''And mix not truth with falsehood (baatil), nor conceal the truth (haqq) while you know the truth'' [ Al-Baqarah:42 ]. 

''O People of the Book: Why do you mix truth (Haqq) with falsehood (baatil) and conceal the truth while you know?'' [ Ale-Imran:71 ]

There should be no doubt in the minds of Muslims that there is a relentless intellectual war going on to dilute their understanding of Islam and agitating them to undertake transient actions. Within the context of the 'war on terror' in Maldives designed by the West, the hypocrite scholars who rally behind the popular 'anti' camp have started to show the audacity of analogising their struggle against the government with that of the struggle between Musa (alaihi salaam) and Firawn. Also, some Hadiths regarding the accountability of rulers and some incidents related to Caliph Umar (ra)'s uprightness as a ruler has been quoted in their literature to sprinkle some Islamic flavouring to the ongoing struggle between 2 baatil camps - the government and 'anti' camp. This is all done cleverly to conceal the more realistic and more enduring war to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims.

Those hadiths which admonish rulers who deviate from Islamic rules are applicable to a situation where the Islamic system already exists. There were incidents during various periods of the Islamic state when the scholars like Abu Hanifah, Shafi, Ibn Hazm, Hanbal, Hasan al Basri, Abu yusuf and others accounted minor injustices of rulers .But the Islamic state continued to exist until its destruction in 1924.
However, the current situation goes far beyond the ruler; the entire setup of the societies in the Muslim world are non-Islamic. Therefore, the situation that applies today is analogous to the situation of the Muslims in Mecca, where the entire society was based on Kufr, and not just a situation where the ruler was not implementing Islamic rules.

Lets review some Hadiths regarding the description and accountability of rulers

Muslim and Bukhari reported that Abu Hurayrah quoted the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), ''He who obeys me, obeys Allah and who disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And he who obeys the ruler (Imam), obeys me and he who disobeys the ruler, disobeys me....''

Muslim reported that Auf bin Malik al-Ashja'ee heard the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) say, ''Your best rulers (Ameer) are those whom you love and they love you, and you pray for (make du'a) them and they pray for you, and your worst rulers are those whom you hate and thee hate you, and you curse them and they curse you.'' He said, ''We asked the Messenger of Allah, may we then overthrow them in such a case?'' He said, ''No, as long as they establish prayer (Salah) amongst you. No as long as they establish prayer amongst you. Behold, he who is ruled by a ruler and finds him committing disobedience (Ma'ssiyya) to Allah he should dislike what he commits as a disobedience to Allah but should not rise in revolt against him.''

What should be noted immediately, but is often missed in translation into English, is that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) does not refer to any ruler, but specifically, Imams and Ameers. Not the plethora of Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers, and Dictators that presently plague our lands or the new rulers who will replace them. For unlike the latter rulers, Imams and Ameers rule by the Book of Allah alone, the disobedience (Ma'ssiyya) that is mentioned is not in the matter of ruling but in the matter of personal indiscretion.

However, one may retort that the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah suggests the cut off point for disobedience is the abandonment of prayer. This argument can by discounted if it is realised that this understanding is at the mercy of English translators. For the word 'Salah' in Arabic has 'Ma'nat-ul- Ishtirak', i.e. more than one meaning. Salah has three meanings. The first mentioned in the Hadith is to pray (make du'a). The second is the prayer services, e.g. Fajr. However, Salat also means the whole of Islam. That is what is meant by this Hadith. This understanding can be corroborated when one considers that the rulers that Mohammed (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) placed over various provinces were known as Ameers of Salat. This term is synonymous with Ameers of Bilaad (Land). No one rules a land by prayer services alone. Thus the matter is resolved. Further, this third meaning was mentioned by at-Tabari in his book of Tafseer. So the alluded meaning of 'as long they establish prayer amongst you' means as long as the ameer (ruler) implements the entire deen. Here, we have been ordered to reject any ruler who does not implement Islam. Obviously the 'anti' camp is not going to rule by Islam. They are going to continue implementing the present system with some cosmetic changes because any change that comes from within a system is simply a continuation of that system, not a radical change. The ruling system of Rasool Allah and his companions were not born out of the existing status quo of Quraish. In other words, they did not bring about the Islamic state by participating in the Quraish assembly of Darul-Nadwa. By the same token, how can a Muslim scholar undertake the duty of 'enjoining good and forbid munkar' while working with parties whose agenda clearly contradicts Islam ? 

When Allah (swt) legislated the Islamic rules, He (swt) did not reveal them to be applied in a vacuum. Every Islamic rule has a specific method to apply that rule. For example, Muslims do not pray in any manner they see fit or in any context. Rather, the prayer must be done according to a specific method, which includes the times of prayer, the movements of the prayer, and specific things that must be said during each part of the prayer, and what is required before the prayer (ablution, etc.). Also, Allah (swt) legislated the Hajj, but the Hajj must be applied according to a specific method, which includes the requirements for Hajj (to be in a state of ihram, free of debts, etc)., what time of year to perform Hajj, and the specific actions carried out at each phase of the Hajj. Similarly, Allah (swt) legislated the duty of  'enjoining maruf and forbidding munkar', and it is not up to us to decide how perform this duty as we see fit. Rather, Allah (swt) legislated a specific method to carry out this obligation based on the nature of the problem. If the Islamic state exists, the meaning of 'forbidding munkar' means accounting the actions of the ruler and correcting him. Or replace him by force if he implemented kufr laws. However when ummah has lost the State we have to work on a different plane now. We are confronted with illegitimate rulers, kufr parties, kufr thoughts...etc

Therefore, before we can account rulers we have to appoint legitimate rulers (persons in ruling positions) who will rule by the book of Allah alone. In the present situation when the Islamic system is absent, the obligation of 'enjoing maruf and forbidding munkar' should be undertaken by Islamic political groups established upon the Islamic aqeedah, working to generate strong public opinion for Islam and aiming for a radical change. However, if the ummah does not undertake this task and continue to dwindle its energy electing ruler after ruler who do not implement Islam, they are committing sin. Today's rulers should be accounted for the purpose of demonstrating the falsehood of the basis upon which they rule and to convince the masses of the correctness of Islam and its solutions. The same applies to political parties who call for the implementation of 'democracy and freedom' with a veneer of Islam.

By quoting verses or Hadiths regarding the responsibilities of rulers, the 'anti' camp obfuscates the realities on the ground in terms of the real change that is required in Maldives. Muslims have to be reminded of the verses and Hadith which oblige them to base their thoughts and actions on Shariah alone. Rejecting a ruler on the basis of Islam and replacing him with a new ruler on the basis of 'democracy and freedom' is the height of naivety. That is, if the current rulers have to be rejected because of their inconsistency with the actions of Rasool Allah or Umar, the kufr political parties have to be rejected because their agendas are completely inconsistent with political party of Rasool Allah which struggled against the Quraish in Meccah. Some may claim that during Rasool Allah's struggle against the Quraish, he was challenged by just one baatil group i.e. Quraish ruling clan. But in the present situation in Maldives, we have to confront two (or more) baatil camps - the government camp and the 'anti' camp. So they claim our situation is different from what the Prophet (saw) faced in Meccah. To explain the correct understanding of how to look at this issue we say that the Shari'ah rule is always revealed for a specific reality. When the reality changes then the Shari'ah rule relating to it changes. If the reality does not change then the Shari'ah rule stays as it is. Regarding the reality one should consider the basic/fundamental attributes and not the outward forms. The Shariah obliges Muslims to reject baatil i.e. anything that does not emanate from Qur'an and Sunnah. However the reality of baatil may take different forms. Rasool Allah faced only baatil camp whereas we face two camps - the existing ruling elites and 'anti' camp supported by the West. When applying the occurrence of a matter one should not look to its magnitude or scarcity, for these would not be the right criterion, one should rather look into the origin for it represent the criterion. For the criterion is not reflected in the multitude or the scarcity, nor does it serve as a reason; the criterion would be the occurrence of the thing and this would be the reason for its consideration as far as the origin is concerned. Furthermore, if one scrutinises the nature of these baatil camps, we can discern some characteristics of the Quraish are present in the government camp and some other characteristics are present in 'anti' camp. For example, the Quraish tried to mollify Rasool Allah by promising him material benefits if he stopped his call. Similar tactics are adopted by the 'anti' camp to lure us into their call. Therefore we approach each baatil camp from different angles because one is a government and the other is a political party. That is to say, a baatil government has to be rejected because it does not implement Islam and a baatil political party is rejected because its call is not Islamic.

As regards to the story of Firawn ,we have to see the entire picture. The 'anti' camp is not in a position to equate its struggle against the government with the struggle of Musa (alaihi salam) against Firawn because 'anti' camp itself is one of the many agents of modern day Firawn (US-UK ) working to create a new strain of Islam. A counterfeit Islam that vacuously mimics the west's slogans of democracy, social justice and human rights even in the face of their blatant colonialist agenda and barbarity. One that shamefully stays silent even in the face of the most cruel and barbaric aggression being perpetrated against Islam and her Ummah, and glosses over the most duplicitous and hypocritical violations of the very same laws and principles the west claims to hold. These 'moderates' groups or governments who propagate this corruption are working hand in glove with the enemies of Islam and the Ummah.

Zeyno Baran, a terrorism analyst at the Nixon Center who advised on the strategy. ''You provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work.''. ''But we're talking about a fascist ideology.''

Allah (swt) says,

O you who believe! take not as (your) bitanah (Advisors, Consultants, Protectors, Helpers, Friends, Etc.) those outside your religion (Pagans, Jews, Christians, And Hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. they desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is far worse. Indeed we have made plain to you the ayat (Proofs, Evidences, Verses) if you understand. [ Al-Imran:118] 

Archive