Excellent discussion and great analysis...
I would like to increment it further by providing my own views on a few aspects. These may not coincide with the views of other people, but thats how I think.
Due to dearth of time, I will stick to the points which I want to share without reiterating known facts.
STANCE OF MADRASSAH STUDENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR OWN FIQH
For most of the educated people in general, and for the members of this forum in particular, the attitude of the students of Lal mosque and madressah-e-Hafsah is against the injunctions of Islam. Undoubtedly, I agree with that. But, there are a few juristic details which I want to present here with regards to the issue. This will have a two-fold advantage:-
(i) People who think that the madrassah is doing right, will get the correct answer from authentic sources & arguments
(ii) A few unanswered questions in the mind of ordinary people will also be answered (Insha Allah)
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
According to my knowledge, the madrassah is sunni/hanafi and therefore, I will refer to the works authentic to their own fiqh for analyzing the issues.
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF SHARI'AH COURT
The Imam of Lal Mosque has declared the establishment of a Shari'ah Court in the mosque/madrassah where criminal cases will be decided. The state laws clearly debar any person from doing so and in fact, the Imam has openly challenged the writ of a
Muslim state.
In view of the fact, let me take the liberty to quote a fatwa (edict) from a well-known sunni madrassah,
Jamia Binoria. It is available online at their website and I am quoting it here for reference:-
Quote:
Answer: Since Muslims in your area [non-muslim country] with mutual consultation have formed a Jam'iat (group) and given it rank of Panchayat (Jury) in Dar-ul-Kufr and have given them the right of punishment, therefore, the punishment given to the said person is correct, but with the condition that the law of country has also permitted it.
Source: http://www.binoria.org/q_a/qisaas.html
|
Two things in the above edict are of immense interest:-
(i) The fatwa is from one of the most authentic Hanafi (specifically Deobandi) institution
(ii) It allows the establishment of a jury in a non-Muslim country only if the law of the country permits so
Just pause for a second and think that if the establishment of a jury in a non-Muslim state is dependent upon the state's permission, how can this be allowed in a Muslim state without permission?
For those who say that sunni scholars differ from each other in various issues, I am glad to tell them that an identical edict is found in
Raddul Mukhtar fil fatawa-e-Shaami (henceforth,
Shaami), Vol.7, p.93. Let it be reminded that
Shaami and
Aalamgiri are considered to be the most authentic Hanafi works on earth.
(2) HIJACKING WOMEN INVOLVED IN IMMORALITY
The students of the madressah had hijacked a woman (or women), claiming that she was involved in immoral practices. The point to ponder over is whether ordinary people have the right to punish others (for their crimes) or not?
In answer to this question, a very clear edict is found in
Aalamgiri, Vol.2, p.253 which states:
The authority of punishment rests only with the Muslim Ruler and not with the masses. A similar edict of Jamia Binoria is found
here.
All Sunni scholars agree on this issue and in fact, jurists have ruled that an ordinary person cannot kill another Muslim
EVEN IF HE HAS SAID SOMETHING DEROGATORY ABOUT THE HOLY PROPHET (PBUH) -- THE AUTHORITY RESTS WITH THE RULER. The reason behind such a commandment is
to prevent fitna. According to fuqaha, if everyone is given the right of punishment, this will lead to
fasad and
fitna. Specifically, every person will kill other person and later claim that he had insulted the Prophet (PBUH) or did something of the same connotation.
In the light of the above discussion, it becomes crystal-clear that the madrassa students had no authority to take the statuary law in their hands. The proper method should have been to lodge a complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction and if she is found guilty after a just trial, she should have been convicted accordingly.
(3) IMPOSING SHARI'AH BY FORCE
This is a very important question to undertake. As I will show a little later, this incident has dissolved away the concept of
Nahi anil Munkir (forbidding evil) from the minds of many people.
To begin with, I quote a very well-known hadith, found in
Sahih Muslim,
Ibn Majah,
Tirmidhi,
an-Nasai,
Mishqat,
at-Targhib and others:
Quote:
|
He who amongst you sees something condemnable (sinful/un-Islamic) should stop it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least level of faith.
|
This duty of forbidding evil rests on all Muslims and has been emphasized in both the Quran and Sunnah. But, there are a few very important principles to be noted here!
I cannot describe them more nicely save by quoting from Ibn-e-Taimiyyah's book
Amr bil Ma'aroof Wa Nahi anil Munkir, pp.8-9.
Quote:
Let Your Enjoining Of Good Be Itself Good
Friendliness and sympathy are the correct way in enjoining right and forbidding wrong. For this reason, it has been said: "Let your enjoining of good be good, and let not your forbidding of bad be bad."
Benefits Must Outweigh Negative Consequences
Enjoining right and forbidding wrong being one of the greatest obligations or commendable acts in Islam, it is essential that the benefit therein outweigh its negative consequences. This is the general spirit of the messages of the prophets and the revealed books, and Allah does not like chaos and corruption. All that which Allah has enjoined is beneficial, and the epitome of benefit. Allah has praised salah (the opposite of corruption) and the "musliheen" (reformers, or those who bring about salah). And He has praised those who believe and do good works (saalihaat), while condemning corruption (fasaad) and those who cause it in many places in the Qur'an. Thus whenever the adverse effects (mafsada) of any act of enjoining or forbidding are greater than its benefit (maslaha), it is no longer part of what Allah has enjoined upon us, even if it be a case of neglecting obligations or committing the forbidden. This is because it is upon the believer to fear Allah in relation to His slaves, and their guidance is not his responsibility. This is part of the meaning of the verse in which Allah says:
"O, you who believe, your selves are your responsibility, those who go astray will not harm you when you stick to guidance."
"Sticking to guidance" is only accomplished by fulfilling and carrying out all obligations. Thus, when a Muslim does what is obligatory upon him by way of enjoining right and forbidding wrong, just as he fulfilled all other obligations, the going astray of those who go astray will not do him any harm.
Pitfalls Of Enjoining Right And Forbidding Wrong
Two groups of people fall into error in this area:
(A) One group leaves what is obligatory upon them in the area of enjoining right and forbidding wrong, clinging to an incorrect interpretation of the ayah quoted previously:
"O, you who believe, your selves are your responsibility, those who go astray will not harm you when you stick to guidance."
Abu Bakr once explained this error in a khutba saying:
"O people, verily you read this ayah, and you apply it where it does not belong, for I heard the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) say: Verily when the people see the wrong-doer, and do not seize his hand, Allah is about to inflict them with a general punishment."
(B) The second group desires to enjoin and forbid the people with their tongues and their hands absolutely and in all situations without sufficient knowledge of the shari'a, nor forbearance, nor patience, nor regard for that which is beneficial and that which has more harm than benefit and that which is possible and that which is not possible.
(...)
This group, then, enjoins and forbids believing that they are in obedience to Allah ta'ala when in reality they are transgressors of His boundaries. In this way, many of the deviant and misguided groups considered themselves to be enjoiners of right and forbidders of wrong such as the xxxxxxxxx, and the xxxxxxxxx, and the xxxxxxxx {omitted} and others of those who erred in understanding that which Allah gave them in terms of enjoining right and forbidding wrong, and fighting jihad, and other issues. The corruption caused by this kind of enjoining and forbidding is much greater than any good which may result.
|
I hope that (Insha Allah) the above extract will have answered many questions and confusions. Let's try to apply the above principles to this particular incident.
In this case, the students of the madrassah came out with bamboo sticks and even captured many people. On top of it, threatening the government of suicide bombers is simply ferocious.
A few days back, probably on 7th April, in the program "Subah say Geo" on GEO TV, Hamid Mir presented his thoughts on this particular issue via phone. He presented a few very interesting points which I am reproducing here to the best of my memory:-
Quote:
Yeh ma'asla talbanization aur madaris ka nahin, balkay barey barey jayyad ulema aur mazhabi jamaton nay kaha hai kay Lal Masjid waley sahih nahin kar rahey. Hatta kay opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman bhi iss ko support nahin kar rahey. Sarron ka yehi kehna hai kay yeh tu wohi Amreeki charter ko pura karney ki sazish hai ... Lal Masjid kay Imam nay Mufti Taqi Usmani sahib say kaha kay mein nay khuwab mein dekha hai kay Islami inqalab yahein say utthay ga, tu Mufti Taqi Usmani sahib nay jawab diya kay aap kay khuwab ki koi shar'ai haisiyyat nahin.
Tu dar asal yeh Imam sahib chahtey hain kay fitna fasad ho. Aur chunkay Madrassah-e-Hafsa mein perhanay wali Talibaat NWFP kay ilaaqon ki hain, iss liye jab do char lashaiyn wahan jaen gi tu khud ba khud mulk mein fasad aur buhran mach jaey ga.
|
Before coming to the conclusion, I would like to present a personal observation. Now-a-days, almost everyone commits sins and no one is free from them. But, after committing sins, one can behave in two ways:-
(i) Either feel ashamed over his/her sins and ask mercy of Allah, even though he/she may repeat the sin frequently; {
gunnahon per sharminda hona }
(ii) or keep on committing sins shylessly & openly admitting them, without feeling bad for committing them {
gunnah kar kay uss per baysharmon ki tarah jam jana )
Attitude (ii) is completely wrong and is highly condemnable.
If someone sells immodest CDs or drinks alcohol or does something of the like, he can't tell others that it is his choice and he will do whatever he wants! Islam never ever permits any such thing! It is a duty of all Muslims to abstain from such things and to stop such activities by tongue, or even by force, provided the methodology adopted is not ferocious.
It should be noted that the use of force for Nahi anil Munkir rests with the state and that too isn't permissible if it will lead to disruption of peace & fitna/fasad.
To sum up then, neither the students of Madressah-e-Hafsa are doing any good by wreaking havoc in the federal capital, nor are those people who don't hesitate to sell immodest films, or drink alcohol, etc.
Okay, this finishes one part of my analysis. Insha Allah, in the next few posts, I will shed light on a few more aspects of this issue.
Comments--whether good or bad--are welcome!
Take care,
Abdul Rehman.