|
... the science of peace |
|
|
Q: Is it legally permitted to carry out
relationships with the people of the book other than inviting them to
adopt Islam as a religion? Islam and party politics Q:
In forbidding the
belonging of religious scholars to parties, movements …etc, people
might advance the edict of Sayyed Muhammad Baker Al- -Sadr (May the
mercy of Allah be upon him) that had been issued during the seventies
as an argument to their claim; what is your comment? A: As a matter of fact,
the person who belongs to any body, was it a party, an organization or
an association … etc must first define the legitimacy of his belonging
as to whether it embodies the elements that any person, who lives up
to Islam in his awareness, his mind, and his faith, believes in. Once
he finds that this body, with which he is affiliated, goes in harmony
with his beliefs regarding the general lines, he should examine next
if the leading group of this body which is in charge of directing its
activities setting, its course and arranging its affairs, is legal.
Actually, it is not enough that the line or the movement is right and
legal; nay, the one responsible for running it through this particular
line must be a person who epitomizes this line in his thought, his
mode of behavior and his way of handling the work. After scrutinizing
all those facts and after making sure that all the requirements are
met, it would be natural then that the person harmonizes with this
participation and cooperates, through all the responsibilities that
are assigned to him and with all the possible capacities and energies
that he enjoys, in order to achieve the great objectives. Political parties, jurists and members Q:
What is the role of
the religious authority from which the party obtains the legitimacy of
its practice? So, supporting the theory of the jurists’ rule, the
said party must be and work in agreement with the jurists as to the
behavioral patterns wherever the jurists have the right to exercise
their power and authority. Upholding the second theory (that is, those
who do not believe in the rule of the jurists), the party must adhere,
harmoniously, to the edicts issued by the jurist so that its course of
action would be based, in all its forms and aspects, on an authentic
legitimacy granted by the edict. But the problem we are facing in the reality of the
jurisprudential authorities is that regarding their organizational
structure; those authorities were not founded on the basis of
embracing the Islamic movements’ activity in the political arena or
the Islamic activity in the cultural field or in any other domain. The
religious authority is still an individualistic state, which does not
set from a comprehensive plan; it rather decides on its moves
according to the nature of the urgent situations dictated by some
specific occasions. As a consequence, the relationship between the
party and the jurisprudential authority becomes dependant on the
jurisprudential edicts if the person who leads the Islamic party was
not a jurisprudent who has the right of issuing edicts and stating his
opinion with relation to all other opinions. Thus, we find that the issue in the jurisprudential
authorities did not reach the stage of creating the various and
suitable atmospheres, which can embrace the political, social and
cultural positions of the movement but under a very particular
framework. Therefore, this relation between the Islamic parties and
the jurisprudential authorities, whether within the context of the
jurists’ rule or the context of jurisprudential edicts, turns out to
be a theoretical matter that drifts from the elements of reality if we
wanted to look at the issue as an organic and practical connection. On this basis, I believe that the party has to
acquire the legitimacy of its movement by carrying out a relationship
with the jurisprudential authority or rule in one way or another but
at the same time it has to have a leadership or a
quasi-jurisprudential leadership that establishes harmony and balance
in its movement on both the theoretical as well as the practical
levels. In short, if the jurist did not have the effective
and executive power over the movement of the Islamic reality; but he
has, on the other hand, the legislative authority (meaning that he can
issue edicts); in such case, he can exercise no power over the party
and his orders will not be binding for the latter – like those orders
rendered by ruling jurists - because he is not part of the absolute
rule. His role would rather be that of guiding, orienting, advising,
and issuing edicts concerning the causes of the party. Then again, if the jurist did actually enjoy the
power of taking effective actions in the Islamic reality - according
to the theory of the rule of the jurists – and he did have the bodies
and systems that can work with the Islamic organizations and parties,
it would be natural then that the relationship with him – according to
this theory – turns out to be a relationship with the legal Islamic
leadership that directs people, in their moves and actions, through
the right Islamic path in life. Subsequently, the issue must be arranged in the way
that would be compatible with the approach adopted by the ruling
jurists and the course followed by the party or the organization in
the fateful and momentous cases pertaining to the position that is
being defended or worked for and the position that is being targeted
and concerned with. * Taken from: www.bayynat.org
A: There is no obstacle hindering such
relationship for God says: {Allah forbids you not, with regard to
those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your
homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those
who are just}; (60: 8). Moreover, God wants us to discuss with the
people of the Book in a friendly manner, to come to common terms with
them, and to open up to them in one way or another without any problem
in this respect. Thus, this kind of relationships is not forbidden
except for when it comes to facing some critical points that might,
sometimes, make the relationship forbidden if it involved something
forbidden or loathed.
