Can we “Worship Allāh & Build Civilization?”

Nowadays, there's a trend of what people call “building civilization.” And in schools, it is being taught that Allāh the Almighty created man for two things: worshipping Him and building civilization.

This is a false division, as the civilization is not built except by worshipping Allāh:

﴿لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَآ ءَالِهَةٌ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا ﴾

Had there been within them [i.e., the heavens and earth] gods besides Allāh, they both would have been ruined.

Following this division, some were overwhelmed by the second part about building civilization, because it is separated in their minds from revelation and the worship of Allāh, so they began to look at it through the lens of powerful countries.

And there were those among them who forcefully interpret the religious scripture according to what powerful countries do. Some of them are convinced of these interpretations, and some of them only slightly, but they think that people will not have faith except in this way.

That is why when materialistic thought became prevalent, the Al-Manār School appeared, which interprets miracles, to the point that Muḥammad ʿAbduh interpreted the Abābīl birds as microbes.

When socialism became prevalent, Musṭafā al-Sibā’ī wrote “The socialism of Islam” and Sayyid Quṭb wrote “Social justice in Islam.” They both demonstrate their socialist influences through their disjointed interpretation of the scripture.

Today, when democracy emerged, its Islamication started by those such as Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī and Muhammad al-Dido. And when the culture of permissiveness [and degeneracy] became dominant, some who claim to be religious started to fight everything in the religion that contradicts it, and at their forefront is ʿAdnān Ibrāhīm.

The situation of these people is miserably pathetic because their views are based on what pleases the general public, and the general public is very volatile and unpredictable, e.g. who cares today about socialism after the rise of the capitalist hegemony?

This is from a purely rational perspective.

As for the Sharʿi (i.e. the Islamic legal) perspective, the most these people do is that they try to reinterpret the great religion of Islam through the lens of [limited] human experiences, that have their pros and cons, but the wisdom of the Creator cannot be compared to the knowledge of the creation.

If I told you that a child in elementary school wants to correct university exams, you would find that laughably absurd. But what is more ridiculous than that is when the creature becomes a judge over the wisdom of the Creator or, even worse, tries to tamper with it. And the story of Moses and al-Khidr contains a great lesson in this regard.

When the prophets came to their people, they came to people who had economic and political power. Those who carved luxurious houses out of mountains were the pinnacle of power at that time, but this did not distract the prophets of Allāh from their polytheism. Rather, they considered it one of their faults, because when worldly power is high while morals are low, it becomes a tool for destruction, and this is what we see today.

The concept of worshipping Allāh became narrow in the souls of many, and the way that religion is understood became limited to the general rule of the state and the manifestation of its rulings. For this reason, Maudūdī used to say, as in his book about Jihād, that the purpose of Jihād is not to bring people out of their religions to the religion of Allāh, but rather the purpose is for the Ḥākimiyyah (i.e. legislative sovereignty) of Allāh the Almighty to prevail over them. That is why those who were influenced by Maudūdī’s words make political positions sacred and build loyalty and disavowal on them more than on the basis of creed. And that is why you find among them some who have no problem with polytheist Rāfiḍīs who insult the Mothers of the Believers, but they have a real problem with those who support military coups and even those who praise them.

So, Ḥākimiyyah, as in their narrow view, is greater than Tawḥīd (i.e. monotheism) that is the worship of Allāh alone, according to many of them, and it is greater than the Tawḥīd of Allāh’s names and attributes according to all of them. That’s why we find some of them joining hands with the Jahmites because they show some application of the Sharīʿah, and they prefer them over those who are better than them in creed, and they even spend great amounts of research to verify their attribution to Ahl as-Sunnah and to downplay the gravity of their innovation. So when Al-Ẓawāhiri says that no one has served Islam like the Ash'aris and Maturidis, what he means by Islam is what in his mind is limited to a part of the religion, so he does not care about the destruction of the correct creed concerning Tawḥīd, in terms of worshipping Allāh alone, Allāh’s names and attributes, Imān (i.e faith) and Qadar (i.e. predestination) as much as he cares about bringing to power a man who shows the implementation of the Sharīʿah while escaping the grip of the major countries.

This approach is refuted by the words of Allāh the Most High:

﴿إِن تَنصُرُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ يَنصُرْكُمْ ﴾

If you support Allāh, He will support you.

and His words:

﴿ٱلَّذِينَ إِن مَّكَّنَّـٰهُمْ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ أَقَامُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتَوُا۟ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَأَمَرُوا۟ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَنَهَوْا۟ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ ﴾

[And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakāh and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.

and at the top of what is right is Tawḥīd and Sunnah and at the top of what is wrong is polytheism and innovation.

The main purpose of Jihād is to remove polytheism:

﴿وَقَـٰتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ ﴾

And fight against them until there is no fitnah

and Fitnah is polytheism according to the consensus of scholars¹.

If one said: Since this is the case, why should the jizyah be accepted from them? We say: This is from the great wisdom of the Sharīʿah, because the disbeliever is only motivated to disbelieve – despite the truth becoming apparent to him – by ambitions he holds such as leadership and money, so if he is stripped of them, and a share from his money for the poor and needy is taken against his will, this is more likely to humble him and bring him closer to accepting the truth.

What all of these people did not understand is that the Sharīʿah’s commands contain apparent benefits and hidden benefits, and these two are inseparable from each other:

• Prayer, despite being a means of drawing closer to Allāh the Almighty and connecting with Him, as Allāh says:

  ﴿إِنَّ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ تَنْهَىٰ عَنِ ٱلْفَحْشَآءِ وَٱلْمُنكَرِ ۗ ﴾

  Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing

  — Surat-al-ʿAnkabūt, verse 45

  it benefits the general social behavior, not as a show-off to people, but as a means of drawing closer to Allāh and worshipping Allāh by doing good to His creation.

• Fasting, in addition to being a connection to Allāh the Almighty, brings about righteousness in behavior and self-control, as evidenced by the ḥadīth “If any one argues with you or abuses you, say, ‘I am fasting.’” It is positively reflected on the behavior of the individual and society. And at the end of the month of fasting, there is Zakāt al-Fitr, as a means of drawing closer to the Creator by doing good to the creation.

• Zakāt is also a means of drawing closer to the Creator by doing good to the creation.

• Ḥajj is one of the greatest of these, as there is “no sexual relations and no disobedience and no disputing during Ḥajj,” while drawing closer to the Creator. Whoever commits any of the prohibitions of ʾIḥrām, he must do good to the creation to draw closer to the Creator by giving charity. Likewise, the one performing tamattuʿ and qirān slaughter the sacrificial animal and feed others.

• The same applies to ʿEid al-Adha, which falls during the days of Ḥajj.

This is in the jurisprudence of worship, but as for the jurisprudence of transactions, such as commercial transactions and marriage, the matter is clear.

All of this cannot be applied in many cases except through Jihād, and Jihād itself includes the spoils of war that are due to the poor, as are the Jizyah and Fayʾ.

Today, people do not understand a state without sanctions, regulations, and incentives with disincentives, but they want a religion without that. In reality, without punishment (ḥudūd and taʿzīr), and retaliation (qiṣāṣ), things would have become chaotic, as they are medicines for when diseases start spreading.

Even in oaths and their expiations, a person can reconcile his affairs with Allāh by feeding the poor and needy or clothing them. Likewise, the expiation for accidental killing, Ẓihār, and sexual intercourse during the day in Ramadan is to free a slave or feed sixty poor people.

If Islāmic Jihād had continued, this would have been the norm in the world, and millions would not have died due to smoking, alcoholism, deadly weapons, and famines caused by capitalism. Those who die from smoking, alcohol, and incestuous abortion are much more than those who die in wars, and this can be verified by reviewing reports by international health organizations.

The Islāmic rulings are of two types:

• Public rulings, which the ruler is concerned with preserving, such as preserving people’s money, honor, and religion, by applying the prescribed punishments and penalties, taking what Allāh has imposed from the disbelievers, settling disputes, and dividing inheritances.

• Private rulings, such as a person’s sincerity in these actions, his prayers in his home, and the hidden zakat of wealth that people have no way of knowing about, as there are two types of wealth: apparent wealth, such as crops, livestock, and merchandise, which is for the Muslim leader to follow up on and take from; and hidden wealth that accumulates little by little in a person without others knowing about it. Private rulings also include a person’s kindness to his children, neighbors, and wife. In most of this, the ruler has no way of doing anything except when some of it is reported to him.

No matter how strict the ruler is, he will not force all people to be dutiful to their parents, or to be kind to all their relatives, or to be sincere in good deeds, and he will not stand against every bribe and punish the briber. Rather, a person may borrow from someone out of need with a usurious loan, and the poor person may accept that because of his need and write to the rich person that he took such and such from him, and no judge can reject the poor person’s admission.

The private rulings are only enforced on people by advice, admonition, incentivization and disincentivization.

And what indicates the difference between the public and private rulings, is what ʿAbd al-Razzāq said in al-Muṣannaf [18943]:

On the authority of Maʿmar, on the authority of Al-Zuhrī, on the authority of Muṣʿab bin Zurārah ibn ʿAbd Al-Raḥmān, on the authority of Al-Miswar ibn Makhramah, on the authority of ʿAbd Al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf: That he was guarding the house one night with ʿUmar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb, and while they were walking, a lamp was lit in a house, so they set off towards it, until when they approached it, there was a door closed, and behind it were people who were making loud noises and chattering. ʿUmar said, taking ʿAbd Al-Raḥmān by the hand: Do you know whose house this is? [ʿAbd Al-Raḥmān] said: No. [ʿUmar] said: It is Rabīʿah ibn Umayyah ibn Khalaf, and they are now drunk, so what do you think? ʿAbd Al-Raḥmān said: I see that we have done what Allāh has forbidden us from. Allāh has forbidden us and said: “Do not spy” [49:12], and we have spied. So ʿUmar turned away from them and left them.

I say: This indicates that ʿUmar guarded during the period of his caliphate, and this is something that hardly happened to anyone else. Therefore, it is not permissible for the ruler to cover up for the one who has committed a crime after it has been reported to him, but it is better for the Muslim who is not a ruler to cover him up and advise him [...] based on the ḥadīth: “Had you veiled him with your cloak, O Hazzāl!”, because if it is reported to the ruler, it becomes a public ruling that does not allow for retraction, otherwise people will become impudent.

Most of the confusion among people today is due to the restriction of religion to some public rulings, so they interpreted Islam with a narrow political interpretation, and another group restricted religion to the private rulings, so they showed Islam as being a religion unsuitable for ruling a state by bringing what is good for people in this world and the hereafter, so they echoed some of the secularists’ talking points.

I am no longer surprised to see a secularist talking about religion without understanding it out of ignorance, because many of those who claim to be preachers do not understand religion.

[...]

Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighāthat al-Lahfān:

It is to be known that mercy is a quality that requires taking care of the interests of the people and bringing benefit to them no matter how difficult it is. This is true mercy. So, the most merciful towards you are those who are hard on you in bringing benefit to you and removing harm from you.

A father’s mercy towards his child is to force him to be disciplined through knowledge and action, and by beating him and other things, and to prevent him from his desires that lead to his harm, and whenever he neglects his child, it is because of his lack of mercy towards him, even if he thinks that he is showing him mercy and comforting him. This is mercy coupled with ignorance, like the mercy of a mother.

That is why it is from the ultimate perfection of the mercy of the Most Merciful to afflict the servant with various types of trials, for He knows what is best for him. His afflictions are the result of His mercy, but the servant out of his ignorance accuses his Lord and does not understand His bounty and grace.

And the ruler with his subjects is like the father with his children, but his obedience is conditional upon what is good (i.e. permissible), and the judges regarding that are the scholars.