Was Zaid Ibrahim un-Islamic in challenging the ruler?
The critics of Zaid question his Islamic credentials just because he is perceived to have challenged the actions of a ruler. If these people only knew that good Muslims are those who dare question their rulers at the risk of death.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Royals must display exemplary manners for the public
Royal families should display an exemplary image to prevent the people from being disappointed by the royal institution, said Information Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.
“If the institution is in a mess, the people will lose faith,” he said when commenting on the current dispute in Kelantan royal house.
Commenting on certain quarters becoming more daring to question the instruction of the Sultan and the Ruler, as well as the conflict of the monarchy, Rais said authorities should take action against them.
“They should take immediate action against those who try to violate and degrade the monarchy,” he said after presenting certificates of appreciation to contributors for the Coffin Exhibition at the National Museum yesterday.
“What is important is how we can guarantee Article 181, 153 and 152 of the Federal Constitution relating to the power of the monarch, and Article 38 and 43 concerning the role of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the supreme monarch in the country.
“There should be a law that will enable immediate action to be taken if the institution were to be degraded,” he said. — The Star
*************************************************
Imam Ghazali, Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (1058–1111), is regarded as the greatest Muslim after Prophet Muhammad. If not for the fact that Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad was God’s last prophet, Imam Ghazali would probably also be regarded as a prophet.
I am not going to talk too much about Imam Ghazali, but for those who want to know more about one of Islam’s greatest men, please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
The other great imams of Islam are Shafi’i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Shafi’i), Malik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Malik), Abu Hanifa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Abu_Hanifa) and Hanbal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Hanbal). Basically, these are the great imams who founded the four main ‘schools’ of Islam — Shafi’i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi’i), Maliki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki), Hanafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi) and Hanbali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali).
South East Asian Muslims, Malays included, are Sunni Muslims from the Shafi’i school of Islam.
Okay, today is not a story about the history or life of the great imams of Islam. In fact, there are more than just these five but I mentioned these particular imams because the four main schools of Islam (plus Sufism, etc.) can be attributed to these people. Today, I want to talk about what these imams had in common and their stand on the monarchy and the rulers.
Many of these imams, not just the five above, dared criticise or oppose the rulers of their day. And some were put to death because of it. So, these imams have taught us that criticising or opposing the rulers do not mean we are un-Islamic.
One of Imam Ghazali’s greatest works was titled ‘at-Tibr al-Masbuk fi Nasihat al-Muluk’ or ‘Ingots of Gold for the Advice of Kings’. (The word nasihat is also used in Bahasa Malaysia to mean advice). The Nasihat, or Advice, is part of a larger genre of political writings by Imam Ghazali, which dealt with issues of political authority at the time. The Nasihat was addressed to the Seljuq government and its administration. Imam Ghazali dealt with a variety of subjects in the Nasihat, such as the qualities required in kings, the character of ministers and deputies, and intelligence.
Imam Ghazali places the burden of establishing the right model of conduct squarely on the shoulders of the king. In other words, management’s example will either create an exceptional organisation or a corrupt one. In the Nasihat, he tells us, “If a king is upright… his officials will be upright, but if he is dishonest, negligent, and comfort-seeking…officers implementing his policies will soon become slothful and corrupt.”
And as for Imam Ghazali’s stand on the monarchs, you can read what I previously said about the matter in my article called Let the Imam do the talking (read here: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/27925/84/). And remember, this was what the great Imam Ghazali told us, a man who many consider second to Prophet Muhammad.
Imam Abu Hanifa was offered the post of Chief Kadi (judge) but he refused the position because he wanted to remain independent. The ruler was so angered with the reason given for not accepting the position that he jailed Imam Abu Hanifa. Imam Abu Hanifa was tortured and died in prison and is considered one of the great imams of Islam, the founder of the Hanafi school of Islam.
Imam Malik was another imam who opposed the ruler and attracted controversy when he refused to issue religious verdicts and was very outspoken against the rulers.
Imam Malik issued various fatwa (decrees) that forbid Muslims from pledging allegiance to the Caliph Al-Mansur — and for that the ruler had him flogged. Caliph Al-Mansur later apologised to Imam Malik and offered him money and a home in Baghdad. Imam Malik, however, declined the offer.
The famous Abbasid Caliph, Harun-ar-Rashid (remember The Arabian Nights or 1001 Nights?), asked Imam Malik to visit him while he was performing his hajj in Mekah. Imam Malik refused to pay homage to the caliph and instead invited the new caliph to come to his religious class.
I am talking about the great imams of Islam. And we must analyse how they conducted themselves when faced with the powerful rulers of their time who had power of life and death over their subjects. But these imams chose jail, torture, and even death, rather than kowtow to their rulers.
This was what the great imams taught Muslims in how to live their lives.
Imams Malik and Abu Hanifa were not the only ones who did not kowtow to their ruler. Imam Hanbal, when called before the Inquisition of the Abassid Caliph, al-Ma’mun, refused to back down on the issue of whether the Quran was created rather than uncreated. In short, he opposed the ruler at the risk of death and would not budge on his principles.
And so the list goes on, the stories about how the famous imams of Islam opposed their rulers and sometimes paid for this defiance with their lives. They were offered money and important positions and they turned them all down even if that offended the rulers.
Umno wants Zaid Ibrahim banished or exiled from Selangor for his alleged act of treason against the Sultan. Bigger men than Zaid, the great imams of Islam, have suffered a worse fate than that. Umno says that Zaid is a traitor not only to the Sultan but also to his race as well as to Islam. Were the great imams of Islam also traitors to Islam because they too opposed their rulers? If so, then why are they today considered the great imams of Islam? They should instead be shunned as traitors to Islam?
In a way, Rais Yatim, in his statement above, has admitted that the Royalty families have not been behaving the way they should, although he was more diplomatic and less abrasive in his choice of words. Nevertheless, Rais Yatim did say: ‘Royal families should display an exemplary image to prevent the people from being disappointed by the royal institution… if the institution is in a mess, the people will lose faith’. This is another way of saying: behave yourself or else the people will get fed up of you.
Maybe Rais Yatim did not ‘whack’ the Rulers, the way I would normally do. But he did caution the Rulers to start behaving properly lest the people ‘lose faith’ in them. Telling the rulers where they are wrong whenever they happen to be wrong is not an un-Islamic thing to do. On the contrary, it is what Islam asks us to do. And it is what the great imams of Islam also did.
When Umar was about to be made the new Caliph, he was asked what guarantees do the people have that he would be a just and fair ruler? What if he deviates from the trust the people put in him? Umar replied by taking out his sword and placing it on the floor and said that if he violates the trust the people put in him then take his sword and remove his head from his shoulders.
Yes, Umar, the great Caliph whom the Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, spoke about volunteered to have his head lobbed off, with his own sword on top of that. Are the Malaysian monarchs greater than Umar that we can’t utter even a few words when they err?
The critics of Zaid question his Islamic credentials just because he is perceived to have challenged the actions of a ruler. If these people only knew that good Muslims are those who dare question their rulers at the risk of death. But then many Muslims do not bother to study the history of Islam, in particular the history of the great imams of Islam. If they did then they would know that one of our obligations, mandatory as a Muslim, is to keep our rulers and leaders in check.
And this was exactly what Zaid did.