Q: Let us say that I belong to a certain
political movement and I found that it embraces some deviations. What
shall I do in order not to fall prey to some legal breaching?
A: When the human being adheres to a
certain political movement abiding by its orders, obligations,
attitudes, restrictions; participating in its struggles with others
and so on… he should make sure that it is honestly taking the right
path in order to guarantee that his involvement with this movement
will remain within God’s law and order. But if he finds that the
movement is carrying out some deviational acts, which might lead him
to commit a certain wrongdoing or to abandon a certain duty, he must
then play the role of its critical voice and work toward correcting it
through all possible means.
However, if he fails to fulfill the said aim, the most obvious and
natural thing would therefore be not to proceed with the wrongdoing.
Then again, the question of him staying a member in the movement
remains depending on the positive or negative outcomes showing at the
level of the great causes represented by the movement. So, if
belonging to this movement, even with some mistakes, deviations and
contraventions, would serve the great and noble objectives of Islam;
in that case, he has the right to maintain his membership. Quite the
reverse, if his presence represents a false witness, if he is not
serving any Islamic great cause or goal; then he ought to leave.
Q: Attempting at correcting the movement
or the party might necessitate trespassing some of the party’s laws
and regulations. Well, does that give rise to any legal problem?
A: First: this differs according to the
kind of commitment that the human being undertakes when he adheres to
the movement. Second: he must study all the negative and positive
aspects that might occur during the destabilization of the movement’s
general order. He must also examine and evaluate all the consequences
that will arise from exposing the movement to the atmosphere of the
struggle with the purpose of correcting it. So, if the results were
greater and more beneficial, he should pursue his goal consulting the
people of experience and wisdom in the issue, if he happened to be
lacking the objective experience in this respect.
Q: Is there any contradiction between the
services and donations that the person offers to his Islamic movement
or organization in order to grant it a high reputation and the
principle of approaching God and worshipping Him alone?
A: If granting the movement a good
Islamic reputation contributes in endowing it with considerable
chances to achieve its Islamic objectives and to increase its
importance in the eyes of people, which in return might lead to some
significant results at the level of the great Islamic causes it aims
to realize; in such case, doing so would be one of the deeds that make
the person closer to God. And we mean by the deed that makes you
closer to God the one that reaches God either directly or indirectly.
So, if we are talking about a person who belongs to an Islamic
movement or to any Islamic position that can make a difference at the
level of the great causes or that can become widely spread in the
general Islamic reality and attain this point of being able to
accomplish its goals through the best feasible means - assuming that
those goals redound to the great benefit of Islam - his work and
effort to allow the movement the highly ranked position and the good
name would, therefore, serve the fulfillment of the great objectives
that please God and his deeds will consequently narrow the distance
between him and God .
Q: What would be your response to the one
who says that parties are one way to destroy and divide society?
A: Actually, the core issue here is not
parties. It is rather fanaticism that fragments society and those who
are talking this way are, in fact, talking about fanatic parties.
Besides, we see no difference between being fanatic of a party or
fanatic of a person. We find that some people invite other people to
become fanatically devoted to them and they speak negatively about
some people’s fanaticism of certain parties. Naturally, the question
of being fanatic of some person will turn into a question of idolizing
this person especially if he does not represent an extension of the
general Islamic or social reality. Hence, we say that there is a
difference between someone speaking about rejecting the system of
parties and someone speaking about rejecting fanaticism; whether it
was related to parties, confessionalism, persons, and so on and so
forth.
Q: What do you think of the saying that
the religious scholar should not be involved in a party because his
endeavors would then be employed for the sake of the party and not for
the sake of God?
