Q: Is it legally permitted to carry out relationships with the people of the book other than inviting them to adopt Islam as a religion?

A: There is no obstacle hindering such relationship for God says: {Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just}; (60: 8). Moreover, God wants us to discuss with the people of the Book in a friendly manner, to come to common terms with them, and to open up to them in one way or another without any problem in this respect. Thus, this kind of relationships is not forbidden except for when it comes to facing some critical points that might, sometimes, make the relationship forbidden if it involved something forbidden or loathed.

Islam and party politics

Q: Let us say that I belong to a certain political movement and I found that it embraces some deviations. What shall I do in order not to fall prey to some legal breaching?

A: When the human being adheres to a certain political movement abiding by its orders, obligations, attitudes, restrictions; participating in its struggles with others and so on… he should make sure that it is honestly taking the right path in order to guarantee that his involvement with this movement will remain within God’s law and order. But if he finds that the movement is carrying out some deviational acts, which might lead him to commit a certain wrongdoing or to abandon a certain duty, he must then play the role of its critical voice and work toward correcting it through all possible means.

However, if he fails to fulfill the said aim, the most obvious and natural thing would therefore be not to proceed with the wrongdoing. Then again, the question of him staying a member in the movement remains depending on the positive or negative outcomes showing at the level of the great causes represented by the movement. So, if belonging to this movement, even with some mistakes, deviations and contraventions, would serve the great and noble objectives of Islam; in that case, he has the right to maintain his membership. Quite the reverse, if his presence represents a false witness, if he is not serving any Islamic great cause or goal; then he ought to leave.

Q: Attempting at correcting the movement or the party might necessitate trespassing some of the party’s laws and regulations. Well, does that give rise to any legal problem?

A: First: this differs according to the kind of commitment that the human being undertakes when he adheres to the movement. Second: he must study all the negative and positive aspects that might occur during the destabilization of the movement’s general order. He must also examine and evaluate all the consequences that will arise from exposing the movement to the atmosphere of the struggle with the purpose of correcting it. So, if the results were greater and more beneficial, he should pursue his goal consulting the people of experience and wisdom in the issue, if he happened to be lacking the objective experience in this respect.

Q: Is there any contradiction between the services and donations that the person offers to his Islamic movement or organization in order to grant it a high reputation and the principle of approaching God and worshipping Him alone?

A: If granting the movement a good Islamic reputation contributes in endowing it with considerable chances to achieve its Islamic objectives and to increase its importance in the eyes of people, which in return might lead to some significant results at the level of the great Islamic causes it aims to realize; in such case, doing so would be one of the deeds that make the person closer to God. And we mean by the deed that makes you closer to God the one that reaches God either directly or indirectly.

So, if we are talking about a person who belongs to an Islamic movement or to any Islamic position that can make a difference at the level of the great causes or that can become widely spread in the general Islamic reality and attain this point of being able to accomplish its goals through the best feasible means - assuming that those goals redound to the great benefit of Islam - his work and effort to allow the movement the highly ranked position and the good name would, therefore, serve the fulfillment of the great objectives that please God and his deeds will consequently narrow the distance between him and God .

Q: What would be your response to the one who says that parties are one way to destroy and divide society?

A: Actually, the core issue here is not parties. It is rather fanaticism that fragments society and those who are talking this way are, in fact, talking about fanatic parties. Besides, we see no difference between being fanatic of a party or fanatic of a person. We find that some people invite other people to become fanatically devoted to them and they speak negatively about some people’s fanaticism of certain parties. Naturally, the question of being fanatic of some person will turn into a question of idolizing this person especially if he does not represent an extension of the general Islamic or social reality. Hence, we say that there is a difference between someone speaking about rejecting the system of parties and someone speaking about rejecting fanaticism; whether it was related to parties, confessionalism, persons, and so on and so forth.

Q: What do you think of the saying that the religious scholar should not be involved in a party because his endeavors would then be employed for the sake of the party and not for the sake of God?

A: We should understand first what a party member means. Being a party member is adopting a certain point of view with regard to the means that enable the human being to achieve his great Islamic goals (if he was a Muslim). Thus, it is not natural to deny the religious scholar his right to believe or to cooperate with a certain path or movement which might actualize the Islamic objectives through these various and realistic means if there were no other possible means that can furnish Islam with power, openness and progress. Nevertheless, there is another point to be taken into consideration; that is, when this scholar follows a certain movement, party or path, he must not imprison himself inside the traditional and fanatical circle of this party; nay, he must keep his belonging to this party opened to the Nation, where his mind, heart and behavior are always in the service of the Nation as a whole.

And as we have already said that there is a difference between living in a limited and narrow corner strangled by fanaticism, separating yourself or your path from others, and belonging to a party that opens up to the Nation and that deploys all its efforts to serve the Nation through the general principles in this respect. In fact, if we set, in this subject, from the logic that refuses for the human being to belong to a certain path, which aims at realizing the objectives through certain means; we can say that it would also be wrong for the human being to join an assembly, a council or any other private, social or political institutions.

Accordingly, if this party is a party that treads in the right Islamic track that pleases God ; adhering to it becomes a duty or an obligation and not just a matter of permissibility and preference. Truly, if we want to adopt the negative reasoning which says that a religious scholar shall abstain from taking part in any party’s activities, why not saying then that a person is not allowed to adopt Islam as a religion when he is living in a pluralistic society - such as Lebanon - and so he would have no right to profess his Islam publicly, just as the Christian would have no right to profess his Christianity publicly because the particularity of Islam and Christianity divides the country and makes it susceptible to be infected with fanaticism.

So, we conclude that there is a major difference between having the personal right of belonging which constitutes a natural human state, taking into account the divergence between people in their belongings through the divergence of their interpretative judgments and their convictions, and being fanatic of your belonging to the extent that you deny others their belongings or you turn your belonging into an aggressive state against others.

Q: In forbidding the belonging of religious scholars to parties, movements …etc, people might advance the edict of Sayyed Muhammad Baker Al- -Sadr (May the mercy of Allah be upon him) that had been issued during the seventies as an argument to their claim; what is your comment?

A: I have studied this edict and I found that Sayyed Al --Sadr did not forbid belonging. He had rather forbidden the religious scholar from declaring his belonging publicly, under some specific subjective political circumstances, in a way that puts him under pressures in his relation with the society at a particular period; and, subsequently, he becomes unable to serve the cause for the sake of which he has joined a certain party for. The conclusion I inferred was that Sayyed Al- Sadr (May the mercy of Allah be upon him) meant to draw the attention in this edict to the tactical aspect of the issue and not the strategic one, in order to deal with an urgent political condition.

Indeed, it cannot be that he denied the human being the right to belong intellectually and practically to a certain political and Islamic movement that convinces him. However, the religious scholar must avoid becoming part of the circle of factional diversities providing the basis according to which people are classified, judged and treated. Belonging to this or that person or party might, in fact, impede one’s free movement and action in his openness to the Nation and in the Nation’s openness to him which will consequently damage his general role and responsibility towards the Nation. Hence, this issue should be decided according to the nature of the positive or negative results and according to the prevailing circumstances one is living.

Q: What are the limits and dimensions of the Islamic factional activity from the legal standpoint?

A: Any Islamic party should make sure to be opened to the Nation as a whole, to the Muslims who support it as well as to the Muslims who oppose it even to those who find its program and ideas too complicated for them. Indeed, any Islamic activity must be opened to the Nation; as a matter of fact, it must make the Nation its own responsibility.

So, while the party meets with those who advocate its cause, it should, at the same time, maintain an active dialogue with those who contradict it along with pursuing and serving their cause regardless of whether their disagreement was in their approach, in their opinion, or in anything else… Moreover, any Islamic party should never classify people according to their factional affiliations evaluating their Islamic commitment as walking hand in hand with their factional beliefs and so they would embark on delivering different judgments deciding that this person is a true Muslim and that person is a false Muslim or something like that. We all know that God accepted people’s submission - to His will - that sets from one’s wish or one’s fear and not from a state of conviction and that is what the following Quranic verse clearly expresses: {The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' for not yet has Faith entered your hearts….} (49: 14).

