Monday, April 5, 2021

Impermissibility or Permissibility of Rebelling an Unjust Ruler?


Is There a Consensus on the Impermissibility of Rebelling against an Unjust Ruler? And What are the Statements of the Salaf in Relation to That?

The answer to this is by speaking about different subjects:

First: to state clearly the fuqaha did not say the one who revolts against an unjust leader is considered a rebel or sinful. This is apparent from their speech from multiple angles:

a. Their texts concerning that. Imam an-Nawawi in Ar-Rawdah said: “The rebel according to the terminology of the ‘ulama is the one who opposes a just leader and departs from his obedience by resisting to perform something that is obligatory upon him or preventing it from others.” This is a clear text regarding the disputed matter. It is narrated from the ‘ulama in absolute terms and does not exclude anyone.

b. “The talk of rebelling against oppressive leaders, according to them, is from the issues that are dhanniyyah furu‘iyyah (speculative branch matters) which one is not sinful for opposing. And due to that, the Shafi‘iyyah permitted it (i.e., revolting against oppressive leaders) in two known opinions.” [mentioned by an-Nawawi in Ar-Rawdah and Majmu’ al-Madhhab fi Qawa‘id al-Madhhab by Salah ad-Din al-‘Ala’i] More than one scholar has mentioned this, and what is known is if it was explicitly haram like drinking alcohol, they would not have two opinions concerning it.

c. “And what proves this,” ibnul-Wazir stated in Ar-Rawd al-Basim, “is that adh-Dhahabi said in his book Al-Kashif: ‘Verily, Zayd (ibn ‘Ali) died as a shahid.’ And this is a clear text from him in this disputed matter. For indeed, the rebel is not a shahid by ijma’.”

When ibn Mujahid at-Ta’i al-Ash‘ari (d. 370 H) claimed an ijma’ of the ummah on the impermissibility of rebelling against the unjust leaders, ibn Hazm (d. 456 H) sternly rebuked and rejected it. Ibn Hazm then said: “It is known the best of the Sahabah and the rest of the people on the Day of Harrah rebelled against Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyyah and that ibnuz-Zubayr and those who followed him from the best of people rebelled, as well. Additionally, al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 H) and major tabi‘in rebelled against al-Hajjaj with their swords. If this khilaf was a hidden matter then we may be able to excuse him.  However, this is famously well-known even to the common people in the markets.” [Muratib al-Ijma’]

From those who also rejected ibn Mujahid’s claim of ijma’ in this matter was al-Qadi ‘Iyad al-Maliki. He stated: “And some of them refuted him with the fact al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali and ibnuz-Zubayr and the people of Madinah rose up against Bani Umayyah, in which they agreed to use the action of al-Husayn as proof. And from them are those who used it as proof for the permissibility to revolt against a tyrant absolutely… And no Muslim from them, or others, says Yazid was right and al-Husayn was a rebel, except what comes from the Shaytan… And what is strange is whoever cites ibn Battal in unrestrictedly prohibiting rebelling. Indeed, ibn Battal relates from the fuqaha that they stipulated obedience to the ruler who comes to power by force in relation to the establishment of jihad and the jumu‘ah and the ‘Id (with him), to even out the overwhelming injustice. Even with these matters conditioned, ibn Battal did not cite from the fuqaha obedience was wajib and rebelling is haram. Rather, he stated from them when the situation is like that, obedience is better than revolting against him, because of the bloodshed that would ensue.” [ibnul-Wazir, Al-‘Awasim wal-Qawasim] 

Ibnul-Qasim related from Malik: “If the leader is like ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdil- ‘Aziz it is obligatory upon the people to defend him and fight with him. As for those other than his likes, then it is not.” [al-Kharashi, Mukhtasar Khalil] 

“Abu Hanifah viewed it recommended or obligatory to rebel against the leaders of Bani al-‘Abbas when oppression appeared from them. And he viewed fighting them better than fighting the kuffar. However, Abu Ishaq rejected that. The people of knowledge differed in this regard. Those who viewed rebelling permissible saw it from the angle of enjoining good and forbidding evil and establishing the haqq. And those who disliked it saw it as splitting the Muslimin apart and dividing their word.” [al-Mu‘allami al-Yamani, At-Tankil]

How can it be said after this rebelling against oppressive rulers is forbidden by ijma’!

Translator’s note: It is clear from the above there is not a consensus established prohibiting rebelling against the Muslim ruler who is oppressive in his rule. Notice the stress on the Muslim label. Because this does not concern us from one angle as the rulers today are not Muslim, by ijma’. But from another angle it furthers emphasizes the need to remove the murtadd rulers. If the fuqaha from the Salaf have differed in relation to rebelling against an oppressive, Muslim ruler, with some of the best of the ummah rebelling against the son of a Sahabi, what would the stance be about rulers who altered the rulings of the Shari‘ah, abolishing many parts from it, and allied with, rather, are the servants of, Christian Crusader nations, in addition to other nullifiers of iman?

With Allah’s permission, any muwahhid could figure that out. However, the scholars of Islam have relieved anyone from having to contemplate over it too much as they have narrated an ijma’ that is actually established – yet hardly ever cited.

An-Nawawi related from al-Qadi ‘Iyad: “The scholars have formed a consensus the leadership (imamah) is not to be contracted to a kafir and that if disbelief comes from him, he is to be removed… So if kufr and altering the shar’ or bid‘ah comes from him, then he has left the status of authority and his (right) of obedience falls and it becomes obligatory upon the Muslimin to rise up against him and remove him and set up a just leader, if that is possible for them. And if that is not possible except for a group, then it is obligatory upon them to rise up and remove the kafir.” [Sharh Sahih Muslim]

Likewise, ibn at-Tin related from ad-Dawudi: “The ‘ulama mentioned concerning the oppressive ruler, if it is possible to remove him without fitnah and injustice, then it is obligatory, otherwise, patience is compulsory. And some of them state it is not permissible to contract the position of leadership to a fasiq to begin with; and if oppression appears after he was just, they differed if it is permissible to revolt against him. And what is correct is it should be prevented unless he disbelieves; in that case, it is compulsory to rebel against him.” [ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari]

And speaking of ibn Battal, he said: “The hadith is proof for not rebelling against the leader, even if he was oppressive. And indeed, the scholars agreed it is obligatory to obey the ruler who comes to power by force and to wage jihad with him and obeying him is better than revolting against him, when that causes bloodshed. And they did not make any exceptions, except if the leader falls into clear kufr. In that event, it is not permissible to obey him; rather, it is obligatory for those who possess the ability to strive against him (to remove him).” [ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari]

“In summary,” ibn Hajr concluded, “he is to be removed because of kufr according to ijma’. So it is obligatory upon each Muslim to rise up for that.” [Fath al-Bari] 

[By Abu Fihr al-Muslim (a shar’i researcher and one of the students of Shaykh Sulayman al-‘Alwan)]

INSHA'ALLAH TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES/POSTS, CLICK:



Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)