A GREAT Loss (Are you involved)

[AQ]

Re: A GREAT Loss (Are you involved)

@Crescent_

Assalamalikum, peace bro,

How are you Umair :-)???

@Crescent_

That article was written by Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari a prominent sunni scholar in the UK.

Few points:

• I do not know the scholar personally or every heard about him so I was only commenting on the understanding I was getting.

• I do not question credibility of any scholar because I am not entitled to. I am not a scholar myself but by attaching the title of scholar, no one is supposed to be presumed the ultimate authority on ISLAM. The authority remains with Allah and Rasool …

• We should be careful before endorsing anything just becaues IT CAME FROM A SCHOLAR. Remember Quran mentions Ulama-e-Soo as well. Please, know that I, by no means, calling anyone with that title here.

• I know many prominent scholars who have given fatwaas for Jihad being only a defensive war whereas the SEERAH of the Prophet:saw2: from the history, it is evident that The first Ghazwa - AL Ghazwat-ul-Badr was a direct consequence of an OFFENSIVE Guirella attack by Muslims on the Trade-caravan of Makkans coming from Syria.

@Crescent_

1. The person who questioned Umar r.a., was infact someone who corrected him.

on the other hand, he was corrected by the Ameer-ul-Momineen

The story goes like this. Sydena Umer:razi: was giving a sermon when a person stood up in the middle of the sermon and announce that he refuses to listen to the Ameer because he believes that Ameer did not do the justice with the booty of the war. His point was that the “kurta” ameer was wearing came from the booty of the war and it looked like that ameer had gotten more than others. Ameer was a tall person and the size of cloth everyone had received, it was impossible for ameer to have a Kurta made for him. Ameer brought his son who gave witness that the son had given his part of booty to him. After that, the issue was resolved.

@Crescent_

There was no rebellion against Umar r.a., I believe it was a woman.

The key word is Questioning of what seemed to be UNJUST.
The person was a man, and not a woman.

@Crescent_

And Umar r.a. accepted.

Subhan Allah.

@Crescent_

The issue here is, if the leader is not telling you to commit sin, then there is no need to rebel, if he is oppressive, then it is because of our own faults.

No one is talking about being rebellious. The logic that because we are sinners, hence, the leader is oppressive is quite confusing. It suggests that there is no point correcting one’s wrong doings or perhaps suggests that make yourself a pious person and leader will become/be replaced with a JUST ruler?

Where does the concept of “Am’r Bil Ma’aroof wa Nahi anil Munkar” go?
Should we place ourselves among the people with the lowest of Iman who do not use hand/force to fight oppression or use tongue for that matter; where Quran testifies: Al Fitnato Asshaddo Min al Qat’L that is Fitnah is bigger than murder…???

An unjust ruler comes in power because of the majority being sinner, does not mean that there is no one who is pious, or does it?

@Crescent_

However if he forces you into disobeying Allah swt, then you can do as you wish.

Agreed.

@Crescent_

2. As for Imam hussain r.a., thats a deep topic, and Id rather not touch on that. Different sources will tell you different things.

I do no know what do you mean by different sources. For all I know there are two sources, One Shia and one sunni.

I know Sunni perspective and in the words of Iqbal:

Sidq-e-Khaleel bhee hai Ishq, Sabar-e-Hussain bhee hai Ishq
Maa’rkaa-e-Wajood maiN badar-O-Hunayen bhee hai Ihsq

@Crescent_

I know it was on backbiting, but just thought Id post this on challenging authority. It wasn’t written by me, but imam

so, you thougt backbiting is similar to challenging authority… By the way, may I remind you brother, Back Biting does mean CORRECT information being shared otherwise, it becomes a much greater sin of BOHTAAN.

@Crescent_

It is an accepted fact among the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah that to challenge authority is generally not permissible.

Reminds me of Iqbal again:

Mullah ko jo hai Hind maiN sajdaY kee ijaazat
NaadaaN yeh samajhtaa hai kaY Islaam hai Aazaad!