A: We should understand first what a
party member means. Being a party member is adopting a certain point
of view with regard to the means that enable the human being to
achieve his great Islamic goals (if he was a Muslim). Thus, it is not
natural to deny the religious scholar his right to believe or to
cooperate with a certain path or movement which might actualize the
Islamic objectives through these various and realistic means if there
were no other possible means that can furnish Islam with power,
openness and progress. Nevertheless, there is another point to be
taken into consideration; that is, when this scholar follows a certain
movement, party or path, he must not imprison himself inside the
traditional and fanatical circle of this party; nay, he must keep his
belonging to this party opened to the Nation, where his mind, heart
and behavior are always in the service of the Nation as a whole.
And as we have already said that there is a difference between living
in a limited and narrow corner strangled by fanaticism, separating
yourself or your path from others, and belonging to a party that opens
up to the Nation and that deploys all its efforts to serve the Nation
through the general principles in this respect. In fact, if we set, in
this subject, from the logic that refuses for the human being to
belong to a certain path, which aims at realizing the objectives
through certain means; we can say that it would also be wrong for the
human being to join an assembly, a council or any other private,
social or political institutions.
Accordingly, if this party is a party that treads in the right Islamic
track that pleases God ; adhering to it becomes a duty or an
obligation and not just a matter of permissibility and preference.
Truly, if we want to adopt the negative reasoning which says that a
religious scholar shall abstain from taking part in any party’s
activities, why not saying then that a person is not allowed to adopt
Islam as a religion when he is living in a pluralistic society - such
as Lebanon - and so he would have no right to profess his Islam
publicly, just as the Christian would have no right to profess his
Christianity publicly because the particularity of Islam and
Christianity divides the country and makes it susceptible to be
infected with fanaticism.
So, we conclude that there is a major difference between having the
personal right of belonging which constitutes a natural human state,
taking into account the divergence between people in their belongings
through the divergence of their interpretative judgments and their
convictions, and being fanatic of your belonging to the extent that
you deny others their belongings or you turn your belonging into an
aggressive state against others.
A: I have studied this edict and I found
that Sayyed Al --Sadr did not forbid belonging. He had rather
forbidden the religious scholar from declaring his belonging publicly,
under some specific subjective political circumstances, in a way that
puts him under pressures in his relation with the society at a
particular period; and, subsequently, he becomes unable to serve the
cause for the sake of which he has joined a certain party for. The
conclusion I inferred was that Sayyed Al- Sadr (May the mercy of Allah
be upon him) meant to draw the attention in this edict to the tactical
aspect of the issue and not the strategic one, in order to deal with
an urgent political condition.
Indeed, it cannot be that he denied the human being the right to
belong intellectually and practically to a certain political and
Islamic movement that convinces him. However, the religious scholar
must avoid becoming part of the circle of factional diversities
providing the basis according to which people are classified, judged
and treated. Belonging to this or that person or party might, in fact,
impede one’s free movement and action in his openness to the Nation
and in the Nation’s openness to him which will consequently damage his
general role and responsibility towards the Nation. Hence, this issue
should be decided according to the nature of the positive or negative
results and according to the prevailing circumstances one is living.
Q: What are the limits and dimensions of
the Islamic factional activity from the legal standpoint?
A: Any Islamic party should make sure to
be opened to the Nation as a whole, to the Muslims who support it as
well as to the Muslims who oppose it even to those who find its
program and ideas too complicated for them. Indeed, any Islamic
activity must be opened to the Nation; as a matter of fact, it must
make the Nation its own responsibility.
So, while the party meets with those who advocate its cause, it
should, at the same time, maintain an active dialogue with those who
contradict it along with pursuing and serving their cause regardless
of whether their disagreement was in their approach, in their opinion,
or in anything else… Moreover, any Islamic party should never classify
people according to their factional affiliations evaluating their
Islamic commitment as walking hand in hand with their factional
beliefs and so they would embark on delivering different judgments
deciding that this person is a true Muslim and that person is a false
Muslim or something like that. We all know that God accepted people’s
submission - to His will - that sets from one’s wish or one’s fear and
not from a state of conviction and that is what the following Quranic
verse clearly expresses: {The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye
have no faith; but ye (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to
Allah,' for not yet has Faith entered your hearts….} (49: 14).
On this basis, we comprehend that He wanted to embrace all people and
to draw them away from getting attached to disbelief, even if their
belonging to Islam was fictitious. Hence the party should look at the
Nation broadly and not partially. In the light of what we have just
said, the party should not be fanatic when it comes to dealing with
another group or another Muslim party, which disagrees with it.
Nonetheless, it can dissent from such parties by competing against
them honestly; that is, through debating with them or through entering
into cultural or political conflicts with them in a way not to harm
the unity or the safety of the Nation.
And I want to lay emphasis on this particular point because the
arrogant plan or method now taking place in the existing regimes of
Islamic Nations is trying to isolate Muslim organizations’ adherents
from the political activity by not giving them the permission to form
a political party, or a political Islamic movement. Their made-up
excuse for doing so is that an Islamic party would imply that being a
Muslim is strictly exclusive to those who follow the party and any
other person is not. Their claim is that any party would only divide
and destroy the Nation.
We have already responded to this by saying that this logic would also
prove to be true when speaking about a national or a patriotic party
arguing that who adheres to it would be the national or the patriotic
while those who don’t lack any sense of nationalism or patriotism.
What we want to say is that; regardless of the reality and
practicability of their ideology or proposals at the political level,
Islamic parties should never grant those people the chance or the
excuse - validating their opinion – by the logic they adopt as to the
intellectual and behavioral approach of their factional existence. We
believe that the Islamic party represents a step forward in the
spreading of the Call. It acts according to the Islamic Call - as the
Prophet(p.) has planned for it – that embraces Muslims who joined
Islam to deepen their faith and religion; that opens new horizons for
those who didn’t adopt Islam as a religion for the sake of Islam and
its beliefs; and that sets from the basis of changing the non-Islamic
reality into an Islamic one.
On this account, the Islamic party ought to be opened to all the
Islamic reality and to all the horizons within the limits of which
Islam operates. Furthermore, the Islamic party has to work toward
sowing the Islamic thought in the mentality of the Nation and educate
its mind on the basis of the Islamic views regarding the creed, the
Sharia (the Islamic law), the political, social and economical
conceptions, and so on and so forth… And the party has to work at the
level that can produce an Islamic society or Nation where Islam can
live amidst its intellectual structure as well as its practical one.
Hence, we find that one of the party’s tasks is to aim at stimulating
the Islamic reality to move in harmony with the movement of the
political, social, economical, and security levels and paths.
Accordingly, the movement of the party has to resume the whole
movement of the Islamic Call theoretically and practically, to benefit
from all the existing energies in the Nation, and to improve the work
of this movement with the enough flexibility that saves it lots of
conflicts which might distract it a bit from accomplishing its program
and goals – and we are talking about those conflicts that might occur
in public religious authorities or anything similar to that.
The role of the Islamic party, as I see it, is the role of the herald
who is very open, when carrying out the Call, to Islam as a whole and
to human beings as a whole, exactly as the Messenger(p.) said - in
what Allah have said about him: {O men! I am sent unto you all, as the
Messenger of Allah} (The Heights; 7:158). The party must also be the
herald who invites people to Islam within the field of the Nation as a
whole…
Q:What would you respond to the one who
says that the party that wants to oppose the rule in a society of
different internal religious, confessional, or sectarian groups must
not work for the sake of a certain confession or sect; but it ought to
be a national party which seeks to benefit, in its objectives and
deeds, all of the Nation and not only a specific group?
A: I disagree with this point of view for
a simple reason; that is, the factional issue (even the one based on
the democratic trend) necessitates that each group of people would be
entitled to take actions on the ground according to its own
ideological beliefs and political agenda inviting people, inside or
outside the country, to adopt its thoughts considering that the varied
reality does not impose on the country or the people to maintain this
variation.
The movement of civilizations in the world lies in that all those who
have varied thoughts are dedicated in working towards attaining unity
by this variation and through dialogue. On this basis, we understand
that those who advocate this claim are thinking of the necessity to
freeze this reality, to freeze the religious or the tribal reality, or
to freeze this reality as a whole.
If we want to go along with this way of thinking, we could actually
say to Prophets you should not invite to your call those who do not
believe in what you are or those who are part of pluralistic societies
because by doing so you would be working towards changing the reality
in favor of your own thought and this might raise numerous problems in
society. Hence, we have to say for each one who adopts the Marxist or
the nationalist way of thinking or any other wide-ranging school of
thought that sets from a certain ideology or from certain political
patterns that lots of people disapprove in this context. Telling
prophets not to preach people who do not believe in their call; or the
people who disagree with them is, indeed, something that no civilized
person can admit.
Someone might say: you are working within the framework of your
Islamic sphere which means that you are not working for the country as
a whole. We respond to that by saying that by carrying Islam, we try
to open up to all people, we try to urge Muslims to comply with
Islam’s behavioral pattern so that they would serve its cause in
harmony, and we try to serve and assist non-Muslims by keeping the
channel of communication with them, we try to help them achieving
their cause even if they maintained their religious beliefs and did
not profess Islam as a religion.
If we want for example to take steps in a society where Christians and
Jews coexist with Muslims, then our movement in this case seeks the
benefit of all people without differentiation and we do know that
Islam has made room for concluding treaties with Christians and Jews
and not only with free non-Muslims enjoying Muslim protection.
Therefore, the Islamic State or the Islamic party should open up to
the causes of all people; that is, they should open up to the causes
of non-Muslims just as they open up to the causes of Muslims in
general, especially if we become aware of the fact that the questions
of economy, security and social balance cannot be fragmented within
the frame of one country because any state of imbalance that occurs
with non-Muslims will certainly create a similar one with Muslims with
regard to the country’s unity. Yes we are Muslims who take Islam as a
pattern in life and who take the charge of inviting people to Islam,
but through all of this we maintain the principle of serving all
people.
As Muslims we work toward confronting any oppression that any person,
even if he was a non-Muslim, might be inflicted with. In fact, we
stand against the oppressor, even if he was a Muslim, supporting the
oppressed, even if he was a non-Muslim, because God wanted us to be
just in our judgments and attitudes with all people and to be
benevolent with all people. Thus, we come to the conclusion that those
people are wrong to think that the Islamic party, the Islamic movement
or the Islamic call are limited, in their deeds and goals, to Islamic
communities and surroundings and are careless to what happens outside
their environment. Indeed, the reality is totally nothing like that.
During all epochs, Islamic experiences have proved that despite of all
its reservations with respect to lots of its programs, plans and
approaches, the Islamic State was a State for both Muslims and
non-Muslims. Moreover, the Messenger(p.) recommended that the
covenanter or the free non-Muslim (under Muslim rule) would be taken
care of the same way as Muslims. And that is what we find today in the
Iranian experience, which turned into an Islamic Republic. We find it
is opened to non-Muslims as much as it is opened to Muslims; besides,
it grants non-Muslims all their rights according to their size and
proportion in society
Q: These thoughts do not deny each party
the right to invite people to adopt its own principles were they
Muslims or non-Muslims, but they oblige the party, the coalition, or
whatever bloc wanting to rule to be devoted for everybody all the
same, and without any distinction between categories so that everyone
would be able to work freely and to call people to his own thoughts
and theories; is that what you are saying?
A: There is a difference between the
committed line and the non-committed one. In the non-committed
approach, people’s actions and moves in the political arena are
decided based on democracy where no thought is more preferable or
worthier than the other, because legitimacy is defined according to
what is mutually agreed upon by people; that is what democracy means.
On the other hand, we have the committed and unwavering line such as
Islam, Marxism, and so on… The core issue here is that Islam cannot
impose itself by force as it sets to preach its Call (especially
amidst the prevailing circumstances), even if it had succeeded once in
doing so in some countries and that is because we are speaking from
the realistic and practical perspective away from the absolute
theorization.
