Since the 13th century Hijri (19th century AD), several movements were established to revive the Ummah but were all unsuccessful in their attempts. However, these movements had a strong influence over those who came after them to repeat the attempts. Upon scrutinizing these movements and their attempts for revival, one can conclude that the causes for their failure (from a structural point of view) are due to the following four factors:
1. The movements were established upon a general undefined idea (fikrah), which was vague, or unclear. In addition, the idea lacked focus, purity, and clarity.
2. The movements did not define a method (Tareeqah) to implement their idea; rather, they proceeded through improvised and twisted means. Furthermore, their means were undefined and ambiguous.
3. The movements relied upon individuals who lacked full awareness, and a well-focused determination. Individuals were driven solely by their desire or zeal to work.
4. The individuals carrying the responsibility of these movements did not have a correct bond amongst themselves. They were merely bound by being members in a structure that manifested itself in certain actions and titles.
Consequently, it was only natural for such movements to surge forward until their efforts and enthusiasm were exhausted, causing their activities to die down and they eventually became extinct. Other movements emerged thereafter, who followed the same pattern until they, too, became extinct. The failure of all these movements was only natural, because they were not based on a correct, clear and a defined idea. In addition, they did not have a correct method, they depended upon individuals who lacked awareness, and were not bound by a correct bond.
The “idea and the method” (Fikrah and Tareeqah) of these movements were wrong because they were based upon incorrect philosophies or ideas (if they had any). Some of these movements were Islamic whereas others were nationalistic. Those in charge of the Islamic movements called for Islam in a general and undefined manner. They tried to interpret Islam just to comply with the status quo, or to justify their process of introducing non-Islamic systems into Islam. Those in charge of the nationalistic movements called for a revival based upon a vague and ambiguous nationalistic foundation that disregarded Islam as well as the Muslims. They used such terms as nationalism, dignity, pride, arab, arabism, independence and others, without having any clear concept of such terms, and whether such concepts lead towards revival or not. The Arab nationalists called the Arabs towards an “Arab revival”, while the nationalist Turks called for the revival of the Turkish homeland, on the basis of Turkish nationalism. Both the nationalist Arabs, as well as the Turks, were in fact led by the colonialists. In addition, the colonialists used similar nationalistic movements to instigate the people of the Balkans to break away from the Ottoman Islamic State.
Arguments between the Islamic and nationalistic Arabs took place in the press. This centered around whether an Arab League or an Islamic League would be better and more feasible. This debate lasted for a long time and wasted the efforts of the people, because both the Arab League and the Islamic League were invalid from the Islamic perspective. Moreover, both of these leagues were Colonial projects designed to divert the people’s attention away from the issue of the Islamic State. Consequently, these projects not only led to the exhaustion of the people’s efforts, but also succeeded in distancing the issue of the Islamic State from people’s vision and thinking.
Besides the Islamic and the nationalistic movements, some patriotic movements were also established in various Islamic countries. These patriotic movements emerged as a reaction to the colonial occupation of various parts of the Islamic State. The political and economic oppression of the colonialists upon the Muslims, as a result of the implementation of the capitalist system, led to the establishment of these patriotic movements. Although those movements were a reaction to this suffering, some of these movements were influenced by Islamic emotions, while others were driven purely by patriotic emotions resulting from deliberate manoeuvers undertaken by the Colonial powers. Since these movements were driven by patriotic emotions, they lacked any serious thought to define their course of action. When they surged forward, they engaged the Ummah in a cheap struggle, which further strengthened the enemies’ foothold in the Islamic lands.
We believe that the only true philosophy for revival is an ideology (Mabdaa’) that encompasses both the idea and the method. This ideology is Islam because it is an Aqeedah (doctrine) from which emanates a system governing all the affairs of the State and the Ummah, and a solution to all of life’s problems.
Although Islam is a universal system, it is not part of its method to start working on a universal scale towards its implementation. Islam should be propagated universally while working to implement it must be confined to one or several countries until it becomes firmly established. Once established, the Islamic State would naturally grow until it encompasses all the Islamic countries. Then the state would propagate Islam to the rest of the world, because the Islamic State must convey the Islamic da’wah as an eternal and universal message for all mankind.
The entire world is suitable for the Islamic Da’wah; however, since the people in the Islamic lands are Muslims, the Da’wah must start there. Also, since the people in Arab territories (being part of the Islamic world) speak Arabic, and since Arabic is an essential part of Islam and its culture, the priority must be given to the Arab territories. Furthermore, combining the power of the Arabic language with that of Islam is necessary, because each has the ability to influence, expand and propagate. Therefore, it is only natural for the Islamic State to be re-established in the Arab territories, so that it will serve as a nucleus for the Islamic State which will encompass all Islamic lands.
Though carrying the Islamic Da’wah in the Arab territories is necessary, it is also necessary for the Islamic Da’wah to reach out to the rest of the Islamic world. Notwithstanding this, initiating the work in the Arab territories does not mean that no work be done outside Arab territories before unifying the Arab territories in the Islamic State. The work must be carried out in the Arab territories to re-establish the Islamic State, then the State will grow and encompass the neighboring territories, regardless of whether they consist of Arabs or not.
We have already stated that the real philosophy for revival (NahDah) is an ideology that combines the idea and the method, and any group that undertakes serious efforts towards revival must understand both.
Since this ideology (Islam) has now become clear, it is therefore possible to acquire the proper understanding needed to establish the correct Hizbi structure. The structure, which emanates from this correct understanding, will naturally be effective, creative and progressive. The society should fully support this structure and carry its burden, because this structure fully comprehends its idea, is aware of its correct method, and understands its mission.
However, merely understanding the ideology without establishing the structure is not enough for a correct revival. The individuals within it must be suitable for this structure, and the bond (RaabiTah) that binds the members must be correct and productive. The suitability of the individuals is determined by the structure’s method of binding its members to the Hizb (Tareeqat ur-rabT). In an ideological Hizb, the method of binding individuals within the Hizb, is the individual’s absolute adherence to the Aqeedah, and maturity in the Hizbi culture. Therefore, the suitability of any person would be determined naturally through the individual being molded into the Hizb when the Daw’ah interacts with him, and not through ceremonial or organizational procedures. The bond, which binds these individuals in a group, is the ‘Aqeedah and the Hizb culture emanating from this ‘Aqeedah.
Reviewing the movements which appeared in the last century, one finds that their incorrect structures were a fundamental cause for their failure. Their structures were not established on the basis of a Hizb that follows a correct understanding. Instead, they were established either upon an organizational basis or a nominal party basis.
Prior to World War One, Muslims knew that they had the Islamic State. Despite its weakness, decline and the diverse views towards it, the State remained the focus of their thought and vision. Although the Arabs viewed it as being imposed upon them, and that it suppressed their rights, they still looked at the Islamic State as their State, and attempted to reform it with their hearts and minds. However, the Arabs did not understand the nature of revival or its method. Thus, no structuring occurred amongst them. This was the case with the majority of the Muslims in the Islamic world.
By this time, the foreign culture had already invaded Islamic lands. As a result, the colonialists managed to attract a number of Muslims and recruited them to establish groups within the Islamic State that were based on the notions of independence and separation. The colonialists attracted a number of Arabs and gathered them in Paris to form a bloc to fight the Ottoman State under the guise of Arab independence. The foreign culture and thoughts, along with patriotic and nationalist emotions, introduced by the colonialists, were the main forces that brought the Arabs together. With their thoughts and emotions united, they were brought together by the same process of thought, which in turn led to a unified aim — independence of the Arabs, since the Ottoman State disregarded their interests and allowed itself to oppress them and suppress their rights. This unified aim served as a means of gathering a nominal party, which led to the Arab revolt, and resulted in the spread of Kufr and Colonialism over the Islamic countries, especially the Arab countries. The purpose of these parties ended at that point, and they shared the spoils of their efforts by being appointed as rulers of some Islamic countries and agents of Colonial powers.
