Islamically You Must Avoid Overthrowing The Government At All Costs

[Keep it a boqol]

Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good in which we live now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Leaders after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1847

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

 

[techsamatar]

Went in detail on this go through my Khawarij related threads.

 

[Keep it a boqol]

Went in detail on this go through my Khawarij related threads.

Link the thread sxb

 

[Lahaine]

Reminds me of when Syria tried to overthrow Assad and ended up in their situation now. Their displaced all over the world and Assad still is in control

 

[Periplus]

Bro these are referring to Islamic governments, as in one based in Islamic law, that happen to have bad rulers. As we saw, many Khalifas were horrible rulers but they were still leading an Islamic government.

The governments of today in the Muslim world are not Muslim governments. They’re governments that happen to be led by Muslims.

There is an inherent difference there and many ulema that are on the payroll of these governments deliberately try to blur the difference.

 

[tyrannicalmanager]

Reminds me of when Syria tried to overthrow Assad and ended up in their situation now. Their displaced all over the world and Assad still is in control

This Hadith doesn't apply to the Alawite regime.

 

[Keep it a boqol]

Bro these are referring to Islamic governments, as in one based in Islamic law, that happen to have bad rulers. As we saw, many Khalifas were horrible rulers but they were still leading an Islamic government.

The governments of today in the Muslim world are not Muslim governments. They’re governments that happen to be led by Muslims.

There is an inherent difference there and many ulema that are on the payroll of these governments deliberately try to blur the difference.

“The Prophet said, “Leaders after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.”

Isn’t the prophet pbuh talking about not ruling thru sharia here? he’s clearly talking about tyrants not following the quran and sunnah

 

[Periplus]

“The Prophet said, “Leaders after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.”

Isn’t the prophet pbuh talking about not ruling thru sharia here? he’s clearly talking about tyrants not following the quran and sunnah

He is talking about the leaders as individuals, in terms of their actions and the policies they institute.

But I personally believe, this is referring to the Khalifas that will come after him. As in leaders of the ummah, Islamic governments.

Because this can also refer to non-Muslim rulers of non-Muslim lands also if we are to take the interpretation that many believe.

 

[mohamedismail]

Somalia , Syria, Libya , Iraq are all examples from the fitna that comes from overthrowing the Muslim leader. Even us as Somali people are facing the consequences of overthrowing siyaad barre.

 

[tyrannicalmanager]

“The Prophet said, “Leaders after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.”

Isn’t the prophet pbuh talking about not ruling thru sharia here? he’s clearly talking about tyrants not following the quran and sunnah

he Prophet (ﷺ) said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it.
source: Sahih al-Bukhari 7144

 

[Periplus]

Somalia , Syria, Libya , Iraq are all examples from the fitna that comes from overthrowing the Muslim leader. Even us as Somali people are facing the consequences of overthrowing siyaad barre.

And what punishment happened to overthrowing the “caliphate” in 1923?

What consequences are the Turks facing?

 

[techsamatar]

Link the thread sxb

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/khawarji-dogs-of-the-hellfire.157775/#post-3837137

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/allah-allows-cruel-rulers-to-rule-over-people-because-of-their-own-unjust-actions-and-corruption.157399/

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/dangers-of-the-khawarij-ideology-of-violence.157884/

Al-Hasan narrated saying: Allah’s Messenger mentioned the rulers and the evil rulers, the leaders and the evil leaders. He mentioned that the misguidance and deviation of some of them will fill what is between the sky and the earth! So he was asked: “O Messenger of Allah, should we not strike them with the sword??” He replied: “No. So long as they the pray the prayer, then no.” (Reported by Al-Imām Nu’aym Ibn Hammād (died 239H) in Kitāb Al-Fitan, 1/185, no. 491)

 

[Yahya]

Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good in which we live now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Leaders after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1847

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

Easiest way to thwart regime change and yet the Muslims didn't listen. What shame, modern Muslims are abysmally pathetic.