On this basis, we say that when we live in a pluralistic society such
as the Lebanese one; I think that we have the right to exhort and
encourage people to convert to Islam through all possible means. We
have the right to do everything we can to make people support us and
that could be either by convincing them of the idea of following
Islam, by convincing them of our political line only, or simply
because they might see us better than others – a possibility valid
only when there is no chance that they would be the alternative. In
such a case, it would be normal that people rally around us even
through the democratic way which we might discuss as to its pattern
and intellectual bases; but which also could be our resort in making
lots of decisions and taking lots of steps on the ground as what
happened in Iran; the Islamic Republic. Hence, the prevalence of Islam
- resulting from the act of persuasion or from the state of popularity
- is not considered, in any way, as a rejection, a negation or an
annulment of others; nay, ever since it was launched and until this
very day, Islam lives in harmony with others whether they were
followers of other religions or other trends and that is according to
the plan it had laid for dealing with other entities.
As for national, racial, or confessional diversities residing within
the same society, Islam grants them their rights under the general
system. So, nothing would keep Islam from guaranteeing the Turks,
Kurds, or Persians who live in an Islamic state the freedom of
enjoying their own culture, preserving their own language, and
carrying out their own customs and traditions which are not in
contradiction with the Islamic Sharia. Therefore, people who live in
an Islamic state are not suffering from racial discrimination because;
even if those who rule the country were Arabs, they have no right to
make from their Arab particularity a reason upon which they base their
persecution of the other existing particularities. Indeed, God wants
us to acknowledge the presence of different nations and tribes as in
His saying : {And made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know
each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most
honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous
of you.} (49:13).
Thus, Islam does not cancel the distinctive individuality of nations,
or families; nevertheless, it refuses that these individualities turn
into principles that separate people from one another. Actually, Islam
seeks to make from these individualities a challenging element that
urges people to get to know each other considering that each group of
people will offer the other the privilege of learning about its
peculiarity and its experience. That is why the Islamic society
suffers from no problem with regard to its racial, confessional,
tribal, national, etc… diversities. In this sense, we believe that
there is no problem (from a theoretical perspective not from a
practical one) with those diversities that move according no
ideological or principled approach.
Sometimes Muslims do not represent the larger group in a society, or
they might be of equal proportion with others and so they turn to be
unable to reach the reins of power and control; even in such cases,
nothing would prevent Muslims from addressing everybody with the call
of Islam. In fact, problems might occur if you apply pressure on
others, if you oppress them or you force them to do something against
their will. But if you were of a civilized style and manner in
presenting your thought to others, if you work toward carrying out
conversations and debates with them concerning this thought, if you
seek, through your efforts within your political line, the interest of
all people; if you manage to lead such a behavioral pattern leaving
the final choice, negative or positive, for your addressee themselves,
then no problem will emerge. Take for example Lebanon , in Lebanon we
can propose Islam as the base of thought, emotion and life where you
open up to the cultural, political, social, and economic aspect to
address Christians as well as Muslims, because some Muslims do not
adopt this thought.
So, we, as Muslims, move in society as inviters; calling people to
open up to the Islamic thought and as party workers; seeking out the
great causes and objectives which redound to the benefit of the
country as a whole. As a matter of fact, you cannot serve Muslims –
even if you had an Islamic particularity – if you do not open up to
Christians, or else we will never be able to resolve our social,
economic, and security problem in Lebanon because what we have in this
country is an integrated society and not a separated one. Hence, I
cannot imagine any proposal of the Islamic thought as an active
thought which opens up to reality but through the civilized methods
that God has fixed in the principle {Invite (all) to the Way of thy
Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching} (16: 125). {Say to My
servants that they should (only) say those things that are best} ( 17:
53 ). {Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and
thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!} ( 41: 34).
{Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from
Error} (2: 256). And we have numerous examples of Islamic beliefs
telling us that the thought of Islam must be optionally adhered to by
people when presented to them in the cultural and political reality
and not to be imposed on them as a compulsive force leaving them with
no chance for any opinion.
Q: What do you think of setting an
Islamic state in Lebanon ; a slogan which might be raised by some of
the country’s Muslims?
A: In light of the international and
regional reality, the world political situation, and Lebanon ’s
internal situation; I think that there are no possible chances for
setting an Islamic state in Lebanon .
Q: So, what is the slogan that the
Muslims of Lebanon can raise and call for?
A: Muslims call for Islam should remain a
call to the consciousness of modern human beings. The question of
Islam is not a question of sectarianism as sectarian people are trying
to picture and consequently dealing with on this basis. Islam is a
movement of thought, just as Christianity is also a movement of
thought. And that is why we said to Christians we propose Islam in
this complete and integral way so as to take it out from this
sectarian sphere where it has been placed, as much as we want you to
propose Christianity in the same way to remove those sectarian and
tribal fences that are encircling it. As a consequence, we can meet on
the Islamic-Christian values knowing that they are values of Divine
Messages; they are values encouraging dialogues …etc.
Hence, we must keep on proposing Islam as one of the means of ruling.
We used to say that we are working toward Islamizing the whole world,
just as Christians are endeavoring to Christianize the world, just as
any party in the world deploys all possible efforts and exertions to
receive acknowledgment and to spread its thoughts and beliefs, just as
America attempts at Americanizing the world, and so on and so forth…
So, we are not talking about some heresy here.
On this basis, we conclude that a civilized person cannot prevent you
from propounding your own doctrine or ideology in the world leaving
for people the choice of accepting or rejecting it, provided that you
present your thoughts in a civilized manner that shows respect to the
convictions of the human being and that honor his mind and beliefs,
and that you make from dialogues and discussions your means to fulfill
your desired goal. Nonetheless, when we feel that we cannot arrive at
setting the Islamic rule, we should make sure that Muslims and
Christians live together under their common Islamic and Christian
values which are based on the causes of liberty {that we worship none
but Allah.}( 3: 64), on the belief in the One God, on the principle of
taking care of the affairs of all people and on the standard of
showing consideration for the causes of justice under the general
causes. In fact, there is more than one aspect or field where we can
work in order to strengthen Muslims, to enable them to cooperate with
other groups dealing with them from a position of power.
Q: where are the Muslim individual’s
limits with regard to his activities in the Islamic party?
Here, we must discuss the necessity of the affiliation with any group
seeking out the benefit of Islam because some people who believe in
adhering to the supreme authority, the party, and the like might
disapprove it. We must examine this particular point to see that the
great objectives emanate from a collective state and not from an
individualistic one because regardless of the capacities that he
enjoys, the individual cannot achieve those objectives all by himself
even the one who has the character of the leader cannot achieve them
but through the help of the people that he leads and who believe in
him. Accordingly, the human being who does not live for himself but
rather for his religion, Nation and all his surrounding reality and
that through all the aspirations that he seeks to fulfill, the goals
that he aims at accomplishing and the responsibilities that he pledges
to abide by; that person ought to belong to a public group or party
which has the organizational and managerial power that can divide
goals according to positions and decide on attitudes according to
stages in order to reach definitive results in achieving direct or
future strategy.
Hence, the idea that the human being belongs to a public association
is a question of the human being’s need to actualize the relationship
with others according to a studied and organized plan that embraces
all energies and capacities, and that investigates very carefully the
various stages in order to attain its sought after objectives…
A: The issue of the party’s religious
authority must be carefully taken into consideration with regard to
the legitimacy of its line. If we find that this religious authority
sets from the jurisprudential authority, it becomes clear then that in
order to guarantee its legitimacy; any group would want to rely on
this authority as its constant reference. In fact, the religious
authority is the one that enjoys the general guardianship if we want
to follow the theory believing in the general rule of the jurists; or
it is the one that enjoys the authority of issuing edicts (so to
speak) according to those who believe in the jurists as competent
authorities only.
Q: What shall the person, who has been
chosen to lead a party, do with regard to this question if he
succeeded a jurist that did believe in the concept of ‘the rule of the
jurists’ or a jurist who did not?
A: Actually, he might be able to join the
two opinions. The person who has been selected to lead a party and who
does not believe in the ‘rule of the jurists’, must examine the nature
of the issues pronounced by the ruling jurist. If those issues were
forbidden according to his predecessor, then there is no question that
he should not adopt or follow them, unless they can be studied from
another angle that could make them necessary or allowed. But if they
were not forbidden, if they were lawful and permissible and there were
some Islamic interests that could require them; in this case, he must
follow the ruling jurist in this respect, not out of observance and
obedience to his rule but out of the obligation to fulfill whatever
represents the supreme Islamic interest.
for more details:
| with Christians and Jews |