On this basis, we comprehend that He wanted to embrace all people and to draw them away from getting attached to disbelief, even if their belonging to Islam was fictitious. Hence the party should look at the Nation broadly and not partially. In the light of what we have just said, the party should not be fanatic when it comes to dealing with another group or another Muslim party, which disagrees with it. Nonetheless, it can dissent from such parties by competing against them honestly; that is, through debating with them or through entering into cultural or political conflicts with them in a way not to harm the unity or the safety of the Nation.

And I want to lay emphasis on this particular point because the arrogant plan or method now taking place in the existing regimes of Islamic Nations is trying to isolate Muslim organizations’ adherents from the political activity by not giving them the permission to form a political party, or a political Islamic movement. Their made-up excuse for doing so is that an Islamic party would imply that being a Muslim is strictly exclusive to those who follow the party and any other person is not. Their claim is that any party would only divide and destroy the Nation.

We have already responded to this by saying that this logic would also prove to be true when speaking about a national or a patriotic party arguing that who adheres to it would be the national or the patriotic while those who don’t lack any sense of nationalism or patriotism. What we want to say is that; regardless of the reality and practicability of their ideology or proposals at the political level, Islamic parties should never grant those people the chance or the excuse - validating their opinion – by the logic they adopt as to the intellectual and behavioral approach of their factional existence. We believe that the Islamic party represents a step forward in the spreading of the Call. It acts according to the Islamic Call - as the Prophet(p.) has planned for it – that embraces Muslims who joined Islam to deepen their faith and religion; that opens new horizons for those who didn’t adopt Islam as a religion for the sake of Islam and its beliefs; and that sets from the basis of changing the non-Islamic reality into an Islamic one.

On this account, the Islamic party ought to be opened to all the Islamic reality and to all the horizons within the limits of which Islam operates. Furthermore, the Islamic party has to work toward sowing the Islamic thought in the mentality of the Nation and educate its mind on the basis of the Islamic views regarding the creed, the Sharia (the Islamic law), the political, social and economical conceptions, and so on and so forth… And the party has to work at the level that can produce an Islamic society or Nation where Islam can live amidst its intellectual structure as well as its practical one.

Hence, we find that one of the party’s tasks is to aim at stimulating the Islamic reality to move in harmony with the movement of the political, social, economical, and security levels and paths. Accordingly, the movement of the party has to resume the whole movement of the Islamic Call theoretically and practically, to benefit from all the existing energies in the Nation, and to improve the work of this movement with the enough flexibility that saves it lots of conflicts which might distract it a bit from accomplishing its program and goals – and we are talking about those conflicts that might occur in public religious authorities or anything similar to that.

The role of the Islamic party, as I see it, is the role of the herald who is very open, when carrying out the Call, to Islam as a whole and to human beings as a whole, exactly as the Messenger(p.) said - in what Allah have said about him: {O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah} (The Heights; 7:158). The party must also be the herald who invites people to Islam within the field of the Nation as a whole…

Q:What would you respond to the one who says that the party that wants to oppose the rule in a society of different internal religious, confessional, or sectarian groups must not work for the sake of a certain confession or sect; but it ought to be a national party which seeks to benefit, in its objectives and deeds, all of the Nation and not only a specific group?

A: I disagree with this point of view for a simple reason; that is, the factional issue (even the one based on the democratic trend) necessitates that each group of people would be entitled to take actions on the ground according to its own ideological beliefs and political agenda inviting people, inside or outside the country, to adopt its thoughts considering that the varied reality does not impose on the country or the people to maintain this variation.

The movement of civilizations in the world lies in that all those who have varied thoughts are dedicated in working towards attaining unity by this variation and through dialogue. On this basis, we understand that those who advocate this claim are thinking of the necessity to freeze this reality, to freeze the religious or the tribal reality, or to freeze this reality as a whole.

If we want to go along with this way of thinking, we could actually say to Prophets you should not invite to your call those who do not believe in what you are or those who are part of pluralistic societies because by doing so you would be working towards changing the reality in favor of your own thought and this might raise numerous problems in society. Hence, we have to say for each one who adopts the Marxist or the nationalist way of thinking or any other wide-ranging school of thought that sets from a certain ideology or from certain political patterns that lots of people disapprove in this context. Telling prophets not to preach people who do not believe in their call; or the people who disagree with them is, indeed, something that no civilized person can admit.

Someone might say: you are working within the framework of your Islamic sphere which means that you are not working for the country as a whole. We respond to that by saying that by carrying Islam, we try to open up to all people, we try to urge Muslims to comply with Islam’s behavioral pattern so that they would serve its cause in harmony, and we try to serve and assist non-Muslims by keeping the channel of communication with them, we try to help them achieving their cause even if they maintained their religious beliefs and did not profess Islam as a religion.
If we want for example to take steps in a society where Christians and Jews coexist with Muslims, then our movement in this case seeks the benefit of all people without differentiation and we do know that Islam has made room for concluding treaties with Christians and Jews and not only with free non-Muslims enjoying Muslim protection.

Therefore, the Islamic State or the Islamic party should open up to the causes of all people; that is, they should open up to the causes of non-Muslims just as they open up to the causes of Muslims in general, especially if we become aware of the fact that the questions of economy, security and social balance cannot be fragmented within the frame of one country because any state of imbalance that occurs with non-Muslims will certainly create a similar one with Muslims with regard to the country’s unity. Yes we are Muslims who take Islam as a pattern in life and who take the charge of inviting people to Islam, but through all of this we maintain the principle of serving all people.

As Muslims we work toward confronting any oppression that any person, even if he was a non-Muslim, might be inflicted with. In fact, we stand against the oppressor, even if he was a Muslim, supporting the oppressed, even if he was a non-Muslim, because God wanted us to be just in our judgments and attitudes with all people and to be benevolent with all people. Thus, we come to the conclusion that those people are wrong to think that the Islamic party, the Islamic movement or the Islamic call are limited, in their deeds and goals, to Islamic communities and surroundings and are careless to what happens outside their environment. Indeed, the reality is totally nothing like that.

During all epochs, Islamic experiences have proved that despite of all its reservations with respect to lots of its programs, plans and approaches, the Islamic State was a State for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Moreover, the Messenger(p.) recommended that the covenanter or the free non-Muslim (under Muslim rule) would be taken care of the same way as Muslims. And that is what we find today in the Iranian experience, which turned into an Islamic Republic. We find it is opened to non-Muslims as much as it is opened to Muslims; besides, it grants non-Muslims all their rights according to their size and proportion in society

Q: These thoughts do not deny each party the right to invite people to adopt its own principles were they Muslims or non-Muslims, but they oblige the party, the coalition, or whatever bloc wanting to rule to be devoted for everybody all the same, and without any distinction between categories so that everyone would be able to work freely and to call people to his own thoughts and theories; is that what you are saying?

A: There is a difference between the committed line and the non-committed one. In the non-committed approach, people’s actions and moves in the political arena are decided based on democracy where no thought is more preferable or worthier than the other, because legitimacy is defined according to what is mutually agreed upon by people; that is what democracy means. On the other hand, we have the committed and unwavering line such as Islam, Marxism, and so on… The core issue here is that Islam cannot impose itself by force as it sets to preach its Call (especially amidst the prevailing circumstances), even if it had succeeded once in doing so in some countries and that is because we are speaking from the realistic and practical perspective away from the absolute theorization.

On this basis, we say that when we live in a pluralistic society such as the Lebanese one; I think that we have the right to exhort and encourage people to convert to Islam through all possible means. We have the right to do everything we can to make people support us and that could be either by convincing them of the idea of following Islam, by convincing them of our political line only, or simply because they might see us better than others – a possibility valid only when there is no chance that they would be the alternative. In such a case, it would be normal that people rally around us even through the democratic way which we might discuss as to its pattern and intellectual bases; but which also could be our resort in making lots of decisions and taking lots of steps on the ground as what happened in Iran; the Islamic Republic. Hence, the prevalence of Islam - resulting from the act of persuasion or from the state of popularity - is not considered, in any way, as a rejection, a negation or an annulment of others; nay, ever since it was launched and until this very day, Islam lives in harmony with others whether they were followers of other religions or other trends and that is according to the plan it had laid for dealing with other entities.

As for national, racial, or confessional diversities residing within the same society, Islam grants them their rights under the general system. So, nothing would keep Islam from guaranteeing the Turks, Kurds, or Persians who live in an Islamic state the freedom of enjoying their own culture, preserving their own language, and carrying out their own customs and traditions which are not in contradiction with the Islamic Sharia. Therefore, people who live in an Islamic state are not suffering from racial discrimination because; even if those who rule the country were Arabs, they have no right to make from their Arab particularity a reason upon which they base their persecution of the other existing particularities. Indeed, God wants us to acknowledge the presence of different nations and tribes as in His saying : {And made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.} (49:13).

Thus, Islam does not cancel the distinctive individuality of nations, or families; nevertheless, it refuses that these individualities turn into principles that separate people from one another. Actually, Islam seeks to make from these individualities a challenging element that urges people to get to know each other considering that each group of people will offer the other the privilege of learning about its peculiarity and its experience. That is why the Islamic society suffers from no problem with regard to its racial, confessional, tribal, national, etc… diversities. In this sense, we believe that there is no problem (from a theoretical perspective not from a practical one) with those diversities that move according no ideological or principled approach.

Sometimes Muslims do not represent the larger group in a society, or they might be of equal proportion with others and so they turn to be unable to reach the reins of power and control; even in such cases, nothing would prevent Muslims from addressing everybody with the call of Islam. In fact, problems might occur if you apply pressure on others, if you oppress them or you force them to do something against their will. But if you were of a civilized style and manner in presenting your thought to others, if you work toward carrying out conversations and debates with them concerning this thought, if you seek, through your efforts within your political line, the interest of all people; if you manage to lead such a behavioral pattern leaving the final choice, negative or positive, for your addressee themselves, then no problem will emerge. Take for example Lebanon , in Lebanon we can propose Islam as the base of thought, emotion and life where you open up to the cultural, political, social, and economic aspect to address Christians as well as Muslims, because some Muslims do not adopt this thought.

So, we, as Muslims, move in society as inviters; calling people to open up to the Islamic thought and as party workers; seeking out the great causes and objectives which redound to the benefit of the country as a whole. As a matter of fact, you cannot serve Muslims – even if you had an Islamic particularity – if you do not open up to Christians, or else we will never be able to resolve our social, economic, and security problem in Lebanon because what we have in this country is an integrated society and not a separated one. Hence, I cannot imagine any proposal of the Islamic thought as an active thought which opens up to reality but through the civilized methods that God has fixed in the principle {Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching} (16: 125). {Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best} ( 17: 53 ). {Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!} ( 41: 34). {Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error} (2: 256). And we have numerous examples of Islamic beliefs telling us that the thought of Islam must be optionally adhered to by people when presented to them in the cultural and political reality and not to be imposed on them as a compulsive force leaving them with no chance for any opinion.

Q: What do you think of setting an Islamic state in Lebanon ; a slogan which might be raised by some of the country’s Muslims?

A: In light of the international and regional reality, the world political situation, and Lebanon ’s internal situation; I think that there are no possible chances for setting an Islamic state in Lebanon .

Q: So, what is the slogan that the Muslims of Lebanon can raise and call for?

A: Muslims call for Islam should remain a call to the consciousness of modern human beings. The question of Islam is not a question of sectarianism as sectarian people are trying to picture and consequently dealing with on this basis. Islam is a movement of thought, just as Christianity is also a movement of thought. And that is why we said to Christians we propose Islam in this complete and integral way so as to take it out from this sectarian sphere where it has been placed, as much as we want you to propose Christianity in the same way to remove those sectarian and tribal fences that are encircling it. As a consequence, we can meet on the Islamic-Christian values knowing that they are values of Divine Messages; they are values encouraging dialogues …etc.
Hence, we must keep on proposing Islam as one of the means of ruling. We used to say that we are working toward Islamizing the whole world, just as Christians are endeavoring to Christianize the world, just as any party in the world deploys all possible efforts and exertions to receive acknowledgment and to spread its thoughts and beliefs, just as America attempts at Americanizing the world, and so on and so forth… So, we are not talking about some heresy here.

On this basis, we conclude that a civilized person cannot prevent you from propounding your own doctrine or ideology in the world leaving for people the choice of accepting or rejecting it, provided that you present your thoughts in a civilized manner that shows respect to the convictions of the human being and that honor his mind and beliefs, and that you make from dialogues and discussions your means to fulfill your desired goal. Nonetheless, when we feel that we cannot arrive at setting the Islamic rule, we should make sure that Muslims and Christians live together under their common Islamic and Christian values which are based on the causes of liberty {that we worship none but Allah.}( 3: 64), on the belief in the One God, on the principle of taking care of the affairs of all people and on the standard of showing consideration for the causes of justice under the general causes. In fact, there is more than one aspect or field where we can work in order to strengthen Muslims, to enable them to cooperate with other groups dealing with them from a position of power.

Q: where are the Muslim individual’s limits with regard to his activities in the Islamic party?

A: As a matter of fact, the person who belongs to any body, was it a party, an organization or an association … etc must first define the legitimacy of his belonging as to whether it embodies the elements that any person, who lives up to Islam in his awareness, his mind, and his faith, believes in. Once he finds that this body, with which he is affiliated, goes in harmony with his beliefs regarding the general lines, he should examine next if the leading group of this body which is in charge of directing its activities setting, its course and arranging its affairs, is legal. Actually, it is not enough that the line or the movement is right and legal; nay, the one responsible for running it through this particular line must be a person who epitomizes this line in his thought, his mode of behavior and his way of handling the work. After scrutinizing all those facts and after making sure that all the requirements are met, it would be natural then that the person harmonizes with this participation and cooperates, through all the responsibilities that are assigned to him and with all the possible capacities and energies that he enjoys, in order to achieve the great objectives.

Here, we must discuss the necessity of the affiliation with any group seeking out the benefit of Islam because some people who believe in adhering to the supreme authority, the party, and the like might disapprove it. We must examine this particular point to see that the great objectives emanate from a collective state and not from an individualistic one because regardless of the capacities that he enjoys, the individual cannot achieve those objectives all by himself even the one who has the character of the leader cannot achieve them but through the help of the people that he leads and who believe in him. Accordingly, the human being who does not live for himself but rather for his religion, Nation and all his surrounding reality and that through all the aspirations that he seeks to fulfill, the goals that he aims at accomplishing and the responsibilities that he pledges to abide by; that person ought to belong to a public group or party which has the organizational and managerial power that can divide goals according to positions and decide on attitudes according to stages in order to reach definitive results in achieving direct or future strategy.

Hence, the idea that the human being belongs to a public association is a question of the human being’s need to actualize the relationship with others according to a studied and organized plan that embraces all energies and capacities, and that investigates very carefully the various stages in order to attain its sought after objectives…

Political parties, jurists and members

Q: What is the role of the religious authority from which the party obtains the legitimacy of its practice?

A: The issue of the party’s religious authority must be carefully taken into consideration with regard to the legitimacy of its line. If we find that this religious authority sets from the jurisprudential authority, it becomes clear then that in order to guarantee its legitimacy; any group would want to rely on this authority as its constant reference. In fact, the religious authority is the one that enjoys the general guardianship if we want to follow the theory believing in the general rule of the jurists; or it is the one that enjoys the authority of issuing edicts (so to speak) according to those who believe in the jurists as competent authorities only.

So, supporting the theory of the jurists’ rule, the said party must be and work in agreement with the jurists as to the behavioral patterns wherever the jurists have the right to exercise their power and authority. Upholding the second theory (that is, those who do not believe in the rule of the jurists), the party must adhere, harmoniously, to the edicts issued by the jurist so that its course of action would be based, in all its forms and aspects, on an authentic legitimacy granted by the edict.

But the problem we are facing in the reality of the jurisprudential authorities is that regarding their organizational structure; those authorities were not founded on the basis of embracing the Islamic movements’ activity in the political arena or the Islamic activity in the cultural field or in any other domain. The religious authority is still an individualistic state, which does not set from a comprehensive plan; it rather decides on its moves according to the nature of the urgent situations dictated by some specific occasions. As a consequence, the relationship between the party and the jurisprudential authority becomes dependant on the jurisprudential edicts if the person who leads the Islamic party was not a jurisprudent who has the right of issuing edicts and stating his opinion with relation to all other opinions.

Thus, we find that the issue in the jurisprudential authorities did not reach the stage of creating the various and suitable atmospheres, which can embrace the political, social and cultural positions of the movement but under a very particular framework. Therefore, this relation between the Islamic parties and the jurisprudential authorities, whether within the context of the jurists’ rule or the context of jurisprudential edicts, turns out to be a theoretical matter that drifts from the elements of reality if we wanted to look at the issue as an organic and practical connection.

On this basis, I believe that the party has to acquire the legitimacy of its movement by carrying out a relationship with the jurisprudential authority or rule in one way or another but at the same time it has to have a leadership or a quasi-jurisprudential leadership that establishes harmony and balance in its movement on both the theoretical as well as the practical levels.

In short, if the jurist did not have the effective and executive power over the movement of the Islamic reality; but he has, on the other hand, the legislative authority (meaning that he can issue edicts); in such case, he can exercise no power over the party and his orders will not be binding for the latter – like those orders rendered by ruling jurists - because he is not part of the absolute rule. His role would rather be that of guiding, orienting, advising, and issuing edicts concerning the causes of the party.

Then again, if the jurist did actually enjoy the power of taking effective actions in the Islamic reality - according to the theory of the rule of the jurists – and he did have the bodies and systems that can work with the Islamic organizations and parties, it would be natural then that the relationship with him – according to this theory – turns out to be a relationship with the legal Islamic leadership that directs people, in their moves and actions, through the right Islamic path in life.

Subsequently, the issue must be arranged in the way that would be compatible with the approach adopted by the ruling jurists and the course followed by the party or the organization in the fateful and momentous cases pertaining to the position that is being defended or worked for and the position that is being targeted and concerned with.

Q: What shall the person, who has been chosen to lead a party, do with regard to this question if he succeeded a jurist that did believe in the concept of ‘the rule of the jurists’ or a jurist who did not?

A: Actually, he might be able to join the two opinions. The person who has been selected to lead a party and who does not believe in the ‘rule of the jurists’, must examine the nature of the issues pronounced by the ruling jurist. If those issues were forbidden according to his predecessor, then there is no question that he should not adopt or follow them, unless they can be studied from another angle that could make them necessary or allowed. But if they were not forbidden, if they were lawful and permissible and there were some Islamic interests that could require them; in this case, he must follow the ruling jurist in this respect, not out of observance and obedience to his rule but out of the obligation to fulfill whatever represents the supreme Islamic interest.

Q: What is the legal standpoint regarding the carrying out of martyr operations?

A: Carrying out martyr operations represents one of the Jihad’s means in confronting enemies. Allah, the most Exalted, charged Muslims with the Jihad. When the legal conditions are fulfilled, the Muslim is bound to carry out all the means that inflict damages and sufferings on his foes and that put Islam on the right track toward achieving the great cause. Speaking about martyr operations, some people might set forth the Glorious Qur’anic verse saying:{and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loves those who do good.}( 2: 195) and consequently claim that any operation a person knows in advance that during which he is going to die is considered to be a suicidal operation and suicide is a transgression in Islam.

Nevertheless, this verse was laid down for the individual practices in committing suicide and it does not include the issue of Jihad. In fact, the Jihad is based on exposing oneself to danger or ‘destruction’ and that means endangering oneself whether the person was certain of achieving the great cause or not.

