What for are the Islamic scholars in the People's Majlis?

25/11/2005 |AOL

The Maldivian scholars and their position towards the government has always remained obscure. On one hand, they claim the current ruling system is invalid and equivalent to Pharoah's rule. On the other hand, the same scholars are ready to be a part of this Pharoah's ruling system and enhance one of the components (legislative body) of the ruling structure by participating in the Majlis. When asked for an explanation regarding this contradiction, their responses are even more obscure and sounds like the logic of Greek philosophers. Here is the most oft repeated arguments used to justify and cover their confused stance

''Never mind the ruling system is not Islamic. We will try our best to ensure that non-Islamic legislations are never passed by the Majlis''

To understand the crux of the issue, we have to develop an understanding on the reality of Islamic legislations. What
is an Islamic legislation and how does it differ from a manmade legislation? One of the erroneous thoughts carried by the scholars is that a legislation is Islamic as long as it does not contradict the Shariah. This is wrong from many angles. An Islamic legislation is a legislation that emanates from Quran and Sunnah based on a specific method. A legislation passed by the component of a Pharoah's ruling system (as claimed by the scholars) cannot be Islamic even if the legislation is similar to a Islamic legislation. For instance there are several legislations passed by the Western democracies which maybe similar to Islam. However they are manmade legislations because they emanate from a secular reference point and doctrine. In some Western countries, cocaine has been banned by legislations and alcohol was banned in the US during 1930s. These rulings may appear 'similar' to the Islamic ruling on intoxicants, yet they cannot be construed as Islamic legislations. Therefore, what matters is the not end ruling, but the basis from which legislation emanates and the basis upon which the legislation is adopted. In the Majlis meetings, we all aware that laws are not passed based on the Quran and Sunnah. The processes leading to the passing of a legislation does not involve discussions on the evidences from the Quran or Hadith and their linkage to the topic. Almost every law is simply an agreement arrived by the MPs after a debate based on their personal prejudices and filmmaking experience. So, the decision of the scholars to participate in the ruling structure of the Pharoah's system (as they claim) and trying to prevent the enactment of Non-Islamic legislations reeks of superficiality.
The Muslim scholars in the 'anti' camp are also known to give superficial arguments regarding their involvement in this Machiavellian political arena. Most of their arguments are based on a specific discipline of thinking known as Logic (mantiq). This type of thinking inherited from the Greek philosophers is built upon the use of semantics and terminology that leads a person to reach specific results. Logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.
The use of logic in Islamic jurisprudence and politics may lead to disastrous conclusions. The so called Islamic evidence given by the scholars to support the permissibility of their involvement in the 'anti' camp is actually derived from logic. Here is how they reach this false conclusion:

Major Premise : Islam orders us to struggle against tyranny

Minor Premise :'Anti' camp is working against the tyranny of '27 years'.

Based on the relationship between these premises, the scholar conclude that 'anti' camp's political struggle is indeed Islamic. The fallacy of this conclusion came from the fallacy of the second argument because it is crystal clear 'anti' camp is not working to establish Islam. The rivalry between 'anti' camp and government is a competition to determine who is capable of ruling according to the modern democratic system. Using the same twisted logic, anyone can argue that American attack on Iraq is an Islamic endeavor because Saddam was a nasty tyrant.

That is to say, no matter who rules, if the basis of legislations does not change, the ruling system is still invalid and there are no Islamic evidences to support the permissibility to work for a false solution. Has Islam ordered to change a invalid system to another invalid system where the only difference is that latter is 'elected' by the people ?

Conclusion

The political solution for Muslims prescribed in the Islamic texts is a unified vision for all Muslims. We are not ordered to work for disparate solutions based on geography such as 'Maldivian Islam'. The Islamic texts do not mentioned the tyranny of '27 years' but defined tyranny as the absence of Islam in all aspects of Islam. It is the duty of the scholars to understand this unified vision and build an understanding of tangible steps - an intellectual struggle based on the Shari'ah - that can be taken in Maldives in our capacity as members of the global Islamic community towards the correct revival of the community. Ends.