World
Pakistan’s Puppet Dictator Declares State of Emergency (Musharraf Won’t Let Go)
What a surprise… as it was beginning to appear that the Supreme Court will declare Mr. Busharraf’s presidency unconstitutional, Mushy did what can be expected of any dictator. Cry foul and shut out your opponents. Another shameful chapter in Pakistan’s checkered history. Of course, the reaction from the Western “democracies” has been as expected, just some muted disapproval, a like a little slap on the wrist. How hypocritical for the governments in the West to decide which democracy is good for them, and which one isn’t. The White House called it “very disappointing”… thanks but no thanks White House.
Really, I say shut down the whole democracy charade in Pakistan. Just install an American governer there and do the imperialistic thing properly. Everyone knows it already, so why make it so complicated?
A writ in the Marshall Law apparently forbids freedom of speech: “Statements that defame Gen Musharraf, the military or the government are prohibited and statements or pictures from Islamist militants are banned from broadcast or publication.”
Hmm.. no. Mushi boy, shame on you and shame on your display of cowardice and contempt for the nation and its people.
Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah
Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.
The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.
See also: BBC , Dawn , the Dictator’s Proclamation
Related Posts:
Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah
Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.
The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.
Family Troubles Of The Prophets: A MuslimMatters Series โ [Part II] My Kids Are Out Of Control
The Coddling Of The Western Muslim Mind: [Part 1] The Cult Of Self-Esteem
Islam, Decoloniality, And Allamah Iqbal On Revolution
Addressing Abuse Amongst Muslims: A Community Call-In & Leadership Directives | The Female Scholars Network
Death The Greatest Teacher: Three Life-Lessons From The Child I Lost
Ensuring The Safety Of Our Communities: A Call For Immediate Corrective Action From American Muslim Organizations
Safeguarding Children In Todayโs World: An Islamic Perspective On Child Sexual Abuse Prevention And Protection
International Criminal Court Warrant Galls Genocidaires
The Fall Of Barsisa: Lessons On Spiritual Corruption And The Abuse Of Religious Authority
[Podcast] Navigating Christmas: Advice to Converts, from Converts | Hazel Gomez & Eman Manigat
Study Classical Texts The Traditional Way [Session 1] | Sh. Yaser Birjas
Sami Hamdi: “Muslims Must Abandon Harris” | Transcript and Summary
IOK Ramadan: The Importance of Spiritual Purification | Keys To The Divine Compass [Ep30]
IOK Ramadan: The Power of Prayer | Keys To The Divine Compass [Ep29]
IOK Ramadan: The Weight of the Qur’an | Keys To The Divine Compass [Ep28]
-
#Culture1 month ago[Podcast] How To Free A Jinn & Other Questions | Ustadha Raidah Shah Idil
-
#Islam1 month ago
Study Classical Texts The Traditional Way [Session 3] | Sh. Yaser Birjas
-
#Life4 weeks ago
Ensuring The Safety Of Our Communities: A Call For Immediate Corrective Action From American Muslim Organizations
-
#Life1 month ago
Processing Spiritual Abuse In Islam: A Comprehensive Guide For Individuals, Communities, And Organizations
Amad
November 3, 2007 at 8:30 PM
I think the dua’s of the relatives of the innocent civilians that Mushi was directly responsible for killing… is going to chase him to his own destruction. Inshallah.
aarij
November 3, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Pakistan governments have been complete muppets for as long as I can remember, and Mushy is no different. The only difference is that he enjoys the support of many of the “elite” class in Pakistan and many of the ex-pats in NA and UK.
He’s like Zia-ul-Haq in every way. Except that he plays the secular, freedom, democracy card and our other moustached friend played the mard-e-momin card. La ilaha illallah.
May Allah raise from Pakistan someone who can lead the country to what pleases Allah. Ameen.
Amad
November 3, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Imran Khan’s interview, as he is put under house-arrest… some good insights on the “Drama”:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/2465;_ylt=ApirBqqAAyzHP7rwh6SY2.L9xg8F
Moiez
November 3, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I cant believe it! If I was ontop of the empire state building and my jaw dropped it would have reached the streets in 9.8m/s^2! Thats how unbelievable this sounded to me.
