The intellectual leadership of Islam agrees with man's nature (fiTrah). In spite of its depth it is easily understood. One's heart and mind are quickly opened to it, eagerly trying to understand it and pondering over its details with appreciation. This is because religiousness is instinctive in man. Every man is religious by his nature and no power can remove from him this nature (fiTrah), because it is deeply rooted in him. Man, by nature, feels that he is incomplete and that there is a greater power which deserves to be sanctified. Man's instinct of religiousness is the need for the Creator the Organiser that arises from his natural weakness. This instinct of religiousness is constant and has a specific manifestation, which is the sanctification (taqdees). Consequently, mankind is religious and has always worshipped something throughout history. Humanity has worshipped man, planets, stones, animals, fire and other things. Islam, however, with its doctrine came to lead man away from worshipping created things to the worship of Allah (swt) who created everything. The advent of the materialistic ideology, which denies the existence of Allah (swt) and our relationship with Him (swt), could not put an end to this innate religiousness. However, it shifted man's conception of power greater than himself and of his sanctification of this power. It shifted all that to conceiving this power in men and made his sanctification to them alone. It is as if it went backward, and shifted people's sanctification from worshipping Allah (swt) to worshipping the servants (of Allah), away from venerating the ayat of Allah (swt) to venerating the words of the created. So it was backward in that regard. It could not eliminate the nature (fiTrah) of religiousness; it rather, deceitfully shifted it backward. Therefore, the intellectual leadership of the materialistic ideology (Communism) is a negative leadership, which disagrees with man's nature. Therefore it is a failure from this perspective. It only manipulates the people through appealing to their stomach. It attracts the poor, the scared and the defeated ones. Those who adhere to it are those low in their thinking, the failures in life and resentful of it and those mentally devious who aspire to be known as intellectuals when they chatter about the theory of dialectics whose falsehood and corruption are so visible by both the intellect and reality. It resorts to force to subjugate people to its ideology. Hence, oppression, suppression, anarchy, turmoil, destruction and instability are its most important instruments.
The Capitalistic intellectual leadership likewise disagrees with man's nature (fiTrah) i.e. the instinct of religiousness. This is because the instinct of religiousness manifests itself in sanctification as well as in management of man's affairs in life. The inconsistency and contradictions appear when man undertakes this management; testifying to man's inability. Consequently, the deen (revealed from the Creator) must manage man's affairs in life. Thus the separation of the deen from life contradicts man's nature (fiTrah). The presence of the deen in life does not mean making the functions of life religious rites. Rather, the presence of the deen in life means making the system that Allah (swt) ordained, solve man's problems in life. This system emanates from the ‘aqeedah, which agrees with man's nature (fiTrah). Removing this system and replacing it with a system which emanates from a creed that disagrees with the instinct of religiousness disagrees with man's nature (fiTrah). Therefore, the intellectual leadership of Capitalism fails from the instinctive (fiTriy) aspect because it is a negative one, for it separates the deen from life, banishes religiousness from life and making it an individualistic issue and removes Allah's (swt) system which He ordained, from solving man's problems.
The Islamic intellectual leadership is positive since it establishes the mind as the basis for the belief in the existence of Allah (swt). It draws man's attention to the elements of the universe, man and life to conclusively and decisively establish the existence of Allah (swt), the Creator of these things. It defines for man the utmost perfection which he innately searches for and does not exist in him, the life, or the universe and directs man's mind to this utmost (Supreme) power so as to realise His existence and believe in Him
The Communist intellectual leadership is built upon materialism and not the intellect though the mind concludes it. It considers that matter exists before thought and matter is the origin of all things, hence it is materialistic. The Capitalist intellectual leadership however, is based upon a compromise solution reached after a bloody struggle between the clergy and the intellectuals, which had lasted for many centuries and it resulted with the idea of separation of the deen from the state.
Therefore, both the Communist and Capitalist intellectual leaderships failed since they contradict man's nature (fiTrah) and are not built upon the intellect.
