How the U.S invasion destroyed Iraq

[Deleted L]

She summarized the situation perfectly. This is why rebelling against the Muslim rulers, even if they are unjust is not permissible because the repercussions are far more dangerous and the harms are far greater than the unjust ruler himself. Iraq was a prosperous country under the autocratic rule of Saddam Hussein and ever since America invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power, the country has since never recovered (the invasion and forced removal of Saddam is similar to rebellions in the sense that both have the same negative repercussions). Likewise in Libya, when Gaddafi was forcefully removed from power and killed, Libya turned into a failed state where different armed militias are gunning each other and foreign powers loot the nation freely. Likewise in Yemen with the Houthi uprising (may Allah destroy them), Yemen was a poor country but with what’s happening in Yemen today, the Yemeni people will tell you their lives before the Houthi uprising was a paradise compared to the hell they are currently living in today.

“As for rebellion (khurooj) against them and fighting them, then that is harām (prohibited) by ijmā’ (consensus) of the Muslims, even if the rulers are sinners and oppressors. The ahādeeth I have already mentioned that carry that meaning are apparent and manifest — and Ahlus-Sunnah have agreed (ijmā’) that a ruler is not to be removed due to his sin. As for the position stated in the books of fiqh that some of our colleagues hold, that he is to be removed; and what is cited from Mu’tazilah then the one who says it is wrong and he is an opposer of the ijmā’. And the Scholars have stated: ‘The reason why it is forbidden to remove the ruler and it is prohibited to rebel against him is because of the fact that it leads to fitan (tribulations), the spilling of blood, discord and corruption between the people. And the corruption that arrises in removing him is greater than him remaining in place.” (See Sharhun-Nawawi ‘ala Sahīh Muslim, 12/317)

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.” (Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

 

[tyrannicalmanager]

She summarized the situation perfectly. This is why rebelling against the Muslim rulers, even if they are unjust is not permissible because the repercussions are far more dangerous and the harms are far greater than the unjust ruler himself. Iraq was a prosperous country under the autocratic rule of Saddam Hussein and ever since America invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power, the country has since never recovered (the invasion and forced removal of Saddam is similar to rebellions in the sense that both have the same negative repercussions). Likewise in Libya, when Gaddafi was forcefully removed from power and killed, Libya turned into a failed state where different armed militias are gunning each other and foreign powers loot the nation freely. Likewise in Yemen with the Houthi uprising (may Allah destroy them), Yemen was a poor country but with what’s happening in Yemen today, the Yemeni people will tell you their lives before the Houthi uprising was a paradise compared to the hell they are currently living in today.

“As for rebellion (khurooj) against them and fighting them, then that is harām (prohibited) by ijmā’ (consensus) of the Muslims, even if the rulers are sinners and oppressors. The ahādeeth I have already mentioned that carry that meaning are apparent and manifest — and Ahlus-Sunnah have agreed (ijmā’) that a ruler is not to be removed due to his sin. As for the position stated in the books of fiqh that some of our colleagues hold, that he is to be removed; and what is cited from Mu’tazilah then the one who says it is wrong and he is an opposer of the ijmā’. And the Scholars have stated: ‘The reason why it is forbidden to remove the ruler and it is prohibited to rebel against him is because of the fact that it leads to fitan (tribulations), the spilling of blood, discord and corruption between the people. And the corruption that arrises in removing him is greater than him remaining in place.” (See Sharhun-Nawawi ‘ala Sahīh Muslim, 12/317)

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.” (Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

what if the leader wasn't muslim (Alawite) like Assad is it still haram to overthrow him?

 

[Deleted L]

what if the leader wasn't muslim (Alawite) like Assad is it still haram to overthrow him?

It’s only permissible to remove him if they have the ability to do so successfully. If fighting him is going to cause greater harm for the Muslims in that region then it’s not permissible to do so.

 

[tyrannicalmanager]

It’s only permissible to remove him if they have the ability to do so successfully. If fighting him is going to cause greater harm for the Muslims in that region then it’s not permissible to do so.

understandable, but how would you know if the rebellion is succesful or not?

