محمد050
11-03-2011, 01:56 PM
It Is Not Sedition 1/3
Written by Dr. Ragheb Elsergany
http://en.islamstory.com/images/stories/articles/362/6416_image002.jpg
It might happen that many of those paying attention to the blessed revolt of Egypt describe it as sedition, hence they believe that they should not take part.
On one hand, they do not take part, while on the other one; they discourage people from taking part for their freedom and dignity.
Who are those of that opinion? What are their goals?
Actually, they are very varying sects. They are completely dissimilar.
I may disclose three major sects;
The first sect: - it is which is affiliated to the evil party governing fiercely. They do make use of the corruption, injustice and plunder. They think that the unjust and corruptor should proceed on injustice corruption. By then, if some one opposes their attitude, then it would be sedition.
This may lead to shedding the bloods of the innocent, so there is no need to sedition and the condition should be left as it is.
This sect is headed by the misleading mass media which protects the governing system and vice versa. Such mass media seeks support to its attitude and spread to its views through some of power scientists, hireling intellectuals and some of the misled youths.
The second sect: - it consists of the powerless ordinary nationals who seek the safe life even if it hurts their dignity. They are nor aspiring to freedom, justice, cleanness and superiority. They only are keen to save their food and securing the very close future. The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) described this sect as flunky. He is reported saying: (Let not one of you be flunky, that is he would do the good if other people do it, while if they wrong others, he would do the same. Indeed, you should adjust yourselves to do the good when people do it and to abstain from wronging others when people do that[1]).
This sect always regards the incidents attentively but without taking part. If the revolt went well, they would bless and praise it. However; if it is met with failure, they would address the rebels: did I not tell you that it is sedition.
In my view, they are not hypocrite, however; they are powerless, coward and flunky. They wish the incidents to finish up to resume their lives and in a better condition. They use the term "sedition" to gently justify their attitude.
http://en.islamstory.com/images/stories/articles/362/6416_image003.jpg
The third sect: - they are sincere versed scholars. We do not doubt their good intentions and sincerity. They do adhere to a juristic doctrine that deems it forbidden for two Muslims to face each other with weapon and regards such act sedition that should be avoided. As well, they hold the opinion that it is not permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler as long as he performs the obligatory five prayers and does not act in accordance to disbelief.
As I have already mentioned, this sect includes sincere scholars with a long-term in teaching people. Accordingly, this type attaches a very large number of students seeking the religious knowledge of such scholars.
I may address them all as follows;
Such scholars quote many authentic prophetic traditions in this regard. I do not discuss the authenticity of such a Hadith, however, I will discuss its interpretation and applying it to the incidents.
The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: (When two Muslims draw sword against one another, and one manages to kill the other, both will be put to Hell. The people asked, “O Messenger of Allah! The case is clear as to the killer, but why is the killed treated as such?” The Holy Prophet replied: “He too sought to kill the other party[2]).
The question is that is it the Hell-Fire as an outcome to cases in which two Muslims draw sword against one another, or that there are exceptions? In other words, is that matter restricted or unrestricted?
What is case if an unjust Muslim man wronged me as to my house, wealth or household, hence I defended my self and my household, and accordingly, such man drew his sword to kill me? Am I then required to surrender to killing, let my wealth object to plunder and my household to rape?!
Is not it that the one slain in defending his wealth, faith, honor or household deemed a martyr[3]?
How did the corrupt unjust Muslim regime act?
Did not he plunder our wealth and trifle with our fates?
Did not he jail our relatives and nationals unjustly?
Did not he publicly falsify our votes in the elections?
Did not he plunder the treasure of our lands which turned us to poor, whereas such treasures are directed to people in the governing regime?
Are Muslims who defend their rights and rights of their offspring and nationals equal to those who practice plunder, killing and oppression?!
Is the faithful cultured sect that peacefully calls for their rights equal to that professional bully one?! However, we do believe that both are Muslims.
Moreover, the oppressed sect that entitled to defend its wealth and rights has not the initiative of doing that. On the contrary, it has organized a peaceful protest march asking the unjust party for their rights. This was confronted with live ammunition, bombs, Molotov cocktails, horses, camels, pocketknives, swords, stones and whips. Consequently, the Peaceful party picked up stones to defend themselves and their household.
Is it then suitable to quote the Hadith (When two Muslims draw sword against one another…) to draw resemblance between the two parties?
What is explanation of that Hadith?
Imam Ibn Hajra Al-`Aqalani in Al-Bukhari and Imam An-NAwawi in Sahih Muslim gave comment on this Hadith as follows: It is plain with the least ambiguity that the menace mentioned in the Hadith just concerns the one fighting without admissible reasonable grounds seeking the rule only[4].
I may address this honorable sect: is not there an admissible reasonable ground for such party seeking their licit plundered rights?
I may quote a very valuable words of Imam At-Tabary (May Allah be merciful with him), as deemed a renowned Salafi scholar and needless to profile. Imam At-Tabary stated: if whenever a controversy takes place among Muslims over any issue make them stay at homes and sheathe their swords, the ordained punishments would then be suspended and oppression would not be eliminated which in turn would encourage the dissolute people to plunder people's wealth, shed bloods and ravish Muslim women. On the contrary, Muslims should fight such dissolute party. But if they refrained from confronting them claiming that such condition is sedition and thus they should refrain fighting, then it is an act contradictory to the established enjoining to punish the foolish[5].
Allah is the greatest!
What wonderful words of Imam At-Tabary!
Till when Muslims keep a state of humiliation, disgrace, tameness and peace though the conditions are too bad and the oppression is aggravating?!
Moreover, I may cite an addition related in Al-Bazar that reveals the purpose of the fighting mentioned in the Hadith. Such additions reads: (If Muslims fights each other for a worldly gain, thus both the killer and the killed one will be put to Hell). Imam Al-Qurtubi commented on this Hadith as follows: if fighting among Muslims was mainly based on seeking a worldly gain or for being influenced with their own inclinations, then the Hadith (the killer and the killed one will be put to Hell[6])
http://en.islamstory.com/images/stories/articles/362/6416_image004.jpg
Is it reasonable to claim that the revolt of January 25th was based on seeking the rule or a worldly gain? Or it is that the more to the point is that it was marched to eliminate the injustice and oppression!
Over and above, there is a very admissible ground in the Hadith permits Muslims to defend their rights even if it entailed to use swords (force). This is because the prophet (PBUH) was asked: “O Messenger of Allah! The case is clear as to the killer, but why is the killed treated as such?” The Holy Prophet replied: “He too sought to kill the other party". The prophet clarified that the sinful party is the one keen to kill the other. Thus, is it claimed that such youth were keen to kill those confronting them whether from police or bullies? Indeed, the corrupter government has not claimed that, because the rebels marched with no weapons or any thing to defend themselves.
They marched raising banners claiming for their rights that approved by the Islamic law, the Egyptian constitution, the International conventions and all the venerable globally.
The rebels never were keen to hurt others that if such evil forces were not to act in this manner, no blood drop would be shed in the course of this peaceful revolt.
The rebels, including my self, up to writing this article were constantly keen to declare that it is a peaceful revolt.
The venerable scholars should regard all surrounding conditions and review the views of all Salafi scholars on the related texts. Imam ibn Hajar, An-Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi and At-Tabari are not nameless scholars, however, they are adept and their views are of considerable importance and completely agree with the objectives of Shari`ah and the propositional logic and the sound intellect as well.
Allah forbids! There is the least contradiction to the texts.
Certainly, I know that the matter is not restricted to this Hadith only, however, there are a lot of Hadith that we will discuss and tens of questions I will response to them. To exemplify;
Is it permissible to revolt against the ruler who constantly performs the obligatory prayers?
Is it permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler in general?
Is such revolt described as revolting against the ruler?
Is it permissible to the Muslim ruler to do whatever he will so long as he is a Muslim?
Is it obligatory upon Muslims to seek seclusion over controversial issues?
What is the attitude of `Abdullah ibn `Umar of sedition took place at his time? What is the interpretation of this attitude?
Is the one killed on the rebels hand deemed martyr or otherwise?
What are the goals of the revolt?
What do we seek for Egypt?
Do rebels seek goodness and development or corruption and destruction?
Too many questions revolve in the minds of many. I was asked about them by the youth of revolt during my presence with them in Tahrair square.
God willing, I will give response to them the next article, if my life lasts.
I beseech to Allah to grant dignity to Islam and Muslims.
[1]- Narrated by Imam At-Tirmithi 2007, and he ranked it as Good and Strange Hadith.
[2]- Narrated by Al-Bukhari, 6481.
[3]-"Whoever is slain in defense of his possessions is a martyr. Whoever is slain in defending his faith is a martyr. Whoever is slain in defending his soul is a martyr. Whoever is slain in defending his household is a martyr". It is narrated by imam At-Tirmithi 1421, Iamam Abu-dawud 4772 and Imam An-Nasaie 4095. Al-Albani ranked it as authentic.
[4]- Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari 13/34.
[5]- The previous reference, the same page.
[6]- The previous reference, the same page.
Written by Dr. Ragheb Elsergany
http://en.islamstory.com/images/stories/articles/362/6416_image002.jpg
It might happen that many of those paying attention to the blessed revolt of Egypt describe it as sedition, hence they believe that they should not take part.
On one hand, they do not take part, while on the other one; they discourage people from taking part for their freedom and dignity.
Who are those of that opinion? What are their goals?
Actually, they are very varying sects. They are completely dissimilar.
I may disclose three major sects;
The first sect: - it is which is affiliated to the evil party governing fiercely. They do make use of the corruption, injustice and plunder. They think that the unjust and corruptor should proceed on injustice corruption. By then, if some one opposes their attitude, then it would be sedition.
This may lead to shedding the bloods of the innocent, so there is no need to sedition and the condition should be left as it is.
This sect is headed by the misleading mass media which protects the governing system and vice versa. Such mass media seeks support to its attitude and spread to its views through some of power scientists, hireling intellectuals and some of the misled youths.
The second sect: - it consists of the powerless ordinary nationals who seek the safe life even if it hurts their dignity. They are nor aspiring to freedom, justice, cleanness and superiority. They only are keen to save their food and securing the very close future. The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) described this sect as flunky. He is reported saying: (Let not one of you be flunky, that is he would do the good if other people do it, while if they wrong others, he would do the same. Indeed, you should adjust yourselves to do the good when people do it and to abstain from wronging others when people do that[1]).
This sect always regards the incidents attentively but without taking part. If the revolt went well, they would bless and praise it. However; if it is met with failure, they would address the rebels: did I not tell you that it is sedition.
In my view, they are not hypocrite, however; they are powerless, coward and flunky. They wish the incidents to finish up to resume their lives and in a better condition. They use the term "sedition" to gently justify their attitude.
http://en.islamstory.com/images/stories/articles/362/6416_image003.jpg
The third sect: - they are sincere versed scholars. We do not doubt their good intentions and sincerity. They do adhere to a juristic doctrine that deems it forbidden for two Muslims to face each other with weapon and regards such act sedition that should be avoided. As well, they hold the opinion that it is not permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler as long as he performs the obligatory five prayers and does not act in accordance to disbelief.
As I have already mentioned, this sect includes sincere scholars with a long-term in teaching people. Accordingly, this type attaches a very large number of students seeking the religious knowledge of such scholars.
I may address them all as follows;
Such scholars quote many authentic prophetic traditions in this regard. I do not discuss the authenticity of such a Hadith, however, I will discuss its interpretation and applying it to the incidents.
The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: (When two Muslims draw sword against one another, and one manages to kill the other, both will be put to Hell. The people asked, “O Messenger of Allah! The case is clear as to the killer, but why is the killed treated as such?” The Holy Prophet replied: “He too sought to kill the other party[2]).
The question is that is it the Hell-Fire as an outcome to cases in which two Muslims draw sword against one another, or that there are exceptions? In other words, is that matter restricted or unrestricted?
What is case if an unjust Muslim man wronged me as to my house, wealth or household, hence I defended my self and my household, and accordingly, such man drew his sword to kill me? Am I then required to surrender to killing, let my wealth object to plunder and my household to rape?!
Is not it that the one slain in defending his wealth, faith, honor or household deemed a martyr[3]?
How did the corrupt unjust Muslim regime act?
Did not he plunder our wealth and trifle with our fates?
Did not he jail our relatives and nationals unjustly?
Did not he publicly falsify our votes in the elections?
Did not he plunder the treasure of our lands which turned us to poor, whereas such treasures are directed to people in the governing regime?
Are Muslims who defend their rights and rights of their offspring and nationals equal to those who practice plunder, killing and oppression?!
Is the faithful cultured sect that peacefully calls for their rights equal to that professional bully one?! However, we do believe that both are Muslims.
Moreover, the oppressed sect that entitled to defend its wealth and rights has not the initiative of doing that. On the contrary, it has organized a peaceful protest march asking the unjust party for their rights. This was confronted with live ammunition, bombs, Molotov cocktails, horses, camels, pocketknives, swords, stones and whips. Consequently, the Peaceful party picked up stones to defend themselves and their household.
Is it then suitable to quote the Hadith (When two Muslims draw sword against one another…) to draw resemblance between the two parties?
What is explanation of that Hadith?
Imam Ibn Hajra Al-`Aqalani in Al-Bukhari and Imam An-NAwawi in Sahih Muslim gave comment on this Hadith as follows: It is plain with the least ambiguity that the menace mentioned in the Hadith just concerns the one fighting without admissible reasonable grounds seeking the rule only[4].
I may address this honorable sect: is not there an admissible reasonable ground for such party seeking their licit plundered rights?
I may quote a very valuable words of Imam At-Tabary (May Allah be merciful with him), as deemed a renowned Salafi scholar and needless to profile. Imam At-Tabary stated: if whenever a controversy takes place among Muslims over any issue make them stay at homes and sheathe their swords, the ordained punishments would then be suspended and oppression would not be eliminated which in turn would encourage the dissolute people to plunder people's wealth, shed bloods and ravish Muslim women. On the contrary, Muslims should fight such dissolute party. But if they refrained from confronting them claiming that such condition is sedition and thus they should refrain fighting, then it is an act contradictory to the established enjoining to punish the foolish[5].
Allah is the greatest!
What wonderful words of Imam At-Tabary!
Till when Muslims keep a state of humiliation, disgrace, tameness and peace though the conditions are too bad and the oppression is aggravating?!
Moreover, I may cite an addition related in Al-Bazar that reveals the purpose of the fighting mentioned in the Hadith. Such additions reads: (If Muslims fights each other for a worldly gain, thus both the killer and the killed one will be put to Hell). Imam Al-Qurtubi commented on this Hadith as follows: if fighting among Muslims was mainly based on seeking a worldly gain or for being influenced with their own inclinations, then the Hadith (the killer and the killed one will be put to Hell[6])
http://en.islamstory.com/images/stories/articles/362/6416_image004.jpg
Is it reasonable to claim that the revolt of January 25th was based on seeking the rule or a worldly gain? Or it is that the more to the point is that it was marched to eliminate the injustice and oppression!
Over and above, there is a very admissible ground in the Hadith permits Muslims to defend their rights even if it entailed to use swords (force). This is because the prophet (PBUH) was asked: “O Messenger of Allah! The case is clear as to the killer, but why is the killed treated as such?” The Holy Prophet replied: “He too sought to kill the other party". The prophet clarified that the sinful party is the one keen to kill the other. Thus, is it claimed that such youth were keen to kill those confronting them whether from police or bullies? Indeed, the corrupter government has not claimed that, because the rebels marched with no weapons or any thing to defend themselves.
They marched raising banners claiming for their rights that approved by the Islamic law, the Egyptian constitution, the International conventions and all the venerable globally.
The rebels never were keen to hurt others that if such evil forces were not to act in this manner, no blood drop would be shed in the course of this peaceful revolt.
The rebels, including my self, up to writing this article were constantly keen to declare that it is a peaceful revolt.
The venerable scholars should regard all surrounding conditions and review the views of all Salafi scholars on the related texts. Imam ibn Hajar, An-Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi and At-Tabari are not nameless scholars, however, they are adept and their views are of considerable importance and completely agree with the objectives of Shari`ah and the propositional logic and the sound intellect as well.
Allah forbids! There is the least contradiction to the texts.
Certainly, I know that the matter is not restricted to this Hadith only, however, there are a lot of Hadith that we will discuss and tens of questions I will response to them. To exemplify;
Is it permissible to revolt against the ruler who constantly performs the obligatory prayers?
Is it permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler in general?
Is such revolt described as revolting against the ruler?
Is it permissible to the Muslim ruler to do whatever he will so long as he is a Muslim?
Is it obligatory upon Muslims to seek seclusion over controversial issues?
What is the attitude of `Abdullah ibn `Umar of sedition took place at his time? What is the interpretation of this attitude?
Is the one killed on the rebels hand deemed martyr or otherwise?
What are the goals of the revolt?
What do we seek for Egypt?
Do rebels seek goodness and development or corruption and destruction?
Too many questions revolve in the minds of many. I was asked about them by the youth of revolt during my presence with them in Tahrair square.
God willing, I will give response to them the next article, if my life lasts.
I beseech to Allah to grant dignity to Islam and Muslims.
[1]- Narrated by Imam At-Tirmithi 2007, and he ranked it as Good and Strange Hadith.
[2]- Narrated by Al-Bukhari, 6481.
[3]-"Whoever is slain in defense of his possessions is a martyr. Whoever is slain in defending his faith is a martyr. Whoever is slain in defending his soul is a martyr. Whoever is slain in defending his household is a martyr". It is narrated by imam At-Tirmithi 1421, Iamam Abu-dawud 4772 and Imam An-Nasaie 4095. Al-Albani ranked it as authentic.
[4]- Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari 13/34.
[5]- The previous reference, the same page.
[6]- The previous reference, the same page.