Forbidding Munkar

Indecency (munkar) is everything denounced and prohibited by Shar'a, like neglecting an obligation or committing haram. Forbidding indecency is a divine law (Hukm Shar'ai) prescribed by Allah the Supreme upon all Muslims, whether they are individuals, groups, parties, nation and State. Muslim narrated about Abey Said al-Khodreyy, he said,

''I heard the Prophet (saw) say, 'Whoever of you had seen an indecent thing let him change it by his hand, and if he could not do that let him do that by his tongue, and if he could not do that let him deny it by his heart (i.e. hate it), and this is the weakest (degree of) faith'''.

Allah the Supreme has honoured this nation by making her the best nation that was raised up for mankind as she enjoins the right conduct and forbids indecency, and believes in Allah. He said,

''You are the best nation that hath been raised up for mankind. You enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and you believe in Allah''.

Allah the Supreme has differentiated between the believers and the hypocrites on the basis of enjoining the good conduct and forbidding indecency. He said,

''The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong and they forbid the right (conduct)''.

And He said,

''And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right conduct and forbid the wrong''.

Allah the Supreme has threatened Muslims by punishment if they remained silent about the wrong, and they did not act to change it and remove it. It was narrated about Huthaifa bin Al-Yaman about the Prophet (saw) he said,''(I vow) by the One in Whose hands my soul rests, you have to enjoin right and forbid the wrong, other wise Allah will be about to send upon you a punishment from Him, then you would pray to Him (ask Him) but He would not answer you''.

It was also narrated about Haitham, he said, ''I heard the Prophet (saw) said, 'Any people amongst whom sins are committed, and they could change them but they did not (change), Allah will be about to bring a general (prevalent?) punishment upon them'''.

According to what Ahmed narrated, the Prophet (saw) said, ''Allah will not punish the common people because of the action of particular people, unless (until) they see the wrong among themselves and they are able to change it but they do not. Once they have done that He would punish the particular (distinctive) people and the common people''. So any Muslim who witnesses a wrong thing - any wrong thing - in front of him, he has a duty to work for forbidding it and changing it by one of the three ways mentioned in the tradition (hadeeth) by Abey Said Al-Khudreyy according to his capability, otherwise he would be sinful. Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong is an obligation upon Muslims under all the circumstances, whether the rules applied upon Muslims are Islam rules or the Kufr rules, and whether the ruler perfected the application of Islam rules or he misapplied them. Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong was practised at the time of the Prophet (saw), at the time of the companions (sahaba), at the times of the Followers (Attabeen) and the Followers (Tab'ee at Tab'een); and this law will remain until the Day of Judgement. The wrong (Munkar) may occur by individuals, or groups or by the State. The one who forbids the wrong and changes, it is the state, the individuals and the parties. Originally, in the Islamic State the ruler is the caretaker of the people's affairs by the rules of the Shar'a, and he is responsible by Shar'a to forbid the wrong things, whether they occurred or were practised b individuals or groups.


The Prophet (saw) says, ''Imam is a shepherd (caretaker) and he is responsible about his citizens''. Allah delegated him to force people whether individuals or groups, to
perform all the obligations (duties prescribed upon them by Allah. If the matter requires using the force to compel them to perform these duties, he is obliged to use it. Allah, also, made it obligatory upon him to prevent people from committing the prohibited things. And if the matter requires using the force to prevent them from committing the prohibited things, it is obligatory upon him to use it. So the state is the origin for changing the wrong and removing it by hand, i.e. by force, because it is responsible by Shar'a about application of Islam and compelling them to obey its rules.

In regard with changing the wrong by individuals, the individual who sees a wrong thing in front of him, such as to see a person who drinks alcohol, or steals or he is about to kill somebody or to commit adultery with a woman or any other wrong thing, the it is obligatory upon him to forbid this wrong, and to work for changing it and removing it; and he would be sinful if he failed to do that. If he was able even if most likely - to remove this wrong by his hand then he is obliged to start changing it and removing it. Thus he prevents the person from drinking alcohol, or from stealing, or from killing or from adultery. He has to prevent that and remove it by hand, because he is able to change it by hand, in fulfilment to the saying of the Prophet (saw), ''Whoever of you sees a wrong thing, let him change it by hand (i.e. by force)''. Using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong depends on the actual capability - even if it is most likely - to change this wrong and to remove it by hand. If there was no ability to remove it, then the hand has not to be used, because using it as such would not achieve the aim it is used for, which is changing the wrong and removing it. So the place of using the hand, as mentioned in the hadeeth (tradition) depends on the ability to change the wrong actually. The evidence of this is that the hadeeth (tradition) make a transfer to forbidding the wrong by tongue (words) in case of the inability, i.e. in case of the inability to forbid the wrong and remove it by hand; where it said, ''If he could not then let him forbid it by his tongue''. Forbidding the wrong by tongue is not considered a changing of the wrong, it is rather a charging against the one who commits the wrong, i.e. denouncing his committing of the wrong. If he could not denounce by his tongue, then he has to hate that wrong by his heart and not to accept it. This is in regard with the wrong committed by individuals or groups. But the wrong committed by the ruler, such as he treats unjustly or he takes the properties of the people by wrong, or he prevents the rights or he neglects some of the citizens affairs, or he slacks in performing some of her duties or he disagrees with any of the rules of Islam or any other wrong, then it is obligatory upon all Muslims to take him to task, and deny that of him, and to work (act) to change that, as a nation, an army, parties, and individuals; and they will be sinful by remaining silent about that and by leaving the forbidding of wrong and changing it. Forbidding the wrong and changing on him when he commits some wrong will be by taking him to task by tongue, according to what Muslim narrated about Umm Salama that the Prophet (saw) said, ''There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some other. Whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of responsibility), and who denied he will be safe, but what about those who accepted (their wrong) and followed?''