In conclusion, of the three intellectual leaderships, only the Islamic intellectual leadership is correct, because it is built upon the mind, it agrees with man's nature (fiTrah) and, thus man positively responds to it. While the other intellectual leaderships are false because they are not built upon the mind and they disagree with man's nature (fiTrah). That is, the intellectual leadership in communism is built on materialism and not on the mind. This is because it maintains that matter precedes thought i.e. it precedes the mind. Thus when matter is reflected onto the brain it initiates thought in it, so it (the brain) thinks in the matter that was reflected on it. Prior to the reflection of the matter onto the brain there was no thought, and accordingly everything is built upon matter. Consequently, the origin of the Communist intellectual leadership is matter and not thought.
This perspective is wrong for two reasons: The first: There is no reflection between matter and brain; neither the brain is reflected on matter, nor matter is reflected on the brain. This is because reflection requires that objects be endowed with the characteristic of reflection, such as a mirror, for reflection to happen. This characteristic is not possessed by the brain or by the matter. Therefore, there is no reflection at all between matter and the brain, because matter is not reflected on the brain, nor is it transferred to it. Rather, the sensation of the matter is transferred to the brain through the senses. The sensation of matter to the brain is not a reflection of matter to the brain, nor a reflection of the brain to matter; it is only the sensation of matter. In this regard there is no difference between sight and the other senses in the sensing of matter. Thus sensation occurs by smelling, hearing, touching and tasting as it occurs by seeing. Therefore, what happens is not reflection on the brain but rather it is sensation of the things. Accordingly, man senses things through his five senses and things are not reflected on the brain.
The second: Sensation alone does not produce thought, but merely produces sensation i.e. a sensation of the tangible object. Sensation, plus sensation, plus a million sensations will still only produce a sensation and no thought at all. In order for man to think, he must have previous information through which he can explain the sensed matter. For example, if a book in the ancient Syriac language was given to someone who has no previous information about the Syriac language, and all his senses were made to fall on the book, by sight and touch, and this was repeated a million times, he still would not be able to understand a single word of the book unless he is given the relevant information about the Syriac language. Thereafter, he will start thinking and understanding. Let us take another example of a child with sound senses but with no previous information. If we were to place in front of the child a piece of gold, brass and a stone and make all his senses, sense these things the child would not be able to comprehend them, no matter how much this sensation was diversified and repeated. However, if the child was given previous information about them, he would use this information to comprehend them. Were the child to grow up to be twenty years of age without any information he would remain as his first day of life, regardless of the biological growth in the brain. Since it is not the brain that enables man to comprehend, rather it is the previous information together with the brain and the sensed object. As for the instinctual behaviour, in contrast to the intellectual process in man, it results as a mere response to the instincts and organic needs, a matter, which occurs with animals as well as man. For example, a baby recognises through giving him an apple and stone repeatedly, that the apple can be eaten while the stone cannot. Likewise, the donkey recognises that barley is edible but soil is not. This differentiation occurs not through thought or intellect, but through the response to the instincts and the organic needs, which are present in animals and man. Thus thought cannot be produced unless previous information is coupled with the transference of the sensed thing through the senses to the brain.
Accordingly, the mind, intellect, or comprehension can be defined as the transmission of a sensed object through the senses to the brain and the existence of previous information by which this reality is explained.
Therefore, the Communist intellectual leadership is both false and incorrect, because it is not built upon the mind and the meaning of the thought and mind in its understanding is false.
The Capitalist intellectual leadership is built on a compromise solution agreed upon by the clergy and the intellectuals after their bloody conflict which lasted for many centuries. This compromised solution is the separation of the deen from life i.e., the implicit acknowledgement of the deen while separating it from life. Thus, the Capitalist intellectual leadership is not built on the mind, it is rather based on this compromise solution. Indeed, the idea of a compromise is deeply rooted in the Capitalists who draw the truth (haqq) near to the falsehood (baTil) and imaan near to Kufr, the light (nur) near the dark (DHalam). This is despite the fact that the compromise solution does not exist because the matter is either the haqq or the baTil, imaan or Kufr and light or darkness.The compromise on which they have built their doctrine and intellectual leadership has made them swerve from the truth, the iman and the light. Therefore, this intellectual leadership is not built on the mind thus it is false.
