Personal Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/EyadQunaibi4
Twitter account: @EYADQUNAIBI Google account gplus.to\eyadqunaibi
Peace be upon you, dear brothers. In the previous episode of "Psychology of Deviance," we discussed the style of "commitment and compliance" used by Chinese investigators to induce American prisoners to change their principles and cooperate with them. Today, we will examine the implications of this style on the reality of Islamic political movements.
We saw in the psychology of deviance that the prisoner was initially asked to make a seemingly insignificant statement with no consequences, slightly diminishing his country's system or slightly softening towards the enemy state's system. The prisoner began with statements like, "America is not perfect" or "There is no unemployment in communism," and the matter gradually progressed until he eventually became a traitor to his comrades-in-arms if they attempted to escape from their prison.
Compare this to the statements made by Islamic political movements, such as: "Democracy is a false principle that contradicts Islam, but it is the only available means to achieve Islamic rule, so we will use it as a means, not an end." Thus, the matter began with a denial of democracy but with the consideration that dealing with it is necessary.
Then, matters evolved, and we began to hear an acknowledgment of democracy. If they were questioned, they would say, "We are not talking about the legislative aspect of democracy, but rather its mechanisms and tools." Thus, the word democracy became a facade for them, allowing them to accept it with the correct face that does not contradict Islam.
Then, matters evolved further, and we began to hear statements like, "We must refer to ballot boxes; the will of the people is the decisive factor in principles and ideas," which are the essence of legislative democracy, the essence of democracy as a way of life. Then, the matter escalated to affirming a "yes" vote for the democratic constitution, with some justifying it with restricted phrases in hidden constraints unknown to the public, while others openly acknowledge that it is a constitution of polytheism but see accepting this polytheism as a temporary goal to prevent the tyranny of secularists and remnants.
This is regarding the leniency towards the non-Islamic system. As for diminishing the prisoner's own system gradually, it is similar in our reality to the successive statements that diminish the value of the Sharia or circumvent it in one way or another.
Initially, the Sharia was the sole demand that would not be compromised in the event of reaching power. Then, some Islamic political movements participated in power and adhered to the positive law, which aroused demands for the implementation of the Sharia. Thus, these political movements found themselves in a battle of response and humiliation, forced to defend themselves and what they had adopted from democracy, diminishing their opponents and what they call for in terms of applying the Sharia.
Here lies the danger; the victory of the self and the deviant methodology was at the expense of the Sharia, leading to its diminishment in one way or another:
Notice that even at that stage, it was acknowledged that the Sharia must be applied, but with conditions and determinants. Then, we began to hear slogans like, "Freedom before the Sharia," "Stability before the Sharia," in contexts that sometimes explicitly state that these values take precedence over the Sharia.
Until the matter escalated in the midst of the debate to the point where we heard Islamic figures ridiculing the Sharia and making statements that do not differ in meaning from those of secularists, as if they ended where the secularists began. We heard from a scholar of a movement defending what his movement did to a group calling for the application of the Sharia, saying, "These people cry over the Sharia that is suspended in their view, and they will not be satisfied until they see heads flying, hands being cut off, and backs being lashed," which clearly ridicules the Sharia's hudud and shows a disgust and incitement against them, unfortunately.
We also heard during the constitutional fitna from respected figures statements like, "There is no place now for establishing the caliphate; go and establish your state and apply the Sharia in the desert," which are statements that do not differ from those of the secularists, and God is our helper. It even reached the point where the justifiers argued that this Islamic party or that did not come to apply the Sharia in the first place; it is a civil party with an Islamic reference and will not apply Islam!
It began with simple statements, a word here or a sentence there that some considered insignificant, but their speakers adhered to them and were forced to defend them, then the caravan deviated completely. The transition from one concession to another was sometimes smooth and unconscious, and factors that aided this transition included:
Every deviant and dangerous statement was met with an army of justifiers who are overcome by emotion, who consider good assumptions beneficial in all cases, and do not realize that by placing good assumptions in the wrong place, they are helping people to drift into the abyss. These justifiers initially argued that these statements were political and intended to outwit the enemy, but they ended up justifying the falsehood itself in the end.
Concessions on constants are documented visually, audibly, and in writing. Therefore, systems and drafters of constitutions insisted on obligating the deputy and the president to swear to respect the constitution that makes legislation for other than Allah, which is one of the biggest traps of commitment and compliance.
Then, with every concession, the enemies of Islam who are sincere did not rest until they cornered these concession-makers and forced them to face the consequences of their statements, so the concession-makers publicly acknowledged them. They were asked, "Will you accept the results of the ballot box, whatever they may be?" They replied, "Yes, whatever they may be," thus forming new concessionary positions.
This public commitment opened a new front with those who judge their positions by the Sharia of Allah, so the concession-makers found themselves besieged amidst a triangle of pressures:
Those whom the concession-makers feel an inferiority complex towards and whose minds are still imprisoned in their intellectual prisons, even if their bodies were released by revolutions. These enemies will not remain silent if the concession-makers retract their statements or try to interpret them in a way that aligns with the Sharia, but will rather demand more "civility" and "secularism" from them.
Those who call for the right to prohibit concessions but do not know how to balance between clarifying the corruption of the methodology on the one hand and showing mercy to the opponents and wishing them well on the other; which makes the pride in sin take over these concession-makers, and the victory of the self prevails over them instead of the victory of the truth.
The common people, who are taught by the compromisers in the mosques, believe that indecisiveness and evasion are not characteristics of the believers. They love courage and boldness. Therefore, the compromisers strive to please their popular base and convince them of the correctness of their approach and the invalidity of their opponents' approach. Thus, they had to appear consistent with their statements and positions.
As we explained in the previous episode, a person who acts in contradictory ways appears to people as indecisive, unconfident, scattered in thought, and untrustworthy. To avoid this contradiction in front of their people, the compromisers defended their positions that contradicted the Sharia, seeking at night for any legal or rational evidence to support them, in the manner of "believe first, then find evidence," a method that never leads its carrier to the truth.
To convince people, they had to convince themselves first, for one who lacks something cannot give it. Unfortunately, they deceived themselves until they convinced themselves, and a real change occurred in their psyches, making their statements and positions part of their being.
Thus, "commitment" led to "agreement"; they committed to the consequences of their compromises, then agreed with their psyches with these consequences. This psychological change made it easier to make greater compromises. Each time the dust of the battle settled, an issue was transformed from a definitive one to a speculative one, and thus the destruction of the constants came one after another.
It is astonishing that these compromisers often justify their new compromises with phrases that mean nothing but that they have fallen into a trap. This is their saying: "Let us be frank, he who accepts democracy and its conditions must accept its consequences. It is not permissible to speak of justice, equality, and freedom, then impose preventing conditions (i.e., Sharia conditions)." They mention this parrot-like phrase as if it were the abrogating evidence for all evidence, and it is nothing but a clear expression that they have set a trap for themselves, which their enemies helped them with, and then they fell into it.
This concerns the operators of documentation and public commitment. Next time, with God's permission, we will talk about the operators of "extra effort" and "self-motivation." But we say in conclusion: For all of this, and for wisdom that only God knows, the Almighty warned against minor deviation and intensified its punishment, for He knows these dire consequences.
We, as humans, are weaker than our enemies who scheme and employ psychological and social sciences to divert us from our religion. However, we must hold fast to the rope of God and cling to the Sunnah of our Prophet with determination. Look at His saying:
"And had it not been for [Your] settling [me] , you would have nearly inclined to them a little. Then I would have made you taste double of life and double of death, and then you would not find for yourself against Us any helper."
This "little thing" would not be an act of disbelief certainly, for the act of disbelief is not a little thing. Yet, if the Prophet had committed it, God would have made him taste double punishment. And look at His saying: "And beware of them lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has sent down to you," and His saying: "And do not incline to those who do injustice, lest the Fire touch you."
No, by God, the compromisers will not be helped by their compromises in this world, nor will they be helped from God's punishment in the Hereafter, unless He catches them with His mercy and returns them to the truth in a beautiful return. "Then do they not contemplate upon the Qur'an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?"
Indeed, those who turn back on their heels after what has become clear to them of guidance - Satan has made their deeds fair-seeming for them and delayed [them], that is because they said to those who hate what Allah has sent down, "We will obey you in part of [this] matter." So if this warning is for those who said, "We will obey you in part of the matter," then what about those who obeyed them in democracy as a way of life? Whoever turns a blind eye to these divine calls has lost his immunity, and his harm is the scheming of his enemies, so he has no one to blame but himself. We ask Allah to guide the stray and rectify the condition of the Muslims.