 

[Gaandheri]

Reminds me of when Syria tried to overthrow Assad and ended up in their situation now. Their displaced all over the world and Assad still is in control

Lol they would have succeeded if wasn’t for foreign terrorists but this Nusayri would have ended up worse than Gaddafi if it wasn’t for the Russians and Iranians.

 

[mohammdov]

If I had lived in the 1980s, I would not have supported the armed fronts.

 

[al-Mu'tamid المعتمد]

Went in detail on this go through my Khawarij related threads.

Hypothetically, imagine if the people of Galbeed initiated an armed resistance, adopted a new flag, gained strength, and achieved independence from the Ethiopians. In this scenario, can they challenge Somalia's territorial claim, even though both regions are predominantly Muslim? Considering Galbeed is not under Somali supervision or governance, this would result in two separate entities with their own rulers.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar. That is the view of the classical scholars, if we say it is a takfiri view then we would have to call the classical scholars takfiris.

If the ruler is Ataturk or does what he did- ie dismantle the shariah- you're not allowed to do anything to oppose him?

Those hadith about obeying Muslim rulers don't apply to rulers who dismantle the shariah.

I think people have this idea that you have to fall into one of two extremes- you have to take those hadith and apply them to rulers who have dismantled the shariah.... or you must be some sort of anarchist calling for chaos and anarchy. It is a false dichotomy.

Even if you have clear proof of the ruler committing kufr- and dismantling the shariah is kufr- you should not do khurooj against him unless you have the means and it won't lead to a greater evil for the Muslims. So this neither means pretending rulers who dismantle the shariah have the same rights as legitimate Muslim rulers (they don't) nor calling for chaos and anarchy by calling for Muslims to remove the ruler when they don't have the means and trying to remove the ruler will lead to a worse situation for the Muslims.

"The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted."

-Sheikh Ibn Baz

Is it permissible to rebel against the ruler? - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

 

[hanif#]

And what punishment happened to overthrowing the “caliphate” in 1923?

What consequences are the Turks facing?

They are a secular country who are very far from Islam with prostitution, Sodomy alcohol and all forms of anti-Islam degeneracy being legal in the county. I don’t know a bigger Musiibo than that.

 

[World]

Dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar. That is the view of the classical scholars, if we say it is a takfiri view then we would have to call the classical scholars takfiris.

If the ruler is Ataturk or does what he did- ie dismantle the shariah- you're not allowed to do anything to oppose him?

Those hadith about obeying Muslim rulers don't apply to rulers who dismantle the shariah.

I think people have this idea that you have to fall into one of two extremes- you have to take those hadith and apply them to rulers who have dismantled the shariah.... or you must be some sort of anarchist calling for chaos and anarchy. It is a false dichotomy.

Even if you have clear proof of the ruler committing kufr- and dismantling the shariah is kufr- you should not do khurooj against him unless you have the means and it won't lead to a greater evil for the Muslims. So this neither means pretending rulers who dismantle the shariah have the same rights as legitimate Muslim rulers (they don't) nor calling for chaos and anarchy by calling for Muslims to remove the ruler when they don't have the means and trying to remove the ruler will lead to a worse situation for the Muslims.

"The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted."

-Sheikh Ibn Baz

Is it permissible to rebel against the ruler? - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

It’s pretty much impossible nowadays to rebel against a government without extremely high casualties.

 

[techsamatar]

Hypothetically, imagine if the people of Galbeed initiated an armed resistance, adopted a new flag, gained strength, and achieved independence from the Ethiopians. In this scenario, can they challenge Somalia's territorial claim, even though both regions are predominantly Muslim? Considering Galbeed is not under Somali supervision or governance, this would result in two separate entities with their own rulers.

Engaging in conflict or separation without a strong and supported cause would be unwise. It is essential for both ethnic Somalis who share the Muslim faith to consider pursuing actions like jihad or breaking away only when Somalia is strong and they have substantial support from their fellow Muslims. This approach would align with historical examples like the Ogaden War, making any such endeavors halal jihad, conducted under the right conditions and with proper support.

And No they can't challenge Somalia's territorial claim morally but the Kafirs and western exploiters will aim for them to do that to weaken and to keep Somalis destabilised.