Why Do Scholars Not Publicly Criticise the Rulers? | Shaykh ibn Uthaymeen
- Thread starter Omar del Sur
- Start date
A Analysis Of Those Who Talk About The Muslim Rulers In Public – Shaykh Uthaymeen
A Analysis Of Those Who Talk About The Muslim Rulers In Public – Shaykh Uthaymeen
Shaykh Uthaymeen said, “…There is an issue now[days]: some people, out of their pride and honor for the religion of Allah, if they see crimes and evil deeds among the people which may b…
abdulkareemibnozzie.wordpress.com
Shaykh Uthaymeen said, “…There is an issue now[days]: some people, out of their pride and honor for the religion of Allah, if they see crimes and evil deeds among the people which may be circulated in the newspapers, radio stations, or seen on some satellite channels, they begin attacking and accusing the government of falling short and being responsible for these things.
They go and publicize the faults of the government among the people, inciting the hearts against the leadership. In turn, this causes the people to begin hating the authorities over them. This is actually a very serious mistake contradictory to Islamic legislation, dangerous to the society, and a cause for future trials and tribulations. If such people would only rush to advise and correct the society starting with themselves, it would have been better for them.
For example, those things circulated by the various means of communication, whether written, heard, or seen these people should rather warn others from those specific issues (instead of warning against the government).
For example, they could warn against certain magazines, against watching certain shows which are harmful to ones religion and life.
They could warn people from dealing with usury, for example. If the whole society begins to rectify and improve itself, the leader, as part of this society, would likewise improve .
As for those who pour out their so called pride and honor for Islam upon the leaders in this way and is without doubt a wrong approach. You all know the great afflictions that occurred during the time of.
Rather, it even began earlier during the time of Uthmaan which resulted in major calamities and people began declaring lawful the taking of other [opposing and criticizing the leadership] to be incorrect and forbidden by Islam.
If a person really had true pride and honor [for this religion], then he would direct others to that which is good. But amazingly, you find some people complaining and accusing the leaders, while therere people in his society making Shirk, worshipping others besides Allah [Shirk is much greater than whatever sins are committed by the leaders].
Or he may come and try to twist the meanings of some verses of the Quran to be in accordance with his desires.
So for example, he quotes the verse, “And whoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed those, they are the disbelievers.” [Surah al-Midah, 5:44]
He then says that based upon this, every law and statute that opposes Islamic legislation is disbelief! This is also very wrong. Even if we were to assume the extreme that a leader is a disbeliever, does this then mean we can incite the people to oppose him, even if it causes revolt, chaos, and killing? This is definitely wrong.
The kind of rectification and improvement desired will never come by this approach.
Rather, the only thing it will bring is great corruption because if, for example, a group of people rise up in opposition to the leaders of some country and those leaders have strength and authority that the opposing insurgents do not have, what will happen?
Will this insignificant minority prevail? It will not.
On the contrary, the opposite will happen. Evil and anarchy will result and the public affairs will be in complete disorder. It is essential that an individual looks first from the Islamic legislative point of view and not just blindly look at the texts (of the Quran or sunnah) from a single perspective. We should consider all the texts together. A person should also look at the situation with the eye of intellect and wisdom.
What will come about from this thing?
So, we believe these ways of rectification [criticizing the leaders, rebellion, etc.] to be wrong and very dangerous. It is not permissible for anyone to support or assist someone in such things. One must instead clearly reject these we speak in general terms…
So the individual must look at the reality of his government and country and not go around publicizing and spreading the faults of his rulers, whether they are excused due to some reasons or not. These people are often blind to the overall well-being and benefit of the nation. Such a government may have something of good within it. Overlooking this and focusing on its faults is not justice.
Allah says, “Oh you who believe, stand up firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and just, that is closer to righteousness.” [Srah al-Mdah, 5:8]…”
Ref: Taken from the casette, Adf al-amalt al-miyyah id Wul Bild al-aramayn
But akhi @Omar del Sur it's not always bad sometimes when the ruler have big heart he can accept scholars criticism like abdurahman Al nasir and qadi Al mundhir ibn said.
When he said in salat jummah that abdurahman is spending to much money on building palacesand when his vazir told him to take the wadi title from Al mundhir he said no because this man will be my guardian in the day of judgement
When he said in salat jummah that abdurahman is spending to much money on building palacesand when his vazir told him to take the wadi title from Al mundhir he said no because this man will be my guardian in the day of judgement
SubhanAllah. This is where the ikwhani mindset leads. You want to be defenders of Islam... by going against the scholars? That is the Islam you are defending- a form of Islam where you don't adhere to the scholars? And if we don't have to adhere to the scholars when it comes to this issue, why should we adhere to them when it comes to any other issue? So people will just be free to interpret Islam however they want?
And was this not a characteristic of the khawarij? They presented themselves like these defenders of true Islam but none of the scholars were with them.
When someone like Sheikh Uthaymeen speaks, we should be taking notes. But forget Sheikh Uthaymeen and forget all the numerous other scholars who have said the same thing- we should just follow random ordinary Muslims going off their emotions? Is Islam based off emotions? We should follow the scholars or we should follow the emotions of random ordinary people?
But in the upside down logic of the ikhwani types, going against the scholars is defending the dīn and adhering to the scholars is being a sellout and betraying the dīn.
And was this not a characteristic of the khawarij? They presented themselves like these defenders of true Islam but none of the scholars were with them.
When someone like Sheikh Uthaymeen speaks, we should be taking notes. But forget Sheikh Uthaymeen and forget all the numerous other scholars who have said the same thing- we should just follow random ordinary Muslims going off their emotions? Is Islam based off emotions? We should follow the scholars or we should follow the emotions of random ordinary people?
But in the upside down logic of the ikhwani types, going against the scholars is defending the dīn and adhering to the scholars is being a sellout and betraying the dīn.
what is the source where you get this from?
Sheikh Ibn Baz and Sheikh Uthaymeen had it wrong and we should follow random people on SomaliSpot instead? Obviously we need to stick with the scholars.
ص9 - كتاب موسوعة الأخلاق والزهد والرقائق - بين منذر بن سعيد وعبد الرحمن الناصر - المكتبة الشاملة
ص9 - كتاب موسوعة الأخلاق والزهد والرقائق - بين منذر بن سعيد وعبد الرحمن الناصر - المكتبة الشاملة
al-maktaba.org
Honestly this just makes me more convinced that the ikhwani mindset in regards to this issue is wrong.
It is not like the ruler wasn't there and the Sheikh was giving a khutbah speaking against him from the pulpit.
this is translation direct from the source you gave:
so apparently the ruler put this fancy dome and the scholar came along- and the ruler basically flat-out invited the scholar to talk about the dome and the scholar was having a direct conversation with the ruler and to his face and gave his opinion. this is completely different than the ruler is absent and the scholar is going around inciting people against him from the minbar.
another thing is that this is missing the point as is the liberal argument "why can't the ruler take criticism?"
whatever the ruler's character as far as their personality and whether they're thick-skinned or not... it's sort of irrelevant if the country is up in flames with a civil war and people are shooting each other in the streets. it isn't really about whether the ruler has their feelings hurt or not and it's more about preventing stuff like having civil war break out and having Muslims killing each other.
well what I have posted are a whole set of Islamic scholars. what you've posted is the view of Karl Marx.
we can go with the view of the scholars or we can go with the Marxist view.
you can take your own view as having more weight than that of the scholars but I hope others don't go that same misguided route.
It's very funny that the people who claimed they are followers of Karl Marx had gulags for the khawarij
