Scholars in the Majlis. For what ?
The Maldivian scholars and their position towards the government has always remained
obscure. On the one hand, they claim the current ruling system is invalid
and equivalent to Pharoah's rule. On the other hand, the same scholars
are ready to be a part of this Pharoah's ruling system and enhance one of the
components (legislative body) of the ruling structure by participating in the
Majlis. When asked for an explanation regarding this contradiction,
their responses are even more obscure and sounds like the logic of Greek
philosophers. Here is the most oft repeated arguments used to
justify and cover their confused stance
''Never mind the ruling system is not Islamic.
We will try our best to ensure that non-Islamic legislations are
never
passed by the Majlis''
To understand the crux of the issue, we have to develop an understanding on the reality of Islamic
legislations. What
is an Islamic legislation and how does it differ from a kufr legislation? One of the
erroneous thoughts carried by the scholars is that a legislation is Islamic as long as it does not contradict the
Shariah. This is wrong from many angles. An Islamic legislation is a
legislation that emanates from Quran and Sunnah based on a specific
method. A legislation passed by the component of a Pharoah's ruling
system (as claimed by the scholars) cannot be Islamic even if the legislation is similar to a Islamic
legislation. For instance there are several legislations passed by the Western democracies which maybe similar to
Islam. However they are kufr legislations because they emanate
from a secular reference point and doctrine. In some Western
countries, cocaine has been banned by legislations and alcohol was banned in the US during
1930s. These rulings may appear 'similar' to the Islamic ruling on
intoxicants, yet they cannot be construed as Islamic legislations.
Therefore, what matters is the not end ruling, but the basis from which
legislation emanates and the basis upon which the legislation is
adopted. In the Majlis meetings, we all aware that laws are not passed based on the Quran and
Sunnah. The processes leading to the passing of a legislation does not involve discussions on the
evidences from the Quran or Hadith and their linkage to the topic.
Almost every law is simply an agreement arrived by the MPs after a debate based on their personal prejudices and filmmaking
experience. So, the decision of the scholars to participate in the ruling structure of the Pharoah's
system (as they claim) and trying to prevent the enactment of
Non-Islamic legislations reeks of superficiality.The Muslim scholars in the 'anti' camp are also known to give
superficial arguments regarding their involvement in this
Machiavellian political arena. Most of their arguments are based on
a specific discipline of thinking known as Logic (mantiq). This type
of thinking inherited from the Greek philosophers is built upon the
use of semantics and terminology that leads a person to reach specific results.
Logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.
.The use of logic in fiqh and politics may lead to disastrous conclusions.
The so called Islamic evidence given by the scholars to support the
permissibility of their involvement in the 'anti' camp is actually
derived from logic. Here is how they reach this false conclusion:
Major Premise : Islam orders us to struggle against
tyranny
Minor Premise :'Anti' camp is working against the tyranny
of '27 years'.
Based on the relationship between these premises, the scholar
conclude that 'anti' camp's political struggle is indeed Islamic. The fallacy of this conclusion came from the fallacy of the second
argument because it is crystal clear 'anti' camp is not working to establish
Islam. The rivalry between 'anti' camp and government is a
competition to determine who is capable of ruling according to kufr
democratic system. Using the same twisted logic, anyone can argue
that American attack on Iraq is an Islamic endeavour because Saddam
was a nasty tyrant.
That is to say, no matter who rules, if the basis
of legislations does not change, the ruling system is still invalid
and there are no Islamic evidences to support the permissibility to
work for a false solution. Has Islam ordered to change a invalid
system to another invalid system where the only difference is that
latter is 'elected' by the people ?
Conclusion
The political solution for Muslims prescribed in the Islamic
texts is a unified vision for all Muslims. We are not ordered to
work for disparate solutions based on geography such as 'Maldivian
Islam'. The Islamic texts do not mention the tyranny of '27 years'
but defines tyranny as the absence of Islam in all aspects of Islam.
It is the duty of the scholars to understand this unified vision and
build an understanding of tangible steps - an intellectual struggle
based on the Shariah - that can be taken in Maldives in our capacity as
members of the global Islamic ummah towards the correct revival of
the ummah.
Related
Archive
Similar
to Islam is not Islam
Islam
is immune from contradictions
Permissibility
(ibaha)
Logic
(mantiq)
Justice
Minister's remark
Democracy
and Shura - A wolf in sheep's clothing
Dangers
of rational analogy
Wrong
analogy, wrong conclusion
|