Shama
November 4, 2007 at 8:38 AM
More updates:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071104/ap_on_re_as/pakistan
Fighting like a true dictator… and how appropriately done in the name of fighting terrorism
[quote]Really, I say shut down the whole democracy charade in Pakistan. Just install an American governer there and do the imperialistic thing properly. Everyone knows it already, so why make it so complicated?[quote/]
Like seriously!
Mujahideen Ryder
November 4, 2007 at 1:49 PM
China should take over Pakistan.
Solomon2
November 4, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Another shameful chapter in Pakistanโs checkered history.
Whoa! Amad, do we count you among those Muslims who think establishing Pakistan as a Muslim state independent from India was and is a mistake?
Asim
November 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Bismillah ArRahman ArRaheem
Fuming about the problems of a country half-way across the globe seems to be of little benefit.
Think globally, act locally: That seems a much better strategy.
What are the things we can do locally to improve the condition of the Muslims in our own area?
Wassalam.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 4, 2007 at 7:07 PM
“China should take over Pakistan.”
Sounds like great advice I don’t think.
“Fuming about the problems of a country half-way across the globe seems to be of little benefit.”
Couldnโt agree more! Maybe we should realise why we have such leaders in the first place instead of ranting and raving about it, and after we come to know the reason why we should come to learn the Prophet methodology in changing our situation.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 4, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I meant to type the Prophetic methodology and not “the Prophet methodology”, small typo!
amad
November 4, 2007 at 9:30 PM
No.
As someone with parents in Pakistan and having been born there, I think I have some right to “rant and rave” about what is happening in my original homeland. I agree Allah gives people the leader they deserve, but it doesn’t mean that we should sit tight and bemoan our misfortune.
Blogs think and act. This post was the thinking part :) Benefit is a relative thing… we just do the things we feel are right, and then leave it to Allah. If there is one thing that the post can generate, let’s say just a dua’ to Allah to make things better for Pakistan and to remove this dictator, I would consider the post to have had a lot of benefit then.
Anonymous
November 5, 2007 at 12:15 PM
“…but it doesnโt mean that we should sit tight and bemoan our misfortune.”
Is that not exactly what this blog entry is doing, and exactly what the two brothers above are advising against?
Amad
November 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM
“anonymous”… read the entire comment.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Dear Br. Amad
I wouldnโt say that trying our bests to return to our Deen and to be good Muslims, calling our family and friends back to it, our communities and so on is what one could call sitting tight and bemoan(ing); rather, it is what I would call doing something to chance our situation. On the contrary, as โAnonymousโ has pointed out: โIs that not exactly what this blog entry is doing (i.e. to sit tight and bemoan our misfortune)?โ
Furthermore, I thought that speaking out against the Muslim leader is something that the Prophet (sall-Allaahu โalayhi wa sallam) told us not to do, perhaps I am mistaken, but if it is the case then how can such posts help our plight when they contradict something which is forbidden!
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Solomon2
November 5, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Just install an American governer there and do the imperialistic thing properly. …I agree Allah gives people the leader they deserve, but it doesnโt mean that we should sit tight and bemoan our misfortune…Blogs think and act. This post was the thinking part
Are you volunteering, Amad? And what is it exactly that you would do? Why stop thinking now?
AnonyMouse
November 5, 2007 at 2:50 PM
“I thought that speaking out against the Muslim leader is something that the Prophet (sall-Allaahu โalayhi wa sallam) told us not to do”
The most excellent Jihad is the truthful word spoken to an oppressive ruler… narrated by Ibn Majah.
The weakest level of Imaan is when one sees an act of evil and does nothing about it except hate it in their heart.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Dear AnonyMouse
The Prophet (sall-Allaahu โalayhi wa sallam) also said:
โWhoever desires to advise the Sultan (authority) about a matter, then he must not expose it in public, but rather he should take him by his hand and go in privacy with him. So if he accepts (the advice) then that is (reward) for him, and if he doesnโt (accept) then he has conveyed what will be held against him.โ (Ahmad, 3/404, Ibn Abee ‘Aasim also reported it in his book As-Sunnah, 2/522)
This hadeeth qualifies the one that you cited in that the โtruthful word spoken to an oppressive rulerโ is as per the above hadeeth, โin privacyโ, and Allaah knows best!
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
AnonyMouse
November 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Musharraf has gone beyond private advice. I am sure there have been many who tried to advise him in private, and they’ve obviously failed.
What Musharraf is doing now, what he HAS been doing for the longest time, is something that we can’t just “advise in private” about: for many, it’s a life-and-death situation.