@Crescent_

Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:

@Crescent_

“We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned”. (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111).

Is this a personal opinion of Imam Rahemaullah or is it based on Quran and Sunnah?

@Crescent_

The commentators of al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya have mentioned many evidences for this. Allama al-Ghunaymi al-Maydani and other commentators on this work elaborated on this topic by mentioning the relevant evidences.

Allah Most High says:

1. “O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged
   with authority among you” (al-Nisa, 59).

and ofcourse, this ayah has a context that obey those charged with authority so long as they do not order you anything against Islam.. right?

@Crescent_

2. Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger
   of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah,
   and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my ruler (amir),
   obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no.
   6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835).

key words: obeys my amir... I also recall a hadeeth where Prophet:saw2: mentioned the RULE of his Khulafa-e-Rashideen and in another hadeeth the time period is mentioned as 30+ years. By cross referencing, it can very well be concluded that the hadeeth quoted refers to The Four rightly guided Caliphs and since they were rightly guided, there is no reason that they would have ever gone against Islam.

@Crescent_

3. Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the
   Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Listen to and obey
   your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin”
   (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim).

does the hadith mention that obey him if he orders you something unjust?

@Crescent_

4. Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger
   of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever sees his ruler doing
   something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one separates from
   the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he will die a
   death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 & Sahih Muslim,
   no. 1849).

The hadith is very well talking about something of what the person disapproves on the basis of personal opionion and not becaue he finds it against Islam. The difference of opinions in executing same type of work do arise. The point is that hadith does not forbid to be patient on seeing some Unislamic ruling… or does it?

@Crescent_

5. Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger
   of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A Muslim must listen to
   and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long
   as he is not ordered to commit a sin. **If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then **
   **there is no listening and no obedience. **(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih
   Muslim, no. 1839).

Sadaqa Rasoolulah:saw2: wa howa Sadiq al Masdooq.

So it means, challenging authority in such matters is a duty?

@Crescent_

The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey
the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq).

ummm… clear evidences for that conclusion…?? errrmmm!!

@Crescent_

The reason for this, in
the words of Allama al-Ghunaymi, is that, there have been many corrupt rulers
in Islamic history and never did the predecessors (salaf) rebel against
them, rather they used to submit to their rule and establish Jumu’ah and Eid
prayers with their permission. Also, piety is not a pre-requisite for leadership.
(Sharh al-Ghunaymi, p. 110).

That is more like a personal opinion through LOGIC.

@Crescent_

Other scholars emphasize that uprising against corrupt leadership results
in more tribulation and destruction then the initial oppression of the ruler.

That negates the teaching and Sunnah of almost all Prophets where the themselves uprose against corruption.

So, then, why even the pious people of SABT (Sabaath), who did not say a word to the corrupts of their nation, were destroyed as a punishment with others?

@Crescent_

With forbearance and tolerance, one’s sins will be forgiven.

True but raising voice against oppression is Jihaad-bil-Lissaan and it is also reason for getting rewards besides tolerance and patience…

@Crescent_

And in reality,
the corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes
necessary that we repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness coupled with good actions,

and a good action will be in the words of Prophet that stop the oppression with your hand…

@Crescent_

as Allah Most High says: “Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of
the things your hands have wrought” (42:30)…….. And He says: “Thus do we make
the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn” (6:129).

so, does it mean that once an oppressor becomes a ruler, we should just wait for our punishment???

@Crescent_

Therefore,
if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of their leader, they
must refrain themselves from oppressing others.

true but following is a must along with it.

@Crescent_

**However, if the ruler commands to do something that is a sin, then there **
**is no obedience, as mentioned earlier in light of the many evidences found in **
**the Sunnah. **

**Also, uprising and challenging a corrupt ruler becomes permissible when **
**he openly transgresses in a way that his action is not open to any interpretation, **
provided one has the means to do so.