|
They come, they see – and they disrupt: they take out
processions, they intimidate people, they shout slogans, they burn tyres, they
throw stones, they break windscreens, and, in doing all that, they brave batons
and tear gas. And after their enervating battle against some elusive injustice,
they, in complete oblivion to the impropriety and inexpediency of their
hooliganism, retreat to preen themselves on another day of cherished glory.
These self-proclaimed warriors of God, who owe their
mention in the news more to the nuisance they cause than to any service they
render, seem absolutely unaware of the vagaries of time or the requirements of
their religion. It is not surprising therefore that even after years and years
of ceaseless failure since the creation of Pakistan, these ‘holy men’ are still
unable to learn from their mistakes and still oblivious to the actual challenge
they face.
It all began when religion and politics were mixed in the
wrong way. No doubt Islam wants the constraints of religion in politics, but,
though this religion has not prohibited it as such, common sense and lessons
learnt from history point out that religious movements can best serve Islam by
staying out of politics and concentrating on understanding and disseminating
their religion. In other words, it is a boon when politicians and political
leaders are religious and politics and government remain within the bounds of
decency, ethics and religion. But it a great bane when politics creeps into
religious activities and endeavours and religious scholars aspire for political
goals.
Providing justifications is something humans have always
been good at, especially those that wear beards and are experts in producing
guttural, anathematising sounds which are used as meaninglessly out-of-context
as they are used effectively to stupefy the followers into a reverent silence.
Take Ahwanu’l-balyatayn for instance. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? There’s an
aura of dignity about it that commands respect. This doctrine of ‘lesser of the
two evils’ has always served a useful purpose for those who are trapped in two
evil situations and can avoid only one. A man in unbearable hunger has nothing
to eat except either pig-meat or donkey meat. Here Ahwanu’l-balyatayn not only
sounds impressive but also makes sense. But to those who are more than certain
that it is their shoulders upon which the edifice of Islam’s survival rests and
that the future of the Ummah depends on the success of their plans and
strategies, the panacean words have more important uses: whenever, any harām
stands in the way of their lofty plans to rule the country – for the sake of
Islam of course (no reference to the intentions involved intended here) –,
viola! Ahwanu’l-balyatayn comes in handy.
Another term is Taghīru’l-munkar bi’l-yad, that is
changing wrong with hand. In other words, using force to end wrong. This term is
based on a saying of the Prophet (sws). He is reported to have said:
He amongst you who sees any wrong should change it with
his hand; if that is not possible for him, then with his tongue; if that is not
possible for him, then [he should condemn it] in his heart -- and that is the
weakest level of faith. (Muslim, Kitābu’l-Imān)
This statement of the Prophet (sws) has a specific context
in reference to which the statement merely means that it is the duty of every
Muslim to try for the eradication of evil within the confines of the social and
legal authority he or she has .
For example, parents are afforded the authority by the conventions of society to
use some mild form of physical punishment, if required, for the proper
upbringing of their children. This obviously does not mean that they have the
authority to batter their children. Similarly, the government -- a court of law
to be more precise -- has the legal authority to award a suitable sentence to an
offender, if he is found guilty. Now, if some parents did not use their
authority to stop their children from becoming heroin addicts, they would
certainly be at a weaker level of faith, especially if physical punishment of a
sort would have helped and it were love which stopped them from using their
authority. Love does not mean that you let those you love do wrong. Similarly, a
judge who, under some pressure, gave a lighter punishment to an offender would
certainly be at a weaker level of faith. Indeed, in the absence of a reasonable
excuse, he might even be regarded as being devoid of faith altogether on the Day
of Judgement.
The Prophet of Allah (sws) never took the law into his own
hands. During the thirteen years he preached Islam in Makkah, he never went
beyond the confines of the law of the land. The few companions and followers he
had during those years were indeed more loyal to him -- and hardly any Muslim
would doubt that -- than his followers today can ever claim to be. The followers
of the Prophet (sws) never hurt even a single of his opponents in retaliation
even when he was pelted with stones at Tā’if. In Makkah, invectives were hurled
against him day and night, yet none of his followers regarded it a matter of his
faith to beat up a few offenders to avenge the Prophet (sws). Obviously, not all
of his companions – especially those truly close to him as Abū Bakr (rta) and
Ali (rta) – had chosen to remain at a weaker level of faith. And, clearly the
Prophet (sws) himself did not choose to exhort his companies to do something in
retaliation.
Actually, it was only after the Prophet (sws) had
established an independent State at Madīnah that laws were enacted and
implemented by him – and that too was done gradually so as to avoid imbalance in
society.
It is evident from this restraint that anarchy and
disruption are against the nature of Islam. In fact, this religion gives the
Islamic State the right to give a severe death sentence to those found guilty of
creating a situation of anarchy, disorder or disruption.
Yet, our gladiators would continue their vandalism and
disruption in spite of these arguments as, in their opinion, the government of
Pakistan is not Islamic and most of the people in it are quite close to being
Kuffār (infidels) and Munāfiqūn (hypocrites). The important questions then are
whether a State having a morally and religiously corrupt government becomes an
un-Islamic State, and, whether any individual or group has the right to declare
someone in the Ummah a Kāfir (infidel) or a Munāfiq (hypocrite).
The Islamic principle on which a State is founded is
described in the Qur’ān in the words amruhum shūrā baynahum (their affairs are
through consultation amongst them).
This principle entails that the State affairs be run by the vote of the majority
of Muslim citizens. A State is formed when a people establish their government
in a geographically independent area over which they have power and authority.
Therefore, when the majority of Muslims in a geographically independent area,
over which they have power and authority, form their own government through
consultation -- elections in modern times --, that government, in accordance
with the verse quoted above, represents the Islamic State. Therefore, allegiance
to that government is a religious obligation on the Muslim citizens of that
State:
Obey Allah and the Prophet and those who are in authority
among you. Then, if there is difference of opinion among you, refer it back to
Allah and the Prophet. (4:59)
It is evident from this verse that even in case of any
difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the contents of religion,
the matter should be resolved through the Qur’ān and the Sunnah
rather than through violence and disruption. And, from the verse quoted earlier
(42:38), it is clear that the verdict of the majority of the Muslims regarding
the correct interpretation must be accepted as the law of the land. Thereafter,
those who dissent do have the right to express their points of view in a
peaceful and constitutional manner, but they do not have the right to create a
law and order situation or to rebel against the State. The Prophet (sws) is
reported to have said:
You are organised under the rule of a person and someone
tries to break your collectivity apart or disrupt your government, kill him.
(Muslim, Kitābu’l-Imārah)
It is only when a Muslim is ordered to do something
against the directives of Allah or of the Prophet (sws) is he required to
disobey those with political and legal authority in the system he lives in. The
Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
Whether they like it or not, it is obligatory on the
faithful to listen to and obey their rulers except that they be ordered to
commit sin. If they are ordered to commit sin, they should neither listen nor
obey. (Muslims, Kitābu’l-Imārah)
The Qur’ānic words ‘obey Allah and the Prophet...’ require
that a Muslim not obey any command against the directives of Allah and the
Prophet (sws). But even then, he is not allowed to disrupt the system or commit
crimes. The reason is that when a government is formed in accordance with the
Qur’ānic principle of amruhum shūrā baynahum and can be changed or deposed on
the same basis, any rebellion against that government amounts to a rebellion
against the collectivity of Muslims, which in Islamic terminology, is Muhārabah
and which, as the statement of the Prophet (sws) quoted earlier explains, is an
offence punishable by death.
Prominent people of this Ummah as Abū Hanīfah, Imām Mālik
Ibn Anas and Ahmad Ibn Hambal never resorted to violence, vandalism, or
rebellion in spite of facing extreme hardships to propagate the truth.
In Al-Masā’il al-Rasā’il al Marwiyyah ‘an Ahmad Ibn Hambal, Ahmad Ibn Hambal is
reported to have said:
Far be it from Allah [all that is wrongly associated with
Him], blood is but blood. I do not
believe in it nor do I recommend it. Enduring what is on us
is better than disruption, in which blood is shed, people’s wealth is
expropriated and things and matters sacred are desecrated.
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
I order you five things: pledging allegiance to the State,
listening to and obeying [your rulers in that State], Hijrah
and Jihād in the way of Allah. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal)
In the same collection of his sayings, the Prophet (sws)
is also reported to have said:
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear
with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the state and
dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance. (Kitābu’l-Fitan)
In another version, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have
said:
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear
with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the
Sovereignty and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance (Kitābu’l-Fitan)
In these two versions, the words Al-Jamā‘ah (the State)
and Al-Sultan (the Sovereignty) have been used interchangeably, which clearly
shows that this directive of the Prophet (sws) pertains to such a body as has
political sovereignty in a geographically independent area in which there is a
system of government.
It should be obvious from the arguments given above that
the government in Pakistan, which is brought to power through the mandate given
to it by the majority vote of the Muslim citizens is the embodiment of the
sovereignty of the State and as such it represents the State. Therefore, even if
the rulers are morally corrupt, a Muslim does not have the right to disrupt the
government. It is indeed his duty to propagate the truth with wisdom and
sagacity and, if need be, with personal sacrifice. The way the likes of Ahmad Ibn Hambal, Mālik Ibn Anas and Abū Hanifah bore persecution at the hands of the
rulers of their respective times is a testimony to the fact that the prominent
scholars of Islam have never shirked from making sacrifices for the sake of
truth, yet have always distanced themselves from vandalism, disruption and
rebellion. Indeed, it is this kind of propagation which was termed as a great
Jihād by the Prophet (sws). He is reported to have said:
Verily, words of truth and justice are a great Jihād
especially when said in front of an oppressive ruler. (Tirmidhī, Kitābu’l-Fitan)
Rebellion against the state is allowed only when certain
conditions have been met. A brief mention of these conditions would not be out
of place here:
The first condition is that the rulers unquivocally deny
Islam or any of its directives. The fourth verse of the 59th sūrah of Qur’ān
quoted earlier points out that obedience to rulers is obligatory as long as they
are from within the Muslims (‘those in authority among you’).
The Prophet (sws) is also reported to have laid down the
same condition for refusal to accept the authority of the rulers.
... when you see unequivocal denial by them and in a
matter regarding which you have an explicit directive from Allah. (Muslim,
Kitābu’l-Imārah)
The second and the third conditions, based on amruhum
shūrā baynahum -- ‘their affairs are by consultation among them’ (42:38) --, are
that the government against which Khurūj is taken place should be a dictatorship
which does not enjoy the support of the masses and that the leader of the Khurūj
should be a person who has the indubitable support of the nation.
All these conditions are essential in that even if one of
them is missing, Khurūj is not permissible.
Furthermore, in case of militant struggle, there is
another condition: the rebels must migrate to another land and form an
independent State there.
Before discussing the basis and the reason for this
condition, it would be pertinent to point out here that the militant Islamists
often term all their subversive activities as Jihād. Actually, Jihād is a nomen
verbum of Jāhada, which means to make one’s utmost effort. In Islamic
terminology, the word denotes one’s utmost effort in the way of Allah. One of
the connotations of the word is making one’s utmost effort in a militant
struggle for Allah. In that sense it is used as a synonym for Qitāl fī sabīl
Allah (killing in the way of Allah), which is the more precise term for any kind
of militant religious struggle -- be it a battle or war or a rebellion (Khurūj).
And in any case, Qitāl fī sabīl Allāh is a prerogative of the State. In other
words, in Islam there is no concept of Jihād or Qitāl
of any kind without the authority of the State.
The basis for this condition is that God Almighty did not
ever give the permission to use the sword even to the Prophets (sws), who are
the final manifestation of the truth for their people, until they had
established their rule over their followers as their political sovereigns after
migrating with them to another land and forming an independent State there.
Moses (sws) was given the directive for Jihād only after this condition had been
met and, similarly, the Prophet (sws) and his followers were also allowed to do
Jihād only when after the Pledge of ‘Aqabah they were able to establish an
independent State at Yathrib (later known as Madīnah).
The reason for this condition is that without the
authority of the State Jihād often becomes Fasād. A group which does not even
have the legal authority to sentence a criminal cannot be allowed to gamble with
the lives and property of people. For this reason, Muslim jurists have always
regarded this condition as essential:
And the third category of collective duties is one in
which [the authority] of the Head of the State is a necessary condition, for
example Jihād and the implementation of the Islamic law of punishments.
(Al-Sayyid Al-Sābiq, Fiqhu’l-Sunnah, vol. 3, p.30)
Hamīdu’l-Dīn Farāhī writes:
Jihād in one’s own country is not allowed unless one
migrates to another land. Accounts of Abraham’s life (sws) and other verses [of
the Qur’ān] related to Hijrah
also point up this principle. The events of the Prophet’s life (sws) also
corroborate it. The reason for this principle is that without the authority of
one who represents the collectivity of the Muslims in the State and has
political sovereignty, Jihād is merely chaos and disruption and anarchy and
disorder (Majmū‘ah-i-Tafāsīr-i-Farāhī, p. 56)
A prominent exegesist of the Qur’ān, Amīn Ahsan Islāhī,
makes the following comments on the same principle:
The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty
does not like the disruption and disintegration of even an evil system until a
strong probability exists that those out to disintegrate the system will provide
people with an alternative, righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural
conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust
system is preferable to them. For this reason, God Almighty has not given the
right to wage war to a group which is dubious and obscure, the power and
authority of which is undefined, which is without the sovereignty of a ruler,
the loyalty and obedience of which is untested and the members of which are
disorganised and undisciplined -- who can disrupt a system but cannot prove that
they have the ability to integrate a disintegrated environment. This confidence
[that a group will be able to create harmony and integrate a disorganised
environment into an organised system] can only be reposed in such a group as has
actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline
within the confines of its authority that it can be termed as Al-Jamā‘ah
. Until a group attains this position, it can strive to become Al-Jamā‘ah
[through religiously allowable and through legal and constitutional means] --
and that endeavour of its would be its Jihād for that time -- but it does not
have the right to wage an armed Jihād and a war.
The second reason is that the import of the authority
which a group engaged in war gets over the life and property of human beings is
so great that such authority cannot be given to a group in which the authority
of the leader over his followers is merely moral.
Mere moral authority is not a sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able
to stop his followers from Fasād fi’l-Ard.
Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to
take out their swords merely on
the basis of his spiritual relationship with them, for once the sword is
unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and
that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought
to end. Those revolutionary groups the object of which is nothing more than
disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize
power for themselves play such games -- and they can, for in their eyes
disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil.
Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the
leaders of a just and righteous group must see whether they are in a position to
provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether
they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they
themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they
do not have the right to play games with the lives and property of people on the
basis of their confidence in mere chances or create greater disorder than the
one they had sought to end.
It should be obvious from the passage quoted above that
the right to wage an armed struggle cannot be given to a group of individuals,
who do not even have the legal authority to award punishment to a criminal.
Without political sovereignty, Jihād is often nothing short of Fasād.
Thus, such militant groups as mislead their followers into believing that their
vandalism, disruption and terrorism are a form of Jihād have no Islamic basis
whatsoever for their claim and their retaliation against the state of Pakistan,
which has been founded and runs on the basis of amruhum shūrā baynahum, and the
constitution, which upholds the supremacy of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, is
absolutely against Islam.
As far as the question of who is a Kāfīr amongst the
Muslims is concerned, it must be remembered that Takfīr, or declaring a person a
Kāfīr, is the prerogative of either the Prophet (sws) – who does that on the
basis of Divine revelation. The reasons for this principle are as follows:
A Kāfir in the true sense of the word is one who denies
the truth even after it becomes absolutely clear to him. Revealing the truth to
a person or a group so clearly that no excuse is left for that person or group
to deny it may be termed as Itmāmu’l-Hujjah.
The Prophet (sws) was the last messenger of God. With his
status as a Rasūl, the Prophet (sws)
was in a position to do Itmāmu’l-Hujjah even as an individual.
No one after him has that privilege. No individual or group can do Itmāmu’l-Hujjah
now because no individual can claim that his propagation has manifested the
truth to the extent that no excuse is left to deny it. Indeed, an individual
cannot even be absolutely certain of having understood the truth absolutely. He
can only be certain with God will reward him for doing his duty as he has been
given the light to see it. Only the Prophet’s word (sws) is final in religion.
Therefore, we can only say with certainty about those
people whom the Prophet (sws) declared as Kuffār on the basis of Divine
revelation that they were Kuffār indeed. Now, who is worthy of eternal damnation
by God is something no one can say anything about. As long as a person is alive,
he has a chance to enter the kingdom of Heaven, and only God knows of his fate
after death. Even if a person disagrees with another, even if in his eyes the
other person is doing wrong, he cannot say what his fate will ultimately be. If
the other person is to be punished by law for some crime, he should be so
punished. If he is to be admonished by society, he should be so admonished. But
in no case should he lose his basic rights as a human being. In no case should a
person regard another as one condemned to Hell. For this is a decision that only
God will make. One should continue to pray for him and to try and convince him
of a truth, but one should, despite condemning his evil, not condemn the person
in one’s heart.
Above all, a Muslim should not regard another Muslim as a
Kafīr. No Muslim should call another Muslim Kafīr merely because of a difference
of opinion or a weakness.
Even declaring someone a non-Muslim means taking away all
his rights including those as marriage and inheritance. This matter is
essentially a legal one, and, therefore, only the state has the right to decide
the matter. A person who professes Islam is a Muslim unless the Islamic State,
which represents the opinion of the Muslims in a land, declares him otherwise.
Ideally, effort should be made to convince him of a truth (without coercing him
in any manner). If it all, he has to be declared a non-Muslim, it should
preferably be done at the level of not one Islamic State but at the level of a
body representing all Islamic States so that a person is not a Muslim in one
Islamic State and a non-Muslims in another. The Qur’ānic guideline to the
Islamic State in this regard is that a person who processes to be a Muslim
should be considered otherwise if he:
a) accepts the fundamentals of Islam (what are
those fundamentals can again be decided on the basis of amruhim shura baynahum
in relation to the Qur’ān and the Sunnah).
b) says the obligatory prayer, and
c) pays zakāh (the obligatory payment of tax on
Muslims)
It should be obvious from the points made above that the
attitude and behaviour of those religious groups that resort to vandalism and
disruption in society for their so-called religious aims are absolutely
unjustified and un-Islamic. Moreover, the importance and value of religious work
demands that those working for religion should at least have ethical and Islamic
goals and ideals, if not an Islamic and a decent character. Above all, a scholar
of religion should be a good Muslim and a paragon of decency. His personality
should appear above political gains and there should be an aura of dignity and
selflessness about him.
Although the Sharī‘ah does not stop a religious scholar
from taking part in politics, the Qur’ān clearly indicates that his main
objective should be indhār, that is admonition. In other words, his basic
responsibility is to study religion deeply – so that he is not an epitome of
‘the blind leading the blind’ – and to disseminate it.
And it was not for all believers that they go forth, but
why not from each group of theirs did some come forth for gaining sound
knowledge in religion and warn their people when [after gaining knowledge] they
returned to them so the people would save themselves (9:122)
Those who are out to propagate religion, whether they are
scholars or other Muslims helping a scholar in his task in their personal
capacities, need to do more, for they have to conquer hearts. And for that one
doesn’t cause others harm: one faces harm. One doesn’t persecute, but bears
persecution – and returns the favour with goodness:
The good and the evil are not equal. Repel evil with that
which is better than all others; then you will see that he, between whom and you
there was enmity, has become as if he were a truly close friend. And this
sagacity is not afforded to anyone except to those who persevere and this wisdom
is not granted except to those who are indeed very fortunate. And if you feel
any evil incitement from Satan, seek refuge of Allah. Verily, He is the Hearer,
the knower. (41:34-36)
It is indeed unfortunate that such religious groups as had
attracted talent as well as enthusiasm and commitment from amongst the Muslims
have not learned even now from constant failures that by ignoring their real
task of studying and disseminating religion, their identity is now nothing more
than that of rogues and vandals, or, at best, of failed political parties whose
import lies in their nuisance value. It is unfortunate that these parties have
not put their best efforts in educating the younger generation on religion. The
deplorable state in this regard can be judged from the number of text-books at
any level which present religion in a captivating and interesting manner and
which answer the questions in young minds and face the challenge of modern
times, it can be judged from the number of teachers of religion in good schools
– teachers who inspire awe and can become role models for youngsters, and it can
be judged from the number of truly competent scholars of religion that we
produce each year.
Would that those religious groups who burn tyres, raise
slogans, behave indecently towards state guests, disrupt society and resort to
violence and vandalism in the belief that their insignificant and misplaced
battles for their religion can help them win the war knew what their real
battleground is and what are the required weapons and strategies in the war for
which they have been made responsible by their Master.
|