When the Compass Deviated, from the State of the Risaalah (Message of Islam), to a Struggle for Power!

(Translated)

Al-Rayah Newspaper - Issue 593 - 01/04/2026

By: Ustadh Mahmoud Al-Laithi*

History does not unfold suddenly, nor do states collapse with a single blow. Instead, decline begins when the political compass deviates from its ideological foundation, regardless of the names and slogans that remain. The state in Islam is not merely an abstract administrative entity, nor an authority seeking merely its own survival. It is a state of the Risaalah (Message of Islam), its function being to implement Islam domestically and to spread Islam through Dawah and Jihad in the foreign domain.

During the era of the Khulafa’a Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliphs), ruling governance was a practical embodiment of the meaning of Bayah (بيعةpledge of allegiance for ruling), and of the concept that siyaadah (سيادة sovereignty) belongs to the Shariah Law, not to individuals, and that sultan (سلطانauthority) rests with the Ummah, which chooses those who implement the Shariah Law of Allah (swt). The ruler was not above accountability, but rather subject to it. Governing power (سلطة sultah) was not an end in itself, but a means to establish the Deen and take care of the affairs of the Ummah according to Shariah rulings. Therefore, the state was strong because of the clarity of its ideology, not because of the strength of its weapons.

However, the transformation that occurred at certain historical junctures was not merely a change of personnel. Instead, it affected the method of transferring ruling authority and the nature of the relationship between the Ummah and the ruler. When ruling governance devolved into a dynastic, clinging rule, the mechanisms of political accountability weakened, and tribalism emerged, structural flaws began to take shape. While Shariah Law did not disappear from society, and opening new lands to Islam did not cease, the spirit of the political system began to lose its initial purity.

The fundamental problem lay in the structure of the system: when ruling governance is not based on a Shariah Bayah (بيعة pledge of allegiance) and aware choice, but rather on usurping or inheritance, the concept of the ruler's authority over the Ummah practically diminishes, even if the terminology remains the same. Over time, the gap between the ruler and the Ummah widens, and ruling governance transforms from guardianship of the affairs to a mere bureaucratic administration, and from a Risaalah (message of Islam) to a power struggle.

This domestic erosion made the state more vulnerable to foreign attacks. The Crusades and the Mongol invasion were not the primary cause of weakness, but rather the result of domestic vulnerabilities. An Ummah with a clear vision and cohesive leadership is difficult to penetrate. However, when people become preoccupied with power struggles, and the importance of spreading the Risaalah diminishes and ceases to be the primary concern, the nature of the state transforms from a pioneering, guiding entity to one merely concerned with its own survival.

However, the historical trajectory has not always been a downward spiral. Corrective attempts have emerged, restoring the concept of the state as a fundamental entity carrying a Risaalah to the world, as exemplified by the Khaleefah (Caliph) Nur ad-Din Mahmud and his military commander Salahudin Al-Ayubi, whose project was not simply about the tahrir (تحرير liberation) of land, but about redirecting the compass towards the unity of the Ummah and its vision. Then came the Uthmaniyoon (Ottomans) in their early days, who unified the scattered Muslim lands and re-established a unified political entity, even though their state subsequently experienced periods of weakness.

The pivotal moment in modern history was the abolition of the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate) in 1924. Here, not only did a political authority fall, but the very entity that, despite its weaknesses, represented the political unity of the Muslims, was also dismantled. Since then, it has not been one state replaced by another, but rather one conception by another. The nation-state has replaced the unified, inclusive, global state. Artificial nationalistic borders have become sacrosanct and bar unification. Loyalty has shifted from the bond of ‘Aqeedah (creed) to the patriotic bond over land and the bond of nationalism.

The ruling regimes that arose afterward were not founded on the principle that sovereignty belongs to Shariah Law, but rather on secular constitutions that derive their legitimacy from international law. Thus, the Ummah transitioned from a political system based on the implementation of Shariah Law, even if flawed in its implementation, to systems that fundamentally separate religion from ruling governance, making legislation the prerogative of parliaments, not of Allah (swt). We reiterate here what has been previously established: the flawed implementation of Islam is not equivalent to the sound implementation of any other system, however well-implemented. The implementation of Islam alone is ‘adl (عدلjustice), while the implementation of any other system is pure dhulm (ظلم oppression).

The result was not merely a superficial change, but a profound transformation in the nature and function of the state. Instead of being an instrument for conveying Islam to the world, the state has become part of the international capitalist order, subject to the balance of power, tied to colonialist financial institutions, and perpetuating political and economic dependency. Recurring economic crises, indebtedness, and political fragmentation are not fleeting symptoms, but instead the consequences of an intellectual and political structure that has not emanated from the ‘Aqeedah of Muslims.

Discussions about reform within the existing framework are pointless, because the flaw lies in the foundation, not the details. When a state is governed with a mindset of preserving the existing order, rather than implementing Islam, and when narrow nationalistic interests are prioritized over the interests of the Ummah, the deviation will persist, even if faces and slogans change.

Course correction will not be achieved through sentimental nostalgia for the past, but by redefining the state as Islam intended: a single political entity for the Ummah, where siyaadah (سيادة sovereignty) belongs to Shariah Law, sultan (سلطان authority) to the people, whilst the people delegate that to a Khaleefah (Caliph) who implements Islam, after a correct, Shariah Bayah (بيعة pledge of allegiance). The ruler is held accountable if he falls short, wealth is managed according to the Shariah rulings of Islamic ownership, and foreign policy is based on spreading Islam to the world through Dawah and Jihad, not in a state of meek, submissive appealing.

We remind the Ummah that this Noble Quran was revealed to rule the Ummah, not merely to be a source of spiritual blessing alone. Our commitment to worship is an incubator of discipline, but it is also an incubator of liberation from the sway of desires and from submission to any reality that contradicts our ‘Aqeedah. Reviewing history is not about dwelling on the past, but instead about understanding the patterns of rise and fall. When the political compass deviates from Shariah Law, weakness accumulates; when it is corrected, recovery begins.

Recognizing the nature of the deviation is the first step, and being aware of the alternative project is the next. As for ideological, political good deeds, they are the bridge between idea and reality. Allah (swt) said,

[وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ]

“And judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires, and beware of them lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you.” [TMQ Surah Al-Ma’ida: 5].

* Member of the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Egypt