Changing societies is a work of the highest order in Islam. It is the work of Prophets.

Changing societies is a work of the highest order in Islam. It is the work of Prophets. It is the work of transforming societies rife with corruption, immorality, ignorance and injustice to becoming societies of justice, moral elevation, knowledge and integrity. If we observe the life of the Messenger of Allah (saw) with a bird’s eye view, so as not to miss the wood for the trees, we see that this is exactly what he worked for and achieved. He was chosen as a prophet and given his mission at a time when Makkah was drowned in all sorts of vices with only a small minority knowing and worshipping Allah correctly. By the time he (saw) finished, 23 years on, thousands of people had embraced Islam - which was implemented in the form of a state in Madinah - and the foundations for a global Islamic civilisation had been firmly laid.
It is a well-known tenet of the Islamic creed that no more Prophets will succeed the Messenger of Allah (saw). Therefore his task of implementing the deen and spreading it, in the way he (saw) did it, passes on to the Ummah. Certainly this is easier said than done. We know how hard changing aspects of one’s own life (individual change) can be. We can understand therefore that the notion of societal or collective change can be overwhelming at first thought. In reality however, it is more than achievable, on condition that those undertaking the endeavour understand the true nature of societal change and how it is brought about.

The recent Israeli onslaught in Gaza is just another example of the dire state the Ummah finds herself in and highlights the vital need for change. By the grace of Allah the overwhelming opinion in the Ummah now is that the required change is towards Islam and away from kufr, be it in the form of secularism, socialism or liberalism. Yet there is still much difference about how that change is to be brought about. Underlying the method adopted by many groups and individuals is the implicit understanding that societal change is only possible when all the individuals in any given society or collective, or a majority at least, change first. In this short piece we discuss this notion in order to clarify its reality, which is that it is an incorrect idea and is to the detriment of the desired objective.

No change until we all change?

One of the speakers at a recent Muslim gathering for Gaza, after describing the bad situation prevailing in Gaza, proclaimed towards the end of his speech, “...and there is no change until we don’t change....there will be no change until each and every one of us lives a moral and ethical life.”

The notion that we must initiate change for positive change to occur is fundamentally important. It is established from the saying of Allah in surah al-Ra’d that, “Indeed Allah does not change a people until they change what is within themselves” as well as the many verses in the Qur’an which note that the support and victory of Allah comes to the true believers, those who are characterised with taqwa and righteous deeds. However to draw the conclusion from this that everyone (or even a large majority) must change for the collective to undergo change is incorrect. It is a conception that goes against historical reality and textual evidence.

Historically it has never been the case that most, let alone all, of the individuals of a society have changed first to be followed by collective change, be it economic progress, or a spiritual and political advancement. Rather it has always been the case that a small minority has led the collective to greener pastures, as it were.

The Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, to take an example of economic/scientific progress, was propelled by a small band of intellectuals, thinkers and philosophers. They were able to convince just enough of the common people as needed to propagate their call, and then just enough of those in influential positions to implement the changes. As for the masses of Europe, they did naught but adapt to the change which came their way like a storm that hits without warning.

In our own history we see the same essential process. No prophet was able to convince all his people, even with the clear signs they brought. They were only ever able to win the hearts and minds of a small minority, with whose help, followed by victory from Allah, they were able to establish their call and implement the deen.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) himself was only able to win a couple of hundred people after thirteen years of da’wah in Makkah (and that the best da’wah possible). On mass, the Makkan people rejected him, and its leaders forced him out. With this small band of believers, whilst undergoing much persecution and false propaganda, he (saw) sought the nusrah (material support) from the tribes of Arabia, and when Allah willed, He sent it in the form of the leaders of two tribes from Madinah. Thus he (saw) reached a position of power and authority with a relatively small following, and from that position he was then able to implement the deen and spread it like a wild fire.

As for the textual perspective, what is relevant here are the many verses of the Qur’an in which Allah speaks about the provision of His support and victory (nusrah) to the believers, the indication of all of which is that Allah will give the nusrah to those who adopt certain qualities, with no requirement that everyone do so. This is not to say that everyone adopting these qualities is not an ideal, but that the persistence of some on bad qualities does not deprive those who do respond to the call of Allah from His support and victory. For example, Allah says in surah al-Nur,

“Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will of a surety, grant them in the land, succession in power, as He granted it to those before them;…” (24:55)

Here Allah the Exalted emphasises his promise to give the believers of succession in power and authority. This promise carries two conditions: i) belief; and ii) the commission of righteous deeds. In other words, the sincere Muslims who have taqwa and persevere in their servitude to Allah will be granted authority in the land. There is no third condition that everyone be like this. Rather it is ‘those among you (O people)’ who are like this. This point is further apparent in the historical comparison. The mention of ‘as He granted it to those before them’ is a reference to Bani Isra’eel and how Allah granted them succession to power, and we know well that there were many amongst Bani Isra’eel who were not of the qualities mentioned in the verse, yet Bani Isra’eel was still granted the victory from Allah on the back of those who did have these qualities.

Similarly Allah says in surah al-Hajj,

“Allah will certainly aid those who aid Him (i.e. His cause)” (22:40)

And in the well-known verse in surah Muhammad Allah says,

“O you who believe, if you help (the cause of) Allah, He will help you and make firm your feet.” (47:7)

Again in both these verses the condition for attaining the aid of Allah is aiding His deen, not that for anyone to get that aid, everyone has to do so. Further if we accept this premise we effectively say that those people who are true to their covenant with Allah are deprived of the promised reward due to the actions of others. The fallacy of this was detailed in an earlier piece entitled ‘Gaza: punishment of trial?’

Hence there should be no doubt about the invalidity of the idea that the majority of individuals must change first for collective change to occur. It contradicts both historical reality, and is unsupported by textual evidence. Furthermore, it only arises when we begin on the premise of the incorrect conception of what society is and how it changes.

Misconceiving the reality of societal change

Another verse famous upon the tongues in relation to this topic of change and revival is the saying of Allah, “Indeed, Allah does not change that which is in a people until they change what is within themselves” (al-Ra’d: 11). However the meaning of this verse is not, as some use it, that change will not occur in society or people until all the individuals change. Rather it is that change will not occur until the society changes what is in it (i.e. that which comprises it), which includes the individuals but is not limited to them. There is a subtle but extremely important distinction between these two meanings.

Of importance in the ayah is that the object of the verb (change) is the qawm, not the individual. The qawm [nation/society] is different to the fard [individual] and even afrad, a collection of individuals. Qawm, in the Arabic language, refers to a nation or people. It is more than a mere collection of individuals in that it is a collection of individuals whom a common thought or idea binds together as they live with each other, under various systems of communal organisation (economic, political, social, judicial), to the fulfilment of the common goals of everyday life, which at its most fundamental level is the satisfaction of human needs and instincts. In brief then, society is defined not merely as a collection of individuals but as the collection of individuals, the thoughts and emotions which bind them, and the systems implemented upon them through various societal institutions.

Thus is it important to appreciate that whilst the implicit meaning [mafhum] of the ayah can be used as a proof that Allah will not change the condition of an individual until that individual works to change himself, the explicit [mantuq] subject matter of the ayah is not this, but rather it is the issue of collective change in society, not individual change.

This comprehensive understanding of qawm is indeed important because the ayah moves on to say that the change must be of ‘ma bi anfusihim’, that is, that which is within themselves, where the ‘ma’ is general [‘aam] and so includes everything that comprises the qawm. Thus the rendered meaning is that Allah (swt) has decreed that He (swt) will not change the situation of any qawm until they all collectively change all that is within themselves – the individuals, their thoughts and emotions, and the systems implemented in that society. For Islamic revival of course, the requirement is Islamic thoughts and emotions, and Islamic systems.

We see this, societal as opposed to individualistic, understanding in the tafsir of the classical mufassireen. Imam al-Qurtubi, for example, says in his tafsir of this ayah:
“Allah informs in this ayah that he does not change what is in a qawm until change takes place from them, whether it be from them, or from their leaders, or from he who is from them by a cause… So the meaning of this ayah is not that a punishment will not befall the individual except if he commits a sin. Rather, (the meaning is) afflictions may well befall due to the sins of other, as he (saw) said - (when) he was asked, “will we be destroyed whilst the righteous are amongst us?” He (saw) said, ‘Yes, if the corruption/sin increases (excessively).’” (9:294)

To use this verse, as some unfortunately do, to say that we should only concentrate on ourselves and not deal with societal or Ummah-level issues is a gross misinterpretation of the ayah.

The importance of changing societal institutions

The systems implemented in a society are not only an inherent make-up of that society but are a part with significant influence. The societal institutions which implement these political, economic, social, legal and judicial systems necessarily have a considerable impact. This is because these institutions set the framework within which the society operates. The political system legislates laws and institutes policy which sets the direction of the society in all walks of life. Thus it is arguably the most influential institution. It decides on social policy, things like the legality of alcohol, the limits of inter-gender relationships, and homosexuality. It decides on economic policy, things like the legality of interest, the economic objectives sought in the society, and the legal means of acquiring wealth and its disposal. It decides also, importantly, on educational policy, which in turn determines the mainstream ideas and concepts held in society as mass education indoctrinates generation after generation with one set of beliefs and ideals or another.

Thus the level of influence the state in particular, and other societal institutions in general, have should be obvious. If one person drinks alcohol the negative effects of it are limited to him, or at most his family and friends, but if alcohol is allowed and widely available throughout society and its consumption is encouraged the whole society is subjected to its perils. If two parties engage in a riba contract the effects of it are limited to them, but if riba is legal and widely available in society, nay the sole means of acquiring loans, again the entire society is subject to its harmful consequences. The same applies to literally hundreds of other things.

This influence and importance of the ruling authority on the people at large was expressed quite clearly by many of the Companions, who were the generation of Muslims most knowledgeable of Islam and its essence. Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra), the one described by the Prophet as the distinguisher between truth and falsehood (al-Faruq), said,
“By Allah, what Allah protects and prevents by the ruler is greater than what he protects and prevents by the Qur'an.” (al-Khateeb, Tarikh al-Baghdad; Kanz al-Ummal, narration no. 14284)

In a narration related by al-Bukhari on the authority of Qays ibn Abi Hazim,
Abu Bakr (ra) entered on a woman from the people of Ahmas named Zainab. She said, "Until when will we stay on this good matter (Islam) which Allah brought after the times of ignorance?" Abu Bakr said, "As long as your rulers straighten you on it." (Ibn al-Athir, Jami' al-Usul, hadith no. 2067)

Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) said,
“The people in the Ummah will not suffer even if they were oppressors and sinful, if the rulers were guided and were guiding. But the people will suffer and perish even if they were guided and were guiding if the rulers were oppressors and sinful.” (Abu Nu'aym, Hilyat al-Awliya')

Hence there should be no doubt about the significant degree of influence societal institutions have on people.

We appreciate this point better when we contemplate the case of the people of Makkah, who on mass rejected the Prophet (saw) over the thirteen years he spent there. Yet only ten years later when he came to conquer Makkah from Madinah, the very same people submitted and embraced Islam on mass, and went on to become of the best Muslims to ever live.

But what was the difference? Did the Prophet (saw) come with a new message the second time round? No! It was the same simple message conveyed by the same prophet. The only difference was that the first time he was calling from a position of relative weakness as an individual with a few followers, whilst the second time he had the backing of a state apparatus with all its avenues of influence. He implemented Islam upon the people and they all saw it in its comprehensiveness whilst being subject to the fruits of its systems. This shows us the enormous effect societal institutions have.

Another aspect of Islamic fiqh which shows the important role of societal institutions is that of foreign policy. The prime objective of the foreign policy of the Islamic State is conveying Islam to other nations and peoples. The established practice in this regard is that once the Islamic State is established the primary means of conveying Islam is by spreading the domain of Islamic rule whereby the targeted society/nation is sought to be brought under Islamic rule. Once Islam is in authority it can be implemented in its entirety and the people can see it truly for what it is. Whether they adopt Islam as individuals is then left up to them.

This model was established by the Messenger of Allah (saw) who, having established the Islamic State in Madinah, initiated contact with neighbouring nations not by sending individuals to call individuals to Islam (in what may be called grass-roots da’wah), but by sending emissaries to the rulers of these nations. In the letters he sent to them he gave them three options: i) adopt Islam and rule by it, ii) reject Islam (in their individual capacity), submit to its authority and pay the jizyah, or iii) prepare for war, whereby that authority will be taken by force.

This model of foreign policy demonstrates two important points in the context of this discussion,

1. Whilst individuals are to be left at the mere conveyance of the Islamic message, and can never be forced to adopt Islam, the same is not true for societies, which, if they resist submitting to the Islamic authority, will be forced to do so as per the command of Allah relayed in verse 29 of surah al-Tawbah.

2. There is a difference in approach between establishing the Islamic State (changing the first society) and expanding it to include other nations (changing subsequent societies). The former is relatively a more a bottom-up approach, whilst the latter is very much top-down. In effect the latter is an approach of moving into a society through acquisition of political authority, changing the societal institutions and working from there to effect a change across the society as whole, including its individuals. As such it shows that changing the institutions leads to changing the people, not the other way around.

It was this very approach whereby the Companions took Islamic civilisation from the desserts of Arabia to as far as India in the East and Spain in the West, with astounding success. Therefore the importance of changing societal institutions and of appreciating their vast influence on society cannot be understated.

In the same vein, when we observe the Ummah today and see that many of her sons and daughters are not up scratch with regards to adhering to the commands and prohibitions of Allah, we must appreciate that a major cause of this is the kufr systems they live under. This point is not to offer an excuse for those who are not fulfilling their basic Islamic obligations, but it is to appreciate the reality of the situation. Further, it is to note that this effect of societal institutions is natural and unavoidable.

Therefore, those who claim that the people must all change before we obtain the victory from Allah - and are thereby able to change the societal institutions from a position of political authority - fall into a circularity whose fallacious nature is obvious. In other words, for the people to positively change on mass requires change of the societal institutions, and change of the societal institutions requires assuming political authority, which requires the nusrah and victory from Allah. Thus the nusrah is required for the people to change on the mass level. To say that the people must all first change to get the nusrah brings us into a fallacious circularity, proving the incorrectness of this last supposed requirement.

Conclusion

Societal change is indeed an overwhelming task but it is more than achievable if we understand the true nature of society and of societal change. Historical precedent as well as Islamic textual evidence shows that it is incorrect to presume that all or the majority of people must change first for the collective to change. The positive change in individuals on mass is not a condition for obtaining the nusrah of Allah but a result of it. Its condition is a sufficient number (a minority with respect to the whole) of disciplined and well-cultured souls who diligently follow the path traversed by the Messenger of Allah in changing society, exclusively in obedience to Allah and purely to seek His pleasure. For them awaits victory and authority in this life and the best of abode amongst the Prophets and the righteous in Paradise in the hereafter. May Allah make us of them.