 

[Deleted L]

understandable, but how would you know if the rebellion is succesful or not?

You weigh the pros and cons by analyzing the situation on the ground to see if it’s worth rebelling against the Kafir ruler or not.

 

[El Nino]

None of these muslim leaders are helping their people, this rhetoric is used to silence opposition who could remove the ruler. This goes against basic logic

 

[reer]

None of these muslim leaders are helping their people, this rhetoric is used to silence opposition who could remove the ruler. This goes against basic logic

congrats on being the 1st nation colonized by africans. i hope you like your craphole amisom colony, you somali.

 

[Deleted L]

None of these muslim leaders are helping their people, this rhetoric is used to silence opposition who could remove the ruler. This goes against basic logic

It’s actually against logic to be ideal rather than realistic. Rebellions in most cases are dangerous and they’re not going to solve your problems. I’d rather live under an unjust corrupt Muslim ruler than to have a potential civil war or unstable chaos where foreign powers, terrorist militias etc loot and destroy the country freely and the overall condition of the people is a lot worse then the unjust ruler remaining in power.

 

[bidenkulaha]

It’s actually against logic to be ideal rather than realistic. Rebellions in most cases are dangerous and they’re not going to solve your problems. I’d rather live under an unjust corrupt Muslim ruler than to have a potential civil war or unstable chaos where foreign powers, terrorist militias etc loot and destroy the country freely and the overall condition of the people is a lot worse then the unjust ruler remaining in power.

The unjust corrupt ruler led to that. Had he been deposed off earlier than the country could’ve survived. It wasn’t the rebellion that caused the destruction of the state as the state had already collapsed by the rebellion.

Your Salafist crap of being loyal to a ‘Muslim’ ruler is best left in the Rashidun days. It is not for these times of uniquely powerful states that can genocide millions with a blink of an eye.

It is the duty of any man to protect his children, wife and property. By advocating them to accept the opposite is contradictory to the very teachings of Islam.

 

[Qahwe]

She summarized the situation perfectly. This is why rebelling against the Muslim rulers, even if they are unjust is not permissible because the repercussions are far more dangerous and the harms are far greater than the unjust ruler himself. Iraq was a prosperous country under the autocratic rule of Saddam Hussein and ever since America invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power, the country has since never recovered (the invasion and forced removal of Saddam is similar to rebellions in the sense that both have the same negative repercussions). Likewise in Libya, when Gaddafi was forcefully removed from power and killed, Libya turned into a failed state where different armed militias are gunning each other and foreign powers loot the nation freely. Likewise in Yemen with the Houthi uprising (may Allah destroy them), Yemen was a poor country but with what’s happening in Yemen today, the Yemeni people will tell you their lives before the Houthi uprising was a paradise compared to the hell they are currently living in today.

“As for rebellion (khurooj) against them and fighting them, then that is harām (prohibited) by ijmā’ (consensus) of the Muslims, even if the rulers are sinners and oppressors. The ahādeeth I have already mentioned that carry that meaning are apparent and manifest — and Ahlus-Sunnah have agreed (ijmā’) that a ruler is not to be removed due to his sin. As for the position stated in the books of fiqh that some of our colleagues hold, that he is to be removed; and what is cited from Mu’tazilah then the one who says it is wrong and he is an opposer of the ijmā’. And the Scholars have stated: ‘The reason why it is forbidden to remove the ruler and it is prohibited to rebel against him is because of the fact that it leads to fitan (tribulations), the spilling of blood, discord and corruption between the people. And the corruption that arrises in removing him is greater than him remaining in place.” (See Sharhun-Nawawi ‘ala Sahīh Muslim, 12/317)

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.” (Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

You could be right. But still…..? This is just a bit inhumane don’t you think. Do you live in the west? If you do so and you don’t live in a third world country. Your views could be biased a lot against anything western, and you deem anything that the Middle East does is right because that’s the Islamic way?

 

[Mount23]

This is why Somalia still a shithole after Siad Barre left, should just kept him lol