Uncovering the Doubts of Callers on Social Media (Part 8) Are those who prohibit revolts against an oppressive ruler a bootlicking Madkhali?

In this segment of the series I will delve into the deviant understanding that Bro. Hajji has regarding rebelling against oppressive Muslim rulers. However, I shall not delve deeply into it as the details in this matter will come in the E-Book that I am preparing regarding the topic: Uncovering the Doubts of Callers on Social Media (In Sha Allah). Hence I am writing this from the angle of alerting those who have been negligent. As Shaikh Al Albani said: “One proof is enough for the one who seeks the truth and 1000 proofs aren’t enough for someone upon their desires. The ignorant learns and as for the person of desires we have no way to reach him.”

Now, to delve into the topic:

  1. It is unlawful to rebel against the rulers, whether they are righteous or wicked. ‘Ubadah Ibn Saamit said: The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) called us hence we pledged allegiance to him. From that which was taken from us is that we pledge allegiance upon hearing and obeying in good and bad times, in ease, hardship and when others are preferred over us. And that we don’t dispute with those who have authority except if you see clear disbelief that you have proof from Allah for. (Bukhari and Muslim). Likewise, the Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim on the authority of Hudhaifah (رضي الله عنه) where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) described the characteristics of some rulers he still ordered the Muslims to obey them even if they take their wealth and beat them. There is not one evidence from the Qur’an and the Sunnah which legalizes fighting against oppressive rulers, rather the many evidences (which I shall mention in the final document) shows that one should be patient even under an oppressive ruler.
  2. The belief that it is lawful to rebel against an oppressive ruler is the belief of the Mu’tazilah. The Mu’tazilah have 5 foundations regarding their ‘Aqeedah and one of their foundations is “Commanding the good and forbidding the evil,” which is infact rebelling against the oppressive rulers. Hence, Bro. Hajji, due to his ignorance regarding deviant sects, didn’t know that what he has been calling to on social media is the ‘Aqeeedah of one of the earliest deviant sects that appeared among the Muslims. Secondly, due to his ignorance of Hanafi Athari doctrine, he doesn’t know that Ibn Abi ‘Izz Al Hanafi clarified that the belief that one should revolt against the oppressive ruler is a Mu’tazilite ideology.
  3. Several of the books regarding the ‘Aqeedah of the Salaf have categorized the belief of brother Hajji as a Khariji/Mu’tazili belief! Hence, that issue regarding obedience to rulers even if they were oppressive did not come in the books like Sharh Us Sunnah, Kitaab Ush Sharee’ah, As Sunnah of Ibn Abi ‘Aasim, ‘Aqeedah At Tahaweeyah etc. because the Imams were willing to submit to a “Madkhalite” understanding (In fact these books existed centuries before the birth of Shaikh Rabee’). Rather, that particular point (regarding revolting against the rulers) was brought up in these books to clarify the difference between the understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and the Khawarij/Mu’tazilah regarding the issue of rebelling.
  4. We also have to look at the principles of the Sharee’ah, one of the main ones being: If two evils come together the lesser evil is taken. Other than the fact that obedience to the oppressive ruler has been confirmed by the Prophet himself and the books of the Salaf (including the book of Imam At Tahawi Al Hanafi Al Athari) there is no doubt that having patience under the oppressive ruler is a lesser evil than having a civil war wherein the blood of the Muslims are spilt, the economies of Muslim countries are destroyed and wherein the enemies of Islam gain fertile ground for either ideological or military conquest. Secondly, not one revolt in the history of Islam has been successful. Hence it makes no logical sense to invest time, resources, money, speech and one’s life into something that has been prohibited by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم), has been outlined in the books of ‘Aqeedah and has never even been once successful historically?
  5. It is upon the reader to understand the categories of those who have rebelled: 1. The Khawarij: Those who have rebelled with the belief that the Muslims they are rebelling against are disbelievers. 2. The Mu’tazilah: Those who have rebelled with the belief that it is Halaal for them to rebel against oppressive Muslim rulers. 3. The Bughaat (those who have exceeded): They are those who rebelled based on circumstances but they neither have the belief of the Khawarij nor the Mu’tazilah. And all three are incorrect according to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
  6. If we really look deeply into history and analyze it we would understand that those who rebelled from the Salaf didn’t have the intention to rebel. Due to faulty analysis of History many only perceive that Hussein (رضي الله عنه) and Abdullah Ibn Zubair (رضي الله عنه) rebelled against the ruler in a vacum. However, if we truly reflect, both of them never had the intention to rebel. Rather, they were both requested by different parties for assistance and they felt that their assistance was needed to remove difficulties facing the Muslims. Those in Shaam pleaded for ‘Abdullah Ibn Zubair to come become the Islamic State was about to fall there. As for Hussein (رصي الله عنه) those in ‘Iraq were begging him to come to their aid until he acquiesced. Hence, it is said that they made Ijtihaad (an effort to find the truth) and that they are excused for their error. However, it can never be said that they both believed that rebelling against an oppressive ruler was the modus operandi to be taken. 
  7. Some may propose that the Saudis rebelled against the Ottoman empire which is erroneous. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Saudis were living in Najd which was not controlled by the Ottomans. Hence, their battles against the Ottoman empire cannot be categorized as rebellion since the Saud clan was not under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire and its Caliph in Istanbul in the first place.  

My dear brothers and sisters, may Allah have mercy upon all of you. It is upon us to take our knowledge from the scholars, students of knowledge and those who are well known for their uprightness and steadfastness upon the Sunnah of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم). Knowledge is not taken from one who can simply read an Arabic book, translate and bring about his own interpretation of the religion and historical events. It is also not taken from those who haven’t displayed steadfastness, adherence and uprightness upon the Sunnah, even if they have degress, qualification and accolades that span from the earth to the first heaven. As Muhammad Ibn Sireen said: “Verily this knowledge is religion, therefore look from whom you take your religion from.”

May Allah grant us beneficial knowledge, sincerity and steadfastness upon the Sunnah.

N.B: In Sha Allah ta’ala, I shall be writing regarding the LBGT issue in a separate research that I shall begin after this one. In that research I shall go into the basis (اصول) of the ideology of Yasir Qadhi and Yaqeen institute. In the Arabic language it is called (التنويرية) (Enlightenment) and contrary to popular belief it is not only a movement that is promoted by Yaqeen and their ilk to “answer today’s questions” but rather it is a worldwide movement with its agenda being pushed in the Muslim world.

May Allah make it easy to complete it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s