Episode 15 - The Islamic Project and Losing the Compass

Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

Dear brothers, it is well known that one of the most important reasons for the success of any project is the clarity of your goal, knowing the extent of your capabilities, following up on achievements, and then adjusting your means and planning according to this achievement. Therefore, we concluded the previous episode with six questions directed to the Islamists involved in the constitutional electoral parliamentary work and those who support their approach, to know where this work is heading. Let us now cooperate together in discussing these six questions.

The First Question: What is your specific goal in entering the democratic process?

Those who follow the statements of the parliamentary Islamists notice confusion in defining the goal. Sometimes the announced goal is the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, whose capital will be Al-Quds Al-Sharif, and to restore the dignity of the nation. Sometimes the goal is to reduce evil and preserve the remnants of the Islamic identity, and prevent the remnants of corrupt systems from taking power again, because if they do, Allah will not be worshipped on earth after that, according to their expression. Sometimes the goal is to establish Sharia and Islamize the institutions of governance and the military institution. Sometimes it is just to call for truth under the dome of parliament, train Islamic cadres in political work, ease the pressure on the call, and take our share of the cake, while acknowledging that parliament is not the way to establish Sharia.

Is the goal really to establish Sharia and the Caliphate, or is it just partial reforms? The fact is that many parliamentary Islamists, if they want to rally popular support, highlight and raise resonant slogans and great goals such as the Caliphate and the rule of Sharia. Then, when they are confronted with the bitter reality that you have wasted your time, wasted your efforts, and compromised your cause by taking the path of parliaments, elections, and positive constitutions, their response is: "We did not claim that we want to enforce Sharia through this path, but we want to reduce corruption and provide a space for freedoms for our call."

This duality is unacceptable. They should define the goal from the beginning instead of stirring people's feelings with slogans and ambitions that they themselves admit from time to time cannot be achieved through democracy. It is not acceptable for the owner of the Islamic project to be like someone who leaves his house and walks aimlessly, not knowing where he is heading. "Is he who walks prone on his face better guided, or he who walks upright on a straight path?" Therefore, it is necessary to start by defining the goal for reasons including:

First: The confusion in defining it prevents Islamists from reviewing their accounts and knowing the extent of their success in achieving their goal, as the goal they want to achieve is not defined.

Second: Many of those who have laid down and justified parliamentary participation have made it a condition that its purpose is to achieve a great comprehensive public interest, and have set controls for the concessions that can be made in return. We see Islamists who argue with the fatwas of these scholars abandoning the controls and making concessions without limit or condition. And in return for what? In return for partial, secondary, and speculative interests that are not public, great, or comprehensive.

Therefore, it is required of the parliamentary Islamists to answer clearly this question: What is your specific goal in entering the parliamentary presidential constitutional work? And this question is based on what follows, which is:

The Second Question: What concessions have you made from the beginning?

Or in the language of some: the evils you have accepted? The Islamic parliamentary work has made concessions such as relying on constitutions that make legislation a right for other than Allah the Almighty, involving secularists, making the application of Sharia dependent on the approval of parliament, and emphasizing that it will be applied not all at once but through unclear mechanisms, and other things that will be explained in detail as to their illegitimacy, God willing.

The Third Question: What are the gains or interests for which you have accepted these major evils?

In reality, to justify the concessions mentioned to themselves and to the supporters, the parliamentary Islamists often announce great comprehensive public goals or gains such as the application of Sharia, the Islamization of the system of governance, and the restoration of the nation's dignity, among other things. Although we are convinced that great goals are not achieved through concessions, the greatness of the goal has justified in the eyes of the parliamentary Islamists the greatness of the concessions, so the concessions have become relatively small and justified in their eyes. They have tried to downplay the importance of these concessions and underestimate their danger and effects, and their talk about that is like masturbation.

No indication of achieving the goals has appeared, but the harmful effect remains, which is the underestimation of the concessions. This entrenched contempt and underestimation of concessions in the minds of parliamentary Islamists and those who support their approach leads us to:

The Fourth Question: Are the gains you hoped for at the beginning still standing, or have they started to fall and the ambitions narrowed?

Of course, when we see that the parliamentary work has failed to impose any will on the military institution, and that the parliamentarians have not been able to do so through official means, nor even to release our Christian sisters who have converted from the walls of church prisons in their countries, it becomes absurd, laughable, and a joke on oneself first and then on the people to talk about establishing the Islamic Caliphate, restoring the dignity of the nation, and taking the entire nation out of the prison of Western subservience through the same official means. This becomes a real farce.

Therefore, reality requires them to admit that the gains are falling and the ambitions are narrowing. We expect the parliamentary Islamists to say now: "Our goal is to provide some freedoms for the call, not to leave the institution of governance to the secularists and the remnants, prevent administrative and financial corruption, and implement some social reforms." These are partial, secondary, and speculative gains that are not conclusive. This leads us to:

Question Five: Have you adjusted the concessions in accordance with the relatively minor new secondary gains?

We remind the parliamentary Islamists: When you made the major concessions initially, you did so for major goals. In other words: You accepted major harms for major interests. Now the interests have diminished greatly, so have you greatly reduced the concessions in return?

Unfortunately, what we see is the opposite: an increase in concessions chasing after this mirage called gains and interests. And whenever the Islamists notice the imbalance they assumed between the gains and the concessions, two things numb their sense of right and wrong:

The first is the trivialization that has become entrenched in their minds regarding the concessions they have made. After being relatively small concessions, they have become absolutely small.

The second is the delusion of unrealistic claims that it is still possible to achieve the great goal of establishing Sharia through the path they have taken. These delusions result from the confusion and bewilderment mentioned earlier in determining the goal. Strangely enough, after the failure of concessions to achieve even these minor secondary goals became apparent, many of the parliamentary Islamists concluded that what they should do is increase the concessions. Increasing concessions is like drinking seawater and not quenching one's thirst. It has become clear to them that their enemies will not allow them to infiltrate the ruling apparatus while carrying any Islamic hue. So their conclusion was: "Therefore, let us rid ourselves of carrying the Islamic identity so that we can participate in rule." They sold the goal for the means, and did as the man who wanted to clothe the orphans, as we mentioned in the previous episode. And Allah the Almighty is truthful when He said: "And follow not the footsteps of the Shaitan."

As we have seen, there is a duality and confusion in determining the goal, major concessions in exchange for minor, even illusory, gains. Nevertheless, the Islamists and those who support the parliamentary approach insist on the possibility of achieving the minor secondary goals.

Question Six: Do you consider yourselves as Islamists in political work currently possible or weak?

Here also we see duality. When they talk about the expected gains from engaging in parliamentary work, the parliamentary Islamists speak in the tone of the possible. They talk about a revolution in the constitution, the Islamization of ruling institutions, and the change of corrupt leadership in the army. All of these can only be achieved by the possible. And when they are blamed for the concessions and the strange statements, they plead weakness. Let us define our capabilities and possibilities as Islamists, are we possible or weak?

The possible has its role, duties, and means, and the weak has its role, duties, and means. The two situations should not be confused, the situation of empowerment and the situation of weakness. It is not appropriate to engage in this parliamentary labor claiming that you will bring about a great revolution in the situation, then you legitimize the ignorant system, implement its agenda, lose your identity and distinction, and then plead weakness.

Conclusion: Loss of Compass and the Solution

It is no secret that all of the above represents a state of confusion and loss of compass that has afflicted the Islamic work. Its beginning was the acceptance of making concessions on methodological constants with unregulated arguments, as we will see, God willing. These were quick insights. I hope that everyone who supports engaging in the democratic game will ponder them and recall during that the saying of the Almighty: "And this is My straight path, so follow it, and do not follow the ways that will lead you away from His way." And what was narrated by Al-Bukhari from Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: "I am not leaving anything that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, did except that I do it, for I fear that if I leave anything of his affair, I will go astray." I think this episode needs to be listened to again in the light of this verse and this hadith.

In the next episode, we will cooperate together, God willing, to determine the goal that we should all strive for as workers for Islam.

Episode Summary: Accepting concessions on constants has led the Islamic work into labyrinths whose losses are great compared to illusory gains. Therefore, the Islamists should define their goal and know that it is not achieved through concessions. And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.