with the explanation by Sheikh Al-Hawarey underneath
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.
When the calamities descend upon the Ummah which
are followed by events in which Zhulm (oppression) dominates and when the
affairs of the people are handed to those who are not qualified to undertaken
them, the people begin to grumble and complain. This discontent transfers to
becoming a general sensation and feeling of being oppressed. This sensation
becomes embodied within some of the people which then drives them into activity
and to move to repel the oppression, get rid of Fasaad (corruption), raise the
status of their society and Ummah and to revive with her to reach the level
that they wish for her to attain. It is only natural that these people will
then resort to structuring (forming a group) so as to establish the capable
strength required to bring change according to their estimation and for them to
join upon a goal or an idea that they would gather round comprising of their
goals and the path that they will proceed in accordance to.
Due to what our Islamic world suffers from in
terms of decline and backwardness and what it endures in terms of oppression
and abuse we see that many movements have come one after another that aim at
stopping its decline, elevating its status and to revive with it to the highest
elevation that befits it. However all of these movements for more than 100
years have failed to achieve what they strove for and the evidence for their
failure is the reality of the Islamic world today. It has continued in its
decline until it has reached the very bottom or near to that and we have not
gained anything from these movements except for this unbridled and ardent
desire to work for change. So we are able to say that the good that these
movements left for us is the general feeling of the desire to make change and
even if they have taken the Ummah to the brink of despair. However the one who
examines the Ummah finds that it still has within it the noble qualities that
allow it to accept a way out from what it suffers from, as long as it senses
that there does exist a way to free themselves or that there is a reliable
trustworthy leadership that it can follow or be led by.
The one who examines these Harakaat (movements)
and has followed these attempts will find that they were not individualistic
actions but were rather structures (Takattulat) or organisations that were
structured upon a specific thought for the purpose of achieving a specific goal
or objective. Despite this they failed.
The reasons
for the failure of the movements and the previous attempts:
To become aware of the reasons or causes for
failure it is necessary to study these movements from two angles:
1)
The first
angle is that of the Fikrah (thought) and objective that for its sake the
gathering took place. Was this Fikrah (thought/idea) correct or incorrect?
2)
As for the
second angle then it is the angle of structuring. We do not mean here by the
structural angle that which occurs inside the structure in terms of structuring
(administration) but rather we mean the bases that any structure is established
upon regardless of the thought that it has adopted or the path that is proceeds
in accordance to.
So the structure any structure is established
upon four bases which are:
1)
The idea
that comprises the aim and which the people are gathered upon.
2)
The method
that this structure proceeds along in the way to achieving its aim.
3)
The people
who are responsible for this structure in terms of the extent of their Imaan in
its Fikrah (thought/idea) and Tareeqah (method).
4)
How the
affiliation of the people into the Takattul (structure) is completed.
Any flaw in any basis from amongst these bases
will inevitably to the failure in arriving to the achievement of the aim which
the Takattul (structure) is working to achieve. And by scrutinising all of
these movements that have arisen within the last century we find that all of
them have failed from the structural perspective due negligence in regards to
these bases.
This where:
- They were
established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined.
Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure)
in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’
(purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).
- They did not know a
Tareeqah (method) to implement their idea (Fikrah) rather their idea
proceeded by improvised and twisted means. This is in addition to it being
surrounded by obscurity and ambiguity.
- They relied upon
people in whom the correct awareness had not been completed and the
correct will was not focused within them. They were rather people
possessing desire and zeal alone.
- Those people who
undertook the burdens of the movements did not possess the correct bond
between them. It was no more than a structure that was represented in
forms of actions and a number of titles.
We will now examine in the
following section each of these bases in some detail:
1) They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah
(general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or
Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur
(crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).
Yes it is necessary that every Takattul be
based upon a Fikrah (idea/thought) and it can either be a Fikrah ‘Aammah
(general idea) or a Fikrah Kulliyah (comprehensive idea/thought). The general
idea is the type that can be used as a basis for thought in many matters that
come together in a single basis. As for the comprehensive idea, it can be used
as a basis for everything. This is in relation to distinguishing between the general
and comprehensive thoughts. Therefore the thoughts of nationalism, regionalism
and patriotism are only general thoughts that do not encompass all aspects or
areas of life. However the Fikrah Mabda’iyah (ideological thought) is a
comprehensive idea that covers all aspects of life.
I will add to this by stating that it is not
defined. So the structures that were formed include those that have been
established upon the basis of Islaam (The glory of the Muslims), some have been
established on the basis of nationalism (Might of the Arabs and Arab dignity)
and some on a patriotic regional basis (Syrian etc...) amongst other ideas.
These are all general ideas but they are undefined.
Therefore ‘The glory of the Muslims’, ‘Islamic
might’, ‘Return to Allah’, ‘Islamic education’, Islamic brotherhood’, ‘Islamic
revival’, ‘Arab revival’, ‘Independence’, ‘Arab unity’ and ‘The eternal
message’ amongst other ideas and slogans, do not have a defined (or specified)
meaning.
So in relation to the following statements for
example:
‘Returning the glory of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘The honour/might (‘Izzah) of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah
(vague).
‘Returning to Allah’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Tarbiyah (education/raising)’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic brotherhood’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah, Ghaamidah.
‘Islamic revival’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab revival’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Independence’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab Unity’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Unity’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
Therefore Ghumood (vagueness/obscurity) is not
having knowledge of the aim/objective or the way to attain it. As for Shibhu
Ghaamid (semi-vague) then its meaning is well-known but its features have not
been made clear like the statements ‘Returning to Allah’ and ‘Islamic
Tarbiyyah’.
As for the loss of the Tabalwur
(crystallization) then the meaning of crystallization is transforming from a
liquid state to a solid one like the crystallizing of salt from water. What is
intended here in regards to lack of crystallization is an expression of the
feelings and emotions of those affected by this and that the ideas were not
embodied in them and indeed they were incapable of identifying and specifying its features if they had desired to explain
the idea to the people. Therefore they relied upon slogans and stirring the
emotions alone and this can be seen to be the reality of most of the movements
that are currently present.
As for the loss of the Naqaa’ (purity), then in
regards to the Islamic movements, they did not comprehend or perceive clearly
what had been entered into Islaam in terms of western ideas. An example of this
are the principles that were brought in related to the formation of the
Shar’iah rulings that were taken from the Roman and French jurisprudence
(Fiqh). There are a great number of western principles that are studied upon
the basis that they are Islamic principles and bases. This is like the
principle: ‘The custom rules (i.e. dominates)’ or ‘The origin in contracts are
the intentions and meanings’ and ‘That which does not contradict Islaam is from
Islam’ amongst others.
So An-Naqaa’ (purity) means distancing the
foreign bodies from the fundamental thought so that it remains sound in its
origins and branches. As for non-Islamic movements like nationalistic and
patriotic movements, they have not truly comprehended the danger and
seriousness of what they have carried of western thoughts. Indeed they have
believed in (some of) these thoughts and have dedicated themselves to them like
the ideas of Democracy and Freedom amongst others for example. This is in
addition to attempting to explain and interpret Islaam in accordance to what
suits and fits with these thoughts and then they claim that they are Islamic.
As for the Safaa’ (clarity) then this means the
clarity of vision. And what is intended here in terms of clarity of vision
means comprehending the linkage between the thought and the origin that it has
emanated from or built upon. So in respect to Muslims and the carriers of the
Da’wah the Safaa’ (clarity) of the thought means that every Hukm Shar’iy
(ruling) that they call for is tied to the evidence that it has emanated from
and that every thought that is called for is built upon the fundamental thought
which is the Aqueedah (belief) of the Ummah. This was not fulfilled within
these movements and they were unable to distinguish between Shuraa and
democracy as a result. Indeed they were unable to differentiate between Shuraa
being a Hukm Shar’iy that the human resorts to in order to arrive at a correct
view irrespective of this human being a ruler or not a ruler. This is because
Shuraa is a Mandoob (recommended) Hukm Shar’iy and it is a style to arrive at
what is most probable to be correct whether this is a matter of ruling or other
than a matter of ruling. Despite this it is still possible to hear those who
are callers to Islaam stating that the system of ruling in Islaam is the system
of Shuraa and following from this it is true democracy.
As for non-Muslims from amongst those whom do
not have a defined idea then the work with them is greater and harder because
they have taken the western ideas just as they are without regard for whether
these ideas are suitable for their nation and society or not suitable and they
remain upon this state whether it relates to their fundamental thoughts or
their styles.
2) They did not know a Tareeqah (method) to
implement their idea (Fikrah) rather their idea proceeded by improvised and
twisted means. This is in addition to it being surrounded by obscurity
(Ghumood) and ambiguity (Ibhaam).
The subject of the Tareeqah (method) remains
unclear in terms of understanding in respect to all of the movements until this
day. Indeed they are virtually incapable of differentiating or distinguishing
between the Fikrah (thought) and the Tareeqah (method) and between the Usloob
(style) and the Waseelah (means). They envision any action from amongst actions
to be the method and more precisely they do not distinguish between the
Tareeqah (method) before achieving the goal and the Tareeqah after arriving to
it and the manner of implementing the Fikrah (thought).
We have oft repeated that the ideology
(Al-Mabda’) is the thought and the method (Fikrah wa Tareeqah). The Fikrah is
the Aqueedah, its solutions (Mu’aalajaat) and carrying the Da’wah whilst the
Tareeqah relates to protecting/preserving the Aqueedah and how to implement the
solutions and how to carry the Da’wah. This relates to the ideology and it
consisting of the thought and the method however our study and discussion here
is related to the manner of how to make this ideology reach life and thereafter
establishing its implementation.
Our because our discussion here revolves around
the structures and their failure from the structural aspect and it does not
revolve around their failure in regards to implementing their Fikrah
(idea/thought) then the subject of Tareeqah here relates to the way that the
Takattul should proceed in accordance to. This requires examining the Makki
stage of the life of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in relation to the Islamic
structures (groups) and the Ahkaam (legal rulings) that the Messenger of Allah
(saw) established in addition to gaining awareness about the difference between
that which is a Hukm (ruling) and that which is a Waseelah (means) or Usloob
(style) to implement another ruling.
So openness in the conveyance is a Hukm
Shari’iy (Legislative ruling) whilst the Messenger (saw) standing upon As-Safaa
and calling the people until they had gathered is an Usloob (style) and the use
of his voice in the call was a Waseelah (means). So the conveyance of the
Shar’iy rule or warning about the colonialist plans represents a Shari’iy rule,
the means is a publication and the style is wide challenging distribution.
So the Hukm Shari’iy is: The required action
that is performed as it is (on its own merit (as an obligation)).
The Waseelah (means) is: It is the tool that is used (utilized) like a
publication (leaflet), radio or microphone. This would be determined or defined
by the age and circumstance.
The Usloob (style): It is the manner that is
employed (utilised) to deliver the means and this is determined or defined by
the nature of the work/action.
Therefore the subject or issue that has been
mentioned in this paragraph does not relate to the Tareeqah in terms of the
Fikrah and Tareeqah of the ideology (Mabda’). But rather it refers to the
Tareeqah (methodology) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) followed to bring the
ideology to the life.
This can be summarised as follows:
-
A Takattul
that is established upo an ideology with its Fikt=rah and Tareeqah (thought and
method).
-
It has an
Ameer.
-
This
Takattul works to:
1)
Produce
people who believe in it.
2)
Produce an
Ummah or people that accept it.
3) Produce or find a power (force) that is
capable of placing this ideology in the position where it can be implemented in
life.
In addition there are a collection of rules
that are related to the achievement of this objective:
1) Like committing to the intellectual Da’wah alone
and distancing from using the material means
2) Obeying and implementing what this Takattul
has obliged and what it has adopted in terms of thoughts.
3) Implement the decisions that it has taken.
Based upon this, these Takattulaat (structures)
including those which are Islamic and those which are not, did not possess a
vision (grasp) for the method that they should proceed in accordance with. What
they performed of actions were reactions to what was occurring in the society
(improvised actions without previous understanding or planning in addition to
imitating that which happens in the world like strikes, protests and the
raising of slogans).
As for them being twisted (flexible) then this
happens as a result of entering into bargaining and compromising with the
rulers and people in positions of responsibility, or by joining with other
Takattulaat (structures) or being drawn into joining the work of a front,
organisation, association or something similar. If however these structures
viewed that they did in fact have a specific method then this method was vague
(Ghaamid) and not clear. So when they call for ‘Islamic Unity’ or ‘Arab Unity’
their method to achieve this is vague and they are incapable of how to reach
this objective even if they are attempting to find it. As for the obscurity
(Ibhaam) then this is reflected in the complete ignorance of this manner.
3) Those responsible for these structures were
people driven by zeal (enthusiasm) and a desire for change as a result of the
circumstances that the land is passing through or due to the realisation of the
corrupt nature of affairs. So they go out with their zeal for change without
the will and awareness being focused in them.
This is because the awareness (Al-Wa’ie) of the
thought and method is the Jaw Al-Imaani (atmosphere of Imaan) that makes the
person possessing it in a continuous state of zeal (Hamaas) when he binds his
actions with the fundamental principle that they have emanated from. The lack
of awareness makes him exposed to hesitation, inaction and bargaining
(compromise). As for the will (Iraadah) then this comes from the strength of
the belief (Imaan) in relation to the obligation of achieving that objective.
It is distinguished from the desire (Raghbah) because it is a desire that is linked
to a command that is obligatory to be implemented. As for the desire that is
not connected to another factor then the most that this can reach to is
zeal/enthusiasm. If that zeal then diminishes then the motivation wanes along
with it and he sits back from the work as a result. If we were to closely
examine that which these movements have left behind we will not find in them a
trace of awareness or knowledge of what they wanted.
4) The bond that joined together the
individuals of these movements was not a correct bond. It was usually
restricted to a mere desire attached to forming a group.
The structured groups normally searched for
people that have a position of standing within the society like Doctors,
Engineers, those in positions amongst others who hold a social status. Likewise
the member looks for a structure to affiliate to in order to strengthen his
social standing. Due to the above we find many continuously moving from one
Hizb to another either to perform some actions or to be included under a number
of titles.
It could be stated here that the Aqueedah is
the best bond that brings the people together. These words are correct but upon
the condition that the Aqueedah is the basis of the Takattul (structure). This
because all of the sons (members) of these structures are Muslims and they are
brought together by the Islamic Aqueedah however they have not taken the
Aqueedah as the basis of their structuring (group formation). This is from one
angle and from another angle the Islamic Aqueedah is the basis upon the
structuring was completed within the Islamic groups and movements. However they
took it as a general idea and this is not sufficient to be a bond (that binds).
This in the case where this Aqueedah holds the potential for a number of Islamic
rulings to be derived that lead to a plurality of understandings and
differences in relation to solutions and steps of action. This is because it is
only natural that many different structures would emerge from this Aqueedah.
For this reason it is necessary for a single Islamic group to have a specific
culture for it meaning that it is necessary to adopt rulings for its objectives
and a path that it proceeds along. All will be joined and brought together upon
these rulings (Ahkaam) and it will be the bond of their joining together to
achieve their objectives and unify the path that they proceed along. So it is
not sufficient to state that the Aqueedah should be the bond that binds but
rather it is the Aqueedah and the Hizbiy culture that is the bond that binds
the members together so that the objective is unified, the work is unified and
the path that is proceeded along is unified for everyone.
/
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.
This is the condition in which these Harakaat
(movements) lived and by which they intended to go out and revive the Ummah
upon its basis. It is an obvious matter that the one who does not have
something cannot pass it on to others, so when the stores of zeal were
exhausted they ended in failure and then other movements arose from their ruins
and their fate was the same as those that preceded them. Had the Ummah not had
what it had and had its Aqueedah not been a practical Aqueedah that leads to
structuring (naturally) then all of these movements would have ended in despair
which would have afflicted the Ummah and killed her spirit towards the work and
forming structures to perform it. This is what (the enemies) had wanted however
Al-Hamdu Lillah the blood that runs in her veins prevents her from reaching the
level of despair and indifference or lack of caring. This is despite its
existence amongst a large section from amongst the people.
All of this is because it was only natural for
these movements to fail because they were not established upon a clear and
defined idea, they were not aware of a method that would lead them soundly,
they were not formed upon people possessing awareness and they were not formed
upon the correct bond.
These are the main reasons that led to the
failure of all the movements and attempts that were present in the Islamic
world from the angle of structuring in addition to that which we have
summarized in relation to these four points. As for the detail behind this then
the one who is observant will find that these movements were either Islamic or
Nationalistic (Qawmiyah).
So the Islamic movements (Harakat) were and
still remain established upon the call (Da’wah) to Islaam in an open manner:
There are those that call the Muslim to commit
to the practise of the ‘Ibaadaat and for him to regulate the relationship
between him and his Rabb whilst prohibiting the political work. They do not
have any conception or visualisation for the Islamic society, Islamic State or
other than these.
And there are those who call to Islaam with the
call to return to Allah without specifying it.
And there are those who call to Islaam, the
study of the Islamic Aqueedah and understanding the Aqueedah (belief).
And there are those who call to Islaam with the
call of reforming the individual so as to reach from that the reformation of
the society.
And there are those who belief that the way of
escape (from the bad situation) and reviving the Muslims is by making them one
Ummah where their states are bound together under an Islamic league.
All of the above attempt to interpret Islaam in
a way that agrees with the prevailing present situations, the standing
systems/regimes to the point where they made a principle from which they
launched from and this was their statement: ‘The changing of the Ahkaam with
the changing of the Azmaan (times) is not denounced/repudiated’. They built a
lot upon this principle to the point where they made clear Kufr ideas into
Islamic ideas like democracy and freedom amongst other thoughts. So their
process was interpreting the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam and its texts by the
fundamental concepts that they held with the argument of bringing Islaam closer
to the minds. This was despite the aim behind doing this being the acceptance
of these systems, thoughts and rulings by the people and their approval of
them.
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 movementsto instigate the people of the Balkans to break away from the Ottoman Islamic State.
As for the national movements (Al-Harakaat Al-Qawmiyah), then after the success of the
west in separating eastern Europe (Balkans) from the body of the Islamic State,
by using nationalistic thoughts, they then implanted these ideas into the
hearts of the Arabs and Turks aiming to rip apart the unity of the Muslims and
form nationalistic states upon the ruins of the Islamic State. These movements
were directed directly by the west and would convene their meetings in London
and Paris. They would call for revival upon the basis of nationalism taken from
the Europe their model example, that these states were established upon a
nationalistic basis and revived upon a nationalistic basis in addition to
freeing themselves from the religious thoughts which then as a result allowed
them to revive. Therefore it was (in their view) necessary to establish an Arab
unity for the Arab Ummah to revive upon its basis. Similarly the Turks viewed
that their revival must necessarily be established upon the nationalistic
basis.
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
There were intense and sharp discussions that
appeared in the newspapers and press between the people of these two movements,
the Islamic and nationalistic, around an imaginary idea which was: Which of the
two is better and most appropriate? An Arab league or an Islamic league? It was
as if the problem was the division of lands whilst this division had not
existed prior to the first world war. Despite this these discussions were
intense and this was either out of ignorance or in an attempt to mislead the
public opinion and divert it from the correct sound thinking in relation to
revival and the way in which it is reached or achieved, despite the dominant
motivation being to mislead and divert. They finally arrived at the formation
of the Arab League in the year 1945 so what was the result of this? And did it
change anything in the reality? This is because the intended purpose was to
divert the minds from the serious thinking about the Islamic State or about the
basis that the revival of nations is based upon.
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.
Alongside the nationalistic and Islamic
movements, patriotic movements (Harakaat Wataniyah) were formed in different
parts of the Islamic world. This was a reaction to the occupation of the
disbeliever’s occupation of the Muslim lands and their taking over control of
them. So revolutions took place and actions demanding revolution and
independence to expel the disbeliever and keep the Kaafir presence from the
nation’s land. They mobilised the street in Iraq, Shaam and Palestine amongst
others for the sake of independence, so their demand (in reality) was one of
installing and confirming the puppets of the agents of the disbelievers in the
seats of ruling. So King Faisal was appointed in Iraq whilst Abdullah was
appointed in Jordan and the republic in Syria. In this way the leaderships directed
the situation to re-enforce the hold of the Kaafir (disbeliever) by way of
re-enforcing the agents in the positions of leadership amongst the people and
the re-enforcement of their rule, systems and laws.
In addition these agents with their tyranny, oppression,
the corrupt systems that they came with and the bad economic situations that
they created, they pushed the people to establish movements or engage in
actions and revolutions that led as a result to further strengthen the foothold
of the disbelievers and their agents. All of this was a result of the absence
of the thought and the method from the minds of those who were involved in
these movements.
No comments:
Post a Comment