Is the ordeal evidence of the correctness of the idea?

Islamists' perceptions of the ordeal raise 3 central questions.

Does the trial have an impact on confirming the validity of the tester's idea?

Does the jurisprudence of the leaders of the Islamic movement exempt them from moral responsibility for the consequences of their ijtihad?

Is there a reward for the one who is at fault, based on the hadeeth, "If the ruler makes a hard work and makes a mistake, then he has a reward"?

This is what I will treat in this article after I initially edit the concept of the ordeal.

The word tribulation is used in different contexts to denote the general test and affliction, and the linguist Ibn Faris explains that “Mim, H, and Nun are three words that are not analogous. The first is tribulation: the test, its trial and its test. a hit".

The first and second meanings converge here:

Rather, they may be coupled with a view of the experience of political tribulations, which Muslims have known in the past and which political prisoners have known under contemporary totalitarian regimes.

However, the word Mihna, even though it has been used on a large scale in recent decades, has a peculiarity with the activist Islamists, for whom the ordeal was a key word in their dictionary, and was repeated in their various literature.

Too often they were subjected to tribulations and political persecution.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi was once invited to speak - within one of the Islamic forums in America - about “the ordeal in the reality of the contemporary Islamic movement,” and then this lecture was printed in a booklet in 2009. The sheikh explains that the ordeal is “a test, a test and affliction for the people of faith and those who advocate the truth about harm and adversity.” And that what is meant is "the focused collective persecution, which the authority imposes on the movement by confiscating its activities and harassing its men," and that "the contemporary Islamic movement has presented caravans of martyrs."

As for the causes of the ordeal, he mentions the "Brotherhood's call" that came with a "new Islam" that has a political content.

Because Islam "is only political," he said.

It is striking here that the sheikh singled out the general ordeal of what the "Islamic movement" was subjected to - meaning the Muslim Brotherhood specifically - and that this term is limited to the persecution of "people of faith and advocates of truth", and that the conflict between the Islamic movement and political regimes is a conflict between Truth and nullity, good and evil, as stated in his words;

In other words, the ordeal is almost centered around a pure belief and belief.

It completely ignores the political face of the conflict;

Because politics itself has turned into an identity for Islam, which "is only political," although the concept of "political" here is problematic;

However, it is certain that politics includes - according to the project and reality of the Islamic movement - the meaning of gaining power or competing for it.

As for the ordeal in the Islamic sources, it is broader than what the sheikh mentioned.

There is a literary genre in the Islamic heritage that can be called books of tribulations, along with another genre, books of fighters, which are concerned with those who were assassinated or killed by power or in conflict with it.

The tribulations here deal with the affliction that affects the individual or individuals, not groups or movements, and that afflicts scholars and asceticism in particular.

Abu Al-Arab Al-Tamimi mentions in his book on adversity, "Whoever has been afflicted with being killed, imprisoned, beaten or threatened in the heart of this nation and their choice."

His narratives and facts reflect - in fact - the image of scholars about themselves and their role, and the authority's oppression of them. Therefore, the ordeal is a scourge that the Sultan inflicts on the individual or individuals.

The concept of distress has transformed from a mechanism for self-review and critical evaluation, to an evaluative concept that bestows right and right to previous ideas, and makes them more rigid and not subject to review or criticism.

Because it acquires a heroic meaning here, so tribulations turn into a deepening stagnation over previous ideas, which turn into solid beliefs and a means of supremacy and escaping from accountability or criticism.

Because adversity turns into an exceptional value for its owner, expelling him from the common people.

Abu al-Arab mentions the types of tribulations that generations have been subjected to from the beginning of Islam until its era (333 AH), who refuses to pledge allegiance to an unjust ruler or enjoins good and forbids an evil or the like, and his purpose in categorizing tribulations is that there is a consolation for those who have been afflicted with a similar affliction with the righteous At the heart of this nation ";

However, the Islamists ’ordeal of tribulation takes - in addition to patience and persistence - other goals, including moral mobilization, and confirming the correctness of the idea and the project.

Because the ordeal - in their view - only afflicts "people of faith and truth" to examine their faith with their ideas, and to test their steadfastness on them.

Therefore, among the benefits of misfortune - as Sheikh al-Qaradawi also mentions - discerning the class, purification and endorsement, the ordeal - in this sense - will lead to the identification of betrayals and those who have fallen on the path to the call, as is the title of one of Fathi's books, may God have mercy on him, and who - paradoxically - may have entered himself in a clique Fallen in the last stage of his life.

The Mihna is originally a descriptive concept appropriate for the historical narration or novel (as is the case with Abi Al-Arab Al-Tamimi);

Because it narrates difficult political facts without entering into calendars, meaning that it does not refer to truth, correctness, or a value judgment in itself, so the ordeal does not necessarily raise an epistemic question about the correctness of the ideas of the examinee.

As much as it focuses on the fact that the ordeal itself is a means to discover righteousness, to test the soul and its ability to endure, to enter into an intellectual or psychological review, to search for a correctness or accountability for the soul, and to present a statement of account and evaluation of what happened, and in this sense the whole world is a test and examination house, and the Prophet was commanded, May God bless him and grant him peace, to test the believers who resorted to him at the beginning of the Islamic call (so he tested them), and for this reason some of the followers used the term tribulation to express this incident.

Because it is a test and a test whose results are awaited either by himself after he performs a critical review, or by someone else who tests it in order to test it (God or the Prophet, for example).

On the other hand, the concept of tribulation turns from a mechanism for self-review and critical evaluation, to an evaluative concept that bestows right and right to previous ideas, and makes them more rigid and not subject to review or criticism.

Because it acquires a heroic meaning here, so tribulations turn into a deepening stagnation over previous ideas, which turn into solid beliefs and a means of supremacy and escaping from accountability or criticism.

Because adversity turns into an exceptional value for its owner, expelling him from the common people.

The recognition of error as one of the causes of the misfortune or one of the consequences of the ordeal as a means of self-review and self-evaluation, whether this is a mistake of leadership or a mistake of the idea, is absent in contemporary Islamic tribulation literature. The idea of ​​self-criticism has been raised within the Islamic movement since the early 1980s when Khalis Chalabi wrote in the year 1984 “Self-criticism: the necessity of self-criticism for the Islamic movement”. Then, in 1989, Abdullah Al-Nafisi edited a collective book entitled “The Islamic Movement: A Future Vision, Papers in Self-criticism,” in which he decided that the idea of ​​“self-criticism” is alien to the Islamic movement. By saying at the time, "A movement that does not want to review or realize the mistakes of its past can turn its present into a pile of mistakes and its future into a disaster."

In the introduction to the book, Al-Nafisi diagnosed the problems that the Islamic movement suffers from, which is summarized in the existence of an administrative crisis, the focus of efforts on addressing emergency situations more than planning for the future, and the absence of the theory that helps to understand the events and what is going on in its surroundings, and that there is no single book that it has published The group - officially - deals with the critical evaluation of its work during its long history, as it has not provided an official explanation for the series of ordeals it has gone through, the episodes of failure that have been repeated in its history, nor the successes it has achieved, and what are the stages it has made towards those goals?

How many stages remain to achieve its goals?

Al-Nafisi blamed the movement for confusing the concepts of political opposition and power struggle.

Because this conflict "did not reap from the movement only bitter and gum", and called for "a solution that saves the movement from further waste of blood and lives."

It is strange that much of what Al-Nafisi mentioned 3 decades ago is still the subject of discussions today.

Rather, the partisan tendency that hardened within the movement, and formed its nervousness that is its strength, has established a set of defensive and justification arguments.

Failures always revolve between the sayings "due to betrayal and conspiracy," or they are "tribulations for the sake of empowerment," or in worst cases, "a place of reward", as the sinner has the reward of the mujtahid, or it is in principle the effort and we want and God does what He wants, in addition to other mechanisms, that go beyond the idea of ​​defending mistakes, to the idea of ​​justifying them and earning a wage for them as well.

We are before a discourse that does not deny admission of its mistakes only (error is a natural feature of a movement spanning nearly a century old);

Rather, it reproduces it as a mechanism of mobilization that characterizes the discursive tendency that dominates the movement, and is usually preoccupied with facts and narratives rather than concepts and ideas. Whether the change is positive or negative).

The absence of self-criticism and the failure to assimilate external criticism is caused by the decline of intellectual work within the movement.

Intellectual work requires a mental construction based on arguments and proofs, and asks for criticism and counter-criticism to develop its concepts and methods, compares, balances, analyzes, and investigates areas of consistency and dissonance, and changes and changes whenever it opens up to new ideas, experiences and approaches.

With regard to the hadith, “If the ruler works hard and is hit, then he has two rewards, and if he works hard and makes a mistake, he will have one reward.” And in the narration, “If he is right, he has 10 wages.” The first narration raises the two issues of reward and sin in ijtihad, and the responsibility of the mujtahid for the consequences of his diligence regarding If he missed.

As for the issue of reward and sin, they are otherworldly matters related to the rights of God Almighty, as they are between the man and God Almighty in terms of dropping the eschatological responsibility. As for the worldly issues and the rights of the servants, we will discuss them later.

