IN MINDANAO, radio programs controlled by Muslim religious leaders found a wealth of topics triggered by former ARMM Gov. Nur Misuari's repatriation and detention. One such topic is the rebellion case being readied by the government against the rebel chief.

Is rebellion against a government of ‘‘jahiliyyah''--an Arabic word translated as ignorance (of God)--prohibited or allowed under the ‘‘shari'ah'' or Islamic law? Is it not even obligatory? On the basis of that law, does Misuari deserve condemnation or support?

These questions naturally beg for answers that can never be found in the Constitution or any of our legal codes, nor in the charter or statutes of the United Nations. Thus, these commentators enlist verses from the Holy Qur'an or examples from the traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad--peace be upon him--to support their respective arguments.

In Cotabato City, where most of the Muslim radio programs are controlled by religious or civic organizations with known sympathies to subversive causes, people have mixed reactions to Misuari's detention. Some of them insinuate that he has been a traitor to ‘‘the cause'' of the ‘‘Bangsamoro'' people and Islam and, thus, deserves his fate.

Others say that his last stand in Cabatangan only showed his real color--a genuine soldier of Islam--and therefore deserving the support and prayers of well-meaning Muslims.

Whether they idolize or demonize Misuari is of no moment to me. What worries me is the way they treat rebellion per se. The Qur'an, these local shadows of Osama bin Laden declare, has ordered and the Prophet has duly exemplified rebellion against a government that was constituted on the basis of something other than Islam.

Mouthing a plethora of verses enjoining jihad, these Taliban clones disguised as broadcasters equate rebellion with jihad, thus making it an obligatory religious act. The Philippine government, they advance, is an un-Islamic or anti-Islamic institution. Muslims, obliged by Allah to govern themselves, are duty-bound to topple the government or, at least, carve out an independent territory to be governed on the basis of God's law.

The Holy Prophet of Islam, they further claim, rebelled against the un-Islamic government in Makkah and established an independent Islamic government in Madina.

Is this line of reasoning, reeking of Bin Ladin's desert breath, correct?
Recycled perennially, it has provided fuel to the fireplaces of ignorance and sacrificed many a youth in the altars of untempered idealism and misguided zeal. If unchecked, it will continue to do so.

Months prior to the MILF's insurrection binge that led to the fall of Camp Abubakar, the same assertion was parroted by Muslim radio commentators (some of whom are even in the government payroll!), and the multitude of unemployed, unlettered, or underfed people listened and believed, many becoming martyrs of ignorance.

A radio program called ‘‘Radyu Kalimudan'' tried to swim against the tide, to reverse the trend in Muslim broadcasting. It was subjected to the worst kind of harassment. The members were badmouthed, declared unbelievers and fatwas of death were issued against them. The Catholic radio station hosting them was bombed, injuring several persons including two civilian escorts of the group.

The executive director of the program was even ambushed by suspected rebels estimated to number around 40 while going home from the station, barely escaping death. This was the cost of revealing the Islamic truth about rebellion, jihad, governance and Islam.

The truth is that the contention put forth by the rebellious mullahs and mullah-wannabes masquerading as mediamen is misleading, malicious and patently erroneous.

While it is true that God obliged all believers to make jihad (struggle toward perfection), it condemned rebellion against the established order. While it is true that the Holy Prophet went to war when provoked, he never rebelled against any government.

This is not the place for enumerating and defining the kinds and levels of jihad ranging from personal to universal, from spiritual to military, much less the prerequisites and ends for each. Suffice it to say that none of them categorically encourage rebellion. On the contrary, rebellion (in Arabic, ‘‘fasad'' or ‘‘fitna'') is condemned in many places in the Qur'an.

As for Prophet Muhammad, he went on exile (‘‘hijra'') on the order of Allah. He migrated specifically to Madina (then known as Yathrib) in 622 A.D. on the invitation of the people of that city-state, instead of waging rebellion against the government of the neighboring city-state of Makkah. This, despite the government persecution he suffered on account of his faith.

While in Madina, the Prophet was acclaimed as a leader on the basis of his superior qualities as a person. He was equally endorsed by Jews, Muslims, pagans and Magi of the various feudal tribes. Although a messenger of God par excellence, he did not impose his creed as the constitutional basis of government. Instead, he crafted the ‘‘Charter of Madina,'' virtually the first Islamic constitution, on the basis of the collective will of the tribes and religious communities as represented by their elders and leaders. That constitution was the basis of all social, political, economic and legal relations of the citizens, not the Qur'an.

Of course, Muslims among themselves voluntarily submitted to stricter laws that were based on the Holy Book which encompassed all aspects of their lives.

Rebellion is, for Muslims as for others, simply a crime reprehensible in essence and horrendous in its results.

* * *

Comments to [email protected]

©2002 www.inq7.net all rights reserved