He has prescribed for you the religion which He enjoined upon Noah and which We revealed to you (O Muhammad), and which We enjoined upon Abraham and Moses and Jesus, commanding: “Establish this religion and do not split up regarding it.” What you are calling to is very hard upon those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity. Allah chooses for Himself whomsoever He pleases and guides to Himself whoever penitently turns to Him.

The above is the translation by Abu Ala Mawdudi from Taheem-ul-Qur'an, in explaining the word iqamat he further writes

The word iqamat (to establish) when used in respect of a material or physical object implies causing it to rise from the sitting or lying positions or assembling the scattered parts of a thing and raising it up high. But when iqamat is used in respect of a thing which is not material but spiritual in nature it does not merely imply preaching it, but also acting according to it as best as one can, introducing it and enforcing it practically. For example, when we say that so and-so established his rule, it does not mean that he invited others to his government but that he subdued the people of the land and organised the different departments of the government in a way that the administration of the country began to function according to his orders. Similarly, when we say that courts have been established in the country, it means that judges have been appointed to do justice and they ate hearing the cases and giving judgement, and not that hymns in praise of justice are being sung and the people being impressed.

Mawdudi, a very prominent scholar of 20th century is obviously of the opinion that it's the duty of every individual who calls himself a Muslim to strive for the establishment of Islam all over the world.

There was one criticism which came from Waheed Uddin Khan where he argued in his book Tabeer ki Ghalti that Religion here doesn't include Sharia since the verse is talking about Religion given to all the Previous Prophets and we know from Qur'an that different Sharia was given to different prophets. Mawdudi gave a counter argument to this in his tafseer

When some people saw that the din which has been enjoined to be established is common among all the Prophets, and their shari'ahs have been different, as Allah Himself says: "We appointed for each community among you a law and a way of life", they formed the view that inevitably this din did not imply the shari' ah commandments, rules and regulations but only the acceptance of Tauhid, the Hereafter and the Book and the Prophethood and performance of certain acts of devotion to Allah, or at the most, it included some of the major moral principles which have been common to all the shari'ahs. But this is a superficial view, which has been formed after having a cursory glance over the unity of religion and the difference of the shari'ahs. This is, however, a dangerous view, which if not corrected in time, may well lead to the separation between din (religion) and shari'ahs (law). It was this very view in, which St. Paul was involved, who presented the doctrine of the din (religion) without shari'ah (law), and corrupted the community of the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). For, if shari'ah (law) is something separate from din (religion) and the command is only for establishing the din and not the shari'ah, inevitably the Muslims also, like the Christians, would regard the shari ah as unimportant and overlook its establishment as not being the real object by itself, and would remain content with only beliefs and a few important moral principles. Instead of determining the meaning of din from such speculations, let us turn to the Qur'an itself and see whether the din which we have been enjoined here to establish implies the beliefs and a few important moral principles only, or the shari'ah values and commandments as well

He then cites verses where deen is used as a synonym for sharia example: 5:3 and 9:29.

So with this background if one claims that it's the religious duty of every Muslim to strive for the establishment of Islam all over the world, isn't he right?

  • 1
    Hmmm... Mawdudi certainly seems to provide some interesting evidence regarding iqamat. But it seems to me that verse 42:13 is addressing and commanding the Prophet (PBUH) specifically.
    – Student
    Commented Mar 4, 2015 at 20:34

4 Answers 4


The Khilafah is a mean to the larger, greater goal: the stand of 'kalimatul haq', which is 'kalimatu at-tauhid laa ilaaha illa Allah'. Don't confuse the means with the goal. In the first 13 years of Nubuwwah, Rasulullah - Shallallahu'alaihi wa sallam - strive to purify the Tauhid of Mecca residents which contaminated with 'as-syirku billah', not striving to establish the Khilafah. The Khilafah Rasulullah - Shallallahu’alaihi was allam - builds is in a form of Medina city-state, established as a consequence of the strong tauhid that his Shahabat have after hijrah. Establishing Khilafah without strong tauhid is like building a home above weak foundation. If we about to 'iqomatu al-kalimatul haq: laa ilaaha illa Allah', then we should follow the principles of how the Prophet change the state of the Ummah, not by some other method we invented ourself.

Allah said in QS. An-Nur : 55,

"Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds

.. that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them

.. and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security,

.. [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me.

.. But whoever disbelieves after that - then those are the defiantly disobedient."

'Succession' in this verse is in the 'taukid' word 'layastakhlifannahum', which means 'surely without doubt He will grant Khilafah' just as He granted it to those before us. But the promise have precondition that we are 'among who believed and who do righteous deed' (iman wal amal shalih) and the goal of Khilafah is 'for they worship Me, not associating anything with me' (ya'budunani la tusyrikunabi syai-a). We believe that Allah will grant what He promise if and only if we fulfill His precondition.