Not being as knowledgeable as others on the subject, however, I’ll leave Amad to discuss the details further with you; and indeed Allah knows best.
(Also if someone could clarify this from a fiqhi position, it’d be appreciated.)
Aboo Uthmaan
November 5, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Dear AnonyMouse
It is not the advisors job to make the advisee accept his advice, all that is upon him is to convey. If the advisee does not accept the advice of the advisor does this necessitate that the advisor abandons the advice of the Prophet (sall-Allaahu โalayhi wa sallam)?
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
talib
November 5, 2007 at 5:20 PM
salam aleykum..
Abu baker siddiq’s statement during his pledge for khilafa is what many tend to forget.
“Listen, you must obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you are free to disobey me.”
Aboo Uthmaan
November 5, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Walaikum salaam wa rahmatullaah Talib
Yes, there is no obedience to the creation if it means disobedience to Allaah.
In Soorah Luqman Allaah (subhaanahu wa taโaala) has ordered us to be dutiful to our parents, but…
โ…if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience. Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do.โ (Luqman 31:15)
In this ayah we see learn that if our parents order us with disobedience to Allaah we should not obey them in that, yet we should still give them their rights. So if a person orders us with disobedience to our Creator it does not necessitate that we then forgo that persons rights; rather, we disobey him in that but still uphold his rights.
In other words, not obeying someone when they order us with disobedience to Allaah is one thing and speaking out against the leader is another.
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Solomon2
November 5, 2007 at 10:00 PM
“give them their rights”? What does that mean?
mal
November 5, 2007 at 11:41 PM
I recently heard a shkh quote a hadeeth that we should not fight the leader if he fulfills his salah. Can anyone confirm this?
talib
November 6, 2007 at 12:05 AM
salam aleykum
Akhi abu othman..You have a valid point in your reply…but what the speech meant is not if the ruler orders his people to disobey allah…but it shows if the ruler is clearly not showing obedience to allah and his messanger, then the people could disobey him out right and not follow his orders. This is what many pakistanis has been doing today and hopefully in the future…demonstrate against illegal laws and injustices. its the least they can do.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 6, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Walaikum salaam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh
Dear Talib
I personally think you are reading something into the quotation you cited that simply is not there. I say this because what you have insinuated is in complete contradiction to the numerous ahaadeeth on the said issue.
Was-salaamu ‘alaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Umm Reem
November 6, 2007 at 9:34 AM
I believe it is not fair to compare Zia-ul-Haq with Musharaff for many reasons. Perhaps the only common thing between them was that they both were chief of army staff and they both seized power from the previous PM.
Ziaโs time in Pakistan was far better then what is happening in Pakistan now. He used to pray five times a day. He was also the one who stipulated that all the females should have their heads covered in TV shows. And Pakistani ladies protested against this!!
Not to mention that he wasnโt Americaโs puppet, in fact, he was becoming a threat to the western world after defending Afghanistan against Soviets, and he had never โsatisfiedโ US about Pakistanโs nuclear power eitherโฆit was very convenient to get rid of him before he had headed towards Kashmire and before he had worked towards his other plan of implementing โshareeahโ in Pakistanโฆjust another plane crash!!
In any case, I recently took the fiqh of Islamic state class, and one of the questions during my oral exam was about dealing with an unjust ruler. My answer was that the people in such situations in those countries should consult the people of knowledge. I canโt say for sure how many people in Pakistan are seeking advice of the knowledgeable scholars around them.
Solomon2
November 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM
I suppose every ruler can be considered an “American puppet”, the question here being debated is to what degree. But does anybody squarely address the question Amad hinted at, “Why not drop the puppet and simply become another extension of America?”
talib
November 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I totally agree with umm reem. The people of knowledge should be consulted when a fitna rises between the ummah and its rulers.
Brother Abu othman..i’m not in anyway instigating violence against musharaf, the issues regarding this fitna is hidden to many people. and i wouldnt in anyway suggest the removal of musharaf, because we see what happened in iraq where people are wishing for the return of saddam. We dont have the knowledge of the unseen and whats coming maybe even worst. Allahu musta3an
Amad
November 6, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Abu Othman, I am trying to get some confirmation or otherwise from people of knowledge regarding “obedience” to the “ruler”, which I am quite confident (not sure) absolutely does not apply to Musharraf. I believe you are taking rules concerning a legitimate khalifa and applying it to the wrong situation, i.e. the two issues are not apples to apples.
I could be wrong… let’s see what I hear from the Shayookh.
Amad
November 6, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Solomon, ever heard of the term “hyperbole”?
Aboo Uthmaan
November 6, 2007 at 6:50 PM
As-salaamu ‘alaikum
Dear Br. Amad
Imaam Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab said:
โThe Imaams from each Madhhab are unanimous that whoever overtakes a country or countries (seizes power) is entitled to assume the same rulership as the Imaam in all affairs. Were it not so, the affairs of this worldly life would not be upright. And for a long time, since before the time of Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) and until our time, people were not in agreement upon one Imaam, and they have no account of a scholar stating that the validity of (the applicability) of any of the rulings (of Shareeโah) is conditional upon the presence of the Greater Imaam.โ (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/239)
However, I will wait to see what feedback you get.
JazakโAllaahu khairan!
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Abu Bakr
November 6, 2007 at 7:10 PM
โWhoever desires to advise the Sultan (authority) about a matter, then he must not expose it in public, but rather he should take him by his hand and go in privacy with him. So if he accepts (the advice) then that is (reward) for him, and if he doesnโt (accept) then he has conveyed what will be held against him.โ (Ahmad, 3/404, Ibn Abee โAasim also reported it in his book As-Sunnah, 2/522)
This is a weak hadith. In general, the Salaf discouraged speaking openly against rulers because of the divisions and fitna that can result. However, there are exceptions.
One of the conditions of forbidding evil is that it not result in greater evil. Therefore, if a scholar feels there is benefit in speaking out openly, and it will not result in greater evil than the one he is trying to avert, it is permissible to do so. This was the view of Sh. Abdullah b. Qu’ud, and Allah knows best.
Abu Bakr
November 6, 2007 at 7:15 PM
The quote you mentioned from Sh. Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhab is about the legitimiacy of the ruler, which is a different issue from correcting the ruler in public.
For that, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) mandated that they not be fought or revolted against by the sword unless they commit clear disbelief (kufr bawaah).
Abu Bakr
November 6, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Sorry for not being clear, the second paragraph is concerning when the ruler is no longer considered legitimate, and overthrowing him becomes permissible.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 6, 2007 at 7:20 PM
As-salaamu ‘alaikum
Br. Abu Bakr
Yes, I know, I posted it because Br. Amad said:
“I believe you are taking rules concerning a legitimate khalifa and applying it to the wrong situation, i.e. the two issues are not apples to apples.”
I understood by this that Br. Amad understands that obedience to the ruler doesnโt apply to the one who is not a โlegitimateโ caliph or the greater Imaam if you like.
Was-salaamu ‘alaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Aboo Uthmaan
November 6, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Sorry Abu Bakr, I just read that you said the hadeeth is weak. I thought that it was graded as good.
Abu Bakr
November 6, 2007 at 8:13 PM
In all truth, the hadith’s status is disputed, however it has only two routes, both of which have multiple deficiencies and cannot strengthen one another. And Allah knows best.
As for the statements of the Salaf prohibiting open objection to the Ameer (whether the Khalifah or some other lesser authority), this seems to be because of the fitnah that will result, and not due to some absolute prohibition, and Allah knows best.
Faiez
November 6, 2007 at 8:50 PM
It hurts to watch the news. May Allah keep our families safe and bring out much good from this test. Ameen.
Solomon2
November 6, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Abu Bakr, if the hadith’s status is disputed, why did you promote it uncritically at first? Don’t you think great damage could be done if someone acted without critical knowledge and thinking?
Sequoia
November 6, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Amad,
My thoughts are with your family and the people of Pakistan. I don’t have any ideas nor do i even claim to have an opinion on how to better the situation. But I do wish for the saftey and happiness of your family and other members of this community who either reside in Pakistan or have famil and friends there.
Abu Bakr
November 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Solomon2,
I think you misunderstood, I was not promoting the hadith in the least. I was quoting a hadith cited by Aboo Uthmaan, and I commented that it is weak.
Solomon2
November 7, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Sorry AB, I didn’t read carefully.
Amad
November 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Thanks Sequoia, as always.
I would like to mention that the ground reality is sometimes a lot different (not as bad) as the news may make it. So for many common people, life kind of just goes on. My parents haven’t felt much of a change, but again, they are retired folks who aren’t that active in any case. Though for the lawyers, who I greatly admire now, I am sure the situation is much more tense.
Amad
November 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Abu Othmaan, this is what I have gotten on the subject of “obeying” Musharraf:
“the ahadeeth pertaining to rulers applies to
‘Islamically’ legitimate rulers; Musharraf is not implementing sharee’ah but rather secular laws. that seriously calls into question his Islam, although we’re not making takfeer of him!!”
Aboo Uthmaan
November 8, 2007 at 7:15 AM
As-salaamu ‘alaikum
Dear Br. Abu Bakr
I think it is somewhat unfair to say it is weak; would it not have been better to say that it is disputed? From what I understand the hadeeth has three different chains of which one is Saheeh, another is Saheeh li-Ghayrihi, I do not know about the third one.
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
As-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
November 8, 2007 at 7:17 AM
As-salaamu โalaikum
Dear Br. Amad
You said that you would refer to the scholars regarding the said issue, can I ask who it was who answered the question for you? I think it is important that we know who we are taking our knowledge from.
If you or the scholar who answered your question is not saying that President Musharraf is a kaafir then he must still be a Muslim, right? That being the case then how can all of the ahaadeeth about obedience to the ruler not apply in this instance?
Even if he were not Muslim it may still be impermissible to rise up against him if the harm in doing so outweighs the benefit. What I am trying to say is that this issue may be light on the tongues of many of our Muslim brothers and sisters; it may be a heavy load to bear on the Day of Judgement.
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Amad
November 8, 2007 at 10:36 AM
As far as I am concerned, Imran Khan is the man! But with little chance unfortunately, like the best candidates in America. He is probably the only politician to have shown some heart for common people in his past, including that great cancer hospital in Lahore. He is someone who accomplishes the pillars of Islam, and has demonstrated good leadership qualities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7084599.stm
ibnabeeomar
November 8, 2007 at 11:45 AM
aboo uthmaan – you live in a very very very black/white only world :)
Aboo Uthmaan
November 8, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I would like to think that you are talking about my blog and its colour scheme. :-)
Amad
November 8, 2007 at 1:32 PM
akhi Aboo Uthmaan, it is not necessary to mention any names. If you have an issue with what was said, talk about that, thats more important.
If you cannot understand why the rules of obeying a khalifa cannot apply to someone like Musharraf, who is ANTI-Islam in so many ways (including against shariah, who is responsible for the killings of so many innocent civilians), then you need to go and find a scholar who actually agrees with you, and believes that the sunnah would uphold obedience to this dictator!
I doubt that you will get consent, even from Saudi scholars (including the tiny circle that you believe represents the net-sum of world’s scholars) who always harp about THESE issues much more than others so as to quell the masses and indoctrinate them to ‘hear and obey’ (not to deny the validity of these ahadeeth but no doubt they are being exaggerated and applied where they should not).
Really, open your eyes… we are not talking about violent reprisals against Busharraf. We are talking about civil protest and a change for better governance.
Heck, I’ll even take GOOD secular governance (beggars cant be choosers), although we pray that Allah establishes Pakistan into what it was presumably established for by its founders. Unfortunately Pakistan has never had a real good leader who is sincere and also knows how to develop a nation. Look at India… same ethnic people, same level of intelligence, yet 20 years ahead. Why? Due to investments in education and solid governance!
Anyone notice that Georgia’s leader took a cue from Musharraf and declared a “state of emergency”. Way to go Mushi… other dictators are now looking up to you!
Aboo Uthmaan
November 8, 2007 at 2:18 PM
As-salaamu โalaikum
Dear Br. Amad
If you do not wish to provide the name of the scholar that you asked or if he doesnโt wish to be known or have what he said attributed to him (in public) then that is fine. I merely asked so we would know who it is that we are taking our knowledge from. You believe it is not necessary to mention names; rather, you believe that what is important is to talk about the issue we are discussing if I have โissueโ with it. With that in mind there is no need to go off on a tangent and make assumptions as to who I believe the โnet-sum of worldโs scholarsโ are, it simply carried little relevance to the our point of discussion.
There are numerous statements from the early Muslims about obeying the leader, be he just or oppressive, be he appointed or someone who seized power by force, whether the people pleased with him or not. There are plenty of examples throughout history of corrupt, unjust and oppressive rulers who would also oppose the Shareeโah, kill Muslims and take their wealth, yet we find from the scholars (who lived during those times) statements forbidding the Muslims from rising up against them. One example of this is when a group of people came to al-Hasan al-Basree and asked him for permission to revolt against al-Hajjaaj.
What I am trying to say is that this issue is not knew, we already have a precedence set and furthermore we have instructions from our Prophet (sall-Allaahu โalayhi wa sallam) a plenty pertaining to such situations and how we should be in them. So unless you or the scholar you asked consider President Musharraf a kaafir then as strange as it may seem to some, the texts still apply.
Civil protests, now that could lead us on to another topic, the issue of the validity of โprotestingโ, not that I wish to discuss that and prolong this thread by taking it off in another direction, albeit intertwined along the way. What I will say though is that such โprotestsโ lead to violence, as we have seen, and many innocent civilians are often killed whilst engaging in such activities.
Your brother
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Amad
November 8, 2007 at 3:07 PM
w/s bro
Akhi, no assumptions here. Your blog tells it all. And these facts are relevant because they shape the way that you see the world. And many of us have “been there, done that”, and recognize the way how brothers from your click see the world… sorry for being blunt.
This situation is not similar to al-Hajjaj. He was a bonafide leader for the Muslims, appointed as a governer by the bonafide khalifa (even though he was also ruthless). As far as I know Al-Hajaaj applied Islamic laws. Still, let’s not foget that Abdullah ibn Zubair did revolt against him. Regardless, no one will say that the situations are equivalents. Which khalifa appointed Musharraf or are you saying that he is Pakistan’s khalifa (god forbid)??
In your opinion, they apply. And I disagree based on what I hear from the tulaab al-ilm. That is why I suggest that you go and ask some scholars and let us know what you hear, because you are trying to do ijtihad directly off ahadith without consulting the people of knowledge.
wallahualam
Faizan
November 8, 2007 at 3:31 PM
The image or concept the muslims in india 60 years ago was right…. but the leaders were corrupt. Plain and simple pakistan as it is right now is a mistake and isn’t what the normal person back then imagined to be so.
Aboo Uthmaan
November 8, 2007 at 4:24 PM
As-salaamu โalaikum
Dear Br. Amad
There is really no need for all of this โyour clickโ stuff or who you think I limit my taking of knowledge to, lets move beyond this type of puerility please. It is also somewhat unfair to say that my opinion is based on me trying to do my own ijtihaad; I guess that your opinion must be correct because you โheardโ it from a student. I have in previous posts on this thread and in this one cited some of the statements of the scholars in relation to the topic at hand and in light of the Prophetic ahaadeeth. What I mean is that I have not just picked up the plethora of ahaadeeth on the said issue and come up with a verdict. Please be fair.
There is a chapter in โKitaab al-Imaarahโ of Imaam an-Nawaweeโ commentary on Saheeh Muslim in which he said:
โAs for revolting against them, and fighting them, then it is haraam according to an ijmaaโ of the Muslims, even if they were wicked oppressors. Hadeethโs with the meaning of what we mentioned abound. And Ahlus-Sunnah have an ijmaaโ on not removing the Sultan (the one in power) due to wickedness. As for the views mentioned in some Fiqh books of some of our companions that he is to be removed – and it is a view cited from the Muโtazilah also โ then whoever said it is in error, opposing the ijmaaโ.โ
The Imaam then quoted some of the scholars who came before him and them saying that there is an ijmaaโ on not revolting against the ruler. He also mentioned the events involving al-Hajjaaj, replied to it and then explained:
โIndeed this disagreement was in the beginning, then the ijmaaโ for not revolting against them resulted, and Allaah knows best.โ
Please forgive me if I have done or said anything to offend you.
Your brother
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
Amad
November 8, 2007 at 5:30 PM
ASA, akhi Aboo Uthmaan, I’d ask you to refer to a current scholar and ask him about the situation. The disagreement is not about revolting against “legitimate” rulers, but rather if Musharraf fits that billing.
I didn’t say my opinion was correct but at least it was based on people of knowledge who are familiar with the current situation.
w/s
Aboo Uthmaan
November 8, 2007 at 6:14 PM
As-salaamu โalaikum
Dear Br. Amad
Throughout the ages there have been many tyrannical leaders, President Musharraf certainly isnโt the first and sadly, I highly doubt that heโll be the last. My issue if not about the Pakistani President himself, it is about the โprincipleโ of obeying the ruler and not revolting against him.
There have been and are other tyrannical leaders during recent times, and what I have read on the issue from current scholars does not differ with what scholars of years gone by have said.
If it were the case that it only applied to those whom people deem โlegitimateโ rulers then it necessitates that the scholars throughout the ages were incorrect in saying that one has to obey the ruler and not revolt against him irrespective of how he came to power and irrespective of whether he oppresses his subjects or not.
What I am saying is that as long as the leader is still Muslim then all of the ahaadeeth pertaining to obeying the ruler and not rising up against him apply, as do the numerous statement of the scholars (past and present) which incidentally are inline with these ahaadeeth.
If I am right in understanding what you are saying then it is that you believe such ahaadeeth and scholarly statements only apply to โlegitimateโ leaders and since you deem President Musharraf to be illegitimate they do not apply to him, have I understood you right?
If you have understood me right and I have understood you right then perhaps you can formulate a question that I can try to get answered by a person of knowledge?
BarakโAllaahu feek!
Was-salaamu โalaikum
Aboo Uthmaan
AhleHAdeeth
November 9, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Asalamulaaykum
Prophet (s) said
Whoever wants to give nasihah to the sultan on a matter, then he should not do so in public, but he should take him by hand to where he is alone with him. If he accepts it from him, then that is that, if not then he has done what is required of him ( ahmed and others.Al albani graded it shahe)
For futher reading on this matter refer to
Hadiths Needed by those who talk of manhaj
Amad
November 9, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Sultan Musharraf, that’s a new one!
Aboo uthmaan, it is obvious what needs to be asked. Just ask about the whole situation!! Ask if the “sultan” rules apply to Musharraf. Or simply ask what our stance should be about this sort of leader. I don’t think you need to lay out precise questions about exactly which piece of the puzzle to address!
We are just going in circles now, so until you have more information besides what has already been said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Two different questions:
1) If Benazir becomes the ruler, would she carry the same rules as for Sultan Musharraf? I know about the bukhari hadith but that does not make her a non-Muslim so presumably all your rules would still apply to her?
2) What about Uzbekistan’s ruthless criminal and murderer, Islam Karimov? Uzbekistan, where the only crime you need to do there in order to be put in jail or killed is to have a beard…
anatoxin dust
November 9, 2007 at 1:46 PM
The Defining Characteristic of Ahlโl-Sunnah waโl-Jamฤโah during Fitnah
http://alternativeentertainment.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/the-defining-characteristic-of-ahl%e2%80%99l-sunnah-wa%e2%80%99l-jama%e2%80%98ah-during-fitnah/
Abu Bakr
November 9, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I do not think it is unfair as there are countless weak hadiths that are disputed.
Shama
November 10, 2007 at 1:51 AM
an interesting article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/why-bhutto-would-be-bad-for-business/2007/11/09/1194329506955.html
Shama
November 10, 2007 at 6:58 AM
further developments
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2836322.ece
abu abdurrahman
November 11, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Assalam Alaikum,
Living in Pakistan and getting much more information than what’s leaked out to the (international) news, I strongly believe that Musharraf is either on the verge of becoming non-Muslim or is already non-Muslim. Most probably a munafiq.
Last time when Musharraf came to Karachi during his speech, he closed the Masajid in his area and stopped the Azaan from being given.
Musharraf’s government openly supports the Sufis and they are the only ‘religious’ elements that support him. Pakistan’s Sufis are not like those of America. Here they have committed shirk in word and deed many, many times. Even the ordinary practicing Muslim(who is unfortunately very ignorant) admits they are not in line with Islamic Aqeedah and actions.
About killings, he has not only killed innocent civilians but has left his own soldiers to die. He is using Shia/Sunni rivalry to kill his own soldiers and much more.
These are some of the reasons I personally consider him not to be part of the definition of Sultan.
Also, about the scholars. There are a large number of Ulema in Pakistan who openly speak against him. I’m talking about the knowledgeable ones, not the average ‘Maulana’.
Pingback: muslimmatters.org » Updates (12/28): Benazir Bhutto Killed in Terrorist Attack
Pingback: muslimmatters.org » The “Official Narrative” Has Been Laid Down for us- On the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto