Rebelling Against the Ruler

[Omar del Sur]

this has come up periodically and I want to recap....

there is supposedly a group called Madkhalis that says you cannot rebel against the ruler... I guess ever.

I think the correct position is this- you cannot rebel against the ruler unless he openly becomes apostate.

So if he becomes a clear-cut apostate and you have proof and certainty that he has openly committed apostasy then you can overthrow him.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the ruler not using one hundred percent sharia is not necessarily grounds for takfir.

The one who believes in secularism is a kaffir, yes, as has been previously established.

However, as I understand it, the ruler who does not implement one hundred percent sharia is not necessarily a kaffir.

I know people say "ha! Sheikh Fawzan says the ones who believes in secularism is a kaffir! why doesn't he takfir.... every Muslim ruler on earth"......

it gets more complex. takfir is a serious thing.

According to Sheikh Fawzan, there are conditions wherein not applying the sharia do not constitute apostasy. And as I understand it, that is the correct position.

Let me give an example. In Pakistan, there was General Zia. Zia wanted to bring sharia into Pakistan.

However, he was concerned that if he took Pakistan from relatively secular to full sharia overnight that his government would be overthrown and that his whole Islamization project would be defeated. So he followed a strategy of gradual Islamization.

Now, Zia was a staunch Muslim who wanted the sharia. He wasn't a secularist.

So do we make takfir on Zia? I think it would be crazy to.

So as I understand it- and I am not saying we must never ever revolt against the ruler- but I am saying that I think we have to see open, clearcut apostasy from the ruler before we can rebel. I don't think that is a "Madkhali" position. I think that viewpoint has been around long before Sheikh Madkhali was alive.

 

[Omar del Sur]

IslamQA discusses this btw

"As regards the question of when ruling by other than what Allaah revealed is kufr asghar, which does not exclude a person from the ummah of Islam:

the answer is that this may be the case when a ruler or judge passes judgement according to other than what Allaah revealed out of disobedience or on a whim, or as a favour to someone, or because he was bribed, and so on, although he believes that it is obligatory to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, and that what he has done is a sinful and haraam deed."

The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

so there may be situations where the ruler not following the sharia does not constitute apostasy.... however, for example, believing in secularism and not believing in sharia does constitute apostasy...

I know some might act like they don't understand such a distinction but this is a complex and serious subject and so we can't dumb it down to accomodate them

 

[Aurelian]

Madkhalis: what ever he does, you can rebel against the ruler

Madkhalis: it is right to support the coup that overthrown Morsi in Egypt.

Madkhalis: How dare you work against Haftar the General in Lybia?

Madkhalis: any one who is against Saudias ruler is a kafiir, even if the ruler had committed zina on live TV

 

[Inquisitive_]

The Tabdee's (Madkhalis) and Takfiri's both champion secularism.

If an Islamic state was born today, both of them would go out of business, because at the top, it's all about power and finance, it has nothing to do with theology, creed or faith which the sheeple are concerned with, it's simply a business racket.

Both these cults drive Muslims into secularism in their own ways, one through extreme excessive merciless barbarism and excommunication that ensures Muslim lands remain unsafe, underdeveloped and impoverished, thus pushing the masses into secular Non-Muslim lands.

While the other achieves a similar goal through their close-minded sectarian cult like outlook on religion and their despicable behaviours towards other Muslims (they are not the only ones) ensuring the average Muslim would rather be governed by secular laws than those bigots that misrepresent the faith.

At the root of the problem is the Najdi dawah backed by Petro dollars that has taken the Ummah by storm, both these groups read the same books and call themselves Salafis.

You don't find Tabdee's or Takfiri's among the Sufi, Ikhwani, Ashari, Maturidi or even deviants like the Shia, it's just Salafis only.

Until this cancer of extremism is dealt with to a significant degree, the Ummah is not ready for Sharia.

It comes as no surprise why they lost every battle in the modern era, and why every dictator in that same era butchered them, we see today why because the fitnah and fasaad they have caused is unparalleled.

 

[MuslimManMe]

The Tabdee's (Madkhalis) and Takfiri's both champion secularism.

If an Islamic state was born today, both of them would go out of business, because at the top, it's all about power and finance, it has nothing to do with theology, creed or faith which the sheeple are concerned with, it's simply a business racket.

Both these cults drive Muslims into secularism in their own ways, one through extreme excessive merciless barbarism and excommunication that ensures Muslim lands remain unsafe, underdeveloped and impoverished, thus pushing the masses into secular Non-Muslim lands.

While the other achieves a similar goal through their close-minded sectarian cult like outlook on religion and their despicable behaviours towards other Muslims (they are not the only ones) ensuring the average Muslim would rather be governed by secular laws than those bigots that misrepresent the faith.

At the root of the problem is the Najdi dawah backed by Petro dollars that has taken the Ummah by storm, both these groups read the same books and call themselves Salafis.

You don't find Tabdee's or Takfiri's among the Sufi, Ikhwani, Ashari, Maturidi or even deviants like the Shia, it's just Salafis only.

Until this cancer of extremism is dealt with to a significant degree, the Ummah is not ready for Sharia.

It comes as no surprise why they lost every battle in the modern era, and why every dictator in that same era butchered them, we see today why because the fitnah and fasaad they have caused is unparalleled.

Jazakallah khair ya akhi

Wallahi we miss your insight.

On the religious front, Salafis have taken over this forum with the trademark slander of everyone who does not take from their 5 shuyookh.

Please enlighten us on this and the myriad other discussions going on.

 

[Omar del Sur]

The Tabdee's (Madkhalis) and Takfiri's both champion secularism.

If an Islamic state was born today, both of them would go out of business, because at the top, it's all about power and finance, it has nothing to do with theology, creed or faith which the sheeple are concerned with, it's simply a business racket.

Both these cults drive Muslims into secularism in their own ways, one through extreme excessive merciless barbarism and excommunication that ensures Muslim lands remain unsafe, underdeveloped and impoverished, thus pushing the masses into secular Non-Muslim lands.

While the other achieves a similar goal through their close-minded sectarian cult like outlook on religion and their despicable behaviours towards other Muslims (they are not the only ones) ensuring the average Muslim would rather be governed by secular laws than those bigots that misrepresent the faith.

At the root of the problem is the Najdi dawah backed by Petro dollars that has taken the Ummah by storm, both these groups read the same books and call themselves Salafis.

You don't find Tabdee's or Takfiri's among the Sufi, Ikhwani, Ashari, Maturidi or even deviants like the Shia, it's just Salafis only.

Until this cancer of extremism is dealt with to a significant degree, the Ummah is not ready for Sharia.

It comes as no surprise why they lost every battle in the modern era, and why every dictator in that same era butchered them, we see today why because the fitnah and fasaad they have caused is unparalleled.

Are you repeating that old hoax that Salafism promotes stuff like ISIS?


Sheikh Fawzan is the top living Salafi scholar. We can can see him above saying that ISIS is from the party of Satan.

Furthermore, I don't know of him ever saying "you must never rebel against the ruler ever no matter what he does".

Sheikh Fawzan's position is basically the same position as I described in OP- you can rebel against the ruler if he openly commits apostasy. He doesn't say you can never do it but that the ruler has to commit open apostasy.

So neither ISIS nor any idea that you can never rebel against the ruler no matter what- neither of these are the proper Salafi position.

 

[Omar del Sur]

The Tabdee's (Madkhalis) and Takfiri's both champion secularism.

If an Islamic state was born today, both of them would go out of business, because at the top, it's all about power and finance, it has nothing to do with theology, creed or faith which the sheeple are concerned with, it's simply a business racket.

Both these cults drive Muslims into secularism in their own ways, one through extreme excessive merciless barbarism and excommunication that ensures Muslim lands remain unsafe, underdeveloped and impoverished, thus pushing the masses into secular Non-Muslim lands.

While the other achieves a similar goal through their close-minded sectarian cult like outlook on religion and their despicable behaviours towards other Muslims (they are not the only ones) ensuring the average Muslim would rather be governed by secular laws than those bigots that misrepresent the faith.

At the root of the problem is the Najdi dawah backed by Petro dollars that has taken the Ummah by storm, both these groups read the same books and call themselves Salafis.

You don't find Tabdee's or Takfiri's among the Sufi, Ikhwani, Ashari, Maturidi or even deviants like the Shia, it's just Salafis only.

Until this cancer of extremism is dealt with to a significant degree, the Ummah is not ready for Sharia.

It comes as no surprise why they lost every battle in the modern era, and why every dictator in that same era butchered them, we see today why because the fitnah and fasaad they have caused is unparalleled.

Furthermore, what you are saying is very wrong.

There are some corrupt people somewhere so we should become secularists?

Because there are corrupt deviants like ISIS- we should abandon sharia?

Because someone somewhere is fighting for ISIS or Al-Shabaab- we should allow stores to sell people alcohol, we should allow zina?

The khawarij are going to be around at least until Dajjal appears and then they are going to join Dajjal.

So from now until at least the appearance of Dajjal, we should get rid of sharia?

That is backwards. Sharia is not applicable sometimes. Sharia is the correct way until the end of this world.

To say that there are deviant and corrupt people somewhere and therefore we should not have sharia- that is like saying there are deviant and corrupt people out there and therefore we should not pray Fajr, that the need to pray Fajr is suspended until the world becomes a utopia and there are no corrupt people.

There were corrupt and deviant people before Islam and there are going to be corrupt people until the world ends. That is simply how the world is.

Allah already knew everything that was going to happen. Salat, zakah, fasting in Ramadan, sharia, etc. are valid for as long as this world continues to exist.