The Scholars are United against removing the Disbelieving Ruler

It is recorded in Sahikh Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ubadah Ibn As-Samit, “The Messenger of Allah (Peace and Blessings be upon him) called us, so we gave Ba’yah to him. So from what took upon us was that we offer Bay’ah upon listening and obeying  during our eagerness or reluctance and in our difficult times and we in our easy times, and favouring (the commands) instead of our own (desires), and that we should not dispute the authority from its people.” He said, ‘Unless you seen an open disbelief, for which you have an evidence from Allah about it.”

Imām An-Nawawī said, “Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh said, ‘The scholars have formed a consensus that the leadership (Imāmah) is not to be contracted to a disbeliever (Kāfir) and that if disbelief (Kufr) comes from him, then he is to be removed… So if disbelief (Kufr) and changing the legislation (Shara’ ) or innovation (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 Muslims to rise up against him and remove him and set up a just Imām, if that is possible for them. Then if that is not possible, except for a group (Tā’ifah), then it is obligatory upon them (i.e. a group) to rise up and remove the disbeliever (Kāfir). And that is not obligatory concerning the innovator, unless they assume that they are able (to do so). Then if the inability is confirmed, then the uprising is not obligatory, but the Muslims must make Hijrah away from his land to other than it, and flee with his religion.” [Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh An-Nawawi 12/229]

Al-Hāfith Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalānī رحمه الله said, “Ad-Dāwūdī said that, “The scholars are (united) regarding that the oppressive [Muslim] rulers, if it is possible to remove them without fitnah (war), then it is obligatory (Wājib); but if it involves fitnah (war), then it is obligatory to be patient. And some scholars view that it is not permissible to put a fāsiq (oppressor) into rulership if he is as such from the beginning; but if he was put into position while he was righteous, and then later committed oppression- then the scholars have differed regarding revolting against such a (fāsiq) ruler, but the correct opinion is that it is forbidden. But as for the ruler committing kufr, then it is obligatory (Wājib).” [Refer to Fat’h Al Bari 13/10]

Ibn Hajar رحمه الله also narrates from the Salaf, “The Fuqahā’ (scholars) are united in Ijmā’ regarding the obligation of obeying a sinful (Muslim Muwahhid) ruler, and that Jihād with him (against the kuffār) is valid, and that obeying him is better than revolting against him, and spilling the blood of many… And the scholars have not exempted any from this obligation (of obeying the rulers) except if the ruler perpetrates clear kufr- in such a case, it is not permissible to obey the ruler in that matter (of kufr)- on the contrary, it is obligatory (Wājib) to wage Jihād against him, for whosoever is capable of doing so.” [Fath’ul Bari 13/9]

And Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله said regarding the rulers who do not take Jizyah (tax) from the Jews and Christians, and forbid Jihād against the kuffār, “So any group that refuses to do these, even if they accept (the obligation of) these, they are to be fought. And I have no knowledge of any difference of opinion regarding this.” [Majmoo Al Fatawa 28/503-504]

So it is obviously clear from these scholars that they differentiated between revolting against a fāsiq oppressive ruler and a Mubtadi’ – and some scholars stipulated that with the “ability to remove him without fitnah”.

As Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh رحمه الله said, “And that is not obligatory concerning the innovator, unless they assume that they are able (to do so),” and Ad-Dāwūdī رحمه الله said, “The scholars are (united) regarding that the oppressive [Muslim] rulers, if it is رحمه الله said, “The scholars are (united) regarding that the oppressive [Muslim] rulers, if it is possible to remove them without fitnah (war), then it is obligatory (Wājib)”.

But as for the ruler who commits kufr, they not only made it permissible, they were united upon the obligation of removing him, even if it involves bloodshed. [Stated by Shaykh Sulayman Ibn Salman]

As Ibn Hajar said, “But as for the ruler committing kufr, then it is obligatory (Wājib),” and “Except if the ruler perpetrates clear kufr- in such a case, it is not permissible to obey the ruler in that matter (of kufr)- on the contrary, it is obligatory (Wājib) to wage Jihād against
him, for whosoever is capable of doing so.”

And Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh said, “Then if that is not possible, except for a group (Tā’ifah) then it is obligatory upon them (i.e. a group) to rise up and remove the disbeliever (Kāfir)…”

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s