dealt this blow, this horrific calamity, and this major tragedy. Hence, the Muslims' failure to perceive that this issue was a vital issue which necessitated a measure of life and death, was the cause of this calamity that befell them.

Therefore, the perception of all the vital issues which Allah (swt) had outlined and determined and the perception of the life and death measures which He (swt) had made obligatory has weakened. The linkage of these issues to the Islamic Aqeedah has also weakened, and they were relegated from their position to the point where they were no longer perceived as being very critical Shari’ah rules, for which arms should be taken up. Thus, they were relegated from the position in which Allah (swt) had placed them, meaning they were relegated from the position of the vital issue. Consequently, the measure which the Shari’ah had decreed towards them was no longer deemed to be the resistance by force and the brandishing of the sword to remove the rule of Kufr and restore the rule of Islam. Therefore, the issue of destroying the Khilafah, thus removing the system of Islam, was not perceived as a vital issue. The fact that this was indeed a vital one was not dominant over the atmospheres and the souls. So Mustafa Kemal went ahead with his action, destroyed the Khilafah and wiped out Islam from the political map without anyone taking up arms against him and fighting him. Therefore, the Kuffar’s destruction of the Khilafah and their removal of the system of Islam from existence occurred with this ease and simplicity, before the eyes of millions of Muslims. Had the Muslims been at the time aware that this issue was a vital one, upon which the fate of the Muslims and the fate of Islam depended, and that the inevitable measure towards it was to take to take up arms and fight Mustafa Kemal, they would not have been dealt this blow, this horrific calamity, and this major tragedy. Hence, the Muslims’ failure to perceive that this issue was a vital issue which necessitated a measure of life and death, was the cause of this calamity that befell them.