I don't say it's khawarij but what practical result would come out of rebelling?
I think in the vast majority of cases, either
A- the rebel faction gets wiped out
B- the country gets plunged into civil war and the country gets wrecked
I honestly hope that people become anti-revolution. I am against revolution.
I think the whole thing of glorifying revolution is a result of subversion.
View attachment 178042
View attachment 178044
People talk about revolution I think of George Washington, Che Guevara, Lenin.
You look at yahud and Masonry- they promote revolution. They continually promote and glorify revolution then Muslims also think revolution is good.
The thing is- look at the results in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya.
Revolutionaries even get used as a tool of hostile foreign powers as a means to wreck the country.
Libya is an example. Russia is another example. Mexico is another example- Woodrow Wilson backed revolutionaries in Mexico in order to overthrow the Mexican government and destabilize the country.
In 1930's Spain, the government was Communist and they tried to force Communism on Spain. General Franco rose up and saved Spain from Communism.
let's look at revolution and Masonry.
US revolution- Masonic.
French revolution- Masonic.
Latin American revolutions against Spain- Masonic.
Mexican Revolution of 1910- Masonic.
Russian Revolution- Masonic.
How is the country going to go anywhere if everyone is all about revolution?
The ruler is trying to do some infrastructure project. Foreign businesses are looking to invest.
People yell out "revolution". Some guy in a mask bombs the infrastructure. Infrastructure gets wrecked. Foreign investment goes the way of the dinosaur. No one wants to invest in a warzone- no one except foreigners who are funding the rebel groups to further wreck the country and provide an opening for foreign intervention. White people make documentaries that make the country look bad. The good news is you've stuck it to the capitalists- foreign investment has vanished. The bad news is people are starving. The good news is people are very religious. The bad news is that education has collapsed and there is mass illiteracy.
There are cases where revolution makes sense. But I am against it in general. Look at the blm riots last year. I don't want that kind of thing.
is that kind of thing really going to solve the problems of our ummah? all the Muslim countries should end up like Libya, Yemen, Syria?
What is needed is a revolution within our own selves.
When does the sharia mandate rebelling against the ruler?
1- There is a clear-cut case of apostasy on the part of the ruler.
2- You are able to depose him.
If you really have a clear-cut case where he has committed apostasy and you can remove him and replace his regime with a proper Islamic government, sure.
But how often does this actually happen? How many cases are there where
-the ruler is a clear-cut apostate
-the people rise up in revolution
-the ruler gets removed and a proper Islamic government is installed
how often does that actually happen?
imo this is generally what happens in practice
-infrastructure gets wrecked
-economy gets wrecked
-women get raped
-the various warlords have to serve interests of foreigners in exchange for guns and ammunition
-"humanitarian" intervention by foreigners. central government is too weak to protect the country's sovereignty.
-massive numbers of people flee the country
-VICE documentaries disparaging the country
-starvation
my thing is what exactly is the plus side to this? why would anyone want their country to become the next Libya?
I want to eat biryani and live in relative comfort and safety.
what would you rather have, SomaliSpotters
or
EDIT: I forgot to mention starvation. Let me add starvation to the list.
www.abukhadeejah.com
There’s a valid difference of opinion between scholars. Madkhalis take it to the extreme though and misuse Islamic sources to support their deviant views. Ibn Taymiyyah also threatened to replace the rulers if they don’t fulfill their responsibilities in protecting the people of Syria.I'm with Ibn Taymiyyah and I'm with Imam Hanbal.
