Scholars in their selective condemnation
How typical of some scholars in their selective condemnation….
Habib Ali al-Jifri speaks about ISIS in this program (http://goo.gl/YjsXTD) on Egyptian TV aired recently. In this program, he criticises them as khawarij, extremists, terrorists and this and that, spending a good 20 minutes attempting to show why their actions are not Islamic.
Recall that when he was criticised for making a public du’a of tawfiq for Sisi some people sought to justify it by saying that it’s just a du’a for a person to be guided. In this context, we raised the rhetorical question: where’s the du’a for ISIS?
This question was to raise a serious point, namely, that if this is just a matter of asking Allah to guide a person whose wrongs you in fact acknowledge, then why the stark difference between how you treat some from others.
With the systematic and institutionalised oppression of the rulers in the Muslim world (Sisi’s latest achievement is continuing the Mubarak legacy of colluding with ‘Israel’ in its slaughter of Gaza) you respond by silence. You don’t account them publicly at all. You don’t hold programs showing how their actions are not Islamic. Further, you do actions that afford them legitimacy such as public du’a for them, meetings with them and the like.
At the same time, with the wrongs (assuming the matter is as alleged) of those reacting to the conditions created by these oppressors you respond by public condemnation and accounting and no favorable actions.
Why the stark difference?
Should not a scholar by accounting the wrongs of all? Indeed, should they not be more severe against those whose oppression is worse? Should they not be extremely careful not to do anything that affords legitimacy to an oppressor?
This is a serious point of reflection, particularly for those who continue to support actions such as these simply because it comes from a scholar they follow.
May Allah guide us all to that which is most pleasing to Him.