Chapter 26

[blank page] ¶

Conspiratorial factions, hateful groups, deceived remnants, or ossified groups—they do not even wait for the danger to reach the stage of an uprising against them. Rather, they hold people accountable for their words, their breaths, and their comings and goings. They imprison tens of thousands of people for merely uttering a word that does not satisfy the sovereign, even if it is a word of truth. They have no standard for truth or falsehood other than the pleasure or displeasure of the president; what pleases him is 'truth' and what displeases him is 'falsehood,' even if the reality is entirely the opposite. They want all people to erase from their minds the concept of truth and justice versus oppression and tyranny, and to obey the ruler with blind obedience and follow them without question, discussion, or inquiry. How many heart-rending and soul-crushing tragedies have the prisons of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, and others witnessed, where tens of thousands of the best, righteous believers were tortured? They did not enter those prisons on charges of theft, adultery, or drinking alcohol, nor did they enter because they were allies of the Jews or Christians—as all those people enjoy the protection and care of those very authorities. Rather, they entered as believers who said, 'Our Lord is Allah, and then they remained steadfast' and 'They resented them only because they believed in Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy.' So, where does what these rulers did to those believers stand in relation to what the Islamic methodology has decreed regarding the rights of the opponents of legitimate authority? It requires tolerance and respect for the feelings of those who disagree with it, despite their error; it treats them with the utmost kindness, gentleness, and respect, and does not touch their lives, wealth, or honor in any way. ¶

As for the 'excellencies' and 'sovereigns' in the Muslim lands today, they call upon the major powers, in their view, to supply them with the latest tools of torture in order to... ¶

To tear bodies apart, and to provide them with the most advanced architectural engineering in the planning of prisons and detention centers. They do not do this out of anticipation for Jewish or Christian prisoners, but rather they do it for those honorable and loyal sons of their own people for whom bowing and submitting to anyone other than Allah has become unbearable, and who have rejected the domination of the disbelievers, hypocrites, and apostates over the affairs of the Islamic Ummah. As for those who have bowed and submitted under the oppression of lashes and the brutality of the military and intelligence services, they are, in the view of tyrannical rulers, the measure of popular satisfaction and the contentment of the masses of the Ummah. There is no power and no strength except with Allah; He is sufficient for us, and He is the best Disposer of affairs. ¶

Fifth Topic: Loyalty to and Hostility towards the Governing Authority ¶

Showing loyalty to the rulers (wulat al-amr), avoiding hostility towards them, and listening to and obeying them is an act of worship that a Muslim individual performs for the sake of Allah Almighty, for which they are rewarded upon fulfillment and punished for its abandonment. Allah the Almighty says: 'O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you' (An-Nisa: 59). Allah the Almighty has mentioned obedience to Him and His Messenger in approximately twenty-four verses in the Holy Quran, whereas obedience to the ruler (wali al-amr) was mentioned only in the aforementioned verse, qualified by the condition that he be from among the Muslims. Islam, in its correct conceptualization, means the application of Shariah rulings in speech, action, and belief. This ruler, described as being Muslim, is the one the Muslim Ummah seeks, desires to exist, strives for their continuity, and deems their obedience mandatory because it is connected to the obedience of Allah and His Messenger. ¶

It is upon this understanding that the verses and hadiths regarding the obligation of obeying rulers are interpreted. ¶

To obey them and not to rebel against them as long as they do not commit clear (open) kufr (disbelief), for it is narrated in Sahih Muslim that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I said, 'O Messenger of Allah! We were in evil, then Allah brought us good, and we are in it. Will there be any evil after this good?' He said, 'Yes.' I asked, 'Will there be any good after that evil?' He said, 'Yes.' I asked, 'Will there be any evil after that good?' He said, 'Yes.' I asked, 'How?' He said, 'There will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not adopt my Sunnah. There will arise among them men whose hearts are the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans.' I asked, 'What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see that?' He said, 'Listen and obey the leader, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, then listen and obey.' ¶

Also in Muslim: Salamah ibn Yazid al-Ju'fi asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: 'O Prophet of Allah! What if leaders are appointed over us who demand their right from us but withhold our right from us, what do you command us?' He turned away from him. He asked again and he turned away, then he asked a second or third time, and Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays pulled him, and he (the Prophet) said, 'Listen and obey, for they are responsible for what they are burdened with, and you are responsible for what you are burdened with.' ¶

Also in Muslim, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'The best of your leaders are those whom you love and they love you, they pray for you and you pray for them. And the worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse them and they curse you.' It was said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Should we not revolt against them with the sword?' He said, 'No, as long as they establish prayer among you. And if you see something from your rulers that you dislike, then dislike his action, but do not withdraw your hand from obedience.'" ¶

Thus, these hadiths and others with similar meanings indicate that it is not permissible to rebel against rulers and authorities, or to hold hatred and enmity towards them, or to cease supporting and assisting them, merely due to oppression, immorality, or disobedience that does not reach the level of kufr. Therefore, it is not permissible... ¶

Annulling their pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) and renouncing the covenant with them is not permitted, provided they do not alter any of the fundamental principles of Islam by which one would judge them to be disbelievers and outside the fold of Islam. Once that occurs, rebelling against them is not merely permissible, but becomes an obligation of the Shariah, acting upon the verses and Hadith that command against obedience in matters of sin, and those regarding the obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil for every individual, whoever they may be (1). ¶

The position of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah is that even oppressive rulers share in those matters where their cooperation is needed for the obedience of Allah. Thus, prayer is performed behind them, and Jihad is fought alongside them if the Jihad is in the path of Allah. They are sought for help in enjoining good and forbidding evil. Whoever among them judges with justice, his judgment is upheld; and if it is possible to appoint a just leader, then it is not permissible to appoint a transgressor. Thus, one strives for obedience with them as far as possible (2). Allah the Almighty says: 'So fear Allah as much as you are able' (3). People must realize that Allah sent Muhammad ﷺ for the betterment of His servants. Therefore, when both goodness and corruption are present, they (the scholars) choose the more weighty of the two. If it becomes clear to them that removing the oppressor from his oppression will not lead to more corruption than the reform they seek, then it is permissible for them to do so; otherwise, it is not. Rarely has a group rebelled against a ruler without the resulting evil being greater than the good that followed. They neither established religion nor preserved the world, even if many people of knowledge and faith were among them. This meaning is intended by the Lawgiver (al-Shari'), as evidenced by the necessity of the subjects' patience regarding the tyranny of leaders. For in such circumstances, patience may be more beneficial for the subjects, provided they do not witness blatant disbelief for which they have proof from Allah. The Wise Lawgiver has commanded each party with what is best for them—whether ruler or subject. He commanded the rulers to be just and sincere to their subjects, and commanded the subjects to exercise patience regarding what they see of the rulers prioritizing worldly gains for themselves and committing certain injustices. ¶

And avoiding sins, because when fitnah (strife/trial) occurs, it harms everyone, and because it prevents the recognition of truth, the intention to follow it, and the ability to act upon it. During times of fitnah, doubts arise to such an extent that truth and falsehood become confounded, to the point where many people cannot distinguish who is on the side of truth and who is on the side of falsehood (1). ¶

Therefore, the aforementioned hadiths must not be interpreted as permitting the support of rulers in their oppression and falsehood, nor as permitting the failure to denounce the evil they commit, nor as permitting obedience to them in sin. Rather, these hadiths indicate that whoever hates an evil (in his heart) is absolved of its sin and punishment. This applies to the one who is unable to denounce the evil with his tongue. Whoever denounces it with his tongue is absolved if he is unable to stop it with his hand. Thus, the one who is incapable of removing an evil does not incur sin merely by remaining silent; rather, the sin and punishment fall upon the one who is pleased with it and follows it. This level of evil, where condemnation in the heart suffices, refers to that which does not reach the level of kufr (disbelief) or expulsion from Islam. A ruler is invariably in one of three states: ¶

(a) A just Muslim ruler. (b) A sinful Muslim ruler. (c) A disbelieving ruler. ¶

Each of these has an appropriate status, specific treatment, and a degree that distinguishes them from others. ¶

(a) As for the just Muslim ruler, obedience and adherence to him are obligatory in order to fulfill the command of Allah regarding the obligation of obedience and holding to the community. The loyalty of a Muslim to his ruler is a loyalty of creed and worship, not a loyalty to individuals, a class, Jahili (pre-Islamic) customs, or personal interests. Individuals die, change, and deviate, while the Shariah remains eternal as long as life exists. ¶

(b) As for sinful and corrupt rulers, one dislikes them for the sin and corruption they possess but loves them in proportion to the truth they uphold. One does not break the covenant with them, nor depart from their obedience, unless one witnesses something that necessitates their disbelief and expulsion from Islam. ¶

(c) As for disbelieving rulers, who are often those who have apostatized from Islam, showing them friendship is not permissible. ¶

Their obedience is not religiously prescribed (mashru'); rather, it is a duty to wage war against them and not to follow them. These are the individuals intended by the prohibition against obedience. Allah the Almighty says: 1. {So fear Allah and obey me, and do not obey the command of the transgressors} (Ash-Shu'ara: 150-151). 2. {And he fooled his people, and they obeyed him; indeed, they were a defiantly disobedient people} (Az-Zukhruf: 54). 3. {And if you obey them, you would indeed be polytheists} (Al-An'am: 121). 4. {And they will say, 'Our Lord, indeed we obeyed our masters and our dignitaries, and they led us astray from the [right] way'} (Al-Ahzab: 67). 5. {And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah} (Al-An'am: 116). 6. {And do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance and who follows his desire and whose affair is ever [in] neglect} (Al-Kahf: 28). 7. {So do not obey the deniers. They wish that you would compromise so they might compromise [with you]} (Al-Qalam: 8-9). 8. {And do not obey every worthless habitual swearer} (Al-Qalam: 10). Thus, obedience is commanded in one verse with a specific description, while deviated obedience is prohibited in many verses. Among the hadiths that prohibit blind obedience and mindless following are the following: 1. What Muslim narrated in his Sahih that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'It is incumbent upon a person to hear and obey...' ¶

And obedience is due in what one likes and dislikes, unless one is commanded to commit a sin. If one is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no hearing and no obedience. (1) 2 - In Sahih Muslim, it is also stated in a long hadith: (There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah; obedience is only in what is virtuous.) (2) 3 - Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas was asked about the obedience of Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), to which he replied: (Obey him in the obedience of Allah, and disobey him in the disobedience of Allah.) (3) 4 - In another hadith: (After me, there will be rulers over you who will make you recognize things you dislike and will dislike from you things you recognize; there is no obedience to one who disobeys Allah.) (4) Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) counted among the heads of the Taghut (tyrants/false deities) the oppressive ruler who alters the laws of Allah, and he cited the words of Allah the Almighty as evidence: {Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.} (5) End quote. One might ask: what are the characteristics and attributes of the true Islamic state that we are obligated to support and aid, and for which it is forbidden for us to hate, disobey, or revolt against? We say that the answer to this is what Allah the Almighty clarified in His saying: {Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish prayer, give zakah, enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and to Allah belongs the outcome of all matters.} (6) Scholars have explained the attributes of this state. ¶

[blank page] ¶

association and the freedom to acquire sustenance through permissible means, equality of opportunity in employment and advancement, and access to social institutions without discrimination. ¶

8. No inhabitant of the state shall be deprived of any of these rights unless there is a valid justification in Islamic Shariah. No one shall be punished for a sin or crime until they are allowed to defend themselves, and they are judged by a fair Shariah court based on texts and evidence from the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (PBUH), or consensus (Ijma) or analogy (Qiyas) deemed valid by the scholars of Usul and the jurists of the Ummah. ¶

9. The Head of State must be a Muslim, male, and of upright character (Adl), whose religiosity, competence, and sound judgment are trusted by the public or their representatives. ¶

10. The Head of State shall be the primary person responsible for administering the affairs of the state; however, he may delegate a portion of his powers to an individual or a group whose religious commitment and integrity are trusted. ¶

11. The Head of State shall not act autocratically but shall conduct the government's affairs according to the method of consultation (Shura), by consulting with the scholars who are the 'people of binding and loosing' (Ahl al-Hall wal-Aqd) in the Ummah. ¶

12. The Head of State shall not suspend the rulings of Shariah, either wholly or partially, nor act arbitrarily in governance without the Shura council. ¶

13. The community shall have the right to elect the Head of State and the right to remove him from his position by a majority of the scholars of Shariah from among the 'Ahl al-Hall wal-Aqd' in the Ummah, as established by Islam. ¶

(1) See: *Nazariyat al-Islam wa Hadyuhu* by Abul A'la al-Mawdudi, pp. 369–378. ¶

14. The Head of State must be equal to the general body of Muslims in rights and obligations, and must not be immune from the application of Shariah rulings. 15. There must be one single legal system for government officials, employees, and all inhabitants of the state, which is to be implemented solely by the Shariah courts of the land. 16. The judicial authority in the state must be separate from the executive authority and independent in issuing judgments, so that it is not influenced by the power of the administrative body in the performance of its duties. 17. No interpretation of any ruling that contradicts the Book (Quran) and the Sunnah shall be accepted within the state. 18. The publication or promotion of ideas and theories that contradict the fundamental principles of the Islamic call (Da'wah) and threaten the Muslim Ummah with corruption and instability shall not be permitted. These are the most important conditions stipulated by thirty-one scholars of the Muslim Ummah for the validity of the 'establishment of an Islamic State' and the legitimacy of calling it by that name, provided all these conditions are met. This occurred during a conference held in this regard in Karachi from the 12th to the 15th of Rabi' al-Thani in the year 1370 AH (corresponding to January 21st to 24th, 1951 AD). We maintain that a state possessing these characteristics must be supported, aided, and loved, and must not be despised. As for a state that violates these foundations and transgresses against these basic pillars of an Islamic state, it is either a state outside the fold of Islam or one that uses Islam as a veil to deceive the gullible and simple-minded, in order to achieve agendas that contradict and oppose Islam. Therefore, every Muslim should know the conditions of an Islamic state so that it becomes clear to him under what kind of state he lives, and how he ought to deal with those amongst whom he lives. ¶

Dar al-Islam or the Islamic State is not merely a territory where a Muslim majority resides or where the feet of the Mujahideen have trod. Rather, a Dar al-Islam may become a Dar al-Kufr, and a Dar al-Kufr may become a Dar al-Islam. The standard for these conditions is what the scholars have defined as Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. They state: Dar al-Islam is that which is governed by Muslims, in which Islamic rulings are applied, and in which authority lies with the Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims. ¶

As for Dar al-Kufr, it is that which is governed by disbelievers, in which the rulings of Kufr are applied, and in which authority lies with the disbelievers, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims. Thus, lands that are subject to the influence of non-believers fundamentally—such as Palestine under Jewish rule or Afghanistan controlled by the Communist Party—these and their likes are lands of Kufr and Dar al-Kufr, even if the majority of the population are Muslims, because the ruling authority is a non-Islamic authority. The same judgment applies to many states that claim to be Islamic while being as far from it as possible, even if most of their citizens are Muslims, given that they do not implement all the rulings of Islam, and that influence and authority within them belong to non-Muslims. We find that many of them have enacted laws that protect adultery, usury, alcohol, and gambling, and do not punish those who abandon mandatory acts such as Salah, Sawm, Zakat, and Hajj. Despite this, they hide behind some outward manifestations of Islam, while in reality and essence, they are Dar al-Kufr and lands of apostasy from Islam. ¶

For example, we find that the penal code in Egypt and Iraq during the period of occupation protected adultery and encouraged it by failing to apply the Shariah punishments for it. ¶

In Articles (267-279) of the Egyptian Penal Code and Articles (232-240) of the Baghdad Penal Code, it is stated that if adultery occurs with the mutual consent of both parties, and they are unmarried and over eighteen years of age, there is no penalty for them. And if they are married, there is no penalty unless one of the spouses files a case against the unfaithful spouse. ¶

Is it permissible to call countries in such a state, whether in the past or present, 'Dar al-Islam' (Abode of Islam), when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: {The woman and the man guilty of adultery, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment}? Yet these people say, through their state and speech: 'No! We will not flog adulterers if they consent, even if evidence is established against them.' Is this not a critique of Allah regarding what He has forbidden, and an implication of ignorance regarding what He has legislated? This is a form of disbelief, as the Almighty says: {And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers}. This ruling of disbelief is not limited only to the person of the ruler, but extends to all who support, assist, and consent to him. Their ruling is the same as his, just as Allah mentioned regarding the soldiers of Pharaoh and Haman, saying: {Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were deliberate sinners}. Thus, Allah associated Pharaoh's people with him in sin and transgression due to their silence, consent, support, and endorsement of him. ¶

Based on this, it is an obligation upon the subjects, if the ruler is a tyrant, to advise him in the best manner, as the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'The religion is sincere advice' (three times). We said: 'To whom, O Messenger of Allah?' He replied: 'To Allah, His Book, His Messenger, and the leaders of the Muslims.' ¶

And the majority of them. If a dispute arises between the ruler (al-ra'i) and the subjects (al-ra'iyyah), it is incumbent upon both to refer back to the Book and the Sunnah, in accordance with the Almighty's saying: 'And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.' This is because the authority of Islamic legislation holds power above that of the ruler and the ruled. If the obedience to those in authority and the rulers of the land were absolute, or if they were infallible as the extremist Shia claim, then there would be no meaning to the command 'refer it to Allah and the Messenger'; rather, it would have been said to refer it to the ruler or the Imam. From this, the weakness of that claim is evident, as is the validity of the majority opinion that there is no obedience in sin, for this is consistent with the evidence. Muslim narrated from the hadith of Umm al-Husayn: 'Even if a slave is appointed over you who leads you according to the Book of Allah, hear him and obey him.' Thus, leadership according to the Book of Allah was made a condition for listening and obedience. ¶

Al-Nawawi established a chapter heading in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: 'The Chapter on the Obligation of Obeying Rulers in That Which Is Not Sinful, and the Prohibition of Obeying Them in Sin,' thereby indicating that he viewed this as the correct position. The hadith also states: 'There is no obedience to a created being in the disobedience of the Creator.' ¶

Scholars have differed regarding the degree of deviation at which the bay'ah (oath of allegiance) to the ruler is voided, his authority lapses, and it becomes permissible to rise against him; there are two opinions: ¶

The First Opinion: The view of those who hold that it is obligatory to be patient with the Imam or ruler, even if he takes wealth, strikes the back, and openly commits sins, as long as he establishes prayer, in accordance with the Prophet’s ﷺ words in the aforementioned hadith ('As long as they establish prayer among you'). They also cited his saying as evidence. ¶

Allah the Almighty says: 'I intend that you should bear my sin and your sin, and thus be among the companions of the Fire. And that is the recompense of the wrongdoers.' (Surah Al-Ma'idah: 29). Furthermore, in the hadith narrated by Khalid ibn 'Urfuta (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'O Khalid, there will be events, trials, and differences after me. So, if you can be the servant of Allah who is killed rather than the killer, then do so.' (Musnad Imam Ahmad, vol. 5, p. 292). ¶

The second view: It is the view of the majority, which is that Allah the Almighty has forbidden aggression against lives, wealth, and honor, except for a valid Shar'i right that permits it. He has forbidden the taking of a life by His saying: 'And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right.' (Surah Al-Isra': 33). Regarding wealth, He says: 'O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly.' (Surah An-Nisa': 29). ¶

The prohibition of aggression against lives, wealth, and honor is also established from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). It is narrated that he said: 'A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim; he does not wrong him, nor does he abandon him, nor does he despise him. Taqwa (piety) is here (pointing to his chest). It is enough evil for a man to despise his Muslim brother. Everything of a Muslim is sacred to another Muslim: his blood, his wealth, and his honor.' (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). Muslim recorded in his Sahih that in the farewell sermon, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Indeed, your blood and your wealth are as sacred to you as the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this city of yours.' (Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, p. 889). ¶

We know that the words of Allah and His Messenger do not contradict each other. Allah praised this revelation with this quality, saying: 'And if it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.' (Surah An-Nisa': 82). ¶

The person who surrenders his wealth to someone taking it unjustly, offers his back to be struck without right, and allows his honor to be violated, is a sinner by the text of the Book and the Sunnah. This is because the verses and hadiths are mutawatir (continuously transmitted) on the prohibition of obedience in sin and the prohibition of cooperating in transgression and aggression. The Almighty says: 'And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty' (Al-Ma'idah: 2). ¶

In the hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: A man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: O Messenger of Allah! What do you think if a man comes wanting to take my wealth? He said: 'Do not give him your wealth.' He asked: What if he fights me? He said: 'Fight him.' He asked: What if he kills me? He said: 'Then you are a martyr.' He asked: What if I kill him? He said: 'He is in the Fire' (Narrated by Muslim). And from Abdullah bin Amr (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: Do you not know that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Whoever is killed defending his wealth is a martyr.' ¶

If this is the case regarding wealth, then defending religion, life, and honor is even more imperative. ¶

In response to those who claim that obedience is mandatory in sin (as long as it does not involve abandoning prayer), we say to them: What is your opinion on those who have made the Jews their confidants and associates, the Christians their soldiers and inner circle, and have taken up arms against all those among the Muslims who testify to the oneness of Allah, warring against the believers in their lives, wealth, and honor, while still feigning Islam and praying on some occasions to capture photos with which to deceive the naive and simple-minded? Do you consider it permissible to rise up (khuruj) against them or not? ¶

If they forbid rising up against such people, they have effectively forbidden rising up against any disbeliever. The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) fought the apostates and deemed them disbelievers due to their opposition. ¶

along with the two testimonies of faith (Shahadatayn). Jurists across various eras have reached a consensus that anyone who adopts such an attitude toward the rulings of Islam is a disbeliever. If merely claiming the name of Islam while failing to act upon it were sufficient to belong to this Ummah, then the torment of the hypocrites and apostates would suffice. Therefore, it is obligatory that if a ruler commits any form of injustice or oppression, even if slight, he must be advised and spoken to regarding it. If he is convinced, returns to the truth, and submits to fulfilling the rights owed by him, then his obedience becomes mandatory, and there is no path to removing him. However, if he does not refrain from his injustice and oppression, and it is not possible for those whose rights have been infringed to reclaim them from him, then it is obligatory to remove him and appoint in his place someone who upholds the truth, for it is not permissible to sacrifice any of the obligations of the religion out of consideration for the whims of oppressive rulers and governors. ¶

Thus, whoever permits the following of a legal system (Shariah) other than the Shariah of Islam, his removal becomes obligatory, his pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) is annulled, and his obedience is forbidden, because in such a state he deserves the description of disbelief (kufr) due to his deliberate and persistent departure from the law of Allah, and his deeming it permissible or trivializing it. The Almighty says: 'And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers.' ¶

Therefore, the obedience of a disbeliever is forbidden, and disobedience toward him and boycotting him is obligatory. As for the just Muslim ruler, his obedience is obligatory and contesting him is forbidden. As for the corrupt (fasiq) or sinful ruler, that is where the disagreement lies. Regarding the deposition of a corrupt ruler and rising against him, scholars hold three opinions: First: Deposition is obligatory if the corruption is manifest in word or deed. Second: Deposition is prohibited if it leads to a predicted fitnah (strife) greater than the benefit expected from the deposition. ¶

Third: The absolute prohibition of removal (from power). ¶

Since an elaborate explanation of these three categories might take us beyond the scope of 'Loyalty and Disavowal' (al-Muwalaat wa al-Ma'adaat) into the core of political theory in Islam, we will suffice with indicating what we consider to be the most sound (rajih) opinion on this issue. The reader may refer to these opinions in their primary sources, which we will cite in the footnotes of this treatise, to avoid unnecessary length. ¶

The opinion I favor among these three is that if the ruler disobeys and commits an act that renders him a sinner (fasiq), either in speech or action, the situation should be assessed. If removal can be achieved through peaceful means—which is the fundamental principle in Islamic Shariah—then removal becomes mandatory upon the commission of the sin, because the essence of the conditions for leadership (wilayah) includes justice in the Caliph. When he violates this condition himself, his removal becomes obligatory. This is observed in some non-Muslim states that have adopted certain Islamic political concepts regarding the appointment and removal of the ruler; we find that some of these states remove their leader upon the slightest error, whereas those who hold power over the necks of Muslims cling to the seat of government even if they must annihilate the entire nation to do so, or until the people are forced to throw the ruler’s body off the chair as a lifeless corpse. All of this contradicts the principles of the political system in Islam. However, if the removal of the ruler cannot be achieved through peaceful means, as we mentioned, then I subscribe to the view that it is disliked (makruh) to revolt against the ruler, remove him, or break his pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) if there is a strong presumption that doing so will lead to tribulation (fitna), which is the opinion of a group of scholars(1). ¶

Therefore, a removal that results in the shedding of blood, the looting of wealth, the violation of honor, and the suspension of the prescribed punishments (hudud) of the Shariah, undoubtedly brings greater harm upon the Ummah and its religion. ¶

(1) See the Master’s thesis: 'The Removal of the Supreme Leader of the State in the System of Governance in Islam' by Dr. Ali bin Fuhayd al-Surbati, pp. 116-130. ¶

Among the goals sought by reformers is the eradication of the corruption (mafasid) resulting from the immorality (fisq) of a ruler and his government. ¶

The interest of the Ummah in its own survival, exercising patience in the face of disobedience, and attempting to reform through the best possible means may be greater than falling into the vortex of conflict and infighting with the person of the ruler and his administration; for none knows the outcome of such conflict, its destructive effects, and the events that may unfold therein except Allah Almighty. ¶

Furthermore, it is not permissible to argue for the necessity of removal (azl) in every instance of immorality, no matter how minor, because this would lead to the total non-existence of a functioning government, given that humans are not infallible and are prone to committing minor sins. If one were to adopt the view of the Mu'tazila—who deem removal mandatory for every act of disobedience, however small—the process of removal and appointment would occur incessantly. This would strip the position of its significance, stability, and the reverence that its holders must command in the hearts of the people (1). It is in this context that the Hadiths regarding endurance and the obligation of obedience to rulers are understood, provided they do not manifest blatant disbelief (kufr bawwah). ¶

However, if there is a strong probability that the removal of a ruler upon the emergence of his immorality and disobedience will not lead to sedition (fitna), and that the transition of power can occur peacefully, then his removal is recommended (mustahabb) for the following reasons: ¶

First, respect for, obedience to, and love for the head of state are religious duties, provided he respects himself and his position, honors the rights of the Ummah concerning this office, and assumes it rightfully. But if he deviates from this, the Ummah has the right to pursue the one who has deviated from its heavenly constitution and hold him accountable for his deviation, lest he assume that he possesses an immunity that protects him from being questioned for his words and deeds, as such a false assumption would only embolden him in his immorality. ¶

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ (1) See the Master's thesis, 'Removal of the Supreme Leader of the State in the Islamic System of Government' by Dr. Ali bin Fuhayd al-Surbati, pp. 131-132. ¶