Die Außenpolitik §181-191
- Kategorie: Außenpolitik §181-191
Artikel 183: Der Zweck heiligt nicht die Mittel, denn Methode und Idee sind artgleich. Durch die Ausübung von Verbotenem darf weder eine Pflicht erfüllt noch etwas Erlaubtes erreicht werden. Das politische Mittel darf der politischen Methode nicht widersprechen.
Article 183: Ends do not justify means, because the method is integral to the thought. Thus, the obligation and the permitted cannot be attained by performing a forbidden action. Political means must not contradict the political methods.
Allah (swt) set rules in order to treat the problems of man, such as trade, renting, partnerships and so on, and set other rules in order to implement these treatments between the people, such as the discretionary (Ta’zir) punishment for the one who cheats in trade and cutting the hand of the thief as a prescribed punishment (Hadd). And in the same manner, He (swt) set rules to treat the problems that occur between the Islamic State and the disbelieving states, such as the rules regarding the one who is covered by a treaty and the one who takes amnesty, and the rules regarding the Dar Al-Harb and the rules regarding conveying the call to Islam to them in a way that attracts attention, and so on. And He (swt) set other rules in order to implement these rules, such as the protection of the blood and property of someone who has amnesty being equivalent to the blood and property of the Muslim, and the prohibition of fighting the disbeliever before they have been called to Islam in a manner which attracts attention, and so on. Therefore, the method in Islam is the Shari’ah rules, and so victory is not achieved through betrayal and conquest is not achieved through breaking a treaty. So in the same way that the goal must be defined by the Shari’ah, what is used to reach that goal must be from what the Shari’ah permitted, since the goal and the means are both part of the actions of the worshipper, and what makes the action permitted or forbidden is the Shari’ah evidence, and not the results which are produced by it, nor the goal which is sought by it since Allah (swt) says:
((وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ))
“And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed.” (TMQ 5:49), not by what results the actions produce, or these actions are used to reach, and so the rule regarding the means is the Shari’ah evidence just like the rule regarding the goal. In other words, the fact that the Shari’ah evidence is what establishes the permissibility or impermissibility of the goal is evidence that the goal does not justify the means, in other words, does not make it permitted if there is Shari’ah evidence which has forbidden it. Accordingly the means are not permitted because its intended goal was permitted, or obligatory, or recommended, or because its goal had benefit or good or a victory; rather the means would be permitted if the Shari’ah permitted it and would be forbidden if the Shari’ah forbade it. In other words, it must be in accordance with the rules of the Shari’ah, because every action of the Muslim must be directed by the Shari’ah, and agree with the Shari’ah rule, because the definition of the Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator (swt) connected to the actions of the worshippers, and so it is obligatory that all the actions of the Muslim are in accordance with the Shari’ahh rule.
Based upon this, the Muslims reject and disapprove of the principle that the ends justify the means. It is correct that Islam has principles deduced from its evidences that give the means used to reach the goal the rule of the goal, such as the principle: “The means to something forbidden is also forbidden”, and such as the principle: “If one type of a permitted thing leads to a harm, only that one is prohibited, and the thing remains permitted”, and the principle: “That, without which the obligation cannot be accomplished, is itself an obligation”, however this is if the means is permitted or obligatory. If, on the other hand, the means are forbidden, then the goal does not make it permitted, whether it was obligatory or permitted; rather the means would remain forbidden. From this understanding, the goal does not justify the means, or in other words, the obligatory or permitted goal does not make the forbidden means permitted. The article was drafted in accordance with this.