* In the previous two parts of this article, I dealt with the position of the International Union of Muslim Scholars on the issues of atonement, apostasy, and the unity of the Islamic nation and women, according to what was stated in the founding document of the Union known as the “Islamic Charter of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.” .
The charter states that “the Islamic government is not a religious theocratic government in the sense that the West knew in the Middle Ages. Rather, it is a civil state whose reference is Islam, and it is based mainly on the free choice of the nation. This is limited to what he calls the era of backbiting, while other schools of thought consider that the nation’s choice of its rulers is the principle in all circumstances and conditions, following what the noble Companions did when choosing the four rightly-guided caliphs.
* The above quotation finds no support for it in the facts of history and the long experience of the “Islamic Caliphate” that was part of the ruling regimes that prevailed in the Middle Ages, and these regimes did not know the popular principle of “choice” as a basis for electing rulers, and that – although it differed from Western theocracy – She did not stray too far from claiming to rule in the name of God.
* Even the choice of the four “rightly guided caliphs” was not actually a free choice for the nation, as it is known that the choice of the first caliph, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, was made in a manner dominated by conflict and conflict between the immigrants and the Ansar on the one hand, and between the family of the Prophet and some of the senior companions on the other. Where the Ansar refused to take the position, as Abu Sufyan bin Harb refused, and demanded that the matter be settled with the Abd Manaf family, and after taking the position, Saad bin Ubadah refused to pledge allegiance to him, and as for Ali bin Abi Talib, he refused the pledge for days in the weakest narrations, or months.
When Al-Siddiq died, he did not leave the matter of his successor to the majority of Muslims, or even the people of “the solution and the contract.” Rather, he recommended to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab a closed book, which the Muslims pledged allegiance to before his death without knowing what was in it. And when Ibn Al-Khattab approached his Lord, he did not follow the method of the saqifa or the method of the friend in choosing, but limited the choice to six names (Ali, Othman, Talha, Al-Zubayr, Ibn Awf and Saad), who choose among them who will take over the matter.
* As for Imam Ali, he assumed the caliphate under the shadow of swords, and on spears, with the approval of some regions and the rejection of others, following the sedition of the assassination of Dhul-Nourin. After the assassination of Ali, Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan was the only one who ruled the Muslims. With Muawiyah’s assumption of the caliphate, the rule turned into a kingship, whose main character is predominance (conquest by coercion) and inheritance. The Caliphate, in its various historical forms, remained between these two paths until it was abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924.
* With regard to the Shiite sect, the experience of ruling in Iran since the outbreak of the revolution in 1979, and until now is the best evidence and witness that the real power lies under the complete control of the mullahs, and it is a theocratic rule par excellence, in which there is no room for popular choice, except within the limits A narrow formality that does not allow the free expression of the nation.
On the other hand, the “Islamic government” in its historical experience was not far from the model of the theocratic state in the West referred to in the charter, so here is the Abbasid Caliph, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur, addressing the nation on the day he ascended to power, saying: By His guidance, payment, support, and guardian over money with which I work according to His will and will and given with His permission, and He has made me a lock, if He wills, to open me, He will open me to give to you and to divide your livelihood, and if He wills to lock me, He will lock me!
* The charter shows a bias towards the foundations on which the democratic system is based, and calls for the necessity of: (the emergence of power from the nation, and that its continuation is subject to the desire of the people, and the adoption of the peaceful transfer of power within a legal framework that preserves the unity of the nation, and the non-exploitation of the tools of power to subjugate people and tyranny and confiscate their rights, and distribute The authorities (legislative-executive-judicial) so that their monopoly in one party does not lead to tyranny, and the competence of the military and security forces to defend the entire nation and not the system).
* The above position on the democratic system contradicts the founding position of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the position expressed by Hasan Al-Banna, by saying: He describes democracy as a frivolous system: (This is our call that has no platform but the Holy Book, no soldiers but you, and no leader except our Noble Messenger, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him. Where in our system are these frivolous, crumbling systems? This is democracy, communism, and dictatorship).
* As for the Union’s position on the economy, the charter said about it: “Exchange usually takes place through the market, and given the importance of exchange in economic activity, the contemporary economic doctrine has been called: the market economy, and it means the economy based on freedom of exchange, and on natural competition between people. The principle in Islam is the freedom of the market, and the state’s intervention is only to ensure free competition.
* And in the statement of the Union that “the origin in Islam is the freedom of the market,” the problem of the Brotherhood’s ideology that matches the group’s discourse and understanding of religion with Islam appears clearly, because there are other intellectual trends whose understanding of religion differs from the Brotherhood, and paradoxically, there is a vision within the Brotherhood that does not see that the capitalist economy It is the origin of Islam!
* It is known that at the height of the rise of the Nasserist socialist tide in Egypt, the General Controller of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Dr. Mustafa al-Sibai, issued his book “The Socialism of Islam,” in which he tried to find a legitimate cover for the agrarian reform law and the nationalization decisions issued by Abdel Nasser, while At that time, the Egyptian Brotherhood launched an all-out war against socialism, and Nasser’s relationship with the Soviet Union and the eastern camp.
On the other hand, the National Islamic Front (the Muslim Brotherhood branch in Sudan), which came to power through the military coup in 1989, adopted the market system as the ideal representation of the Islamic approach. The party implemented the structural adjustment policy advocated by the global capitalist institutions, including the privatization and sale of public sector institutions, the abolition of subsidies on goods, and the abolition of free education and treatment.
Quoted from Al Hurra