In order for the reward to be met, there are conditions. Imam Al-Nawawi said, “The scholars said that Muslims are unanimously agreed that this hadith about a ruler is a scholar who is worthy of judgment, and if it is correct, then he has two rewards, a reward for his diligence, and a reward for his injury, and if he makes a mistake, then he has the reward for his diligence .. And they said, as for the one who is not qualified to rule So, it is not permissible for him to rule, if a ruling is not rewarded for him; rather he is a sinner, and he does not implement his ruling whether the truth agrees or not, because his injury by agreement is not issued from a legal origin, so he is disobedient in all his rulings, whether right or not, and they are all rejected, and not Any of that is excused. "

I can clarify the meaning of the hadith by looking at the books of commentary on the hadith and the system of Islamic jurisprudence through 3 conditions, as follows:

The first of these is the condition of the qa’im with ijtihad. The narratives speak once about a “ruler” and once about a “judge,” and the ruling is the judiciary, which is “clarifying the Sharia ruling, enforcing it, and separating litigation.”

As for the ignorant ruler or negligent in his ijtihad, he is a sinner and sinner in all that he is judged by, as Imam Ibn Raslan al-Ramli (844 AH) said.

As for the ignorant, he has sinned because he is not qualified for ijtihad as he worked hard, and as for negligence, he has sinned for not fulfilling the condition of ijtihad, which is the emptiness of the capacity after being able to, and being competent in what he is striving for.

The reward is only for intentional work emanating from its people in its proper place, and not on arbitrary or experimental acts practiced by some Islamists, either with the absence of the qualification requirement, or to achieve narrow political interests (partisan or personal), or as a pressure card on the existing authority to improve negotiation, And so on;

These are actions of narrow political interests outside the topic of discussion.

The second is the subject matter or subject matter of ijtihad, for the remuneration resulting from a mistake has a specificity here in that it is issued in a field that is obedience to God Almighty.

Because the judge is only seeking to establish justice and fairness between people and settle disputes and disputes, and that is why Imam Ibn Al-Muqin said: "It is not permissible to be rewarded except for what is by his obedient action."

The third is the condition of ijtihad itself, which is that it should be based on a legal basis, as Ibn Battal said. Therefore, whoever contravenes the apparent evidence, and ruled contrary to the established evidence, has undoubtedly sinned, and that is why Ibn Battal restricted ijtihad as being “something that is perceived by deduction”, and some commentators cited the hadith To prove the legitimacy of diligence in what is not stipulated.

As for bearing the consequences of wrong jurisprudence, the scholars have discussed that with regard to a judge who makes a mistake in his judgment, and his judgment will result in some harm.

To begin with, it is not in his saying, peace and blessings of God be upon him, “If the ruler has made an effort and makes a mistake,” evidence of dropping the ruler's guarantee of the consequences of his mistake related to the rights of the servants. Therefore, Imam Ibn al-Mulqin said, “Rather, the sin is forfeited from the mujtahid, and that he will be rewarded if he did not intend that mistake, and it is not understood from the hadith. The disappearance of the guarantee. ”The jurists differed regarding the details of the ruler's / judge’s bearing of the consequence of his mistake. Some of them argued that if the ruler made a mistake in his ruling in killing or wounding, then the blood money must be paid in the Muslim’s money house (the state budget), and this is the saying of Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad bin Hanbal and Isaac bin Rahwayh.

Some of them are of the view that the blood money is for the sake of the imam and the ruler.

Malik has no answer on this issue, and therefore his companions disagreed about it.

And the Imam al-Hakim al-Nisaburi corrected that he, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, sent to the people of Ali bin Abi Talib, who provided money for their dead who were killed by mistake.

And the ruler's inclusion of the consequences of his mistake in the rights of people, based on consensus that money is guaranteed, whether by mistake or intentionally (compensation for damage), and there are facts about some of the Companions that indicate that the ruler guarantees the consequences of his mistake, including what was reported that a pregnant woman was mentioned for adultery with Omar, may God be pleased with him. - So he sent to her, and she was terrified, and she threw what was in her stomach, so he consulted the Companions about that, and Abd al-Rahman bin Auf and others said to him: You are polite, and you have nothing.

So he said to Ali, may God be pleased with him, what do you say? Then he said that if they made an effort, then they made mistakes, and you must pay blood money.

Umar, may God be pleased with him, said that I resolved to divide it among your people (Al-Bayhaqi narrated it).

Then, in the presence of the Companions, Ali obligated the blood money and obligated Umar - may God be pleased with him - and divided it on his rationality, and if the woman was dropped from panic, then Omar was the one who caused that.

And if this discussion revolves around a legitimate ruler who exercises his duties, then he makes a mistake, and bears the consequences of his mistake with regard to the rights of people, then how about other leaders of the Islamic movement that confronted public action and took many decisions, which were borne by generations of young people?

Let alone the question about the conditions and subject matter of these jurisprudence, the eligibility of those in charge of them, and their purposes thereof, and so on, which led to a series of tribulations surrounding the long history of the movement, which is almost a history of tribulations.