Thought for the day . . . . TFTD.ws

Open to interpretation

TFTD: Cherie Blair today blamed the "twin distortions of culture and religion" for the inequality and lack of rights from which many women suffered today, and said that religion is "open to interpretation", and is "only as good as the people who operate it".

Q: Leaving aside her wider agenda for now, to what extent would you say there is truth in those two statements?

"I hereby appoint ..."

TFTD: According to some, it is perfectly legitimate for the incumbent ruler, towards the end of his life, to select and appoint the person to succeed him as khalifah, and to command the people to pledge to "hear and obey", as was the case with the successor to Abu Bakr (ra).

Q: Is it acceptable for a state constitution to permit the incumbent to select and appoint his successor, or even to enforce one person as a sole nominee (as some would rather put it)?

An Amir from us, and an Amir from you

TFTD: After the death of the Prophet (saas), the Ansaar held a private meeting at the Saqeefah of Banu Sa'idah and were about to unilaterally pledge allegiance to their tribal leader, had it not been for the last minute intervention of (uninvited) Abu Bakr and Umar (ra).

What ensued was far from a dignified debate about the various Islamic evidences concerning the conditions of the bay'ah; even according to the Sunni version of events, a bitter and tense partisan altercation took place during which swords were drawn. According to the Shia, it was part of a sinister plot to usurp power from Ahl-ul-Bayt, the only rightful and legitimate successors to the Prophet (saas).

Q: Isn't it a bit rich to claim there was any form of Ijma' (consensus) on the manner in which successive rulers are appointed?

Keeping it in the family

TFTD: Despite being in critical need of support & protection, the Prophet (saas) refused the offer of the tribe of Banu Amir Bin Sa'sa'ah, as this was conditional upon leadership passing to them after him (or so the narration goes). The Prophet's response was decisive in rejecting the monopoly of power by any one tribe.

This issue of the selection of subsequent rulers after the Prophet's death was clearly one taken seriously by everyone, even at that early stage, no doubt about that.

Q: Why is it then that in the 13 years that followed this incident, there is not a SINGLE documented incident where the Prophet spells out HOW future rulers are to be selected/appointed?

Isn't it ironic that the only thing to have been said about the issue in the 13 years since the snubbing of Banu Sasaa was to (apparently) restrict the caliphate to one tribe (Quraish) - a legal view adopted by all 4 main schools of thought?

"by the Book of Allah.."

TFTD: The text of the bay'aah (oath of appointment) of the Khulafaa' Rashidoon (rightly-guided caliphs) is explicit in stating that the basis for their rule must be "the Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of His Messenger".

Q: In the face of such definitive evidence, how can anyone claim the Quran is not concerned with ruling?

"O Ummah Council"

TFTD:  We have (in previous TFTD's) established the following facts:

a) all authority in an Islamic State lies (effectively, but not in origin) in the hands of the ruler,

b) the ruler, in dispensing this authority, has a duty to legislate, and in some areas he is at liberty to do so without the need for ijtihad, and

c) the ruler is entitled to delegate any or all of his powers and duties to others.

Q: Is it permissible for the khalifah to delegate the act of enacting laws in such areas (of permissibility) to his council of representatives, to propose, debate, amend and vote on appropriate bills prior to becoming law?

Legislation's my middle name

TFTD: Yesterday's TFTD made the important point that when it comes to laws relating to matters which are in the ruler's remit of permissible actions, the ruler may legislate using the mind alone. He thus not only has the right to legislate, he becomes the legislator, because he writes instructions which become law. In this case, man (the khalifah) is the legislator.

Q: Does anyone have an issue with that?

Anything goes?

TFTD: If a political matter is not addressed specifically by any Islamic text, but rather falls under the "permissible" category, the ruler is at liberty to address this matter by passing legislation of his choice that fulfills whatever benefit he chooses.

Q: Is legislating in this manner ...

a) ruling by what Allah revealed?
b) ruling by other than what Allah revealed?
c) separation of religion from ruling?   or
d) a form of administration, not ruling?

"World wounded by conflicts"

Pope Benedict XVI has urged world religious leaders not to allow God's name to be used to justify violence. "In a world wounded by conflicts, where violence is justified in God's name, it's important to repeat that religion can never become a vehicle of hatred, it can never be used in God's name to justify violence...On the contrary, religions can and must offer precious resources to build a peaceful humanity, because they speak about peace in the heart of man" the Pope told the gathering.

Q: Was he just trying to distort the Islamic concept of Jihad?

"I get by - with a little help..."

TFTD: The Islamic State is basically embodied in one man: the khalifah, who holds absolute authority over the executive, legislature and judiciary (bound, of course, by the Shariah). This one man is at liberty, however, to delegate parts of his authority to others, who together with the khalifah, form the state structure. For example, he may choose to delegate aspects of ruling to governors, and may appoint judges to judge on his behalf.

Q: What then happened to "Islam defines a specific and detailed structure for the state"?