HANIFM@vaxa.aston.ac.uk (03/19/91)
Assalaamu alaykum to everyone !
Here are some of my reactions to brother Zafer's article which I
found thought provoking to say the least . They are offered in the spirit
of brotherhood and to stimulate discussion .
All muslim's should agree that when they are in the majority they
should organise their society and governance in accordance with Islamic
principles and the Sharia should be upheld in it's entirety among them .
Brother Zafer's emphasis on this point is correct and wholly supportable .
However I find a number of statement's in the article questionable:
- The Khilafah will unify one billion muslims and automatically -
AUTOMATICALLY ! - solve all existing problems . Is this not a little bit
too simplistic ? At least the statement was bracketed with an insha-allah .
- the US bombing of Tripoli in 1986 is cited as an example of the general
attack and conspiracy against muslim's . Of course , one know's they didn't
attack in response to alleged Libyan sponsored terrorism but I fail to see
any explicit or implicit anti-muslim motive in the attack ; isn't it more
realistic to say that the US wanted to put Gadaffi in his place and put a
temporary hold on his expansionist policies in North Africa and his call for a
more assertive united ARAB world ? (However, on this point you may call me just
another niaeve muslim who doesn't understand what's REALLY going on.)
It is however the article's view's vis a vis the relationship between
Islam and the Islamic state that I most want to dwell upon :
- the article seem's to equate Islam as being the same as the
establishment of an Islamic state ["..the absence of Islam in our lives ie.
the absence of Khilafah (Islamic State ).] or that Islam is incomplete
without it being constituted in an Islamic state [".. it is a fard (duty)
to have a Khilafah so Islam CAN BE MADE a complete way of life ."]-emphasis
mine .
Islam is religion/way of life where man submit's to Allah's Will
whilst Khilafah is (simply) a mode of government developed by muslim's and
which has suffered great distortion and abuse at the hands of muslim's.
Islam may well envisage Khilafah - whichever way you define it - as the
ideal form of government but the two are not the same thing nor does Islam
need an Islamic state to somehow 'complete' it .
Logically ,an assertion to the contrary as is made in the article
would mean the islam of the one billion muslim's in the world who are not being
governed under a Khilafah is defective in some vital way . I would have
thought the best islam is manifested in the actions and example of every
good and God-fearing muslim rather than in the workings of some Islamic
state .
As regards two of the hadith that are quoted :
- the first one is cited as proving that it is a fard to give allegiance
(baya) to whoever is made khalif BUT the word 'khalif' is not mentioned at
all within the hadith ; rather the wording makes it clear that the baya is
to Allah - no khalif is mentioned . Perhaps the brother made an error in
typing but I suggest that this particular hadith does not support his
argument . Others may.
- the second hadith is used to justify revolt against a ruler who does
not establish Islam fully . To do this brother Zafer has to construe the
actual words in the hadith ; namely " ...as long they ESTABLISH PRAYER AMONG
YOU ." to mean " ...implementing Islam as a totality ."
At first sight this particular interpretation may seem perfectly
reasonable as the Prophet's use of the term 'prayer' may taken to be
synonymous with the whole of Islam ,as prayer is the central and most
recognisably Islamic action .
However , this leads to the following problems and implications :
- let me re-write the latter half of the hadith and subsitute brother
Zafer's interpretation for the actual words to make things easier . We
would then have :
"... the worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and they
hate you and you curse them and they curse you . We asked : O
Messenger of Allah , shall we not then declare war on them ?
He replied : No , as long as they establish ISLAM AS A TOTALITY
among you . "
- the question is how can a situation be envisaged where the khalif of the
muslim's IS establishing Islam as a totality and still such a state of
accrimony exists between ruler and ruled ? If the khalif is implementing
Islam and the sharia in all its aspects the muslims should be overjoyed
and happy with him rather than hate and curse him .
Looking back into history , we see that Umar ibn al-Khattab was the most
strictest in appling the minutest detail of the sharia upon the muslim's
yet none hated him and we now look upon him with love and awe and as the
best of the khalifs who did most for Islam . Even during the fitnas against
Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn abi Talib , hate for themamongst their enemies
was NOT a common emmotion nor a primary motivating factor - Muawiya did not
hate Ali nor the protestors who barrackaded Uthman in his house .
- secondly , in interpreting the hadith in the way the article does , one
is implying that the Prophet is incapable of adequately expressing himself.
If the Prophet wanted to mean that one should not revolt against a ruler so
long as he was implementing Islam as a whole , wouldn't it have been easy
for him to say so ? Especially as he must have known how zealous his
companions were in following and noting everything that he said - however
trivial . In an area as important as indicating the limits of loyalty to the
state would he not have been doubly careful in his choice of words ?
It would be appropriate here to note that the above hadith is also quoted
on page 51 of ' Towards Understanding the Qur'an , Vol.II ,1989 ,The Islamic
Foundation ,Leicester ( a translation of Mawdudi's Tafhim al-Qur'an ) . Most
significantly , in this 'version' of the hadith the Prophet REPEATS his last
words ie :
"...No,not as long as they establish Prayer among you : NOT AS LONG
AS THEY ESTABLISH PRAYER AMONG YOU ." Why would he repeat his words exactly
unless he meant precisely what he said (and wanted to emphasise that his words
should NOT be expanded upon )? Again, the hadith does not support the
brother's contention .
The criteria for open opposition against muslim rulers may be derived
from the following hadith where the sahabi says :
" The Prophet also made us pledge not to rise against our rulers
unless we see them involved in open disbelief , so we may have
definate evidence against them to lay before God " ( Bukhari &
Muslim ) .
The idea that we should overthrow our present muslim rulers is something
which I believe is Islamically valid only when one can prove that the present
bunch of pick-pockets and tyrants have openly indulged in kufr i.e. the
criterion given in the above hadith .
To conclude , reform through gentle persuasion and preaching by example was
the way of the Prophet and should be our way in reconstucting muslim society .
Revolution is the instrument of change in Marxism , not Islam . We should not
be fooled into reaching for the easy option .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
W'assalaam,
Mohammed Hanif.darwish@eng.umd.edu (Mamdouh Maher) (03/27/91)
Assalamu `alaykum, I would like to comment on Br. Mohammad Hanif's article. Brother Hanif writes: > > - The Khilafah will unify one billion muslims and automatically - >AUTOMATICALLY ! - solve all existing problems . Is this not a little bit >too simplistic ? At least the statement was bracketed with an insha-allah . I agree, but one has to admit that a true Islamic leadership would solve many problems and almost all problems that are due to corruption, which is the majority. At the time of Omar, may God be pleased with him, there was a famine, but then again, Omar himself refused to eat until there was abundant food for everyone. This is all the people want, a leadership that fears God. Problems will remain, but the leadership will be a major part of the solution. >Islam may well envisage Khilafah - whichever way you define it - as the >ideal form of government but the two are not the same thing nor does Islam >need an Islamic state to somehow 'complete' it . To the best of my knowledge (I may be wrong), Islam has not set a definite form of government. Instead, Islam only requires that certain conditions be met for a government to be Islamic. Beyond that, any form of government that obeys these conditions is acceptable. Again, I may be wrong, please correct me if I am. > The idea that we should overthrow our present muslim rulers is something >which I believe is Islamically valid only when one can prove that the present >bunch of pick-pockets and tyrants have openly indulged in kufr i.e. the >criterion given in the above hadith . Actually, from another hadith (Sorry, I do not have the isnad): "No obedience to the created in the disobedience of the creator." In other words, one does not have to wait for the leader to become a tyrant to disobey. if a Muslim leader makes it a point to drink on TV in Ramadhan or imprisons members of a certain brotherhood because they oppose his policies, then at the very least, this leader is reprehensible. If this leader has taken on numerous occasions a course of action that benefits only his government and not the subjects, then he has breached his contract with the people as their leader. I agree with what you mean to say, but there are several leaders of Muslims countries who have committed errors too big to ignore. As for pick-pockets and tyrants, I can count a dozen such Muslim leader in my head. > To conclude , reform through gentle persuasion and preaching by example was >the way of the Prophet and should be our way in reconstucting muslim society . >Revolution is the instrument of change in Marxism , not Islam . We should not >be fooled into reaching for the easy option . Reform through gentle persuation and preaching actually IS the method used by most islamic organizations. Witness Algeria, Jordan and Egypt. Violence is the product of oppression. >W'assalaam, >Mohammed Hanif. Wa `alaykum assalam.