Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Even in Extreme Case of Ruler Disbelieving Clearly, there are Wise Conditions to Rebelling; Opposing these Conditions leads to shedding of blood, calamities, tribulations

You may have noticed that Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) did not rebel against the ruler even though the ruler was calling Imam Ahmad to kufr and even trying to force it upon him. So why, you might wonder, did Imam Ahmad not rebel? Why did the courageous Imam of the Sunnah of his time not rebel?

Insha` Allaah, the answer will become clear to you after reading the following explanations from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah - the inheritors of the Prophets - the scholars whose evidence is the Qur`an and Sunnah upon the correct understanding, and not whims, nor desires, nor opinions, nor emotion, nor other ignorant reasons, nor wordly reasons.  
Shaikh Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) said: ...It is not permissible to rebel against the ruler, except under two conditions:

1- Blatant Kufr for which they (those who want to rebel) have a proof from Allaah. 

2- The power to depose the ruler without an evil worse than that of the ruler resulting.

In the absence of these conditions, it is not permissible.

Shaikh al-'Uthaimeen (rahimahullaah) said:

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.

Shaikh al-Albanee (rahimahullaah) said:    

The calamities in these past few years have occurred by the hands of these people [the Khawaarij], beginning with the discord of the sacred mosque in Mecca to the dissension in Egypt and the killing of Sadat. Now in Syria and in Egypt and Algeria, everyone witnesses the shedding of blood of many innocent Muslims because of these evils and tribulations and the many resulting calamities. All of this because they opposed many texts from the Book and the Sunnah, the most important of which is:  

Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allaah and the Last Day and remembers Allaah much. (Al-Ahzab, ayah 21)

If we really want to establish the rule of Allaah on earth in reality and not just by claim, then do we start by making Takfeer of the rulers while it is not possible for us to confront them, let alone fight them? Or do we start with the same obligation the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) started with? [Tawheed] No doubt, the answer is:

Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allaah and the Last Day and remembers Allaah much. (Al-Ahzab, ayah 21)

But what did the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) begin with? [Tawheed] It is known with certainty to anyone who has even smelled the fragrance of knowledge that he began with the call and propagation among individuals whom he thought were ready to accept the truth.

 Shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin Ibn Naasir Aali-'Ubaykaan (hafidhahullaah) said:   

When such a ruling [takfeer] is made against a Muslim leader, then the issue is even greater due to the outcomes of such a ruling like rebelling against them, wielding weapons against them, public chaos and bloodhshed, all of which corrupt the servants and their nation. Because of such outcomes, the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) prohibited rebelling against them, saying: 

Unless you see clear and absolute disbelief from them for which you have an evidence from Allaah to support you in that.

(Bukhari, Muslim; in hadeeth narrated by 'Ubaadah ibn as-Saamit, radiallaahu 'anhu)  

- his (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) statement: Unless you see indicates that mere assumptions and rumors are not sufficient.  

- his (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) statement: disbelief indicates that commiting evil crimes, sins - even major sins - is not sufficient, such as if he is oppressive, drinks alcohol, gambles, and allows himself to commit other forbidden sins.  

- his (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) statement: clear and absolute indicates that an act of disbelief that is not completely apparent and explicit is not sufficient.

- his (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) statement: for which you have an evidence from Allaah to support you in that indicates that there must be an explicit supporting proof in that it is authentic and clear in its evidence. So, a proof having a weak chain of narration is not sufficient, nor is a proof that its evidence is not entirely clear and applicable.  

- his (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) statement: from Allaah indicates that regardless of the statement of any scholar - no matter what level he may have achieved in religious knowledge and trustworthiness - if he does not have a clear explicit proof from the Book of Allaah (ta'aala) or the Sunnah of His Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) to support his statement, then it is rejected. All of these conditions show the danger and severity of this matter of takfeer.

To summarize, being hasty in passing a ruling against someone as being a disbeliever is a very dangerous issue due to the statement of Allaah:

Say (O Muhammad): "(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are Al-Fawaahish whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allaah for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allaah of which you have no knowledge." (Al-A'raf, ayah 33) [Click here for more on the dangers of speaking without knowledge.]  

Second, this incorrect belief (takfeer) frequently develops into other crimes such as further declaring people's blood lawful to spill, violating people's honor, plundering private and public wealth and property, bombing homes and structures, and the devastation of buildings.

No comments:

Post a Comment