Sheikh Ibn Baz on Revolt

[Omar del Sur]

Question
There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and sin, we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion?

Answer
Praise be to Allah.
The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.


-Sheikh Ibn Baz

Is it permissible to rebel against the ruler? - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

 

[Djokovic]

Question
There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and sin, we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion?

Answer
Praise be to Allah.
The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.


-Sheikh Ibn Baz

Is it permissible to rebel against the ruler? - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

People should be patient the ruler is chosen by Allah

 

[HiraanBorn]

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever notices something which he dislikes done by his ruler, then he should be patient, for whoever becomes separate from the company of the Muslims even for a span and then dies, he will die as those who died in the Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance (as rebellious sinners). (Fath-ul-Bari page 112, Vol. 16)

This narration advises us to be patient if we witness something we dislike in the ruler but the following hadith seems to suggest that we can fight the ruler if we witness clear kufr (disbelief) from him. If there is proof from Allah S.W.T of course.

Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya:
We entered upon 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet (ﷺ) and by which Allah may make you benefit?" He said, "The Prophet (ﷺ) called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah."

So there is some differing on which direction to take I would say. If the ruler is not Muslim anymore and has turned apostate and as a result tries to encourage kufr in the land does this mean that we as Muslims are obliged to overthrow him?

Sources: Sahih al-Bukhari 7054, Book 92 Hadith 7 & Sahih al-Bukhari 7055 7056, Book 92 Hadith 8.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Now I want to make a few points.

Firstly, let me give a brief outline of my standpoint on this.

Say you the leader of the nation's military. You know for a fact and you have proof that the ruler is an apostate. You can overthrow him and implement the sharia. I think you can and should overthrow him and implement the sharia.

I don't know of any scholar who says that in principle you cannot overthrow a kaffir ruler- however, the point that Sheikh Ibn Baz rightly made is- you have to look at the outcome. If all you're going to do is turn your country into the next Syria, you're better off not revolting. And the issue is very serious- it is one thing to be brave and not care about your own life- it is another thing to play with the lives of the innocent people of the Muslim country. To destroy your own country and to not care about the destruction of your fellow Muslims, to have no regard for the practical outcome of your actions and how they will impact others- that is wrong and dangerous.

Another point that people need to understand is that not ruling by the sharia is not necessarily apostasy. It may or may not constitute apostasy given the situation.

Whether not ruling by Shariah is major or minor disbelief

Explore the debate on the consequences of not ruling by Shariah, focusing on the distinction between major and minor disbelief (Kufr). This comprehensive analysis presents differing viewpoints from prominent scholars, including Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen and Shaykh Saalih AlFawzaan, regarding the...

www.islamweb.net

The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

You can't just say that whoever doesn't rule by one hundred percent sharia is automatically a kaffir. It is more complicated than that. And this is not something new from the modern scholars- Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah said that a ruler who does not rule by the sharia is not necessarily a kaffir. The ruling varies depending on the situations. There are situations where it does and situations where it doesn't constitute apostasy.

And then you look at Imam Hanbal. The scholars have said that saying the Quran is created is apostasy. Imam Hanbal was tortured by the ruler for refusing to the say the Quran was created.

Imam Hanbal did not openly make takfir on the ruler even though it seems he clearly would have had a good case for doing so. He did not make takfir and he did not call the Muslims to revolt. Think about it- according to the logic of some of the people today- they would have said Imam Hanbal was a "Madkhali," that he was a government scholar for dollars.

You look at the Communists and the feminists- they are determined to carry out their ideology regardless of what actual impact they have on the society. They do not actually care what the practical results will be and how people's lives will be impacted.

If we say "every Muslim ruler on earth is a kaffir, we must rebel against every Muslim ruler on earth" and we don't actually care about what the practical results will be and we don't care if we simply turn our country into the next Syria- this is like the feminists and the Communists.

Now what I want to say is this.

Let's look at things from the other side of the chess board. Let's suppose we are Israel and we are the people who want to destroy the Muslim countries. And we have lots of money and influence.

And on the other hand, we have these hardcore rebels, who are supposed to be the most staunch enemies of Israel and the West- these people come with the aforementioned ideology: every Muslim ruler on earth is a kaffir, we must rebel against every Muslim ruler on earth without regard for the actual consequences. Now these people, who are allegedly the biggest enemies of Israel and the West- their ideology is not actually fighting Israel or the West. Their ideology in effect is that we should turn every single Muslim country into the next Syria, that we should create a civil war in every single Muslim country and so we will in effect destroy every single Muslim country- and they deliberately ignore how this will practically impact the Muslim ummah and how this will benefit Israel and the anti-Islamic forces. If every Muslim country becomes the next Syria, we will not be in a position to stand up to the West and to Israel.

Does it not make sense for Israel and for the anti-Islamic forces to prop up that kind of ideology? Does it not make sense for them to support and to fund those who propagate such ideology?

That ideology has secretly been helped out by the kuffar in order to destabilize the Muslim countries. So that we Muslims will destroy ourselves- instead of building our strength and being able to stand up to our opponents, Muslims would be focused on killing other Muslims- and the scholars are all "scholars for dollars" so no more listening to the scholars, no guidance, just anarchy. It is a plot in order to destroy the Muslims. It is incredible that the Western intelligence agencies would back forces who are allegedly the biggest enemies of the West- but that kind of thing is real. I am not saying there isn't corruption in Muslim countries- but Muslims killing each other and destroying our own countries is not the way to fight Israel. It makes no sense for someone in Yemen to yell "death to America" and then go out to kill his fellow Yemeni. He says "death to America" while in reality he's working to destroy Yemen. Who benefits?

 

[Omar del Sur]

here is Shaykh Raslan



now, of course, he is a "Madkhali".... anyone who says anything against the Muslim Brotherhood or Qutb is a "Madkhali" and supposedly an agent of...... whoever they're supposed to be an agent of...... and so supposedly we are supposed to follow a real hardcore rebel type, not some sellout like Omar del Saudi or Shaykh Raslan (allegedly)

someone like Anwar Al-Awlaki... the hardest of hardcore who definitely was a hardcore enemy of the West, definitely.......

and then you look.....

Enemy or Asset? FBI documents show radical cleric Awlaki communicated with federal agent in '03

Enemy or Asset? FBI documents show radical cleric Awlaki communicated with federal agent in '03

Watchdog group Judicial Watch has obtained more than 900 pages of new documents in the course of its federal lawsuit against the FBI.

www.foxnews.com

and this is exactly the kind of thing I mentioned and Shaykh Raslan even discussed this kind of thing in this clip....




you will have some of these people who are allegedly the most hardcore of rebels and most hardcore of enemies of Zionism and the West..... and you will find that they are connected with intelligence agencies and with the same entities they are allegedly opposing....... Anwar al-Awlaki is an example