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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for the rebels, Allah (swt) says:
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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 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.