Imām Ahmad bin Hanbal (died 241H) was beaten and jailed by four consecutive kings. Despite that, he viewed revolt to be unlawful against those who violated the Islamic belief and punished him for not agreeing with them. Hanbal bin Ishāq said:
“During the rule of Wāthiq, the jurists of Baghdad gathered in front of Ahmad bin Hanbal. They included Abu Bakr bin ʿUbaid, Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī al-Matbakhī and Fadl bin ʿĀsim. So they came to Ahmad bin Hanbal so I gave them permission. They said to him, ‘This affair (i.e. the inquisition) has become aggravated and elevated.’ They were referring to the ruler making manifest the issue of the Qurān being created and other than that. So Ahmad bin Hanbal said to them, ‘So what is it that you want?’ They said: ‘We want you to join us in saying that we are not pleased with his rule and leadership.’ So Ahmad bin Hanbal debated with them for an hour and he said to them: ‘Keep opposing [the false belief itself] with your statements but do not remove your hands from obedience and do not encourage the Muslims to rebel and do not spill your blood and the blood of the Muslims along with you. Look to the results of your actions. And remain patient until you are content with a righteous or sinful rule.’” [17]
Ibn Taymiyyah (died 728H) stated:
“Ahmad [bin Hanbal] and his like did not declare these rulers to be disbelievers. Rather he believed them to have Imaan and believed in their leadership and he supplicated for them, and he was of the view that they were to be followed in the prayers and Hajj, and military expeditions were to be made with them. He prohibited rebellion against them – and it (i.e. rebellion) was never seen from the likes of him from amongst the scholars. Yet he still opposed whatever they innovated of false statements, since that was major disbelief, even if they did not know it [18]. He would oppose it and strive to refute it with whatever was possible. So there must be a combination of obeying Allāh and His Messenger in manifesting the Sunnah and Religion and opposing the innovations of the heretical Jahmites [19], and between protecting the rights of the believers, the rulers and the Ummah, even if they are ignorant innovators and transgressing sinners.” [20]
Indeed, there is in the many works of Ibn Taymiyyah a thorough refutation of the arguments and polemics of the Khārijites, an example of which is what is found in Minhāj as-Sunnah [21]:
"And there is hardly anyone who revolted against a leader with authority except that what arose from his action of evil, was actually greater than whatever good came from it, such as those who rebelled against Yazeed in Madīnah, or like Ibn al-Ashʿath who revolted against ʿAbdul-Malik in ʿIrāq, or like Ibn al-Mihlab also, who revolted against his son in Khurasān, and like those who revolted against al-Mansūr in Madīnah and Basrah, and the likes of them…
And it is for this reason that it is firmly established with Ahlus-Sunnah to abandon fighting in times of tribulation due to the authentic narrations that are established from the Prophet ; and they (the Scholars) began to mention this matter in the course of [authoring their works] in Creed, and they would command with patience towards the oppression of the leaders, and the abandonment of fighting against them – even if a fair portion of the people of knowledge fought against them during the tribulation…
And whoever reflects upon the authentic narrations that are established from the Prophet concerning this topic, and also considers with the consideration of those with insight and deep knowledge, will know that that which the Prophetic texts have come with is from the best of all affairs…
And all of this is what explains that whatever the Prophet has commanded of patience towards the tyranny of the rulers and abandonment of fighting against them and revolting against them, that this is of the most beneficial and rectifying of affairs, in both this life and the next, and that whoever opposes this deliberately, or due to an error, then no rectification is attained by his action, rather only corruption…
And he ordered having patience upon their misappropriation, and prohibited fighting against them, and contending with them (for authority), due to their oppression. Because the corruption, mischief that arises from fighting during tribulation (fitnah) is greater than the corruption in the oppression of those in authority. Thus, the lesser of two evils is not to be removed by the greater of the two.”
Is the Tyranny of the Rulers a Reason for Rebellion? The Duty of a Muslim Towards the Muslim Leaders in Light of the Qur’ān, Sunnah and the Scholars of the Salaf.
THE TYRANNY OF THE RULERS IS NOT A REASON FOR REBELLION The goal of the Jihādist sects is one and the same: rebellion against those in authority and a desire to rule over the Muslim lands. They may alter their names and titles but their ideology remains the same. Islām itself, despite what these...
I'm not a SPUBS fan but I'm with Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Hanbal
So what's the solution? Let Ethiopia and other countries colonize us?
The scumbag Assad is a Kaffir Alawi who was raping and mass murdering Syrians. Rebellion against him was legitimate. So was the rebellion against the communist dictator Siyad Barre, who was mass murdering his people based on clans and committing other human rights abuses. Rebellion against Apostate tyrants might be bloody but it’s worth it in the end.
We are already colonised by Ethiopia and Kenya. The ones with guns are the rulers.
Yeah they are bad and rebellion against them is justified. What happens after though. Much much greater atrocities of killing, raping and looting with your country being occupied by kuffar.
