We are literally taken captive by ill-educated muslims who only apply verbatim texts of the Quran and the Sunnah not only without any contextualization but also failing to know and have the juristic tools on how to map that context with the context of ours. Any scholar who wrote a book on Shariahs applicability in any time and place (Salahiyatush-Shariah fee kulli makaan wa-zamaan) will tell you that it is not because the texts will get magically mapped into any given time and place, but rather they provide the principles which will tell us how it would adapt when new situations - or in the Islamic legal term - the Nawaazil or the Mustajiddat - arives. That is why the scholars have developed the mother of all juristic disciplines - Usool al-Fiqh i.e. Fundamentals of Jurisprudence (in Islam). Take the Charlie Hebdo case. These guys are already circulating a fatwa from a famous fatwa website which identifies the punishment of slandering the Prophet (pbuh). This is a classic case of not understanding the difference between a definitive ruling and an executive fatwa. A definitive ruling only tells you the intent of the Law-giver (the Shaari in Arabic) i.e. Allah in absolute sense. On the other hand a fatwa is an application in real time which doesnt only consider the intent of the Law-giver but also takes into account the current possible scenarios. While the Hukm tells you what is ideal, the fatwa brings you back to reality telling you the pros and cons. This is why every hukm (specially the ones dealing with Takfeer, Riddah or Shatm i.e., slandering Allah and His Messenger in our context) needs to be filtered by a mufti giving a fatwa who needs to check that the hukm or the ideal ruling has the specific conditions (shuroot), the prerequisites (dawafi) and the hindrances (mawani) which may facilitate or restrict the ideal ruling to be applied. Question is why would we want to restrict an absolute ideal ruling/hukm. That is because there are many ideal situations and often they get tumbled in a trade off situation. Take an example, some of the Sahaba wanted to kill some proven hypocrites (keep in mind hypocrites or munafiqoon are those who outwardly claim to be muslims while harboring hatred and plotting inside). We all know that the prophet (pbuh) forbade them saying if they killed the hypocrites general people would start saying that Muhammad kills his own men. Point to be noted, its not that the Messsenger (pbuh) disagreed that the ideal hukm or the intent of the law-giver should be to kill the hypocrites but that the application of this ideal would do a disservice to a bigger ideal which is to keep the public have a confidence and good feeling about Islam. Another easy example. In a hadith the prophet (pbuh) told us that if it would not be difficult upon the ummah he would prescribe teeth brushing before every wudu or salah. Point to be noted again, the original intent of the lawgiver i.e., Allah is that we brush teeth before every wudu and Salah. Yet this one ideal is not made obligatory because it conflicts with another bigger ideal or Intent (Maqsad), that is to alleviate difficulty (mashaqqah) of the ummah. So it is not enough for our naive brothers to only circulate a fatwa stating a general hukm of what is the original intent of the Lawgiver. They have to convince us that this ideal can be or should be applied in the Charlie Hebdo situation by stating us that it has passed all the conditions, prerequisites, hindrances. They have to prove that by applying this particular ideal they are not violating a bigger ideal. Its a long known principle in Islam that when you have to accept one of two goods it is wajib to accept the better good and when the trade off is between two evils (as in you are forced to accept one of them) then you are bound to accept the lesser evil. Do our brothers who are unfortunately faking knowledge in the guise of emotional literature, satire and contextless fatwa and quotation spewing have the necessary training, education and erudition to take that call? A primary objective of criminal jurisprudence in Islam (Fiqhul-Jinayah) is that sentence is supposed to work as a deterrent. The simple common sense rule we have to apply here is - will the killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists stop what we wanted to stop - that is defamation of the Prophet (pbuh) in our particular situation? I dont even bother to reply. Let the reality guide you. People with no education in Islam believe they have done enough just by quoting a specific ruling or fatwa, what they dont understand that the specific rulings i.e. the juziyyaat are supposed to be guided by the general principles (the kulliyaat), because they are meant for achieving general benefits. Thus the saying well known in Islamic jurisprudence - Where there is a benefit, there lies the Law of Allah (Haithu wujidat maslaha thamma sharu-llah). Where is the benefit? Rather where is even the consideration of benefit. Is vengeance alone justifies as a benefit? Which sane mind accepts that? For the life of me I cant understand that we must realize that we are not protecting a liar or a false Prophet. The only reason you want to use fear to protect honor is because there is no honor to protect at the first place. We are dealing the best man ever and we can bloody back that up. His stories are for ours to tell and for the world to listen. What has happened to Hikmah and Mawidhatul-Hasanah? We don;t apply that because we have chickened out, We do that because we are man enough to control ourselves and preach people of Islam. This is a message to all the sane muslims out there having their resolve and gather. Do not let the brainless delude you with their fiery rhetorics. Be the sanest people on earth. We are the Khulafaa and shuhadaa on this earth. We fight for a reason and we abandon fight for a reason - that is to uphold the Kalimah of Allah Azza wajall.
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:51:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015