There is a difference between the haDarah (civilisation) and the madaniyyah (material progress). The haDarah constitutes the whole concepts about life, whereas the madaniyyah means the material forms of sensed objects used in life's affairs. The haDarah is specific based on the point of view towards life, while the madaniyyah can be specific or general. So objects that are product of haDarah such as statues, are specific. While material aspects produced by science and its progress, industry and its evolution are general and thus are not particular to a specific nation, rather they are universal, like industry and science.

This distinction between Hadarah and madaniyyah must always be noted. One must also note the distinction between the madaniyyah forms resulting from haDarah and the madaniyyah forms resulting from science and industry. This is necessary, so that when taking madaniyyah, a distinction between its forms and differentiation between it and haDarah must be clear. There should be no objection in acquiring the Western madaniyyah resulting from science, industry, etc. However, Western madaniyyah resulting from the Western haDarah must not be adopted on any account, because we are not allowed to adopt the Western haDarah, for it contradicts the Islamic haDarah from the very basis upon which it is established, its point of view of life, and its understanding of the meaning of human happiness.

The Western haDarah is established upon the separation of deen from life and it denies The Islamic Civilisation (al-haDarah al Islamiyyah) deen from having any influence on any of life's affairs and, hence it separated deen from the State. This separation is natural for those who separate deen from life and deny its role in life. It was on this basis that life and the system of life were built. This haDarah views the entire life as the pursuit of benefit. Thus, its criterion for actions in life is benefit. Therefore, benefit is the basis upon which the system is established and the haDarah is built. Benefit is the most prominent and apparent concept in its system and in the haDarah. This is because it portrays life as benefit. Happiness, in their view, is providing man with the maximum share of sensual pleasures and furnishing him with their means. It follows that its Western haDarah is established on the desire to reap benefits and gives no consideration or even recognition to anything except benefit, thus rendering it the criterion of actions. The spiritual side is restricted to the individual and is not part of the social order. The spiritual affair of man is confined to the church and clergy. Consequently, there are no moral, spiritual or humanitarian values in the Western haDarah, rather only materialistic ones. Owing to this, humanitarian actions became affiliated to organisations separated from the State, such as the Red Cross and missionaries. Every value, apart from the materialistic value of benefit, was excluded from the life. The Western haDarah thus consists of such host of concepts about life.

As for the Islamic haDarah, it is established upon a basis contradicting the basis of the Western haDarah. Its viewpoint about life and meaning of happiness are different from the Western haDarah. The Islamic haDarah is built upon the belief in Allah and that He has established a system for man, life and the universe. He (swt) sent Muhammad (saw) with Islam as the one and only deen for mankind. This means that the Islamic haDarah is established on the Islamic ’aqeedah, comprising the belief in Allah (swt), His (swt) Angels, His (swt) Books, His (swt) Messenger (saw)s, the Hereafter, and al-QaDaa'a wal Qadar. Thus, the ‘aqeedah is the basis of the haDarah and consequently the haDarah is founded upon a spiritual basis.

Life in the Islamic haDarah is based on the philosophy of Islam which emanates from the Islamic doctrine or ‘aqeedah, upon which life and actions are both established. This philosophy which is mixing the matter with the spirit, i.e. making man's actions conducted by the aHkam Sharai'ah, constitute the basis of life. While man's actions are material, his observation of his relationship with Allah (swt) when he undertakes the action as haram or halal constitutes the spirit (ruH). This means that the mixing of matter with spirit has taken place. Accordingly, the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) regulate the actions of a Muslim. The Muslim's ultimate objective in carrying out his actions in accordance with the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) is the attainment of Allah's (swt) pleasure and not benefit. However, the immediate aim of undertaking the action is the sought after value, which differs according to the type of action. The value may be materialistic for the person who engages in commerce or trade to make a profit. So his trade is materialistic action, and he is directed in that by his realisation of his relationship with Allah (swt) through His commands and prohibitions, for the sake of attaining His (swt) pleasure. While the value that he aims to achieve from undertaking the action is the profit, which is a materialistic value.

The value may be spiritual, such as prayer, zakah, fasting or pilgrimage. The value may be moral, such as upholding the truth, being honest, or exhibiting loyalty. The value could be humanitarian, such as rescuing a drowning person or helping the poor. These values are noticed by man when he undertakes the action so that to achieve them. However, these values are not the driving force behind man's actions, nor the ultimate objective he aims at. They are the values of the action which differ according to the type of action.

Happiness is attaining Allah's (swt) pleasure and not the fulfilment of man's needs. Satisfying all such needs: organic needs and instinctual desires, are an essential means to preserve one's life, but happiness is not guaranteed by their fulfilment. In summary, this is the Islamic viewpoint about life, and this is the basis upon which this viewpoint is built. This viewpoint is the basis of the Islamic haDarah. It is obvious that the Islamic haDarah contradicts the Western haDarah in every sense. The madaniyyah objects resulting from haDarah which is specific to the Islamic haDarah contradict the madaniyyah objects which results from the Western haDarah. For example, a photograph by itself is an object of madaniyyah. The Western haDarah considers the photograph of a naked woman that reveals all of her beauties a madaniyyah object consistent with its concepts in life about women. Thus, an individual from the West, views the photograph to be a piece of art which he could take pride in and a piece of art when it accomplishes artistic conditions. However, this object of madaniyyah contradicts with the Islamic haDarah and the Islamic concepts about women, which are considered as an honour that must be protected. Consequently, such photographs are to be prevented, because they provoke the sexual drive which triggers moral laxity in the society. Likewise, if a Muslim was to build a house, another object of madaniyyah, he would have to take into consideration that women inside should not be seen to those outside. Accordingly, the Muslim builds around the house a wall, but the Westerner pays no attention to this. This applies to all objects of madaniyyah which result from the Western haDarah, such as statues and the like. Likewise, if clothes are specific to the unbelievers, the Muslims are then forbidden to wear them because they carry a specific viewpoint about life. However, if the clothes are otherwise, such as if they are used to wearing certain clothes for necessity or adornment and not because of their kufr, then they are considered to be of the general madaniyyah, which is permissible for Muslims to use.

Objects of madaniyyah which are products of science and industry such as laboratory equipment, medical and industrial tools, furniture, carpet, etc. are all universal objects of madaniyyah. The use of such objects which do not result from the haDharah and nor related to it is permissible.

A cursory glance at the Western haDarah that dominates the world today reveals to us that it cannot guarantee tranquillity for man. On the contrary, the Western haDarah is the cause for man's deep-rooted misery and suffering. This haDarah which adopts as its basis the separation of deen from life's affairs is contradictory to man's fiTrah, thus giving no weight to the spiritual aspect in society, and it views life as only benefit and makes the attainment of benefit as the foundation for the relationship between men. Thus it inevitably produces nothing but perpetual misery and anxiety. As long as benefit is the basis, conflict over it will naturally increase and the reliance on force to establish relationships between people will be natural. Thus, colonisation is natural to the followers of this haDarah since benefit alone remains the basis of life, and any morals will be unstable. Hence, it is natural for any good morals to be shunned in life in the same way that the spiritual values were neglected, and life established upon competition, struggle, aggression and colonialism. The spiritual crisis in the people, perpetual anxiety and widespread evil all over the world today serve as glaring and oppressively clear indictments of the results of this Western haDarah. It has dominated the world and has led to such grave results and consequently have constituted a great danger to the normal functioning of humanity.

A survey of the Islamic haDarah which dominated the world from the seventh century C.E until the end of the eighteenth century C.E reveals that it never had a colonialist policy. Indeed, colonialism is alien to Islam's nature, since it did not differentiate between the Muslims and other peoples. Thus it secured justice for all peoples who submitted to it throughout its reign. This is because it is a haDarah established upon a spiritual basis which fulfils all the values: materialistic, spiritual, moral, and humanitarian. The ’aqeedah is given the utmost importance in life, which is depicted as being governed by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt).It views happiness solely as the attainment of Allah's (swt) pleasure. When this Islamic haDarah dominates again, as it did before, it will guarantee resolving the crises confronting the world and secure the welfare of the whole humanity.

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.

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.

