obligation to obey muslim leaders?

**haq** · 09-02-2006, 01:28 AM

Salam'alykum brothers and sisters,

I just finished reading this book called "An Introduction to 'aqeeda (beliefs) of Ahl AlSunnah wal Jam'ah" By Shaykh 'Abd Allah al-athari. I did not understand some things in this book completely.

Please read the following quote from the book:
"It should be noted that if a person becomes a leader (khaleefa) and the people unite around him and approve of him, OR if he seizes power by force and becomes khaleefa, then it is obligatory to obey him and it is haraam (prohibited) to rebel against him. Imam Ahmad says: "Whoever seizes power by force...it is not permissible for anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day to spend one night without acknowleging him as a leader, weather he is righteous or an evil doer"

First of all, I do not understand this concept. I did not know that this was a part of the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-jammah. In the book it further says, even if the leader is a great tyrrant and oppressor, one cannot rebel against him, if he is a muslim.

Allah and the prophet stress so much on Justice.

[4:3] ...but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

[4:58] Surely Allah commands you to make over trusts to their owners and that when you judge between people you judge with justice

[4:135] O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives;

[57:25] Indeed, We sent Our messengers with the clear signs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men might uphold justice ...

This is only to mention a few of the verses from the Qur'an that talk about importance of establishment of Social Justice. How is it possible that it is not allowed to rebell against a tyrrant muslim in order to create justice?

In the last verse [57:25], establishment of justice has been declared as being the objective of the mission of all the prophets.

One other thing that seems to go against this concept, that you cannot rebel against a tyyrant muslim, is that in the same book it says:

"One of the major signs of the Hour (Judgement day)...is the appearance of the Mahdi...He will appear from the east and will reign for seven years, filling the Earth with Justice..."

So if it is haraam to rebel against a muslim tyrrant, when the Mahdi will come will he destroy all unjust muslim rulers aswell? Does that mean it is allow to fight tyrrant muslim rulers? It says in the hadiths (mentioned in the same book) that he will completely fill the earth with justice, how can he do that without rebelling against the muslim rulers who are injust?

I am very confused. Please someone, help me clarify this problem...I will appreciate it.

wasalam'alykyum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

**if0rg0t** · 09-02-2006, 03:50 AM

Here is a passage from Reliance of the Traveler, a Shafi Fiqh text. Pay attention to this part:

***
If the caliph becomes a non-Muslim, alters the Sacred Law- (N: such alteration being of two types, one of which consists of his changing the Law by legislating something which contravenes it while believing in the validity of the provisions of the Sacred Law, this being an injustice that does not permit rebellion against him, while the other consists of imposing rules that contravenes the provisions of the religion while believing in the validity of the rules he has imposed, this being unbelief (kufr) (A: it is questionable whether anyone would impose much rules without believing in their validity) ) - or imposes reprehensible innovations while in office, then he loses his authority and need no longer be obeyed, and it is obligatory for Muslims to rise against him if possible, remove him from office, and install an upright leader in his place. If only some are able, they are obliged to rise up and remove the unbeliever (A: whether they believe they will succeed or fail),
***

As we all know, muslim governments around the world do not rule according to sacred law (in general), and have many laws which are in opposition to it. However, the rulers and legislators are have not left the fold of Islam as long as they believe what they are doing is incorrect and not acceptable to Allah. At this point, read the note by the author, (A: it is questionable whether anyone would impose much rules without believing in their validity).

. Interesting ehh ? Especially in 'democracies' and during the times in which everyone has a press conference or two. Legislators and rulers argue and debate that their laws are correct, and that they should be implemented (this is what they do in parliment, etc ..). When is the last time you heard a legislator/ruler saying, "I have been instrumental in passing legislation which is not in accordance with the Shariah. I am wrong, and and hence a sinner because of this. However, I will continue to do it." Nay! instead they come on T.V. and praise themselves and their party for their great work, and criticize the MOLVIS and religious folks to protest against their un-Islamic laws. *sigh*. Anywhoo, read it for yourself.

(Reliance of the Traveler)
Translator's additions.
Chapter O-25.0: The Caliphate.

O-25.3: The Qualifications of a Caliph
(Nawawi among the qualifications of the caliph are that he be:
(a) Muslim (H: so that he may see to the best interests of Islam and the Muslims (K: it being invalid to appoint a non-Muslims (K: it being invalid to appoint a non-Muslim (kafir) to authority, even to rule non-Muslim.) (S: Qadi 'lyad states that there is scholarly consensus (def: b-7) that it is not legally valid to invest a non-Muslim as caliph, and that if a caliph becomes a non-Muslim (dis: 08.7) he is not longer caliph, as also when he does not maintain the prescribed prayers (A: meaning to both perform them himself and order Muslim to) and summon the people to them, and likewise (according to the majority of scholars) if he makes reprehensible innovations (bid'a, def: w-29.3) (A: by imposing an innovation on people that is Offensive or unlawful). If the caliph becomes a non-Muslim, alters the Sacred Law- (N: such alteration being of two types, one of which consists of his changing the Law by legislating something which contravenes it while believing in the validity of the provisions of the Sacred Law, this being an injustice that does not permit rebellion against him, while the other consists of imposing rules that contravenes the provisions of the religion while believing in the validity of the rules he has imposed, this being unbelief (kufr) (A: it is questionable whether anyone would impose much rules without believing in their validity) ) - or imposes reprehensible innovations while in office, then he loses his authority and need no longer be obeyed, and it is obligatory for Muslims to rise against him if possible, remove him from office, and install an upright leader in his place. If only some are able, they are obliged to rise up and remove the unbeliever (A: whether they believe they will succeed or fail), through it is not obligatory to try to remove a leader who imposes reprehensible innovations unless they believe it possible. If they are certain that they are unable to (A: remove an innovator), they are notobliged to rise against him. Rather, a Muslim in such a case should emigrate from his country (N: if he can find a better one), fleeing with his religion (A: which is obligatory if he is prevented in his home country from openly performing acts of worship) ) );
(b) possessd to legal responsibility (def: c-8.1) (K: so as to command the people, it being invalid for a child or insane-person to lead) :
(c) free (K: so that others may consider him competent and worthy or respect) :
(d) male (K: to be able to devote himself fulltime to the task, and to mix with men, the leadership of a woman being invalid because of the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith.
"A people that leave its leadership to a woman will never succeed") :
(e) of the Quraysh tribe (K: because of the (H: well-authenticated (hasan) ) hadith related by Nasa'i.
"The Imams are of the Quraysh."
a hadith adhered to by the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and those after them, this qualification being obligatory when there is a member of Quraysh available who meets the other conditions) (H: though when there is not, then the next most eligible is a qualified member of the Kinana tribe, then of the Arabs, then of the non-Arabs);
(f) capable of expert legal reasoning (ijtihad) (H: as a judge must be (def: o-22). 1(d) ) and with even greater need (K: so as to know the rulings of Sacred Law, teach people, and not need to seek the legal opinion of others concerning uprecedented events), scholarly consensus (def: b-7) having been related concerning this condition, which is not contradicted by the statement of the Qadi (A: 'Iyad) that "an ignorant upright person is fitter than a knowledgeable corrupt one," since the former would be able to refer matters requiring expert legal reasoning to qualified scholars, and moreover the remark applies to when the available leaders are not capable of legal reasoning (S: while possessing the other qualifications for leadership) );
(g) courageous (K: meaning undaunted by danger, that he may stand alone, direct troops, and vanquish foes);
(h) possessed of discernment (H: in order to lead followers and see to their best interests, religious or this-worldly discernment meaning at minimum to know the various capacities of people), sound hearing and eyesight, and the faculty of speech (K: so as to decisively arbitrate matters);
(i) (H: and be upright (def: o-24.4) as a judge must be, and with even greater need. But it is valid, if forced to, to resor to the leadership of a corrupt person, which is why Ibn 'Abd al-Salam says, "If there are no upright leaders or rules available, then the least corrupt is given precedence").þ

**Omar HH** · 09-02-2006, 04:57 AM

If he seizes power by force it is obligatory to obey him because of the keeping of the unity of Muslims and avoiding civil war.

Whether is a wrong-doer means he personally does bad but he still implements the good Islamic laws. If he makes you do bad or becomes kaffir or becomes so intolerable that the Muslims cannot stand him then it is no longer obligatory for the Muslims to obey him and rather it is obligatory for them to fight against them and remove him.

It is an obligatory attribute of Khilafa that the Khalif be a scholar of the religion.

Examples of uprising against corrupt authority are Imam al-Husayn fighting against Yazid, many of the Sahaba fighting against Yazid, and the tabi`een fighting against al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.

As Shaykh Ahmad said "the Prophet of Islam did not come to teach people to bow their heads to tyrants."

Insha Allah I will quote sources later.

**if0rg0t** · 09-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Omar HH

If he seizes power by force it is obligatory to obey him because of the keeping of the unity of Muslims and avoiding civil war.

Whether is a wrong-doer means he personally does bad but he still implements the good Islamic laws. If he makes you do bad or becomes kaffir or becomes so intolerable that the Muslims cannot stand him then it is no longer obligatory for the Muslims to obey him and rather it is obligatory for them to fight against them and remove him.

It is an obligatory attribute of Khilafa that the Khalif be a scholar of the religion.

Examples of uprising against corrupt authority are Imam al-Husayn fighting against Yazid, many of the Sahaba fighting against Yazid, and the tabi`een fighting against al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.

As Shaykh Ahmad said "the Prophet of Islam did not come to teach people to bow their heads to tyrants."

Insha Allah I will quote sources later.

Any comments on my post above yours? It's an interesting situation we're in. I have not heard of traditional scholars making takfir on muslim rulers and legislators (they speak out against it actually .. ). After reading the above passage from The Reliance, I wonder what is the explanation for criticizing those who make takfir against them? From what the books of law say, the claims of takfir do not look completely baseless.

I'm not saying our scholars are wrong, I'm just curious as to what their reasoning is. Because, the takfiri's have a gazillion ayat, hadith, and fiqhi rulings which they ramble on about.

Oh yeah, and I think the obligation to obey a ruler who came into power by force is the consensus in all 4 madahib.

**haq** · 09-02-2006, 09:40 PM

Salam'alykum,

JazakAllah khair brothers! First of all, let me say that yor explanation did clear a lot of my misconceptions. Though, I still find it hard to understand how, according to Muslim aqeeda you cannot overthrow a Muslim tyrrant who does things against Islam and confesses that they are against Islam, but still does them.

After reading the above passage from The Reliance, I wonder what is the explanation for criticizing those who make takfir against them?

That is a very interesting issue you brought up. Because if takfir is not allowed then there can be no situation in which a tyrrant claiming to be a muslim can be brought down from his reign, because:

1) If he acts or legesliate, in the goverment, laws against Islamic Law, and admits that they are against Islamic Law, then he cannot be rebelled against...OR...

2) If he acts or legesliate, in the goverment, laws against Islamic Law, and does not admit that they are against Islam, but since we cannot do takfir of them then we cannot rebell against them...

Im not sure..but is what I said above pretty much what the article said...and what br. iforgot asked?

jazakallah
wasalam

**goli** · 11-02-2006, 10:18 PM

First of all, I do not understand this concept. I did not know that this was a part of the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-jammah. In the book it further says, even if the leader is a great tyrrant and oppressor, one cannot rebel against him, if he is a muslim.

If hes a tyrant is he really a muslim ? I think If you dont walk by the guidlines of a religion you are not part of the religion ... If there is a problem with any leader we should pray for them and obey God.

David once said "Fret not thyself because of evil doers neither be thou envious against the work of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like that grass, and wither as a green herb. Trust in the lord and do good. psalm 37:1-2

thats just an outside opionion

**haq** · 11-02-2006, 10:22 PM

Brother goli,

Thankyou for your input, but in Islam, it is not a simple matter to call an evil-doer a non-muslim. Calling someone non-muslim (takfir) without proof is a grave sin...

but anyway...there are two basic questions (the part that is bold) that have still been left un answered. The two questions that i refered to in the post before br. golis.

thanks
wasalam

**goli** · 11-02-2006, 10:33 PM

Thankyou for your input, but in Islam, it is not a simple matter to call an evil-doer a non-muslim. Calling someone non-muslim (takfir) without proof is a grave sin...

isnt being a muslim without conviction just as bad a sin ? Shouldnt we try to remove ourselves from people that will perhaps way us down ? I felt its not how they act but how we react that counts ...

1) If he acts or legesliate, in the goverment, laws against Islamic Law, and admits that they are against Islamic Law, then he cannot be rebelled against...OR...

2) If he acts or legesliate, in the goverment, laws against Islamic Law, and does not admit that they are against Islam, but since we cannot do takfir of them then we cannot rebell against them...

Not entirely sure if this is relevent but this is how the christian churches handle non christian leaders ...

method one seperation : the church doesnt have anything to do with the running of the world because they are seperate from the world. In other words it is our duty just to live holy and let others do as they will

method two servanthood: It is the churches Job to serve everyone in society. If there is a tyrant we must feed the disadvantaged (within the law) and care for those who have no care

Method three watchdog: we keep the public in awareness of what is happening with leaders. Leaders are accountable to other leaders .. there is no-one that is truely at the top.

Method four Christendom: if every single person goes to church then who would be corrupt .. the answer is to touch everyones heart even the tyrant .

Now are any of those plausable for the scenario we have here ? How exactly do muslims react to bad laws and leaders ?

**haq** · 11-02-2006, 10:54 PM

Salam

I guess more knowledgeable brothers and sisters would explain this better...

Like christianity Islam lays great emphasis on personal connection to God....to spirituality...good manners....living a holy life..etc...BUT UNLIKE christianity Islam does not pull itself totally away from government. There is also an equally important social responsibility on muslims, to make thier society and governing body Just and Fair.

There are numerous stories in the Qur'an about nations that were destroyed by God, even though only a small group of people in the nation were doing bad things, but the good people were also punished...because they did not stop or even make any effort to stop the evil doers.

So..in this regard..there is a basic obligation on all muslims which is called amr bil ma'roof wa nahi anil munkar which means "enjoin the good and forbid the evil".

There are various stages of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil:

1- Hate the evil (not necessarily the evil-doer) with your heart; this is the very first stage, the least one has to do.. (this probably corresponds with the seperation+servanthood method)

2- Tell the evil doer by mouth; tell him/her what they are doing is wrong
(this probably corresponds to the watchdog method you mentioned

3- Physically stop the person from doing evil; scholars differ to what extent one can do this. Some scholars prohibit it all toghether, some say that you have to have permission from a higher religous authority, and there are other opinions also....

As far the matter goes for feeding the disadvantaged and all that...that is a duty of all muslims anyway..in the Qur'an Allah says on many many occasions to feed the poor, the orphans...and help the needy....

Rebelling against an unjust ruler would probably come under the third category of "enjoining the good and forbidding the evil". Basically, to bring the unjust ruler down from his office...

other brothers and sisters are more than welcome to correct me..or add anything to what i said...

wasalam

**goli** · 14-02-2006, 07:30 AM

2- Tell the evil doer by mouth; tell him/her what they are doing is wrong
(this probably corresponds to the watchdog method you mentioned

Now this is something that interests me. For one let the person with no sin speak up first for 2 hitting a bruised man/women doesnt that make them worse ?

Christians believe that it is the actions that save a persons life not the words or lip service that comes out of ones mouth.