And it was also narrated by Abdullah bin Mas'oud, he said,
''The Prophet (saw) said, 'Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the good and forbid the wrong, and to hold against the hand of the tyrant, and to force him on the truth truly and to limit him to the truth really, otherwise Allah will hit (drive?) the hearts of some of you against others, then He will curse you as He cursed them''.

Similarly the Prophet (saw) made the saying of truth at the unjust ruler as the best jihad, when he replied the man who asked him, ''Which is the best jihad?'' He said ''The word of truth at the unjust ruler''. Other hadeeths prohibited rebellion by arms against him except in one case which was excluded of the prohibition of armed rebellion against him, that is the case when he shows kufr, upon which there is a proof from Allah that it is undoubtedly a clear open kufr; i.e. if he showed ruling by clear kufr rules, and gave up ruling be the revelation of Allah. Auf bin Malik al Ashj'ayi reported, ''I heard the Prophet (saw) say, 'The best of you Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you and who pray (call Allah to bless you) and you pray for them (call Allah to bless them), and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you.''' He said, ''We said, 'O Prophet of Allah, should we not then declare war on them.' He said, ' No, as long as they establish the prayer among you'''. What is meant by establishing the prayer is ruling by Islam, i.e. applying the rules of Shar'a, on the basis of naming the whole with the name of (its) part.


It was also narrated about Ubada bin As-Samit, he said, ''We gave the pledge (vote) to the Prophet (saw) on hearing and obedience at the difficult and easy situation, on what we like and dislike and on preference over ourselves; and that we have not to dispute the people with their authority, unless you see an open kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah the Supreme; and that we have to say the truth for the sake of Allah''.


The meaning of these three hadeeths, forbids the rebellion with arms against the ruler, except in the case when he does not govern with the revelation of Allah, i.e. in case he ruled with the laws of open kufr, upon which there is undoubted clear proof from Allah that it is kufr. Thereupon, any Muslim ruler who does not govern with the revelation of Allah and governed, instead, with the clear kufr rules, it becomes obligatory upon all Muslims to rebel against him, to remove him from the authority, and to remove the kufr ruling with which he governs and to put in application and execution the rules revealed from Allah. The obligation of rebellion against the ruler with hand depends on the ability to remove him, and removing the clear kufr rules by the physical power - even if it was (only) most likely - because using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong matters - depends on the capability to remove the wrong actually by that force. So the place of action of the hadeeth which makes it obligatory to use the hand for changing the wrong, and the place of action of the two hadeeths which makes it obligatory to rebel with arms against the ruler who governs with the kufr laws are dependent on the capability of the physical power to change the wrong and the clear kufr and to remove it actually, even if it was most likely. But if the physical power was not capable actually, or most likely, to change the wrong and the kufr laws and to remove them actually, then it has not to be used, because its use then does not fulfill the aim for which the shari'a obliged using it, which is changing the wrong, and the kufr laws and removing them actually. At such situation, forbidding the wrong would be by tongue, and at the same time, effort has to be made to increase the power (force) so as to become capable - even if most likely - to change the wrong and the kufr laws actually, and at such point it has to be used. The whole nation (Ummah), if unified its will, and the army with the physical (material) power which it possesses, and the large tribes which have the influence and the force (power), and the political parties which have great effective power in the army or in the large tribes or in the nation (Ummah), each one of these, once it possessed the capability to remove the ruler who governs with the clear kufr laws, and he does not govern with the rules of Islam, it becomes obligatory upon it by Shari'a to rebel against that ruler, so as to remove him, and to remove the kufr laws, and to restore the rule with the revelations of Allah. This is one of ten fundamental laws of Islam, which we found a duty upon us to communicate to the people, so that they become aware of their matter according to its guidance. Surely Allah will fulfill His matter, but most of the people know not.

If removal of the transgressing ruler leads to the complete implementation of Islam, then rebelling against the ruler is permitted. In this context, the capability refers to the capability of implementing Islam. To rebel against a corrupt in order to replace him with another corrupt ruler (who does not implement Islam) is not permissible because rebelling becomes permitted only if the capability to remove the munkar (absence of Islam) entirely. Therefore, the only way forward is to change the munkar by tongue. The munkaraat of our times are the rulers, political parties, kufr thoughts and kufrl emotions.


Freelance Activist

*

No comments: