By Babatunde Jose
They did not offend God; they go to church on Sundays and attend the Jummah on Fridays. As poor as they are, they pay their tithe and offer sadaka to the poor and needy when they can afford it. They keep the commandments. They stay up at night to supplicate to God to cushion their plight and sometimes offer propitiation to the African gods. The churches, especially the new-age churches are filled to the brim with them. They form more than 90% of congregants in our mosques. But they remain the forgotten, poor, the dredge of society, hewers of wood and drawers of water. They are the forgotten and they remain forgotten.
In their inner minds, they ask God why He has forsaken them. Their plight leads to a revisit of the thorny issue of Theodicy; an attempt to answer the question, why God allows suffering, why supposedly Benevolent and Omnipotent God allows their plight which is capable of shaking the foundation of their faith. In desperation they would cry out as in Matthew 27:46 “Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani.”
Here are people who wake up at 4am in order to prepare to go to offices that open at 8am. If they fail to get there, their fate is sealed; they lose their job and might never get another. Early risers see them at the bus stations in the worst of early morning weather, rain, or mist, with little or no protection against the elements. Yet, they are always punctual and never late. Yet, they work for pittance; a minimum wage that cannot fill the fuel tank of a Camry. They are the wretched of the earth, the ‘agbale oja’, road sweepers. Some engage in subsistence farming which no longer subsists them. However, today they are part of our swelling army of unemployed. Poor, with no visible means of livelihood: Moving without motion.
Soon, they will find no answer to their questions and no leaders to ameliorate their wretched conditions and they will revolt. It will be spontaneous and unprovoked because they need no more provocation. They have had enough. If they do, there are historical precedents.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. – John F. Kennedy.
Notable historical revolutions would include: The French Revolution which began in May 1789 when the Ancien Régime was abolished in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Its replacement in September 1792 by the First French Republic led to the execution of Louis XVI in January 1793, and an extended period of political turmoil. This culminated in the appointment of Napoleon as First Consul in November 1799, which is generally taken as its end point. Many of its principles are now considered fundamental aspects of modern Liberal democracy.
The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social insurgency across the territory of the Russian Empire, commencing with the abolition of the monarchy in 1917 and concluding in 1923 with the Bolshevik establishment of the Soviet Union at the end of the Civil War.
The Reformation was a major movement within Western Christianity in 16th-century Europe that posed a religious and political challenge to the Catholic Church and in particular to papal authority; it was a revolt against Papal theocracy, ecclesiastical privileges, and the hereditary paganism of the Mediterranean races. The Reformation was the start of Protestantism and the split of Protestantism from the Roman Catholic Church.
One area of concern has been the notion that Islam forbids protest and rebellion against rulers. However, Allah would never in His infinite knowledge and power encourage nor acquiesce to oppression; hence we find it totally abhorrent when Islamic scholars posit the claim that Islam forbids protest and rebellion against corrupt leaders.
Such claims are not only tendentious, vexatious, unethical, and unsupported by the Holy Book and Islamic history.
The presence of so many hadiths which forbid obeying a corrupt and perverted ruler are not supported by the Holy Qur’an and are all fabrications.
These hadiths were forged by the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid dynasties for the sake of justifying their perverted and oppressive conducts.
One of the issues about which the Sunnis and the Imamate Shias differ is obedience to a corrupt ruler or submission to a tyrannical government.
For most Sunnis, the caliph cannot be dismissed and removed from office, even if he is corrupt and perverted. The only thing Muslims can do is to advise him to change his corrupt ways.
In contrast, the Imamate Shias not only regard obeying a tyrannical and corrupt ruler not to be permitted but consider it to be forbidden (haram) by Islamic law to submit to such a leader. In certain circumstances, it is even obligatory (wajib) to revolt against a tyrannical ruler.
What can be inferred from the reasons put forward by those who oppose revolting against a corrupt and perverted caliph is that preserving political and social structures of the Caliphate is binding and incumbent on followers. However, this is not true as it tends to perpetuate oppression and tyranny.
The only political system that must be preserved is a government whose leader is just and acts according to Allah’s orders as prescribed in the Quran. However, if the political system rules ‘in the name of Islam’ but its leaders are corrupt and perverted, then conserving such a structure is not supported.
There are many edicts or fatwas issued by Sunnis about obeying corrupt and oppressive rulers, among them are the following:
1. That the sultan and caliph cannot be dismissed from office, even though he is corrupt…” Nuwi, Sharh Sahih Muslim, vol. 12, p. 229.
2. Qadi Abu Bakr Baqilani writes, ‘it is not permitted to revolt against him’. The Muslims can only go so far as to advise and warn him about the negative consequences of his actions. It is of course not binding upon the people to obey him when he invites them to participate in his sinful actions, but they cannot dismiss him from office.
There are several narrations which assert that it is incumbent to obey an imam and caliph, even though he might be an oppressor or even if he forcibly usurps and seizes people’s property. Because the Prophet (SAW) has said, ‘Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is a slave with a flat nose or an Ethiopian.” Baqillani, Al-Tamhid.
However, some scholars have opposed this point of view, and instead believe that a corrupt ruler should not be obeyed. Some of those who have opposed obeying the corrupt ruler are Mawardi in his book “Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, p17; ‘Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi in his book “Usul al-Din” p278; Ibn Hazm Zahiri in his book “Al-Fisal fi al-Millal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal”; vol. 4, p. 175 and Jurjani in his book “Sharh al-Mawaqif”, vol. 8, p. 353.
Other opposing views are held by the Mu‘tazilites, the Khawarij, the Zaydis, and a number of other sects. They even say that it is incumbent to revolt against an oppressive ruler. They have resorted to the following Quranic verses to buttress their claim,
“… and help one another in goodness and piety…” Surah al-Ma’idah 5:2.
“… but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah’s command…” Surah al-Hujurat 49:9.
“… My covenant does not include the unjust.” Surah al-Baqarah 2:124.
It can be understood from Quranic verses that the Imamate and caliphate are not bestowed upon or granted to oppressive and corrupt people, and that if the ruler is a corrupt man, it is not at all permissible to obey him. The following parts of the Quran will suffice to buttress our point: Surah al-Baqarah 2:124; Surah Yunus 10:35; Surah Hud 11:113; Surah al-Ma’idah 5:4; Surah al-Qalam 68:8; Surah al-Qalam 68:10; Surah al-Ahzab 33:48; Surah al-Shu‘ara’ 26:151,152; Surah Insan (or Jathiyah) 76:24; Surah al-Kahf 18:28.
We must realize that every hadith must be compared with the Holy Qur’an; if it is contradictory to the verses of the Holy Qur’an, it cannot be considered authentic because all Muslims believe the Holy Qur’an to be the final word on the matter.
Finally, there is obvious contradiction and disagreement between hadiths which prohibit following a corrupt ruler and those which say that it is incumbent to follow the Muslim ruler whether he is corrupt or not.
In accordance with the law of incongruity, the final judge is Allah’s Book, the Holy Quran: And the Quran will always be in support of revolting against a system that has failed the people in all materials particular: They were voted in thinking they would bring the desired change to our country, we hope the renewal of hope will not turn to a forlorn hope.
We look forward to reconfiguring the healthcare system, electricity, schools, and general welfare, since all these, they provide for themselves at the expense of the commonwealth. Upon all these, we hope the conclave will not renew the looting of our patrimony. Most important of all, we look forward to the reduction of poverty in the land.
Even the Holy Prophet proclaimed: “Any man who Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise.”
Barka Juma’at and a happy weekend.
