Dilly asks at 1:15:16 minute mark: Final question I want to ask you. From your reading of history, the usool and the legal nuances and maxims pertaining to this subject matter; is there an unequivocal position pertaining to rebelling against a ruler?
Yasir Qadhi replies: Oh not at all, this is one of the myths of modern Najdi Salafism, listen to my latest library chat which was very generically titled “some historical controversies in the first century of the hijra.” Listen to that as soon whenever you have time, inshallah after this lecture for the rest of your life, I know you (Dilly) don’t believe this but anybody who believes that it is a mainstream understanding of Sunni Islam to always be quietist and never rebel against the ruler, that will be demolished. This is a construct of modern Najdism in order to facilitate their political acquiescence to their royal family, it is not Islamic. Yes, mainstream Sunnism overall has been quietist but not obsequious, there’s a big difference between the two and quietism is not the same as bootlicking which is what the modern one does and pacifism does not mean that you agree with the ruler, or you don’t criticize the ruler. All of this is discussed in the lecture and also it is one opinion. We also had the other position where it is allowed to rebel against the ruler for certain reasons and Abu Hanifa was of this position, in Yazeed’s time the rebellion of Medina was done by Sahabah and sons of the Sahabah, Anas ibn Malik supported the rebellion against the Umayyad dynasty so are you going to call him Audhubillah non-Sunni? Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet ﷺ you’re going to say he doesn’t know the Sunnah of the prophet ﷺ? Even the pacifists like Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas, their hearts were with Hussein against Yazeed whereas the “pacifists” of our time, their hearts are with the Al-fulans and the royal families against the masses, you cannot compare the two. So please, stop deceiving people with this new-fangled interpretation. We are not bootlickers to corrupt regimes, that is not Islam. Even if you agree to be pacifist, it is done to avoid more bloodshed, like Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar said, and it is not done to support tyrannical regimes. Listen to that lecture and you will hear my thoughts. Wallahi it’s historical, it’s not even me, i’m telling you history. These are the salaf so how can “Salafis” go against the Salaf?
The lecture Yasir Qadhi is referring to:
