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’.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2836322.ece

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/why-bhutto-would-be-bad-for-business/2007/11/09/1194329506955.html

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…

Dear Br. Amad

Throughout the ages there have been many tyrannical leaders, President Musharraf certainly isn’t the first and sadly, I highly doubt that he’ll be the last. My issue if not about the Pakistani President himself, it is about the “principle” 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 “legitimate” 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 “legitimate” 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?

Barak’Allaahu feek!

Was-salaamu ‘alaikum

Aboo Uthmaan