However, the Islamic doctrine is built upon the mind, because it obliges the Muslim to believe in the existence of Allah (swt), in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) and the Qur'an, through the use of the mind. It obliges the Muslim to believe in the ghaib, (things beyond the senses) on the condition that it is mentioned in a source which was conclusively proven rationally like the Qur'an or hadith mutawatir. Thus, the Islamic creed is based upon the intellect. This is from the rational perspective. However with regards to man's nature (fiTrah), the Islamic intellectual leadership agrees with man's nature (fiTrah) since it recognises the existence of deen, its necessity in life and the obligation to manage life according to the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt). Religiousness is innate (fiTriy) in man since it is one of man's instincts with its own response, namely sanctification, which is a natural response to a specific instinct that differs from all the other responses of other instincts. Thus, the belief in deen and the obligation to live according to the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) is instinctive. It agrees with man's nature (fiTrah) and therefore responds positively to man.
This differs from the Communist and the Capitalistic leaderships, each of which disagrees with man's nature (fiTrah). The Communist intellectual leadership denies the existence of deen absolutely and opposes its recognition. Accordingly, it contradicts man's nature (fiTrah). The Capitalist intellectual leadership neither recognises nor denies deen. It does not make the recognition or denial of deen an issue for discussion. However, it insist on the separation of deen from life and advocates that life be managed according to benefit with no relation to deen. Therefore, it contradicts man's nature (fiTrah). This disagrees with the nature (fiTrah) and stands far away from it.
The Islamic intellectual leadership therefore, is the only correct intellectual leadership because it agrees with man's nature and mind; all other intellectual leaderships are false. Accordingly, the Islamic intellectual leadership is the only correct and successful intellectual leadership.
One question remains: Did the Muslims implement Islam, or did they only embrace its doctrine while implementing other systems and laws? The answer to this question is that Muslims implemented only Islam through all the ages from the arrival of Rasool Allah to Madinah until 1336 A.H i.e. 1918 C.E when the Islamic State collapsed at the hands of colonialism. The Muslims implementation of Islam was comprehensive and its success in their comprehensive implementation was overwhelming.
The practical implementation of Islam is undertaken by two entities having the responsibility to implement the system. They are: The judge who is responsible for settling disputes between people, and the ruler who governs the people. It has been narrated through successive reports (tawatur) that the judges who settled the disputes between people from the time of the Messenger (saw) till the demise of the Khilafah in Istanbul, settled the disputes in all affairs with the laws of the Shari’ah. This is whether the disputes were between Muslims or between Muslims and non-Muslims. The courts that settled disputes, such as infringement of rights, family matters, criminal prosecution, etc. were under one single court based on the Islamic Shari’ah only. No one ever reported that even one case had been settled according to other than the Islamic Shari’ah rules or even one court in the Islamic countries has ever judged with other than Islam before the courts were divided into shar’ai and nizami (civil) under the regular influence of colonialism. The clearest proof of this is contained in the records of the shar’ai courts preserved in the old cities of Jerusalem, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo and Istanbul etc. These records are a conclusive proof that only the Shari’ah was implemented by the judges. Even non-Muslims used to study and write Islamic fiqh like Saleem al-Baz, who wrote a commentary on al-Majallah. Laws that were introduced towards the demise of the state, were introduced on the basis of the scholars fatwa that such laws do not contradict the AHkam Shari’ah. Consequently, the 'Uthmani penal code was introduced for application in 1275 A.H (1857 C.E.) and the Law of Rights and Trade was introduced in 1276 A.H (1858 C.E). This was followed in 1288 A.H (1870 C.E) by dividing of the courts into two: Shari’ah courts and official law courts and a decree was passed to arrange this division. In 1295 A.H (1877 C.E) a law was issued to regulate statuary courts. In 1296 A.H (1878 C.E) the Rights and Penalties Procedure was issued. Since the 'ulema'a did not find any justification to use the civil law, it was put aside and the Shari’ah magazine (al-Majallah) was issued in 1286 A.H (1868 C.E.) as a canon for transactions. All these canons were issued as rules permitted by Islam and were not enacted except, as clearly spelled out in the decrees introducing the canons, after a fatwa was given to allow them and after being permitted by the Sheikh al-Islam. The colonialist authorities since 1918 C.E. have occupied some Islamic lands and were settling disputes over the civil cases according to non-Islamic laws. Whereas, those countries which were not physically occupied by colonialist armies, although they are under its influence, continued to rule judicially according to Islam until recently, such as Afghanistan and the Arabian peninsula i.e. Hijaz, Najd and Kuwait, though the rulers in these countries no longer implement Islam. Accordingly, we observe that Islam was implemented judicially and no other law was applied in the judiciary throughout all the ages of the Islamic State.
The implementation of Islam by the ruler is represented in AHkam Sharai'ah related to five areas: social, economics, education, foreign affairs and ruling. The AHkam Sharai'ah relating to these matter were all implemented by the state. The social system defines the relationship between men and women and the matters that arise as a result of this relationship i.e. personal status. Alone the Shari’ah is still applied in the social system in spite of the presence of the colonial powers in the Islamic lands and the presence of Kufr ruling; definitely no other system has been implemented. Concerning the economic system, it is represented in two ways, firstly the way in which the state collects public revenue in order to look after the peoples affairs, secondly, the way in which this revenue is spent. As far as collecting revenue is concerned, the State collects the zakat due on money, land and livestock as an obligatory worship and is exclusively distributed amongst the eight categories mentioned in the Qur'an. The State never used the zakat fund for managing its expenditures. The State collected the necessary funds for its expenditures according to the Shari’ah. Thus, it collected kharaj over the land, jizyah from non-Muslims, and customs duties in its capacity as the supervisor over internal and external trade. The State did not collect funds except according to the Shari’ah. As for funds distribution, the state had a nafaqah system (financial support) for the disabled, placed the safeeh (incompetent) and mubaddir (the one who spends his wealth on haram) under guardianship and established lodgings in every city and along the roads to the pilgrimage to assist the poor, destitute and the travellers. These relics can still be seen in major Muslim cities. The State's expenditure was solely governed by the Shari’ah and by no other system. Any deficiency that may be noticed in this field was due to negligence and misapplication and not due to the absence of (shar’a) implementation.
The foundation of the educational policy was Islamic and the Islamic culture constituted the basis of the curriculum. Care was exercised to ensure that foreign culture was not adopted if it contradicted Islam. The neglect in opening schools towards the demise of the Ottoman state was typical of all the Islamic countries at that time, due to the intellectual decline which reached its lowest level in that period. In all the other ages of the Islamic State, it was well known that only the Islamic land was the qiblah of the scholars and students. The universities in Cordoba, Baghdad, Damascus, Alexandria and Cairo had a tremendous effect on the course of education throughout the world.
The foreign policy of the Islamic State was founded upon Islam. The Islamic State built its relationship with all other states on the basis of Islam and all other states dealt with it as an Islamic State. All of its external relationships were based on Islam and the interest of Muslims. It is known all over the world that the foreign policy of the Islamic State was an Islamic policy, to the extent that no evidence is required.
With regards to the ruling system, the structure of the state in Islam is established upon eight pillars: the Khaleefah, i.e., the head of State, the Khaleefah's delegated assistants (Mo'aawen TafweeD), the Khaleefah’s executing assistants (Mo'aawen Tanfeedh), the Ameer of Jihad, the Governors (Wulah), the Judges (QuDah)), state departments, and the state assembly (Majlis al-Ummah). This structure existed and Muslims have never been without a Khaleefah until at the hands of Mustapha Kemal, the disbelieving (Kafir) colonial powers abolished the Khilafah in 1342 A.H (1924 C.E). The existence of a Khaleefah for the Muslims, prior to its removal, had been continuous. Whenever a Khaleefah died or was removed, he was succeeded by another, even during the era of decline. Since the Islamic State is the Khaleefah, it means that when a Khaleefah is present the Islamic State exists. As for his assistants in ruling and execution they were present in all ages and were assistants and not wazirs. Although, they were named wazirs during the 'Abbassid era they were assistants and did not possess the capacity of ministers (wazirs) present in the democratic system at all, they were rather assistants in ruling and execution by authorisation from the Khaleefah, while all the executive powers were in the hands of the Khaleefah. The existence of the governors (wulah), judges (quDah) and state departments was obvious. When the kuffar occupied the lands, all their affairs had been running and there were therein governors, judges and state departments, a matter that does not need any evidence. As for the ameer of jihad, he used to run the affairs of the army in its capacity as an Islamic army all over the world, it was known to be undefeated. With regards to the Majlis al-Ummah, after the era of the Khulafaa ar-Rashidun, its existence was not given much attention. The reason for that is that it is one of the ruling structure but not one of its pillars. Shura is one of the rights of the people upon the Khaleefah. Thus, if he neglects it he would be negligent, but the ruling system would still remain Islamic. This is because the shura (consultation) in Islam is for seeking the opinion and not for ruling. This is contrary to the parliamentary system in democracy. Therefore, it is clear that the Islamic ruling system was applied.
