Yamin Zakaria at Al-Jazeerah (not the Qatari TV station) takes issue with the recent knighthood of the Muslim Council of Britain’s Iqbal Sacranie — and with the very idea that a Muslim can have allegiance to a non-Muslim state. Sacranie and MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala should refute this article using Islamic texts — if they can — if they don’t want young Muslims in Britain to be swayed by it. But 10 to 1 they just ignore it.
The problem is not so much that he is saying that Allah’s law supersedes human law, but that the content of that law is so much in opposition with Western norms and values. How long will Britain and other Western countries survive without facing up to that opposition?
“Knights and Lords of the ‘Muslim Council of Britain’ in Service of Whom?” from Al-Jazeerah (thanks to Nicolei):
“Although those with narrow minded view point may seek to rebel in France, and I think a very tiny number of school girls have still defied the ban but the vast majority have obeyed it…” (Inayat Bunglawala — Secretary, Media Committee of MCB)
These are the words of a leading member of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), who are supposed to be the voice of the Muslim community in the UK. In reality, the MCB was setup by the British government and (one might question whether) the government contributes substantial funding towards it.
Only someone who is Islamically-illiterate or a belligerent enemy would scorn Muslims for striving to uphold Islamic commandments (Sharia laws) as “narrow-minded” or “rebellious”. Had the likes of Kilroy-Silk, Richard LittleJohn, Melanie Phillips or Polly Toynbee uttered those words, it would have been understandable; and expected because they have said much worse about Islam and Muslims. But, how can such hateful anti-Islamic rhetoric emanate from the spokesman of the MCB, Inayat Bunglawala.
Even someone with an elementary education in Islam would know that countless verses of the Holy Quran and numerous Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet (SAW)), confirm that rewards of heaven (paradise) in the Hereafter for those who abide by the Sharia laws; especially when one is striving to fulfil them under hardship. We are talking about something as fundamental and well-established as Khimar (Hijab, Islamic scarf) that is worn by the Muslim women all over the world from the inception of Islam. If the MCB claims to be a voice for Muslims at the very least one would expect its prominent members to defend the basic core values of Islam, in the face of an attack by the non-Muslims and even remaining relatively silent or neutral is unacceptable.
However, to the contrary, the courageous sisters in France were mocked by the MCB “˜man” (Inayat Bunglawala) instead of coming to their defence! A clear sign of treachery and cowardice! The MCB to date has not reprimanded “˜him” nor have they officially voiced their opposition to the despicable words uttered by Inayat Bunglawala in the same public forum in which he spoke, for all to observe. Therefore, “˜he” (Inayat Bunglawala) must be either a belligerent enemy of Islam like those newspaper “˜columnists” and/or Islamically-illiterate.
Now you get the classic spin, as many would claim that words of Inayat Bunglawala were expressed in “˜his” personal capacity and nothing to do with the MCB as an organisation. But surely, even the personal opinions of a leading member of the organisation cannot run contrary to the core values of the organisation. Just like a Rabbi cannot occupy a post within the leadership of an Islamic organisation! Either the Rabbi is not genuine or the organisation is not Islamic in nature.
Any Muslim passed the age of puberty knows that any order to commit a sin (Haram) is invalid, and should be disobeyed even it comes from an Imam, let alone an infidel. Even many non-Muslims view our sisters in France for wearing the Khimar, in defiance of the French government, with admiration instead of scorning them as “narrow minded”. So, why the MCB allows this “˜man” (Inayat Bunglawala) to utter such outrageous words with impunity that are deeply offensive to the Muslims and contrary to the basic teaching of Islam?…
Obeying the “Law of the Land” or the Islamic Sharia?
“˜Mufti” Inayat invoked a principle in support of his claim that the Muslim women in France are obliged to obey the French law, therefore they should not wear the Khimar as prescribed by the Quran; otherwise it is a sign of rebellion and constitutes being a “narrow minded” person. Inayat Bunglawala stated that: “Even if the law of the land contradicts the Sharia then you still have to obey the law of the land or you get out of the land, go some where else where you are able to live by the Sharia.”
According to this form of reasoning, if the French government ordered the women to wear a bikini in schools, the Muslims women should also obey the “law-of-the-land”. Likewise, if the government forced the recognition of gay marriages on mosques, then that too should be obeyed under the same principle; and according to Inayat Bunglawala’s argument it would be “˜Islamic”. Oh really? I am sure by now most Muslims, or even the non-Muslim readers, can see the sheer idiocy of this sort of argument. Something emanating from a non-Islamic source by definition cannot be Islamic, especially when the two positions are in contradiction.
There is no such principle within Islam that says you have to obey any laws other than what Allah (SWT) has revealed. It is outrageous to claim that the “law-of-the-land” supersedes the Sharia laws, if so then what value and authority does the Sharia laws have? Who then has primacy, the Creator or the created? You cannot make the servant the master over his Lord. Common sense and logic tells us that our Lord could not have ordered us to obey Him and then ordered us to disobey him if the “law of the land” contradicts it? One cannot obey and disobey the same authority simultaneously. To legitimise obedience to anyone or anything else, other than Allah (SWT), is a clear act of major Shirk (polytheism) and Kufr (disbelief) which takes ! one out of the fold of Islam.
Living under the authority of the non-Muslims, we are permitted to “˜obey” (observe) and disobey their laws depending upon the circumstances, but the precise explanation for the possible scenarios is as follows:
a) If the authority commands us to commit an act that is explicitly forbidden or to abstain from an Islamic obligation, then we are obliged to give total disobedience and offer maximum resistance within our capabilities; that is the basic principle. However, due to the implication in terms of facing duress from the authority, for example prison sentences, individuals will be permitted (not obliged) to obey the rules. But for those who strive against the evil, even up to martyrdom, will be rewarded. They are praise-worthy and most definitely not “narrow minded”.
b) There are laws that have been enacted by the non-Islamic authority which could also have been enacted within the Islamic state, such as collection of taxes, we are permitted to observe these laws, if we are able to, out of respect, and maintaining harmony and to prevent harm from falling upon the Muslim community as a whole and harming the cause of Islamic propagation (Dawa). However, note that we are permitted to observe these laws from the Sharia, but it is not mandatory, unless the above-mentioned reasons are applicable.
c) There are laws that have permitted actions that are not sanctioned by Islam; we are not permitted to commit these acts, as for example engaging in gambling, drinking, fornication etc. The principle of obeying the, “law-of-the-land”, would permit those actions of major sins that are explicitly forbidden by the Islamic texts. Because even observing non-mandatory laws display a form of obedience to the “law-of-the-land”.
d) Finally, those laws that consanguine with the Sharia, as an example the prohibition to cause nuisance to your neighbours. We observe these laws out of the Sharia obligations not because we should obey the “law-of-the-land” but because obedience is only to Allah (SWT) and to claim that we should obey other than Allah (SWT) is a clear act of Shirk (polytheism)!
As Muslims, our allegiance is only to Allah (SWT) and His messenger and the Muslim Ummah (community). This is something expected from any community, Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc each would observe allegiance to their own community. So expecting the MCB to show its allegiance towards the Muslims is not only natural but demanded by the Sharia very clearly.
The obvious implication is that we are prohibited from fighting against Muslims in alliance with the non-Muslims. For those who fought under the American flag in the first Gulf war committed a clear act of Kufr and apostasy. May Allah (SWT) give them their just reward in this life and the hereafter. Similarly those Muslims joining up to fight fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq have committed similar acts of highest treachery, Kufr and apostasy.
Read it all. As with Zarqawi’s recent letter justifying the killing of Muslims in his operations, this is a detailed Islamic argument. Those who profess Islamic moderation should refute it if they can, and if they really wish their views to prevail in the Islamic community. But again and again they don’t do this — now why is that?