So, fighting against the enemies in defense of the cause of Allah, the most Exalted, throwing oneself into peril where perishing is very likely to be the outcome, is what the fighter for the cause of Allah does. As a matter of fact, the Mujahideen do not hesitate in exposing themselves to danger if the implementation of the Jihad required so and the battle attempting at achieving the great goals necessitated to attack in order to kill as much as possible from the enemy’s body.

Therefore, if the leader in charge of the martyrdom operation saw that in order to achieve the goals and to acquire the victory of the Islamic cause, the battle needs from the Mujahideen to blow themselves up in the enemy; the question would then be one of the aspects of Jihad. Allah, the most Exalted, did not fix a specific means to carry out the Jihad; nay, He left this matter to the leader who supervises the battle so that the latter would take into consideration the known as well as the unknown measures or steps that have to be taken during the Jihad, and upon which depends the victory of Islam, the safety of Muslims, and so on and so forth…
On this basis, we believe that the proof on the legitimacy of the Jihad confirms the legitimacy of the martyr operations in case the military conditions leading to the positive results were available, exactly as we can regard sword fighting, military attacks, etc…

Q: Who is responsible for deciding on the necessity of carrying out martyr operations?

A:Obviously, those would be skilled and expert people represented by the authorized leadership that designates and directs the Mujahideen who perform the martyr operations; just as this leadership used to send soldiers for sword fighting (as in ancient times), or as it sent soldiers to carry out any other form of Jihad. When this leadership wants to set or draw a plan, it would be normal for it then to turn to people of expertise in a sought of consultation. If those people, after studying the subject thoroughly and from all its aspects, found that the plan is firm and reliable and that martyr operations prove to be necessary, they would give the order of resorting to such operations in the battle.

Q: There is this prevailing opinion that martyr operations are initially forbidden; however, the leader or the jurist might see that there is some good reason making it permissible… What do you say about that?

A: We have already spoken about the act of deliberately killing yourself which has nothing to do with Jihad. Committing suicide emanates from an individualistic state appearing as a result of an emotional, financial, psychological or any other trouble. That is why we do not regard martyr operations as forbidden in the first place because it comes under military plans and actions decided by the supreme leader just as he decides on attacks, sword fighting, ambushes, or on any other form of military tactics.

The leader sets the plan and then commands his senior executive leadership to carry it out. Moreover, we find no difference between martyr operations and any other military attack or defense with regard to the order or authorization needed from the leader or the commander because no Muslim soldier is allowed to take decisions of carrying out jihad all by himself; nay, he must follow the orders of his leadership because only this leadership can make any order of Jihad legal and can authorize its implementation.

Q: What is the legal standpoint of a devoted individual when he finds, within the movement he is part of, some opportunists and profiteer who might occupy influential and important positions in the leadership of the movement?

A: This subject must be studied carefully and objectively because the Islamic movement or any other Islamic organization or gathering belongs to no body in particular; it rather belongs to Islam and Muslims. So, if there were some persons trying to take advantage of the movement or the action employing it for their own personal benefits; we must then work, from inside the movement, on preventing them from doing so through any means that can resolve this problem without obstructing the course of action. Actually, we believe that no movement possessing the legitimacy of existence and the members of which possess the legitimacy of belonging should reach a dead end because of some problems; indeed, the greatest results and the supreme Islamic interest should be the ultimate aim.

Hence, a party or a movement member should not draw back if he happens to be facing some problems; truly, what he ought to do is to work with all the devoted members in order to deal with these problems successfully.
Nevertheless, when those people go too far in their misbehaviors to the extent that they completely take over the movement turning it into one of their personal tools where Islam becomes alienated from it and where no chance of being reformed in the future would be left; it goes without saying then that the true believer would want nothing to do with this movement because it is no more an Islamic movement, it is nothing but a certain body belonging to a certain person or party.

However, we must scrutinize this issue because sometimes psychological troubles might make a person think that he is motivated by the best interest of Islam, while his actions prove to be setting from his personal and internal interests, just like that person of leadership is moving from his personal position and convictions. In case hope was not nil (even if it was a very distant hope of achieving any change), the member of the movement might cease his membership for an unspecific period till chances and elements of changing his movement to the best become available.