A question may arise concerning the bai’ah (pledge) to the Khaleefah. It is an established fact that there was no hereditary system in the Khilafah. In other words, the hereditary system was not established in the state, by which ruling i.e. the state leadership was acquired as is the case in the monarchy. Instead, the State leadership would be acquired through receiving the bai’ah from the Muslims in some eras, from the influential people (ahle al-halli wal-'aqd) in later eras or as what occurred towards the demise of the state from the Sheikh al-Islam. Throughout the ages of the Islamic State, the procedure was that no Khaleefah was appointed without receiving bai’ah. Never was a single incident reported that the Khaleefah was appointed through inheritance without receiving bai’ah. However, notwithstanding this, the manner of attaining bai’ah was misapplied. Thus, a Khaleefah would take a bai’ah from the people before his death for his son, brother, cousin, or any other individual of the family. After the death of the Khaleefah the bai’ah was renewed for that person. This is a misapplication of the bai’ah but it neither constitutes hereditary rule or succession to the throne. Likewise, the misapplication of the elections in a parliamentary or a democratic system is still called elections and not an appointment even if the government-backed candidates succeed in the elections. Consequently, one must acknowledge that the Islamic system was applied throughout all periods of the Islamic State.
As for the practical success of the Islamic intellectual leadership, it was without parallel particularly in the following two matters: Firstly, the Islamic ideology transferred all of the Arabs from a low level of intellect in which they were acting haphazardly in the darkness of bloody family feuds and ignorance to an age of intellectual revival glittering in the light of Islam whose sunrise was not restricted to the Arabs but prevailed all over the world. Muslims rushed in conveying Islam to the world, putting their hands in the process over Persia, Iraq, the lands of ash-Sham, Egypt and North Africa. Each of these peoples had their own religion, nationality, language, customs and traditions. All were different from one another. The nationality of Persians differed from that of the Romans of Sham, from that of the Copts of Egypt and from that of the Berbers of North Africa. Once they lived under the rule of Islam and understood it, they all embraced it and became one nation (Ummah), the Islamic Ummah. Therefore the success of the Islamic intellectual leadership in melting these peoples and nationalities into one nation was unparalleled. This is in spite of the fact that the means of transportation at the time was the camel and the means of communication was the word of the mouth and the writing of the pen.
Al-FatH (conquer), however was to remove by force the physical obstacles to give the people free access towards what their minds and their innate (fiTrah) guides them to. In this manner people entered Islam in masses. On the other hand, the oppressive conquering (fatH) of countries alienates the conquerors from the conquered. For example, the colonisation of the East by Western imperialism lasted for decades without gaining any result. If it was not for the influence of the deceptive Western culture and the oppression of its agents which will soon vanish, then the return to the domain of Islam in its ideology and system would be quicker than the blink of an eye. Accordingly, the success of the Islamic intellectual leadership in forging all the various peoples into one Islamic Ummah is without parallel. These peoples have remained as Muslims to this day, in spite of the colonialists calamities, wickedness and planning in corrupting the creeds and poisoning the thoughts. These people will remain one Islamic nation (Ummah) till the Day of Judgement. It has never happened that any people (or ethnic group) which had embraced Islam have apostatised from it.
As for the Muslims of Andalus (Spain), they were massacred by the Courts of Inquisition, the guillotine and burnt in the ovens of the executioners. The Muslims of Bukhara, the Caucasus and Turkistan met with the same disastrous fate as those before them. The fact that these people embraced Islam and became one Ummah that was concerned to protect her ‘aqeedah, portrays, as evidence the degree of success of the Islamic intellectual leadership and the application of Islam by the Islamic State.
