Torture by Sheikh

A recent news story seems highly relevant here.

Check out this video: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=2688465

What it shows is a man being tortured. His assailants? Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, brother of the country's crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed. The Sheikh is assisted by a man in a UAE police uniform. I, at least, find this quite troubling.

Read the full news story here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099&page=1

Sharia law is actually one of the earlier sources of the concept of inalienable human rights, and there is some evidence that it influenced John Locke (of "life, libery, and property" fame). Sharia law explicitly denies a ruler the "right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Inalienable rights are referred to as such because they "become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter." The source referred to is Allah. So any ruler who infringes upon the inalienable rights granted to a human individual by Allah is refuting Allah. Who was it in that video again? Oh, a member of the UAE royal family, assisted by state police. Also, Muhammad is reported to have said that "mankind are the dependents, or family of God, and the most beloved of them to God are those who are the most excellent to His dependents." The blatant violation of ethics committed by the Sheikh is certainly not "excellent," and we can safely say that it does not make him beholden in the eyes of Allah.

What should happen to Islamic rulers who so clearly fail to uphold justice? Al-Mawardi said that if the rulers become either unjust or severely ineffective then the Caliph or ruler must be impeached via the Majlis ash-Shura. Al-Baghdadi believed that if the rulers do not uphold justice, the ummah via the majlis should first warn them, and if the warning were to go unheeded then the ruler can be impeached. Al-Juwayni argued that Islam is the goal of the ummah, and any ruler who deviates from this goal must be impeached. Al-Ghazali believed that oppression by a ruler is enough for impeachment. Rather than just relying on impeachment, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani argued that the people are obligated to rebel if the ruler beginsto act with no regard for Islamic law. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said that to ignore a violation of justice by a ruler is haraam, and those who cannot revolt inside the caliphate should launch a struggle from outside.

I think this litany speaks for itself. I will be eagerly awaiting the outcry against Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan.