Islamically You Must Avoid Overthrowing The Government At All Costs

[techsamatar]

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

Go back to hiding instead of spreading your Keyboard Khawarij Filth posion.

You can only revolt if the ruler openly forbids prayer and does not pray, implying that he is a Kafir; otherwise, you are the dog of hellfire if you cause chaos and destabilisation among Muslims, as your like-minded khawarij have done to every muslim nation one after the other; you are all just Judeo-western crooks thinking you are fighting for the path of Allah and establishing the law of Allah.

Using Ataturk as an example just demonstrates your intelligence; you know full well that Ataturk was not a Muslim, and the actions he took are not worth discussing, but go find me any muslim leader today who you think is comparable to him, because I know you're itching to Takfir muslim rulers in the same category as Ataturk.

 

[hanif#]

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

This is nonsense. There is no obligation on obeying a kafir ruler, rather it becomes obligatory for the Muslims to overthrow him and if they don't have the ability to leave the country

Al Qadi Iyyad said:


أجمع العلماء على أن الإمامة لا تنعقد لكافر، وعلى أنه لو طرأ عليه الكفر انعزل

The scholars unanimously agreed that the khilafah should not be granted to an infidel, and that if he apostates he should be overthrown

 

[reer]

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

good point. the syrians were almost going to topple bashar before he was saved by mooryaan shia hordes and putin.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I want to give an example from history. Around 1979, in Pakistan, General Zia removed Zulfikar Bhutto in a bloodless coup.

Zia to my understanding was a pious Muslim and he wanted to bring in the shariah into Pakistan (according to a book I read from one of the people who worked with him, the reason he didn't implement shariah one hundred percent was worried it would lead to him being overthrown... so he was following a gradualist approach).

Zulfikar Bhutto was a secular socialist.

So I don't agree with the Libya or the Syria model. I don't support mass chaos and anarchy. (btw I don't think we should blame the ppl who supported those uprisings bcuz they didn't know how it was going to turn out). But if you have someone like Zulfikar Bhutto and you can replace them in a bloodless coup with a religious Muslim who wants to implement the shariah- why not? Was Zia a khariji for removing Bhutto? I don't see anything wrong with what he did. The issue with what happened in Syria and Libya is the harm it led to, it isn't that trying to remove those rulers is wrong in and of itself.

 

[mohammdov]

I want to give an example from history. Around 1979, in Pakistan, General Zia removed Zulfikar Bhutto in a bloodless coup.

Zia to my understanding was a pious Muslim and he wanted to bring in the shariah into Pakistan (according to a book I read from one of the people who worked with him, the reason he didn't implement shariah one hundred percent was worried it would lead to him being overthrown... so he was following a gradualist approach).

Zulfikar Bhutto was a secular socialist.

So I don't agree with the Libya or the Syria model. I don't support mass chaos and anarchy. (btw I don't think we should blame the ppl who supported those uprisings bcuz they didn't know how it was going to turn out). But if you have someone like Zulfikar Bhutto and you can replace them in a bloodless coup with a religious Muslim who wants to implement the shariah- why not? Was Zia a khariji for removing Bhutto? I don't see anything wrong with what he did. The issue with what happened in Syria and Libya is the harm it led to, it isn't that trying to remove those rulers is wrong in and of itself.

You are allowed to overthrow the unjust ruler in one case, which is if he is weak, but if he is strong and has an army and supporters here, you should not fight him because a war like this would be worse than living under his rule.

 

[hanif#]

Go back to hiding instead of spreading your Keyboard Khawarij Filth posion.

You can only revolt if the ruler openly forbids prayer and does not pray, implying that he is a Kafir; otherwise, you are the dog of hellfire if you cause chaos and destabilisation among Muslims, as your like-minded khawarij have done to every muslim nation one after the other; you are all just Judeo-western crooks thinking you are fighting for the path of Allah and establishing the law of Allah.

You are actually more Khariji than him. And you don't know what Khawarij and Khariji means

 

[techsamatar]

You are actually more Khariji than him. And you don't know what Khawarij and Khariji means

Keep seething Kharij Sitter. Your kind and Filthy Thinking ruined my people and Land as well as being the cause of death of Ali ibn Talib/ Uthman and other noble companions you Judeo-Western Lapdogs.

 

[hanif#]

You are allowed to overthrow the unjust ruler in one case, which is if he is weak, but if he is strong and has an army and supporters here, you should not fight him because a war like this would be worse than living under his rule.

Some of the Sahaba and the kibar of the Tabi'in were on the opinion that its allowed to overthrow the ruler even if he is powerful.

Wasn't Abdul Malik bin Marwan powerful?

 

[hanif#]

Keep seething Kharij Sitter. Your kind ruined my people and Land you Judeo-Western Lapdogs.

Know your place yaa Jahil murakab

 

[techsamatar]

Know your place yaa Jahil murakab

Am guessing since I don't consider MBS and other Muslim rulers you takfir now my blood becomes Halal to Spill and it makes me a kafir too?

On God if I was a ruler I would have waited for you poison spreaders to do the revolt and then after that it becomes halal for him to wipe you and destroy you like the people of Ad as the prophet commanded to do with you khariji.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This is nonsense. There is no obligation on obeying a kafir ruler, rather it becomes obligatory for the Muslims to overthrow him and if they don't have the ability to leave the country

Al Qadi Iyyad said:


أجمع العلماء على أن الإمامة لا تنعقد لكافر، وعلى أنه لو طرأ عليه الكفر انعزل

The scholars unanimously agreed that the Imamate should not be granted to an infidel, and that if he apostates he should be overthrown

see this is where I differ with yourself and some others. we agree that dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar. This was the view of the classical scholars such as Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyahh and numerous others.

But should we turn the Muslim countries into Libya and Syria? No, I do not believe this, I am not a tool of external forces to destroy Muslim countries. Any obligation in Islam is dependent upon ability. Even if the ruler is a clear cut kaffir like Assad, removing him isn't an obligation if there isn't the means to do so. And what Sheikh Ibn Baz said is correct "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.".

 

[mohammdov]

Some of the Sahaba and the kibar of the Tabi'in were on the opinion that its allowed to overthrow the ruler even if he is powerful.

Wasn't Abdul Malik bin Marwan powerful?

Abdul Malik bin Marwan did not rule all Muslims, and what happened at that time was fatnah
A strong ruler should never be overthrown because this will cause much destruction and the death of many people

 

[hanif#]

Am guessing since I don't consider MBS and other Muslim rulers you takfir now my blood becomes Halal to Spill and it makes me a kafir too?

You are just jahil and should not speak about this matter. I don’t know if Mbs is kafir but Siyad barre was Deffo a Kaffir

 

[techsamatar]

You are just jahil and should not speak about this matter. I don’t know if Mbs is kafir but Siyad barre was Deffo a Kaffir

Instead of being a keyboard warrior, why not consider becoming an active participant in the cause? There's a difference between being a revolutionary and the second type of Khawariji, who merely sit back, advocate for civil unrest, and contribute to the destabilization and weakening of the ummah from the comfort of their homes in the West while paying taxes to non-Muslim authorities under non-Muslim laws.


I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.

 

[techsamatar]

I suggest everyone Reads this brief book and PDF apart from the Khawariji since it is about them lol .

It is By Shaykh albani

https://abdurrahmanorg.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/descriptions-of-the-khawarij-shaykh-al-albanee-authentic-translations-com.pdf

 

[Omar del Sur]

Go back to hiding instead of spreading your Keyboard Khawarij Filth posion.

You can only revolt if the ruler openly forbids prayer and does not pray, implying that he is a Kafir; otherwise, you are the dog of hellfire if you cause chaos and destabilisation among Muslims, as your like-minded khawarij have done to every muslim nation one after the other; you are all just Judeo-western crooks thinking you are fighting for the path of Allah and establishing the law of Allah.

Using Ataturk as an example just demonstrates your intelligence; you know full well that Ataturk was not a Muslim, and the actions he took are not worth discussing, but go find me any muslim leader today who you think is comparable to him, because I know you're itching to Takfir muslim rulers in the same category as Ataturk.

I haven't been hiding, my thread on "Madkhalis" has over two thousand views and been at the top of the Islam section. And you haven't refuted it. Come to that thread and refute it. But you can't.

What you are saying is silly.

"You can only revolt if the ruler openly forbids prayer and does not pray"

According to what you've said, Sheikh Ibn Baz and Sheikh Albaani are khawarij. You need to focus on learning basics, I remember you kept calling me as an individual "a khawarij". You don't know basic stuff and you've been duped into thinking it's ok to toss around this khariji label like it's free candy. You called like five users on here khawarij and if you were consistent, you'd have to call everyone on here who has ever criticized HSM or Farmaajo a khariji. You would also have to say the same about Sheikh Uthaymeen, Sheikh Ibn Baz and Sheikh Albani. You are way too loose with that term.

 

[hanif#]

see this is where I differ with yourself and some others. we agree that dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar. This was the view of the classical scholars such as Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyahh and numerous others.

But should we turn the Muslim countries into Libya and Syria? No, I do not believe this, I am not a tool of external forces to destroy Muslim countries. Any obligation in Islam is dependent upon ability. Even if the ruler is a clear cut kaffir like Assad, removing him isn't an obligation if there isn't the means to do so. And what Sheikh Ibn Baz said is correct "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.".

No Ibn Baz is wrong and the classical scholars are right. You can't predict what will happen in the future. An obligation should not be abandoned because of hypothetical scenarios that could happen in the future. This is a silly principle. Only Allah know Ghayb.

Repelling against and overthrowing a kafir ruler is a noble act a form of jihad and can never be evil.

 

[techsamatar]

The Dajjal(Anti-Christ) Will Emerge Among The Khawariji:

 

[Omar del Sur]

I suggest everyone Reads this brief book and PDF apart from the Khawariji since it is about them lol .

It is By Shaykh albani

https://abdurrahmanorg.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/descriptions-of-the-khawarij-shaykh-al-albanee-authentic-translations-com.pdf

you were calling myself and like four other ppl on here khawarij for criticizing the Saudi. Albani criticized them openly, why do you apply a different standard when it's Albani?

And why do you only apply this when it comes to the Saudi gov? if you applied the same standard with the Somali gov, you would have to call possibly the majority of users here as khawarij.

 

[Celery]

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.

So Muslims should overthrow these governments?? The whole point is to avoid mass death, destruction, the breakdown of social order, displacement, hunger etc.

That’s why you shouldn’t overthrow a government.