After destroying the Islamic State, the colonialists took control of the Islamic lands, by directly ruling the Arab countries, and extending their influence over the entire Islamic world. They physically occupied the Arab countries and established a foothold in every part of the Arab world through covert and malicious styles and means. The most effective of these styles and means were the colonialist culture, money and their agents.
The foreign culture had the greatest effect in establishing and maintaining the colonial influence. It contributed greatly towards obstructing the revival, and towards the failure of all the movements, organisations and parties that attempted to revive the Ummah. Such a pervasive effect occurred because of the impact that culture has upon the thinking of the human being, which directs his life. The colonialists implemented educational and cultural curricula based upon a firm philosophy, which reflected their outlook on life - the separation of matter from spirit and religion (deen) from state. The colonialists made their personality as the sole basis of our culturing (thaqafah). They also made their culture (HaDarah), concepts, people, history and lifestyle the primary source of our thoughts. As if this was not enough, the colonialists would intentionally distort their personalities and present them as models for us. They would selectively choose certain aspects and concepts, and emphasize them, while concealing the true face of Colonialism, again using malicious means. They even intervened in the minute details of the curricula, to ensure that not even a slight deviation would occur from this general policy. As a result, the Muslims were educated with a corrupt culture, which taught us how others think, making us incapable of learning how to think. This was because our thought was separated from our environment, our personality and our history, and was not derived from our ideology. Thus, we became (as intellectuals) individuals, alienated from the people, and unaware of our situation and its needs. Consequently, the emotions of the intellectuals became separated from their thoughts, and the intellectuals themselves became separated from the Ummah and its emotions. Naturally, a thought, severed from emotions, or devoid of them, would fail to achieve a correct understanding of the situation and the needs of the Ummah. Nor would it lead towards a correct awareness of the method for revival. Moreover, such a foreign thought would naturally fail to lead towards a correct structure, arising from a correct understanding, because it is a foreign thought carried by a person with Islamic emotions.The effect of the foreign culture was not limited to the intellectuals. In fact, the thought of the entire society became separated from its emotions due to the influence of the foreign culture, complicating the problems of society even more. Hence the challenge of revival facing the correct Hizb structure multiplied in comparison to what it was before World War One. The issue after World War One is no longer how to revive the Islamic society, rather, it is how to harmonize the thoughts with the emotions amongst the intellectuals, in addition to generating harmony between the individuals (especially the intellectuals) and the society.The intellectuals became fascinated with the abstract foreign thought, which was devoid of emotions. This led them to feel alienated from the society, to scorn it, to distance themselves from it and to face it with apathy. It caused them to develop an attachment to the foreigners, to respect them, approach them and pay more attention to them, even though they were colonialists. Therefore, the intellectuals could not understand the situation of the society except by imitating the foreigners in their understanding of their own situation. The educated individual, when he spoke of revival, could not think of anything that would revive the Ummah except the emulation of the foreigners. Thus, the emotions of the intellectuals were not motivated by the ideology, but by feelings towards the homeland and the people, which were the wrong sources of motivation. Consequently, they would not even revolt properly, nor would they sacrifice fully for the sake of the people. They would neither feel the situation that surrounded them based upon a specific thought, nor would they perceive the needs of the people. If we assume that they would revolt and call for revival, this would be a reaction for their personal interests, or an imitation of other peoples revolutions. Therefore, such a revolt would soon vanish, either when their interests would be secured, or when their ego would be satisfied, or once this revolution would clash with their own interests or cause them harm.
The correct structure cannot be built from such individuals, before generating harmony between their thoughts and emotions, by culturing them from the beginning with an ideologically correct culture - the Islamic culture. Taking them through this culturing process requires that each one of them assumes the role of a beginner (student), whose mind has to be reshaped anew. After generating harmony in the individual, the next task would be to generate harmony between the individual and the society. Had it not been for the foreign culture, the problem of reviving the society would be much easier.
Thus, it is impossible for a correct Hizbi structure to coexist in society with this foreign culture. Nor is it possible for the correct Hizbi structure to emerge on the basis of this foreign culture.