The second matter, which denotes the success of this ideology, is the fact that the Islamic Ummah was the leading nation in the world in respect to civilisation, material advancement, culture and science. For twelve centuries, dating from the seventh century C.E to the middle of the eighteenth century C.E, the Islamic State remained as the leading and most powerful state in the world. Throughout this period it was the flower of the globe and the rising sun amongst the nations, a fact that confirms the success of this intellectual leadership and the success of Islam in implementing its system and ‘aqeedah upon the people. When the Islamic State and Ummah abandoned carrying its intellectual leadership and fell short in understanding and applying Islam, it lapsed and declined among other nations.
Therefore, we say that only the Islamic intellectual leadership is correct and it alone should be carried to the world. When the Islamic State, which carries this leadership, is established, the success of this leadership will be realised today as it was before.
We have proven that Islam with its ’aqeedah and it's system, which emanates from it, agrees with man's nature (fiTrah). Consequently, Islam does not view man as a mechanical being functioning accurately like a machine and implementing the system on the basis of fine mathematical measures without disparity. On the contrary, from the Islamic perspective man is a social being who applies the system with varying capabilities and qualities. Thus, it is natural for Islam, on the one hand, to narrow the gap between people without making everyone equal while guaranteeing tranquillity for all. On the other hand, it is also natural to find some individuals who deviate from the system and thus don't comply with it and others who do not respond or who turn away from the system. Inevitably, there will be in the society evildoers (fussaq), people who indulge in vices (fujjar), unbelievers (kuffar), hypocrites (munafiqoon), apostates (murtaddun) and atheists (mulhidoon). The important thing is that the society as a whole, from the point of view of its thoughts, emotions, systems and people, is considered as an Islamic society, which applies Islam when these elements manifest themselves as Islamic.
The evidence for this is that it is impossible for anyone to apply a system at the level of Muhammad (saw)'s application. In spite of this, at his (saw)'s time there were also disbelievers, hypocrites, apostates, atheists, evildoers and people who indulged in vices. Therefore, no one can claim that Islam was not applied completely or that the society was non-Islamic. Yet the Islamic application is on man as a social being, not a mechanical being.
Islam continued to be applied on the entire Islamic Ummah, Arab and non-Arabs, from the time Prophet settled down in Madinah till the colonial powers occupied the Islamic lands and replaced Islam with the Capitalist system.
Thus, Islam was implemented from the first year of the Hijrah until 1336A.H (1918 C.E) and the Islamic Ummah did not apply any system other than Islam throughout this period.
Although the Muslims translated books of philosophy, science and different foreign cultures into Arabic, they never translated any legislation, system, or canon of other nations neither for research nor for application. Considering Islam to be a system, some people applied it well and others misapplied it. This depended on the strength or weakness of the state and on the degree of its comprehension of Islam or lack of understanding and according to whether it was strong or complacent in carrying its intellectual leadership. Consequently, the misapplication of Islam in some ages brought about some decline in the Islamic society, but this is something, which no system can avoid, because the application of the system depends on human beings. However, the misapplication does not mean that Islam was not implemented. Surely Islam was implemented and no other system or ideology was applied. This is because the crucial point is in the applying of canons and systems enacted by the state. In this respect the state did not adopt any canon or system alien to Islam. What occurred was the misapplication of some of its rules by some rulers. However, notwithstanding this, one must observe two points when examining the implementation of Islam throughout its history. The first point is that history must not be taken from the enemies of Islam who harbour hatred towards it. Instead history must be taken from Muslims themselves after an extensive research so as not to adopt a distorted image. The second point is that the generalisation in study of the society should not be taken from the history of individuals or from one aspect of the society. For example, it would be wrong to pass judgment on the history of Ummayad era by studying the history of Yazid's era. Or to pass judgment on the history of the Abbassid era from some incidents of their Khulafaa. Likewise, we must not pass judgment on the society of the Abbassid era from Kitab al-aghani (book of songs) which was written to narrate the stories of recklessly extravagant people, poets and authors or from reading the books of asceticism (zuhd) and the like and thus start thinking that the entire society was in a state of extravagance and sin or asceticism and isolation. Rather, we have to study the whole society. We have to acknowledge however that the whole history of the Islamic society as a society in any era was never written. What has been written rather is the affairs of the rulers and some officials. Those who wrote such history were not trustworthy, they were either slanderers or adulators and whatever they wrote can't be accepted without investigation.