Reply #35: The blogger quotes Islamic scholars who are infinitely more

[Hoping4Change]

qualified to address this then a group of opinionated friends.


is there an Islamic fascism?
Date: February 20, 2003 | 18 Dhu-l-Hijjah 1423 Hijriah
Blog: veiled4allah
Subjects: fiqh
Some of the visions of Muslim extremists like Bin Laden are, if not technically fascist, fundamentally totalitarian. Bin Laden's political views seem to be based on those of his comrade, Ayman Zawahiri. This particular ideology is called hakimiya. Here is Zawahiri's own explanation of hakimiya:


Democracy is shirk-u-billah (assigning partners with God). The distinction between democracy and tawhid (monotheism), is that tawhid renders legislation the sole prerogative of God whereas democracy is the rule of the people for the people ..... The legislator in democracy is the people while the legislator in tawhid is the Almighty God .... Hence, democracy is shirk (idolatry) because it usurps the right to legislation from the Almighty and offers it to the people.
This view is based on the ideas of Syed Qutb:


Qutb's theory essentially views society as one of two things: Islamic or Jahili. A Muslim, by declaring his faith in Allah at the same time repudiates all man-made systems and laws. Islam represents a clean break from Jahiliyya just like the Quran was a clean break from existing literature and the Prophet and his companions were a new society, an Ummah, completely different from the Jahili society around them. There is no link, no relationship between Islam and other systems. A Muslim can not reform Jahiliyya by preaching or warning, he must obliterate it and build an Islamic Society from new foundations. This is a simplistic, but fair exposition of Qutb's thesis. He does come up with arguments that show Western Civilization as wicked and materialistic and its adverse impacts on Muslim society. The way out is al-Hakimiyya, the declaration of total sovereignty and rulership of Allah, a full revolt against human rulership in all its forms, systems and arrangements, the destruction of the kingdom of man to establish the kingdom of God on earth... A revolution based on this theory does not think of improving the existing system, of understanding it or participating in it, but of destroying it first and then building a new one. It is based on the assumption that there is nothing good in the system.


Zawahiri's hakimiya is a total perversion of Islam. Nigerian scholar Sanusi L. Sanusi says:


The reality of course is that this theory, attractive as it may be, is not Islam. The prophet (S. A. W.) never claimed that he was sent to destroy both the good and bad. Even the hadith "Al-Islam Yahdimu ma qablahu" (Islam destroys what came before it) is a portion of a hadith in Sahih Muslim quoted out of context and which refers to the evil deeds of Jahiliyya, not the good ones. The prophet said, "I have been but sent to complete noble attributes (Makarim al-Akhlaq)". He was not the first prophet. Islam was not the first message received, the Quran was not the first of revelations. The Religion of Islam, the Prophet of Islam, the Book of Islam are but fulfilments and seals to what had passed before. Allah says in the Quran "Today I have Perfected your system of belief and made full My favours bestowed upon you and chosen al-Islam as the creed for you" (Al-Ma'idah:3) Islam does not pretend to separate itself from world civilization. Indeed as the early companions expanded the dominion of Islam they borrowed extensively from what was on ground in the more politically organized States of Persia and Iraq what was necessary for the Arabs, a nomadic people, to learn as they settled in towns. Innovations were introduced to the interpretation and distribution of booty, the creation of an Islamic calendar, the opening of a Diwan (roster) for welfare from the State etc. The Muslim takes what is good from civilization around him, and leaves what is bad.

British Muslim scholar Azzam Tamimi provides an even more detailed criticism of hakimiya:


Islamists, who treat the questions of democracy or power-sharing as matters of aqidah (faith), usually have no specialised or adequate knowledge in the humanities, and are indoctrinated with some shallow Islamic literature. They tend to define things with extreme simplicity. For instance, they understand Islamic government to mean "God's rule" and democracy to mean "people's rule". No only are issues of politics too complex to be simplified in this manner, but the conception of God's rule is totally misunderstood. The early Muslims understood God's rule to be a doctrine for the emancipation of humanity so that kings and landlords no longer monopolised wealth or power or law-making, and that clergymen no longer had the right to monopolise the right to interpret God's Will or to speak in His Name. "God's rule" is a revolution which means that a governor has an executive power but not a legislative one. "God's rule" does not mean that God comes down to govern or administer humanity's affairs. "God's rule" means the sovereignty of the law, which is a fundamental thing in the modern state, the state of law and order. God's rule is therefore consistent with the rule of the people or their representatives, who in the old Islamic literature are frequently referred to as "ahl al-hall w'al-aqd" (an elected group of highly qualified and experienced individuals), within the framework of the supremacy of the Islamic law, Shari'ah.