When the Islamic society is studied on this basis i.e. to study it from all its aspects and through thorough investigation it can be found to be the best society. Since, it was so for the first, second and third centuries, in fact, right up to the middle of the twelfth century hijrah. One finds that the society applied Islam throughout all its ages right up to the end of the Ottoman State as an Islamic state. However, history should not be taken as the source for studying the system and fiqh. Rather, the system should be taken from the sources of jurisprudence and not from history, since history is not its source. Accordingly, to understand the Communist system, one does not draw conclusions from the history of Russia, but from the books of the Communist ideology itself. Likewise, if to understand the English jurisprudence one should not take it from the history of England, but rather from the books of English jurisprudence. This applies to any system or canon.

Islam is an ideology with its own ‘aqeedah and system. Consequently, those who wish to understand it must not use its history as a source, neither for knowledge nor for deducing rules i.e. aHkam.

The source of understanding Islam is the books of Islamic fiqh, and the source for deducing its rules is their detailed evidences. Thus, history is not the correct source of the Islamic system, neither for its understanding nor for its deduction. It is therefore incorrect to take the history of 'Umar bin al-Khattab or Umar bin 'Abdul-'Aziz or Haroun ar-Rasheed, whether from the historical events ascribed to them or from the books written during their respective periods, as a source for the aHkam Sharai'ah. If an opinion of Umar is followed in a question, it is followed in its capacity as a hukm Shara'i deduced and applied by Umar, as is the case with the hukm Shara'i deduced by Abu Hanifah, Shafii, Ja'far and others. It is not adopted as an historical event. History, accordingly, has nothing to do with adopting or knowing the system. Moreover ascertaining whether or not the system was applied, fiqh, rather than history, is the reference for determining that. This is because every era has its own problems, which were tackled by a system. So in order to find the system used to solve problems, one must refer to the Islamic fiqh, and not to the events of history, because it only reports to us the news as they are. When reference is made to the Islamic fiqh, one neither finds in it any system taken by the Muslims from others, nor any system chosen by the Muslims from themselves. Instead, one finds it completely as aHkam shar’ah deduced from the shar’ai evidences. Muslims were very careful to sift into the jurisprudence by removing any deficient opinions i.e. deficient ijtihad. They even prohibited others from acting according to the deficient (Daif) opinion, even if it was ascribed to a mujtahid mutlaq (absolute mujtahid).

As a result, there is not one legislative text other than the Islamic Fiqh throughout the Islamic world. The fact only one body of jurisprudence exists in a nation, without any other accompanying text, signifies that the nation did not use any other text in its legislation.

If it were permitted to give attention to history, this would be confined to examining the way of applying the system. History might also contain political events, from which the way of application can be seen. Even this should not be taken except after a thorough research and from Muslims. History has three sources: History books, archaeological objects and narration. Historical books should not be considered as a source because they are influenced by the political conditions of the time. They are filled with lies, either supporting the people at whose time these books were written or attacking those at the time before these books were written. A recent example of this is the history of the Allawide family in Egypt. Prior to 1952 C.E it had a bright image in history books, but after 1952C.E its image was dark. The same applies to the history of other political events now and in the past. For this reason, history books should not be considered as a source for history, even if they were biographies written by their people.

Archaeological objects (excavation and antiquities) would provide historical facts if studied honestly. Although they by themselves do not provide a historical timeline, they however denote occurrence of some events. If one examines the Islamic antiquities found in their countries, be they buildings, instruments, or any other thing, one can conclude that nothing was present in the Islamic world except Islam, the system of Islam and rules of Islam. Additionally, the Muslims way of life and actions conducted were Islamic.

As for the third source i.e. narration, it is a correct source, which can be relied on if the narration was correct and the method followed in collecting the narration was the same as the method followed in collecting the ahadith. This is the manner in which history should be recorded. The Muslims followed this method of narration when they commenced writing. The classical books of history, such as the History of at- Tabari, Sirah of Ibn Hisham etc. were written according to this method. Muslims should not teach their children from the books of history whose sources are other books of history. An overview of the application of the Islamic system should not be taken from those books of history either. In conclusion, it is evident that Islam alone was implemented and nothing else was applied throughout all the periods.

However, since the end of the First World War, which ended with the Allies victory culminating with the announcement of Lord Allenby, the commander of the campaign when occupying Jerusalem (al-Quds), stated: "Now the Crusades are over". The Kafir colonialists have applied upon us since then the Capitalist system in all life matters, to perpetuate the victory they achieved over us. We must therefore get rid of this rotten and corrupted system by which the colonialists control our countries. We have to completely uproot it, once and for all, so that we can resume the Islamic way of life.

It is a low superficial thinking to replace our system by any other system and it is a shallow thinking to consider that if the ummah applied the system without its '’aqeedah, it would save her. The Ummah must embrace the '’aqeedah first and then apply the system emanating from this doctrine (’aqeedah). The implementation of the system and embracing of the doctrine (’aqeedah) will then be a saviour. This applies to the Ummah, which is built upon an ideology and the state, which is established on this basis. As for the other peoples and nations, it is not necessary that they embrace the ideology as a prerequisite for applying the ideology upon them. The nation, which embraces the ideology and conveys it to others, can apply it on any people or nation, even if they do not believe in it. This is because the ideology will also result in the revival of that nation and will attract them to believe in it. Thus embracing the ideology is not a condition for those on which it is applied, it is rather an essential condition for those who implement it.

It is dangerous to adopt nationalism in conjunction with Socialism. Socialism cannot be separated from its materialist idea, because it will not be productive or influential. Neither can Socialism be adopted together with its materialistic idea, since it is a negative thought, which contradicts with man's nature (fiTrah). Furthermore, its adoption would mean that the Islamic nation would have to abandon the Islamic ’aqeedah. We cannot adopt Socialism and simultaneously retain the spiritual aspect of Islam. This would result in adopting neither Islam nor Socialism, by virtue of the fact that they contradict each other and whatever was adopted would be incomplete. Similarly, we cannot adopt the system of Islam devoid of its ’aqeedah from which its system emanates as this means the adoption of an imperious system devoid of spirit. Instead, we must adopt Islam wholly with its doctrine (’aqeedah) and systems and convey its intellectual leadership when we carry the da’wah for it.

Accordingly, there is only one way to attain our revival which is the resumption of the Islamic way of life and there is no way to resume the Islamic way of life except through establishing the Islamic State. This cannot be achieved unless we totally adopt Islam both as an ’aqeedah, which solves the greatest problem and upon which man's viewpoint in this life is concentrated and as a system, which emanates from this doctrine (’aqeedah). The basis of such systems is the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). Its cultural treasures are the: fiqh, hadith, tafseer, Arabic language and others. No method can achieve this except by carrying the Islamic intellectual leadership completely through the da’wah to Islam and establishing Islam completely everywhere. Once the intellectual leadership has been transmitted to the nation as a whole and to the Islamic State, we embark upon carrying the intellectual leadership to the world.

This is the only way to achieve the revival: to convey the Islamic intellectual leadership to Muslims so as to resume the Islamic way of life and to deliver it to all of mankind by means of the Islamic State thereafter.