Whenever the level of thinking declines, the patriotic bond (raabitah al wataniyyah) amongst people arises, due to them living in one land and being attached to it. The survival instinct drives them to defend themselves, the country they live in and the land they live off. Hence the patriotic bond arises. This patriotic bond is the weakest and lowest level of bonds. It is present amongst animals and birds as well as human beings. It manifests itself in an emotional way. It comes about in the event of a foreign aggression against the homeland, either when attacked or occupied. The patriotic bond has no effect when the homeland is safe from aggression. It ceases when the foreigner is repelled or banished from the homeland. Therefore, this bond is of a low level.

Moreover, when the thinking level is narrow, a nationalistic bond (raabitah qawmiyyah) arises. It is a family bond though in a broader sense. This is because when the survival instinct becomes deeply rooted in the individual, love of dominance appears in him. This love of dominance is individualistic in the man of low intellect. However, as the awareness of an individual broadens his love of dominance widens, thus he considers the dominance of his family. Once his awareness has broadened and widened, he considers the dominance of his people in his homeland. Once this is achieved he considers their dominance over all other peoples. Therefore, due to this aspect local feuds arise amongst the members of the family. Hence, once the dominance within the family is settled then the feud transfers to a feud between his family and other families until the dominance is settled in favour of one family or a group of people from different families. In the end, the conflict arises between his people and others for sovereignty and achieving a high standard of living. Therefore, tribalism ('asabiyyah) prevails amongst the adherents of this bond. As a result of this, whims and assisting one another against others prevail amongst them. Consequently, it is an inhumane bond and it remains exposed to internal feuds if they are not preoccupied instead with external conflicts.

Therefore, the patriotic bond is unsuitable for the following three reasons: Firstly, because it is a low level bond, which is not good to bind man with man in his quest for revival. Secondly, because it is an emotional bond arising from the survival instinct of defending oneself. Such an emotional bond is liable to change and alteration, so it is not fit to be a permanent bond between human beings. Thirdly, because it is a temporary bond that exists in the case of defence (of a threat), but in the state of stability, which is the normal state of man, it does not exist. Therefore, the patriotic bond is not fit to be a bond amongst mankind.

Similarly the nationalistic bond is also unsuitable for the following three reasons: Firstly, because it is a tribal bond which is not appropriate to bind man with man in his quest for revival. Secondly, because it is an emotional bond that arises from the survival instinct, thus resulting in the love for dominance. Thirdly, because it is an inhumane bond for it causes conflicts among people over dominion. Therefore, it is not suitable to be a bond between human beings.

The other invalid bonds, which are mistakenly taken as bonds between people are: the bonds of self-interest (ar-raabitah al -maslahiyah) and the spiritual bond (ar-raabitah al ruhiyah) from which no system emanates.

The bond of self-interest is a temporary bond and it is not suitable to bind mankind, for it is subject to compromise in the pursuit of greater interests; so it ceases to exist when the interests are outweighed. It also comes to an end and separates people from each other when the interests become dissimilar. Furthermore, when the interests are fulfilled this bond ceases to exist. Therefore, it is a dangerous bond for its adherents.

The spiritual bond from which no system emanates appears in the case of religiousness and does not manifest itself in the realm of life. Therefore, the spiritual bond is a partial and impractical bond, it is not suitable to bind people in the affairs of life. Consequently, the Christian creed did not serve as a bond amongst the European nations, though they all embrace it, because it is a spiritual bond devoid of a system.

Consequently all the aforementioned bonds are not suitable to bind man with man in his quest for revival. The only correct bond, which binds mankind in life, is the rational doctrine (‘aqeedah) from which a system emanates; that is the ideological bond (ar raabitah al mabdaiyah).

The ideology (mabda'a) is a rational doctrine from which a system emanates. The ‘aqeedah (doctrine) is a comprehensive idea about man, life and the universe what preceded this life, what is to follow it, and the relationship of this life with what preceded it and what is to follow it. As for the system that emanates from this doctrine, it is the solutions for man's problems, the method for implementing those solutions, preserving the doctrine and conveying the ideology to others. The method of implementing the solutions, preserving the doctrine and conveying the ideology constitutes the tareeqah (method), while anything else, which is the ‘aqeedah and the solutions, is the idea. Consequently, the ideology is composed of an idea (fikrah) and a method (tareeqah).

The ideology (mabda'a) must come into existence in the mind of a man either by revelation from Allah (swt) with a command for him to convey it or through an ingenuity that shines in that man. As for the ideology (mabda'a), which originates in the mind of a man by revelation from Allah (swt). This is the correct ideology (mabda'a) since it is from Allah (swt) who is the Creator of man, life and the universe. Therefore, it is definitely the correct ideology (mabda'a). Whereas, the ideology (mabda'a), which originates in the mind of a man through a spark of genius in him is false since it originates from a limited mind, which is incapable of comprehending everything in the universe. Furthermore, man's ability in organisation is liable to disparity, differences, contradictions and being influenced by the environment in which he lives. This consequently produces a contradictory system that leads to man's misery. Therefore, the ideology, which originates in a man's mind, is false in its ‘aqeedah and the system that emanates from this ‘aqeedah.

Consequently, the foundation of the ideology is the comprehensive idea (al-fikrah alkulliyyah) about man, life and the universe and the method, which brings the ideology into existence and implementation in all the walks of life is indispensable to ensure the existence of the ideology. The comprehensive idea is the foundation of the ideology since it is the ‘aqeedah and the intellectual leadership. On the basis of this comprehensive idea the intellectual direction of man and his viewpoint in towards life is defined. Moreover, all thoughts are built upon it and the solutions for life's problems emanate from it. The fact that the tareeqah (method) is essential, is because if the system that emanates from the ‘aqeedah (doctrine) does not include the manner of implementing such a system, preserving the ‘aqeedah and conveying the da’wah to it, then the idea would become a hypothetical and fanciful philosophy that remains recorded in the books without having any effect in this world. Hence, the ‘aqeedah (doctrine), the solutions for the problems and the tareeqah (method) are all necessary for the ideology to come into existence. However, the mere presence of the idea (fikrah) and the method (tareeqah) from which a system emanates does not indicate that the ideology (mabda'a) is correct; it simply indicates that it is an ideology (mabda'a) and nothing more. The matter that proves the validity of the ideology (mabda'a) is the ‘aqeedah. This is because the ‘aqeedah is the intellectual basis (al-qa'idah al-fikriyyah) upon which every thought is built, views are defined and from which every solution and method emanates. Therefore, if the intellectual basis (al-qa'idah al-fikrayyah) is correct the ideology (mabda'a) will be correct and if it is false the ideology (mabda'a) will be false from its basis.

If the comprehensive idea (doctrine) agrees with man's nature (fiTrah) and is built upon the mind it will be correct. However, if it disagrees with man's nature (fiTrah) and is not built upon the mind it will be false. The compatibility with man's nature means that the ‘aqeedah recognises the natural weakness of man and his need for the Creator, the Sovereign, i.e., it agrees with the instinct of religiousness (tadayyun). Building the ‘aqeedah (doctrine) on the mind means that it is not built on matter or a solution arrived through compromise.

If we examine the ideologies that exist in the world, we will find only three: Capitalism, Communism and Islam. The first two ideologies are adopted by states, while Islam is not adopted by a state, but rather by individuals within different peoples, nevertheless it is present internationally in the whole globe.

Capitalism is based upon the separation of religion from life. This idea (fikrah) is its ‘aqeedah (doctrine), its intellectual leadership (qiyaadah fikriyyah) and its intellectual basis (qa'idah fikriyyah). According to this intellectual basis (al-qa'idah al-fikriyyah) man lays down the system for this life, so it is necessary to preserve for man the following types of freedom: freedom of belief (hurriyat ul-’aqeedah), freedom of opinion (hurriyat urra'i), freedom of ownership (hurriyat ul-milkiyyah) and personal freedom (al hurriyat ushshakhsiyyah). The Capitalist economic system resulted from the freedom of ownership, so capitalism has become the most prominent feature in this mabda'a and the most prominent matter that resulted from the doctrine (‘aqeedah) of this ideology (mabda'a). Thus, this ideology (mabda'a) is named Capitalism, after its most prominent element.

As for democracy, which is ascribed to this ideology, it stems from the fact that man lays down his own system. The nation is therefore, the source of authority. She lays down the system, she employs the ruler to govern her, and strips him of his authority when she wants and establishes and lays down to him the system she likes. This is because ruling is an employment contract between the people and the ruler to rule according to the system, which the people choose, so as to govern them with.

Though democracy is a part of capitalism, it is less prominent than the economic system. This is because the capitalist economic system in the West influences the government to the extent that the capitalists (owners of capital) are effectively the real rulers in the countries which adopt the capitalist ideology. Moreover, democracy is not limited to this ideology, since the Communists also claim to be democratic and call for giving the ruling to the nation (people). It is therefore more accurate to call this ideology the Capitalist Ideology or Capitalism.

This ideology originally emerged when the emperors and kings of Europe and Russia were using religion as a means to exploit the peoples, transgress against them and suck their blood. They used the clergy as an instrument for this. There arose, as a result of this, a bloody struggle in which some philosophers and thinkers denied religion completely. Others acknowledged religion but called for its separation from this life. Eventually, the opinion of the majority of the philosophers and thinkers settled on one idea, which is the separation of religion from this life. It naturally resulted in the separation of religion from the state. Thus, the opinion settled on avoiding the discussion of religion, whether in denial or recognition and instead discussion was confined to the necessity of separating religion from this life. This idea is considered a compromise (solution) between the clergy, on the one hand, who sought to control everything in the name of religion and the philosophers and thinkers, on the other hand, who denied religion and the authority of the clergy. Therefore, this idea did not deny religion nor did it allow it to interfere in the life, instead it just separated it from life. Consequently, the ‘aqeedah (doctrine), which the West embraced, is the separation of religion from life. This ‘aqeedah (doctrine) is the intellectual basis upon which all thoughts are built, upon its basis the intellectual direction of man and his viewpoint in life are determined and upon its basis all life problems are solved. It is the intellectual leadership, which the West carries and calls the world to.

The separation of religion from life implicitly recognises religion, and by doing so, it recognises that there is a Creator for the universe, man and life and that there will be a Day of Resurrection, because this is the foundation of religion as a religion. This acknowledgement provides an idea about the universe, man, life, what preceded this life and what is to follow it, because it didn't deny the existence of religion. Rather when it called for its separation from it implicitly confirmed its existence and gave an idea that there is no relationship between this life with what preceded it and with what is to follow it, when it called for the separation of religion from life and that religion is only a relationship between the individual and his Creator. Accordingly, this ‘aqeedah (doctrine) (separation of religion from the life), by its all-inclusive concept, constitutes a comprehensive idea about the universe, man and life. Thus the Capitalist ideology, by this explanation, is an ideology like any other.

Socialism, which led to Communism views the universe, man and life as only matter and that matter is the origin of all things. Through the evolution of this matter all things came into existence and thus there is nothing at all beyond this matter. Therefore, this matter is eternal and pre-existent and not created by anyone i.e. it is indispensable (waajibul-wujood), is everlasting and self-existing i.e. not created by anyone. Communists, therefore, deny that matter is created by a Creator. They deny the spiritual aspect of matter and view the recognition of the existence of the spiritual aspect as a threat to the life. Consequently, they maintain that religion is the opium of the masses which sedates and hinders them from action. They believe in nothing but matter, even thought is viewed as reflection of matter on the brain. Hence, matter for them, is the origin of thought and the origin of everything, and through its materialistic evolution all things originate. Accordingly, they deny the existence of the Creator and consider matter to be eternal, thus, they deny what preceded this life and what is to follow it, so they do not acknowledge anything except this life.

In spite of the differences between these two ideologies in respect to their view about man, life and the universe both agree that the ideals to be sought by man are the sublime values that man lays down for himself. So happiness, in their view, is to enjoy the optimum level of sensual pleasures, which in their opinion are the means to happiness, even happiness itself. The two ideologies also agree upon preserving the personal freedom of the individual, so man can act as he likes, however he desires, as long as he sees his happiness in that action. Therefore the personal behaviour or the personal freedom is a part of what is sanctified by these two ideologies.

Both ideologies differ in their view of the individual and society. Capitalism is an individualistic ideology, which assumes society to be composed of individuals. It pays secondary attention to society and singles out the individual for its attention. Therefore, it considers it necessary to secure the freedoms of the individual. In order to ensure his freedom, every member works for the sake of society. Freedom of belief is, therefore, one of the things sanctified by this ideology. Freedom of ownership is also sanctified and not restricted by its philosophy but by the government which intervenes to guarantee the liberties. The government implements these restrictions by the police and through law enforcement. The state, however, is considered a means and not an end in itself. Sovereignty ultimately belongs to the individuals and not to the state. Accordingly, capitalism carries an intellectual leadership, which is the separation of religion from the life; on the basis of this leadership capitalism implements its systems, calls for them and attempts to implement them everywhere.

Socialism, including Communism, is an ideology, which views society as a general collection consisting of human beings and their relationship with nature. Thus, people will submit to this relationship inevitably and automatically. This collection as a whole is one single unit, which is man, nature and relationships, all constitute one whole and not parts separated from each other. Nature is considered to be a part of man's personality, the part he carries in himself. Man does not evolve without being connected with this part of his personality i.e. nature, because man's relationship with nature is like the relationship of the thing with its own essence. Accordingly, society is considered to be one unit whose three elements evolve together as a whole. Thus man has to revolve within this collection like a spoke in a wheel. Therefore, Communists hold no freedom of belief or economical ownership for the individual; belief and economy are restricted by what the state wants. Consequently, the state is also one of the things sanctified by this ideology. From this materialistic philosophy, life systems have emanated and the economic system was considered the primary basis and the main feature of all the systems. Hence Socialism, including Communism carries an intellectual leadership, which is materialism and materialistic evolution, on this basis it rules with its systems, calls for them and attempts to apply them everywhere.

As for Islam, it holds that beyond man, life and the universe there is a Creator, who created them all. Therefore, its basis is the conviction in the existence of Allah (swt). This ‘aqeedah is the one, which determined the spiritual aspect in everything, that is the fact that the universe, man and life are created by a creator. Therefore, the relationship of the universe, as being created by Allah (swt) the creator and the relationship of the created life with Allah (swt) the creator, and the relationship of the created man with Allah (swt) the creator, such a relationship is the spiritual aspect in the universe, in life and in man. The spirit (ruH), therefore, is man's comprehension of his relationship with Allah (swt).

The belief in Allah (swt) must also be linked with the belief in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) , his Message and that the Qur'an is the speech of Allah (swt). Hence, it is obligatory to believe in everything he brought. Accordingly, the Islamic ‘aqeedah makes it compulsory to believe in what preceded this life, which is Allah(swt), to believe in that which is after this life - which is the Day of Resurrection and that man is restricted in this life by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) which represent the relationship of this life with what preceded it. Man is also restricted with the accounting on following these commands and avoiding these prohibitions. This accountability represents the relationship of this life with what follows it. Inevitably, a Muslim must realise his relationship with Allah (swt) when undertaking any action, thus he directs his actions according to the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt). This is the meaning of mixing matter with spirit. The ultimate goal of directing the actions by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) is to attain His pleasure. While the immediate aim from undertaking such actions is the value which the action achieves.

Therefore, the ideal aims to protect the society are not laid down by man, but rather by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), which are constant, neither changing nor evolving. Thus the protection of the human life, mind, human dignity, private property, religion, security and the state are all constant ideals that aim to protect society; they are not subject to change or development. Islam has laid down harsh punitive measures to protect these constant aims. It is obligatory to protect these aims, because they are commands and prohibitions from Allah (swt), not because they produce material values (benefits). Accordingly, the Muslim and the state undertake all actions according to the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), because they (the commands and prohibitions alone) should organise all of man's affairs. Undertaking actions according to the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) is the only way that provides the Muslim with tranquillity. Hence, happiness is not satisfying the sensual pleasures, it is rather attaining the pleasure of Allah (swt).

In respect to man's organic needs and instincts, Islam has organised them in a way that ensures the satisfaction of them all, such as the stomach need, the production need or the others. However, this organisation is not done by satisfying some of them at the expense of the others; nor by suppressing some of them, setting others loose, or setting all of them loose. Instead, Islam has co-ordinated all of them and satisfied all of them by a precise system which offers man delight and comfort and prevents him from lapsing to the level of the animal through the anarchism of instincts.

To maintain this organisation of organic needs and instincts, Islam considers the community to be an indivisible whole and views the individual as an inseparable part of the community. However being a part of the community, does not mean the individual is not perceived as a spoke in a wheel; he is viewed as a part of the whole, like the hand being a part of the body. Therefore, Islam took care of the individual as part of a community and not separate from her, looking after him leads to the protection of the community. At the same time, Islam took care of the community not as being a whole devoid of parts, but in her capacity as a whole made of parts who are the individuals, such that looking after the community leads to the protection of these individuals, who are the parts of the community. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

"The example of those who maintain Allah's limits (hudood) and those who surpass them is like the example of those who share a boat. Some would occupy its upper deck and some its lower deck. The occupants of the lower deck would have to go to the upper deck to have access to the water. If they said, why don't we drill a hole in our part (to directly access the water) and do not cause any inconvenience to those above us. If those on the upper deck let them do what they wanted then all of the passengers would sink. However, if they prevented them from doing so then all would be saved".

This outlook to the community and the individual establishes a distinct concept about society. The individuals as part of the community must have thoughts (afkaar) that bind them together and by which they live. They must also share the same emotions (mashaa'ir) by which they are influenced and they proceed according to them. Additionally, they must have one system to address all of their life's problems. Hence, society is composed of individuals, thoughts, emotions and systems. Man has to be bonded in this life by these thoughts, emotions and systems. Thus man is restricted in this life by these thoughts, emotions and systems. A Muslim is, therefore, restricted in this life by Islam and he does not have freedoms at all. So the ‘aqeedah for the Muslim is restricted by the limits of Islam and is not left unrestricted. Consequently any one who renounces Islam is considered to have committed a capital offense and his apostasy is met with capital punishment if he does not repent. Similarly, the personal aspect is restricted by the system of Islam. Hence, zina is a crime for which the fornicator is severely punished without compassion and in public.

Allah (swt) says:

"And let a party of the believers witness their punishment." [An-Nur: 2]

Drinking khamr is a crime that also invokes punishment. Likewise, acts of aggression against others constitute a crime that is treated case by case according to the type of aggression, such as false accusation of zina, murder etc. The economic aspect is also restricted by the shar’a, and by the means of ownership with the shar’a permitted the individual to possess with and the nature of this private property as being the shar’a permission of using the object. Consequently, violating these restrictions is considered a crime, which differs according to the type of this violation, such as theft, robbery etc. Therefore the state is necessary to protect both the community and the individual and to apply the system in the society. It is also necessary that the ideology influences its adherents so that its protection becomes naturally coming from the people themselves. Accordingly, it is the ideology, which restricts and protects (the entire society) while it is the state which executes (the legislation). Sovereignty (siyaadah), therefore, belongs to the shar’a and not to the state or the Ummah, though the authority (sulTan) belongs to the Ummah and it is manifested in the state. Hence, the state is the method for implementing the system, although the individual's piety (taqwa) of Allah (swt) is relied upon for his adherence to the rules of Islam. Therefore, it is necessary to have legislation implemented by the state and direction to the believer so as to comply with Islam, motivated by his taqwa. Islam is therefore comprised of an ’aqeedah and systems and the Islamic ideology is both a fikra and a tareeqah (method), which is of the same kind as the fikrah. Its system emanates from its ‘aqeedah and its haDarah (civilisation) is a unique way of life. Islam's method in carrying the da’wah is by implementing it by the State and carrying it as an intellectual leadership to the world which should be the basis for understanding and practising Islam. Implementing Islam on the community, which is governed by its system is considered carrying the Islamic da’wah (to them), because applying Islam on non- Muslims is considered to be the practical method for the da’wah. This implementation had the greatest effect in creating the vast Islamic world.

To summarise, three ideologies exist in the world, Capitalism, Socialism and the third ideology is Islam. Each of these ideologies has its own doctrine (‘aqeedah) from which its systems emanate, a measure for man's actions in the life, a specific view towards society and a method to implement the system.

As for ‘aqeedah the Communist ideology holds that matter is the origin of things and that all things emanate from it by means of materialistic evolution. The Capitalist ideology believes that religion must be separated from the life, which results in the separation of religion from the state. Hence, the Capitalists don't want to discuss the issue of whether a Creator exists or not, they rather discuss that the Creator has no right to interfere in life, regardless of whether His existence is acknowledged or not. Consequently, those acknowledging the existence of a Creator and those who deny it are equal in the Capitalist doctrine, which is the separation of religion from life.

As for Islam, it believes that Allah (swt) is the creator of the existence (wujood), that He sent prophets and Messenger (saw)s with His deen to human beings and that man will be accounted for his actions on the Day of Judgement. Therefore, the ‘aqeedah of Islam is the belief (imaan) in Allah (swt), His angels, His books, His Messenger (saw)s, and the QaDaa and Qadar, the good and bad of which are from Allah (swt).

However, regarding the manner in which the system emanates from the ‘aqeedah (doctrine), Communism maintains that the system is taken from the tools of production, thus the feudal system was the product of the dominant mode of production in the feudal society, namely the axe. The evolution of society to Capitalism made machinery the tool of production, thus the Capitalist system is taken from this mode of production through materialistic evolution. Capitalism in separating religion from life, maintains man has to set for himself a system from this life. So he started to take his system from his reality and lays it down by himself. Islam considers that Allah (swt) has assigned a system for man to proceed on in this life. He (swt) has sent Muhammad (saw) with this system which He revealed it to him (saw), so man must follow it. Hence, a Muslim studies the problem and deduces its solution from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

As the measure for actions, Communism considers materialism i.e. the materialistic system as the neasure in this life. So as matter evolves so does the measure. Capitalism considers the measure to be benefit, on this basis actions are evaluated and undertaken. Islam considers the halal and the haram as the measure i.e. the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt). Accordingly, the halal is performed and the haram shunned. The measure neither evolves nor changes, it is not influenced by benefit, rather only the shar’a arbitrates.

As for society, Communism considers it consisting of a general collection comprising of earth, modes of production, nature and man which all are considered to be matter. When nature and its contents evolve man evolves with it, thus the whole society evolves. Consequently, society follows the materialistic evolution. Therefore, man has only to generate the contradictions to promote this evolutionary process. When the society evolves the individual evolves with it and thus man revolves with the society like a spoke in a wheel.

Capitalism views society as composed of individuals. Hence, if the individual's affairs are managed the society's affairs will be managed. Care is therefore, only given to the individual. Thus the government acts only for the benefit of the individual and consequently, this ideology is individualistic. Islam views the ‘aqeedah as the basis of society, including its thoughts, emotions (mashaa'ir) and the systems emanate from it. Thus, the Islamic society is brought into being when the Islamic thoughts and emotions dominate and the Islamic system is implemented on the people. Society is therefore comprised of man, thoughts, emotions and the systems. For a person together with another person constitutes only a group and they do not make a society except when people adopt the same thoughts, share the same emotions and apply the same system upon them. This is because the matter that originates a relationship between two persons is only the interest (maslaHah). However the relationship between two persons exists when the thoughts over the maslaHah were unified together with their emotions thus unifying the acceptance (riDa) and rejection (ghaDab) and the system that solves the problems is the same. If the thoughts or emotions towards the interest (maslaHah) differed thus the acceptance (riDa) and rejection (ghaDab) were not united, or the system that treats it between people differed then the relationship would not exist and consequently the society would not exist.

Therefore, society consists of man, thoughts, emotions and systems, because these are the matters, which originate the relationship and make a group of people a distinct society.

Thus if all people in a society were Muslims, but the thoughts they adopted were democratic and Capitalistic, their emotions were priestly-spiritual, patriotic or nationalistic, the system applied upon them was democratic and Capitalistic then the society would be non Islamic, even if the majority of the people were Muslims.

Concerning the implementation of the system, Communism considers that the state alone implements the system through the police force and harsh laws. The state develops the system and acts on behalf of the individual and community. The government in capitalism looks after the liberties. So if someone encroached upon the freedom of an individual, then the government will act to prevent the encroachment. However, if someone did not encroach upon the freedom of another person even if he exploited him and took away his rights, but with his consent, then there would be no encroachment upon freedoms. The state would not then interfere because the state exists to secure the liberties.

Islam considers that the system is implemented by the individual's consciousness of Allah (swt) (taqwa). It is also implemented by the state through the feeling of the community of its justice, by the co-operation of the nation (Ummah) with the ruler through al-amr bil maruf wa nahiy anil munkar (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil) and the authority of the state. The state takes care of the community's affairs but not the individual's affairs unless he was unable to do so. The system does not evolve at all. The state has the authority to adopt the rules (AHkam shar’aiah) when there is more than one opinion of ijtihad on an issue.