If something is good, then isn't it better for all others to be informed about it?!

That means that if you want to be a true Muslim a true believer then you must propogate Islam to others... wherever you can whenever you can. It’s an eternal religion.

What is important is: That once taught you don't impose it onto others... something that some radical Muslims are doing... they believe their belief of Islam is the best and only belief of Islam.

From Surah Taha: Allah is telling the Prophet we have not sent the Quran so that it would bring you distress (for those who don't follow or obey)

Ta-ha (The Prophet). (۱) طه ﴿۱﴾ We have not sent down the Qur’an to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress, (۲) مَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ لِتَشْقَى ﴿۲﴾ But only as an admonition to those who fear (Allah),- (۳) إِلَّا تَذْكِرَةً لِّمَن يَخْشَى ﴿۳﴾

Or from surah Qashiya Allah is telling the prophet that your duty is to only admonish, leave it to them to obey or not obey. Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. (۲۱) فَذَكِّرْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُذَكِّرٌ ﴿۲۱﴾ Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. (۲۲) لَّسْتَ عَلَيْهِم بِمُصَيْطِرٍ ﴿۲۲﴾

People have free will...and حق & باطل are quite different... so once shown, then leave it to that person to follow or not follow. You don't have any further responsibility.

إِنَّا هَدَيْناهُ السَّبيلَ إِمَّا شاكِراً وَ إِمَّا كَفُورا (الإنسان:3) We showed him the way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will). وَ ما عَلَيْنا إِلاَّ الْبَلاغُ الْمُبين‏ (يس : 17) "And our duty is only to proclaim the clear message." (۱۷)

Our duty is to just present it clear and complete, let people choose.

And the best way of inviting people to Islam is with our deeds, not our tongue: كونوا دعاه للناس بغير السنتكم

Lastly, Insha'allah when the savior comes, then Islam will conquer the earth, but its matter is a divine one... not a human one...

And we wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders (in faith) and make them heirs, (۵)

وَنُرِيدُ أَن نَّمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوَارِثِينَ ﴿۵﴾

An outline of the notes made:

  1. Why shouldn't we not present good to others?
  2. We shouldn't impose it on others.
  3. We should present it complete and clear
  4. We should invite people of other religions with kindness and our actions, it won't work if we start reading to them only and forgetting about our actions.
  5. The day that Islam will be spread all over world is a day that Allah will make it happen, not humans! (Has any human any country ever been able to control the whole world? It’s not possible!)

A word may have different applications. When it in used in a particular context it is not necessary that all of them are simultaneously intended. It is the context which decides the meaning in which it is used.

If you look closely what Mawdudi has done is: he stuffed all usages of 'الدِّين' into a particular usage ignoring its own context. The divinely revealed words clearly state that God has ordained for Muhammad (pbuh) the same religion which He enjoined on Noah (pbuh) and others. If we stuff all meanings here it will necessarily imply that all the mentioned prophets were given the same religion, from A to Z, thus leading to a contradiction with verse 5:48.

That's why I think that his counter argument does not answer Wahiduddin Khan's objection.

Moreover, the dangerous view that may lead to the separation of Din and Shariah is not of Wahiduddin Khan. He clearly writes:

“It does not mean that collective and cultural laws in addition to the core religion are not a subject of 'iqamat'. I just want to prove that their iqamat is not obligated on us in the absolute manner the way this interpretation wants to...” (Tabeer ki Ghalati page 225)

The word absolute is extremely important and summarizes the core difference of opinion at a macro level.

Let me explain this with an example: when you do not possess enough wealth you are not liable to pay Zakah, when you are bachelor the marital laws of Islam are not applicable to you. Similarly, when Muslims do not rule a land they are not obliged to apply the collective laws of Islam. On the contrary, Mawdudi's interpretation forces you to acquire a land in order to implement such laws. Wahiduddin than would say that he has reversed the natural direction.

  • Thanks for your answer, just to clear, do you mean 'Deen' in 42:13 mean the principles of religion or do you mean that the meaning will change based on who it is applied ( based on your example, for a poor Zakah won't be applicable, for a bachelor marital laws won't be applicable, for a Muslim Ruler then it will include the sharia as well ).
    – R Syed
    Commented Feb 3, 2015 at 19:23
  • @RSyed Sorry for replying late. al-Din in 42:13 means the core religion because of the construction of the verse. We have other reasons to believe that a Muslim ruler should implement shariah laws e.g. 5:45
    – a_fan
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 5:30

Spreading Islam is considered as 'Fard-e-Kifayh', ie, if some people are doing from the Muslims, they suffice for all. See here. But if no one is doing from the Muslim community, then all will be responsible.

You can also refer this.http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/society-and-family/conveying-the-message/167119-the-concept-of-dawah-and-the-spread-of-islam.html

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .