Rebellion and Civil Disobedience in Islam The Need for a Paradigm ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

scholars, like their predecessors, are not of the sort of those who sell their belief and soulsto appease the corrupt rulers. Nevertheless, the balance-of-evil analysis dominates theirthinking and this, sometimes, leads to inconsistency or issuing fatwas (legal opinions)that lack sophistication.IslamOnline website has a very decent fatwa section in which a number ofrespectable scholars respond to people’s legal questions. I do think that the majority ofscholars participating in IslamOnline are motivated by principle rather than expediency.I do feel the sincerity of IslamOnline and its willingness to serve Islamic causes all overthe world. I tried to understand the position of scholars on rebellion by sending severalquestions to IslamOnline. Below is a discussion of the questions and responses followedby an analysis of the problem at hand.1) I sent IslamOnline asking about the revolution of Ibn al-Ash`ath. The text of thequestion was: “Assalamu Alykum. Why did Said Ibn Jubayr, the prominent jurist, and anumber of other religious scholars participated in the revolution of Ibn al-Ash`ath againstthe Umayyads? What were the manifestations of explicit infidelity that appeared in thatera?” The answer was very insightful about the dynamics of the juristic culture, itsimperatives, and its inertia. The replier mentioned that the question is a historical not alegal question.In my humble opinion, the purpose of the question was clear. If a large number ofreligious scholars were active in a revolution against the established government to theextent that the revolution itself was called the ‘revolution of the jurists,’ and if thesejurists included some prominent scholars whose religious conscientiousness isindisputable, then there were deep religious imperatives and commitments motivatingthose scholars. In other words, these scholars found it obligatory, or at least permissiblefrom the religious point of view, to participate in an armed insurrection to fight injustice.Nevertheless, the replier continued to say that he felt from the second part of the questionthat I was insisting to know the manifestations of explicit infidelity that appeared in theUmayyad era. He asked me about the benefit of knowing the answer to this question andabout what work could be inferred from it. Again, my point was probative and notactually interrogative. From my reading to history, I think what is going on nowadays ismuch worse than what has happened in the Umayyad reign. Yet, the scholars of todayencourage patience while the scholars of the past sacrificed their souls to combatcorruption and tyranny and to establish justice. The replier finished the fatwa by directingme to previous fatwas about the phenomenon of calling Muslims infidels, its dangers, andthe reasons of its spread!2) Sheikh Faisal Mawlawi issued a fatwa about foreign military bases on Muslimlands. He mentioned that the acceptance of these bases amounts to treason and beingdisloyal to Allah (swt), His Prophet (saw), and all the believers. I sent a question toIslamOnline on Sheikh Mawlawi’s fatwa asking why he did not mention explicitly thatthe rulers, who admitted the military bases, are infidels 35 that should be fought based on35 I used this term in the question just for this study of the juristic culture. In this booklet, I tried tounderscore the supreme position of justice in Islam. Whether the rulers are kuffar, or otherwise, is an16
the authentic saying of the Prophet (saw) that fighting is permissible if Muslims seeexplicit infidelity from their rulers. The reply, which quoted a fatwa by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, emphasized the difference between arguing that someone is infidel and thatsome deed is an act of infidelity. Then, the replier told me to talk directly to SheikhMawlawi if I wish. So let us analyze the situation. Some rulers, who are supposed to beMuslims, approved the existence of non-Muslim military bases on Muslim land. Thesebases serve foreign interests and constitute a direct intervention in Muslim affairs that hasserious repercussions on the independent decision-making process in Muslim countries.The religious scholars decreed such acts as completely forbidden in Islam. The rulershave paid no attention to the juristic opinion and the bases are still there. Then whatshould we do? The next logical step is never taken.I sent the question to Sheikh Faisal himself. He replied saying that even if thepresence of foreign military bases amounts to treason to Allah (swt), His Messenger(saw) and the believers, it does not constitute kufr. Consequently, there is no ‘sultan’from Allah (swt) to fight those rulers. Despite committing a kabira (grave sin), there isunanimity among the people of the Sunnah and the jama‘ah that the one who commits agrave sin is not kafir. Sheikh Faisal then urged me to study Islamic jurisprudence andcreed before hastening to such conclusions. He added that the regimes say that they areobliged to accept the military presence of foreign forces. Those who are advocatingfighting the regimes are exactly doing what the enemies desire while claiming Jihad andheroism. He elaborated by saying that the clash between the Muslim masses and theirrulers is an imperial goal to cleave the Ummah apart to overtake it. Thus it is forbidden toaccomplish what the enemies want under the pretext of fighting the rulers even if fightingthem is lawful, let alone that it is unlawful in the first place.What is interesting in Sheikh Faisal’s reply is the assertion that the hegemonicpowers want to sow rancor and animosity between the Muslim masses and their rulers asif the rulers are not the extension of colonialists. Many thinkers including Westernersknow that the puppet governments that prevail over the Muslim world are supported bythe West to perpetuate the state of misery and backwardness and to secure the flow ofwealth and resources to the West. The despicable regimes of the Muslim countries ruledfor decades without the slightest attempt to serve the peoples’ interests. They have notestablished military forces capable of doing anything other than oppressing the massesand crushing dissidence. And when they are confronted by external threat, they hastenedto their masters asking for help despite paying out billions and billions of dollars to stockarms and advanced weaponry 36 . Then these same rulers come and say that they have noother option but to participate in slaughtering thousands of Muslims! This fatwa lackssophistication and proper understanding of power dynamics and international realities. Ido not have the least intention of belittling Sheikh Faisal. However, his fatwa is notreflecting the reality of Muslim countries and the state of its affairs. Also there is thispoint of rebelling against rulers only if they become kuffar. Muslims should wait forimportant, but very often an irrelevant, question. Deciding that someone is kafir is a very complicatedmatter. Also, it is extremely implausible that someone will publicly declare his kufr. Whether the ruler isjust or not is the real question.36 The military expenditure of the Gulf countries is an obvious example.17
Page 1 and 2: Rebellion and Civil Disobedience in
Page 3 and 4: 3) Knowledge of cases of indisputab
Page 5 and 6: Prophet about how honesty can be lo
Page 7 and 8: enactments of Allah (swt). The seco
Page 9 and 10: The second point about this Hadith
Page 11 and 12: so long as they, themselves, adhere
Page 13 and 14: point is that if revolution compris
Page 15: 5) There are some scholars among va
Page 19 and 20: The juristic culture relies on prio
Page 21 and 22: Hajjaj and many rebels were killed.
Page 23 and 24: importance of justice in Islam and
Page 25 and 26: a deep belief and conviction in and
Page 27 and 28: (19:25). As is evident from the ver
Page 29 and 30: 1) Tyranny is the worst of all sins
Page 31 and 32: elievers. Do they seek dignity from

Rebellion and Civil Disobedience in Islam The Need for a Paradigm ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?