|
Comparing the Government and
MDP
13|01|2006 |ADDUONLINE
Many wonder
how a political party and a government can be measured according
to a common yardstick. In this context, the die hard fans of MDP
claim that their cult party is still 'better' than the
government characterised by 27 years of corruption, nepotism,
oppression and the list can be endless. The fundamental reason
why political parties exist and compete against a government is
solely because a common yardstick does exist. This yardstick
differs in different political systems. The common denominator
between a government and a party is the set of values and
concepts they adhere to. Government machinery implements these
values and a party structure calls for the implementation of the
same values. If there is no yardstick, as some people claim,
executive power has to be transferred to each of the three
parties (in Maldives) for a period of 27 years. And the people
have to wait for 81(27 * 3 parties ) years before they can make
the final judgement. No sane mind would entertain this kind of
nonsense.
Coming back to the actual point, is there hardly any difference
between what the government implements and what MDP calls for?
The current government has been accused of crushing some
people's businesses and stealing their lands. If MDP can support
boycott campaigns, the same can be expected when its party state
changes to a government state. The government has been accused
of torturing some prisoners. MDP has condoned attacking innocent
people as evident from the actions of its members. The
government has been accused of arresting people without any
legal proof. The incident in Fares Mathodaa gives an indication
of what this cult party is capable of ,when its members take
over the state machineries like prisons and judiciary. Perhaps
the terms 'hijacking' will be renamed to something else. The
current government is accused of fostering Non-Islamic values in
the society. This rare accusation comes from the sell out
Islamic scholars within this kufr party. In this regard, it is
guaranteed that the filth published in DO will be implemented
when the educational system is in the hands of these cult
leaders. Contrasting these two camps is analogous to contrasting
a white collar criminal and a street gangster.
It is a fruitless exercise to determine the severity of the
action or debate whether hijacking a person is somehow
''better'' than imprisonment of innocents. Or some may argue
that 27 years of oppression is more severe in comparison to the
few similar acts of this party. This sounds nice from an
emotional perspective. The problem is not necessarily the
severity of the crime, but in the singular thought process that
drives each action. As Muslims, our view of good and bad is
determined by Islam. What Islam has declared as haraam remains
haraam for an individual, government, or party/organisation. An
individual committing an haraam action, a government enacting a
haraam legislation, and a party adopting a haraam course of
action - all come under the general category of forbiddance. If
an individual member of a party? commits a haraam action and the
party condones that action, then it can be said that party has
adopted such a thought. It does not matter if the haraam existed
for 27 years or 2 years. It does not matter if the government
implements haraam or a party calls for haraam actions.
Furthermore Islam has defined what a political party is, its
objective, and path. Even if a party did not engage in criminal
acts but deviated from the method outlined by Islam even by an
inch, it has to be rejected.
When the MDP supporters are confronted with these facts their
argument is that 'an oppressive government can be defeated by
adopting similar tactics and speaking in a similar language. And
justice will prevail later'. Such statements are also uttered by
devout ritual Muslims .It is as if Prophet (saw) preached
different flavours of Quraishi values in Mecca and started
implementing Islam only after he had formed the government in
Medinah.
Conclusion
In the political climate, Muslims have to trod very carefully.
For us, it is not a matter of siding with the government or a
specific party. Parties and government (authority) have a
specific reality and we have to judge each reality according to
Islam. That is to say, we should judge the reality of the
government according the what Islam says regarding governance
and? our judgement of political parties should be based on what
Islam says about political parties. Therefore our non-adherence
to the calls of a party? does not mean we are siding with the
government.
We should never allow political discussions to devolve into
defending a personality or a group. Islam is above any
personality, and we evaluate people/groups by Islam, and by the
ideas and the system of Islam. We do not twist and bend Islam
itself to defend a person, a group, a regime, or anything. We
should remind ourselves of the incident of Umar, when he was
selected to be the Khalifah, and he stood before a crowd and
said ''If you see me commit a mistake, then correct me.'' One
individual came to Umar and unsheathed his sword and replied,
''If we see Umar commit a mistake, then we will correct him with
our swords.'' And Umar replied to that individual, ''Alhamdulllah
(Praise be to Allah) that there are people in this Ummah that
will correct Umar with his swords.'' Therefore, placing the idea
first and foremost is one of our most sacred traditions.
As regards kind of change we should initiate in the society
should be dictated by Islam and the detailed method to bring
such a change should also be from Islam.
Ends |
