Chapter 10

Abu Bakr offered people to pledge allegiance to Umar for the Caliphate (1). The text of what Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said on this occasion has already been cited previously. ¶

It is clear that the term 'ta'ammur' (assuming leadership/authority) here does not mean achieving dominance through coercion and subjugation by way of military force. Rather, it implies the refusal to accept leadership—even if the people choose one for it—as long as Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, is present among the people, for he is more deserving of the emirate than Umar. ¶

The Sixth Text: In Sahih al-Bukhari, in the interpretation of Surah al-Tahrim, it is stated: 'Umar said: By Allah, in the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), we did not consider women to have any status until Allah revealed regarding them what He revealed and apportioned for them what He apportioned. He said: While I was deliberating (at'ammaruhu) on a matter, my wife said: If you were to do such and such. I said to her: What do you have to do with this, and why do you interfere in a matter I am intending? She replied: How strange, O son of al-Khattab! You do not want to be questioned? Your daughter—meaning Hafsa, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)—argues with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) such that he remains angry for the whole day!' (2). ¶

It is apparent from the phrase 'while I was in a matter I was deliberating upon (at'ammaruhu)' that the meaning is: I was consulting with myself and turning the matter over in my mind. It states in the 'Al-Qamus al-Muhit': 'Al-Amr': and 'al-i'timar' means consultation, just as 'mu'amara', 'istithmar', and 'ta'ammur'... Then it says: And 'ta'ammara 'alayhim' means to dominate (3). That is: the word 'ta'ammur' comes in the sense of consultation and also in the sense of domination. ¶

Furthermore, the first five Sharia texts that we cited from the 'Al-Mu'jam al-Mufahras', and referred back to their sources, contained the term 'ta'ammur' in the sense of accepting leadership. Not one of them contains the meaning of achieving domination by force and coercion without the consent of the people. ¶

As for this text from 'Ibn Khuzaymah' and others... in which the word 'ta'ammur' appears in the aforementioned sense, it was not included by the 'Al-Mu'jam al-Mufahras' because it did not index the narrations of the hadith found in 'Ibn Khuzaymah'. ¶

It is narrated in Kanz al-Ummal: From Rafi' ibn Abi Rafi', who said: 'When the people pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr as the successor (Khalifa), I said: O my companion who commanded me not to become an amir over even two people! Do you remember what you said to me: Do not become an amir over two people, and now you have been made the guardian of the affairs of the Ummah? He replied: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away while the people were still new to Islam after disbelief, and I feared they would apostatize and fall into discord. Thus, I entered into it, despite my reluctance, and my companions continued to urge me, until they presented excuses, and I accepted them.' ¶

It is clear from this text that the term 'ta'ammur' (accepting amirship) which Abu Bakr forbade his companion from, refers to the position of authority (imarah), not the act of seizing power by force. The evidence is that Abu Bakr's companion understood it in this sense, and that is why he reproached him. How could he advise him not to 'ta'ammur'—i.e., not to accept the position of leadership—and then accept it himself when the people chose him for it, as the companion stated: 'When the people made Abu Bakr the Khalifa' and 'You have been made the wali of the Ummah'—and when the man expressed his reproach to Abu Bakr for violating this advice in his own case, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) strove to apologize to him until the man accepted his excuse! ¶

My purpose in tracing the root 'ta'ammur' in the Hadiths is to argue that the Hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah, narrated by al-Bayhaqi and al-Nawawi with the wording: 'Even if an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority (ta'ammara) over you,' although the word 'ta'ammara' can linguistically imply seizing power by force, just as it can mean becoming an amir or accepting authority through the appointment of others—I maintain that even though this word oscillates between these two meanings, the usage in other Hadiths consistently employs the word 'ta'ammur' to mean accepting authority, not seizing it by military force. Therefore, the word 'ta'ammur' in the Hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah should be interpreted in the sense used in other relevant Hadiths on this subject. ¶

Thus, the understanding of this Hadith is clarified in light of other Shariah texts by interpreting the ambiguous term in a specific, consistent manner. ¶

In this way, we conclude the discussion of the second argument used by those who advocate the 'theory of force' in acquiring power, based on the Hadith: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority over you...' We shall now proceed to examine the remaining arguments of those who hold this theory. ¶

The third argument for the establishment of the Imamate by seizing power through force—according to those who hold this view—is what is reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, from Ibn Abbas, that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Whoever sees something in his amir (ruler) that he dislikes, let him be patient, for whoever departs from the Sultan (authority) by even a span, he dies a death of jahiliyyah.' ¶

And from Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Whoever sees something in his amir that he dislikes, let him be patient; for whoever separates from the jama'ah (community) by even a span and dies, he dies a death of jahiliyyah.' ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: '... Ibn Battal said: The hadith serves as proof against rebelling against the Sultan, even if he is tyrannical. The jurists have reached a consensus on the obligation of obeying the usurping Sultan and performing Jihad alongside him, and that obeying him is better than rebelling against him, due to the preservation of blood and the calming of the masses. ¶

Their evidence: This report and others that support it. They exempted from this only if the Sultan commits clear kufr (disbelief), in which case his obedience is not permissible; rather, it is mandatory to struggle (jihad) against him for those who are capable of it.' The intent of this citation is that the mentioned consensus of the jurists on the obligation to obey the usurping Sultan has, in the view of its proponents, a Shari'ah basis, and this basis is this report and others that support it. That is: the reports that indicate the prohibition of rebelling against the Sultan and separating from the jama'ah: 'Whoever departs from the Sultan by even a span dies a death of jahiliyyah.' 'Whoever separates from the jama'ah by even a span and dies, he dies a death of jahiliyyah.' ¶

We discuss the argumentation based on these two texts regarding the obligation of obeying the usurping Sultan, and we say: ¶

- The first text: '... Whoever departs from the Sultan by even a span dies a death of jahiliyyah.' This text prohibits departing from the Sultan. The implied meaning of the statement is: departing from the obedience of the possessor of authority (Sultan). It is stated in al-Qamus: Sultan means: proof, the power of kingship, and the governor. ¶

And it is stated in al-Misbah al-Munir: 'Sultan: when used to refer to a person, it is masculine. Sultan: means proof and evidence. Sultan: means authority and sovereignty... and sometimes it is feminine, as it is said: qadat bihi al-sultan.' ¶

Meaning 'Sultanah' (authority). It is sometimes used for the plural, as it is said: 'If the master of the Sultan does not aid me,' meaning: 'the master of the Sultans.' This refers to the Caliph. 'Sallatuhu' (I empowered him) over a thing means I gave him control over it, so he 'tasallata' (gained power): he became empowered and took command(1). ¶

Thus, the term 'Sultan' in our subject essentially means authority and governance. 'Emerging' (khuruj) against the Sultan as mentioned in the Hadith refers to departing from the obedience of the holder of authority. ¶

In Shariah, the 'holder of authority' (Sahib al-Sultan) is the one to whom the Shariah has granted this authority, not any person who claims it for himself. The Shariah defines the holder of authority as the one to whom the Ummah has entrusted this authority through the contract of Bay'ah (pledge of allegiance)—as previously explained in the introduction to this research. ¶

Therefore, anyone who subsequently claims to be the holder of authority through means other than those prescribed by the Shariah is a claimant or a usurper of authority, not its legitimate holder. Consequently, rising against him in such a state does not fall under the warning mentioned in the text, because it is not an emergence against a legitimate holder of authority. ¶

- The second text: '...Whoever separates from the community (Jama'ah) by a span and dies, dies a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance).' The word 'Jama'ah' here means the community of Muslims who gather under a legitimate Shariah authority. Whoever departs from it is a rebel (baghi) who has separated from the community, and it is the duty of the Ummah to fight him. Even if the rebels are numerous and constitute the majority of the Ummah, the word 'Jama'ah' remains a description for those who are in obedience to the legitimate Shariah authority. The others—even if they are the majority—remain in the eyes of the Shariah as rebels who have departed from the community, provided their emergence is not due to the appearance of blatant disbelief (kufr al-bawwah) or the like! ¶

Thus, the one who usurps authority, if he rises against an existing Imam, he is the one described as having separated from the community. And if he leaps to power without the consent of the Muslim community at a time when the community is devoid of a legitimate Imam due to his death, resignation, or removal... he is also the one described as having separated from the community by this seizure of power—and therefore, he deserves to be killed, and his death is a death of Jahiliyyah. ¶

For this reason, it is narrated in Sunan al-Nasa'i from Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: ¶

"Whoever calls for his own leadership or that of another without consultation from the Muslims, it is not permissible for you not to kill him!" ¶

Thus, we find that the warning against rebelling against the community (al-Jama'ah) applies only to those who usurp power from the community of Muslims by wielding the sword and subjugating them by force, not to those who rise up against oppressors to restore rights to their rightful owners! ¶

4 - The fourth argument presented by those who uphold the legitimacy of the rule of a usurper (al-mutaghallib) is: The one who overcomes authority... is indeed a usurper! And the Shariah ruling regarding a usurper is that what was usurped must be returned, or he must be fought so that he restores what is in his hands to its rightful owner! ¶

However, the one who overcomes authority (al-mutaghallib) is excluded from this ruling. Shariah texts have provided an exception for the ruler from the rule of usurpation. Accordingly, it is not permissible to fight him due to his usurpation of power; rather, the Ummah must exercise patience and attempt to secure its rights through peaceful means. The Ahadith have already established this meaning, including: ¶

"On the authority of Ubadah ibn al-Samit, he said: I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and he said to me: 'O Ubadah!' I replied: 'Labbayk, O Messenger of Allah!' He said: 'Listen and obey during your hardship and ease, in your activity and your aversion, and even when there is favoritism against you, even if they eat your wealth and strike your back, unless you witness manifest disbelief (kufr bawwah)!'" ¶

And that this argument is the evidence of those who uphold the validity of the rule of the usurper is understood from what is stated in the book 'Al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu'. Under the heading 'The Establishment of Imamate by Force and Domination', it states: 'The jurists of the four schools and others held that the Imamate is established by domination and force, as the usurper becomes an Imam without the pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) or succession from the previous Imam! Rather, it is through seizure... Ibn al-Mundhir said: The consensus of the people of knowledge is that a man has the right to defend his religion, his blood, his wealth, and his honor.' ¶

And his oppression, if oppression is intended—without detail—except that everyone from whom the scholars of Hadith have narrated seems to be in consensus on exempting the Sultan, due to the traditions that have come down ordering patience regarding his tyranny and abstaining from rising up against him. (End quote). ¶

Based on this, citing the statement of Ibn al-Mundhir regarding the exemption of the Sultan from being fought for usurpation, within the context of arguing for the validity of the establishment of the Imamate by force and conquest, suggests that the Hadiths concerning patience over the Sultan’s usurpation of what he usurps, and not rebelling against him, are the evidence for the establishment of the Imamate by usurpation and force! ¶

We respond to this evidence by saying: The usurper of authority, when he carried out the act of usurpation, was not a Sultan such that silence toward him would be valid. Rather, he was an ordinary man who gathered power under his control and then usurped authority through it. Thus, when he usurped, he was not a Sultan, and even after the usurpation, he did not become a legitimate Sultan as long as the community of Muslims did not extend their hands to pledge allegiance (bay'ah) to him! He remains a usurper of authority and not a legitimate Sultan. Hence, it is the right of the Ummah to fight this usurper just as it fights any usurper who refuses to return the thing he has usurped to its rightful owner! ¶

What Ibn al-Mundhir said, and what has come in the Hadiths, only applies to a legitimate Sultan if usurpation occurs from him, in which case fighting him is not permissible. It does not apply to one who was not a Sultan and then usurped authority in any manner. ¶

5 - The fifth evidence relied upon by those who advocate for the Imamate through force and seizing power is: quelling civil strife (fitnah), preventing the shedding of blood, and calming the masses. ¶

In Al-Qastallani’s commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, he narrates from Ibn Hajar regarding the method of establishing the Imamate through force and conquest, the text of which is: "...and by the seizure of authority by a conqueror, even if he is not qualified for it, such as a child or a woman, if he subdues the people with his power, and this is in order to keep the unity of the Muslims intact." ¶

It is also stated therein: 'Yes! If a person truly gains power through force (shawka), his obedience becomes mandatory to suppress civil strife (fitna)' (1). ¶

In reality, this fifth argument for the establishment of leadership (imamah) for the one who seizes power—or at the very least, for the obligation of obeying him and the prohibition of rebelling against him—is the most frequently used argument by both classical and contemporary jurists: the argument of fearing fitna and preventing bloodshed. ¶

Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli states: 'Coercion is an exceptional circumstance that does not align with the fundamental principle that authority should be established by choice. Its recognition is out of regard for the reality forced by necessity, and to prevent bloodshed...' (2). ¶

Then, the words of al-Dasuqi are cited in this regard: 'Because when one's grip through seizure becomes absolute, obedience to him becomes mandatory, and the conditions of imamah are not considered in this case, as the focus is on averting evils and committing the lesser of two harms' (3). ¶

Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti, while discussing the methods of attaining imamah, says: 'The third method: Seizing power by force and dominance.' ¶

He then mentions the reason for the validity of imamah through this method, stating: 'It is the intense concern of the Lawgiver (Shari') to protect the Muslim community from the causes of fragmentation and fitna, and to safeguard it from the factors of discord and instability' (4). ¶

We discuss this argument by stating: ¶

Usurpation (ghasb) is a sin. Killing the usurper to deter him from usurpation, if necessary, is not a sin; rather, it is what the Shariah texts have commanded. Whether the usurper is killed alone or all those who support him in this sin are killed with him—no matter how numerous they may be—it is a legitimate (mashru') act, and they belong to the Fire! ¶

It is also legitimate for those whose rights have been usurped to fight to recover their rights if the situation demands it. If they are martyred, they shall enter Paradise. The Hadith states: 'Whoever is killed while defending against an injustice done to him is a martyr.' ¶

The usurpation of authority from the Muslims is among the greatest injustices; therefore, fighting to repel this injustice is legitimate. A person from among the rightful claimants who is killed in this struggle is considered a martyr of the Hereafter. ¶

Furthermore, the word 'man' (whoever) in the Hadith is a noun denoting generality. It applies to one person as well as to many. There is no scriptural text (nass) indicating that the high number of casualties on the side of the oppressive aggressors, or on the side of the oppressed rightful claimants, or the fear thereof, grants the usurper legitimacy in what they have usurped, or renders fighting them prohibited in such a situation. ¶

I say: No such text exists that would necessitate pausing [to reconsider the legitimacy of fighting]. ¶

Moreover, it is not the case that in every rational balancing between two harms we are facing, we must always choose the lesser of the two. Rather, if a scriptural text exists regarding a matter, we are obliged to adhere to it, even if it appears to us that the harm in adhering to it is greater than the harm in abandoning it! ¶

In this regard, Imam al-Ghazali says: '...and this is like repelling an aggressor against the property of a Muslim, even if it leads to his killing; it is permissible! Not in the sense that we are ransoming one dirham of a Muslim’s wealth with the soul of a Muslim, for that is impossible. But rather, his intent to take the wealth of the Muslims is a sin, and killing him to repel that sin is not a sin; the objective is merely to repel sins!' ¶

Thus, it is permissible for the Muslim whose wealth has been stolen to forgo his wealth, thereby preserving his own life, the life of the usurper, and the life of anyone who supports either one... and Allah sufficed the believers in the fighting! So he would have preserved... ¶

Much of the Muslims' blood could be saved by relinquishing a small or large amount of wealth. But is one obligated to do so? No; rather, the Shariah has permitted the owner of wealth to fight in defense of his right and has permitted the Muslims to support him in fighting, even to the point of martyrdom, in accordance with the hadith: 'Whoever is killed defending his wealth is a martyr' (1), and the hadith: 'Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or oppressed. They asked: O Messenger of Allah! We help him if he is oppressed, but how do we help him if he is an oppressor? He said: Restrain his hands' (2). ¶

We have already presented both these ahadith and their implications in previous discussions! If we were to look at the issue through a superficial rational lens, we would see that sacrificing stolen wealth is a lesser harm than sacrificing the blood of Muslims for the sake of recovering that stolen wealth. However, the Shari' text here sees differently from what the intellect perceives, as it permits defending stolen wealth through combat without limiting the number of casualties offered in this path. The reason is what Al-Ghazali mentioned in his previous statement: '...for the intention is merely to repel sins' (3). ¶

Based on this, the blood shed in a revolution against a usurper of authority is not viewed from the angle of weighing two harms according to rational speculation; rather, it is viewed from the angle of standing against a sin being committed—the crime of usurpation. The Shari' text has come with the legitimacy of initiating combat to prevent it from happening or continuing, and no Shari' text exists that sets a specific limit for such combat! ¶

Furthermore, even if we look from the angle of choosing the 'lesser of two harms'—as advocated by proponents of the theory of force in attaining power—we must not confine this view only to the present moment. Rather, we must look at the harm that could arise from choosing the 'lesser harm,' where harms follow one another until the balance of harm is overturned! Thus, the 'lesser harm'—which is silence toward the usurper of authority—becomes the most severe harm when considering its complications! And what was considered the 'most severe harm'—fighting the usurper of authority—becomes, by comparison to its alternative, the lesser harm that must be resorted to. ¶

turning to it to avoid the other harm! I mean: the leniency of Muslims in resisting those who usurp authority, motivated by the choice of the lesser of two evils, and considering usurpation a method by which the Imamate (leadership) is established for the one who prevails, has caused those with ambition, whose piety has weakened, to use military force and combat against the rightful holders of power as a means to reach authority; arguing that Muslims are religiously obligated to hear and obey every usurper who has taken control over them—that is, imposed himself upon them by his military might, against their will! ¶

Thus, civil wars increased among those with ambition for the sake of attaining what they claim to be legitimate authority. ¶

And who is responsible for this abundant blood that has been shed at the altar of power? ¶

I believe that the concern for bearing the 'lesser harm'—based on superficial rational consideration—manifested in silence toward the usurper of power and, consequently, the failure to support those who rose up against the usurpers, leaving them to meet their tragic fate at the hands of the murderous usurpers—I say: this concern for bearing the alleged lesser harm is what led to the scourges of those damages that were not perceived by the eyes of those who advocated the idea of choosing between the lesser of two evils in this issue! ¶

Therefore, as long as historical experience has proven that the 'lesser harm'—which is silence toward the usurper—has led to greater harm than what would have resulted from the 'greater harm'—that is, fighting the usurper—I say: as long as this is the case, even from the perspective of the 'lesser harm,' fighting the usurper of power would be lighter than remaining silent, given the subsequent harms and fitnas (strife) that followed silence, the reality of which we have seen throughout the course of Islamic history. ¶

However, our argument for the legitimacy of fighting the usurper of power is not based on this rule. Rather, we have brought this argument to refute those who use this rule as a pretext, and to address them in the language they use themselves! ¶

Indeed, the legitimate evidence for fighting the usurper of power, in our view, is the Shar'i text (scripture), which will be explained later. ¶

After all that has been presented—which was necessary regarding this serious subject—we proceed to examine the 'Combat against the Usurper of Power' in the following points: 190 ¶

First: What is the evidence for the legitimacy of fighting those who usurp authority? Second: What is the specific ruling regarding the legitimacy of fighting those who usurp authority? Third: Is fighting those who usurp authority considered a form of Jihad in the way of Allah? ¶

First: What is the evidence for the legitimacy of fighting those who usurp authority? The evidence for the legitimacy of fighting those who usurp authority is the same as the evidence for the legitimacy of fighting anyone who usurps any right. In the previous discussion on 'Fighting to defend private and public sanctities,' many hadiths were cited that consider fighting to defend one's wealth legitimate, and dying in that pursuit as martyrdom. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Whoever is killed while defending his wealth is a martyr'(1). It is also stated in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Whoever is killed while defending his rights (mazlamatihi) is a martyr'(2). Usurping authority from the Ummah is a form of injustice (mazlamah), and the Ummah has the right to fight to reclaim what was usurped from it. Whoever is killed in this struggle is a martyr! Likewise, in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'What an excellent death it is for a man to die while defending his right'(3). Authority is a right of the Ummah, and based on this, it has the right to fight to the death to reclaim this right from those who have usurped it. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says regarding a usurper in general: 'The hand is responsible for what it has taken until it returns it'(4). The word 'ma' (what) in the hadith denotes generality (5), thus including everything taken through injustice and usurpation. ¶

Whether it be wealth, land, authority, or anything else. The usurping hand is obligated to return what it has taken to its rightful owners. Otherwise, Islam has legislated combat (qital) against it in order to reclaim what it has seized! This is the evidence from the Sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding the ruling on a usurper in general. The usurper of authority is included in this, as the description of a usurper applies to him. ¶

There is also the evidence of consensus (ijma') regarding the ruling on the usurper of authority in particular. This evidence is recorded: In Sahih al-Bukhari, in the hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas, which mentions the general sermon of Umar ibn al-Khattab delivered in response to a political idea emerging among the Muslims, which suggested: Attaining the Caliphate—after the death of Umar—by usurping authority without placing the matter for consultation among the members of the Ummah and their representatives, so they may choose among themselves whom they desire for the Caliphate. The hadith is long... and these are excerpts relevant to our topic: ¶

«Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) said: I used to teach the Quran to some of the Muhajirun, among them: Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf. While I was at his house in Mina, and he was with Umar ibn al-Khattab during his last Hajj, Abd al-Rahman returned and said: If only you had seen the man who came to the Commander of the Faithful today and said: O Commander of the Faithful! What do you think of so-and-so who says: If Umar were to die, I would pledge allegiance to so-and-so—meaning Talhah ibn Ubayd Allah, as mentioned in some narrations—for by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was only a sudden, hasty affair (faltah) that succeeded! Umar became angry! Ibn Hajar says, and Ibn Ishaq added: He was angry in a way I had never seen him angry before! — Then he said: If Allah wills, I will speak to the people this evening and warn them against those who wish to usurp their affairs from them!». ¶

Then al-Bukhari records how Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf convinced Umar ibn al-Khattab to postpone this important speech until they reached Medina, so that only the people of Fiqh (jurisprudence) would hear it, lest it be misunderstood. And so it was! ¶

.. It was stated in this sermon: «.. Then it reached me that one of you says: By Allah, if Umar were to die, I would pledge allegiance to so-and-so. Let no man be deceived by saying: The pledge to Abu Bakr was only a sudden, hasty affair that succeeded. Beware, it was indeed so, but Allah protected us from its evil, and there is no one among you to whom necks are stretched (in admiration) like Abu Bakr. Whoever pledges allegiance to a man without consultation from the Muslims, neither he should be pledged to, nor the one who accepted the pledge, lest they both be killed». ¶

Then Umar ibn al-Khattab continues his sermon, explaining the story of the pledge to Abu Bakr and how it was a sudden, hasty affair. ¶

Meaning: Suddenly, without prior consultation, but Allah protected the Muslims from the evil of disagreement regarding Abu Bakr; due to everyone’s acknowledgment of his virtue, his precedence, and his entitlement to the Caliphate, so they pledged allegiance to him willingly. He then repeats at the end of his address his previous warning against the premature usurpation of the Caliphate by some without presenting the matter to the Ummah, consulting them, and letting them choose whom they want. He says: 'Whoever pledges allegiance to a man without consultation from the Muslims, neither he nor the one to whom he pledged allegiance should be followed, lest they be killed.' ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: 'His saying: (And there is no one among you towards whom necks are turned as they are towards Abu Bakr). Al-Khattabi said: ... So, no one should covet that a situation like that of Abu Bakr happens to him—the pledging of allegiance first in a small assembly, then the gathering of the people upon him, and their lack of disagreement once they verified his entitlement. Thus, they did not need further reflection or consultation in his matter, and no one else is like him in that regard.' ¶

Then Ibn Hajar says: 'His saying: (Taghratan an yuqtala) ... meaning: in fear of being killed. It is a verbal noun, from I put him in danger (aghartuhu taghriran or taghratan). The meaning is: whoever does that has put himself and his companion in danger and exposed them both to being killed!' ¶

This is the address of Umar ibn al-Khattab to the assembly of the jurists (Fuqaha) among the Sahaba, following the Hajj season, regarding the issue of usurping authority, and this is what is stated in Fath al-Bari in the explanation of the address. The purpose of citing this address and its explanation is that Umar ibn al-Khattab warned against those who seek to entrust authority to a man whom they personally approve of, without submitting the matter to consultation among the members of the Ummah and their representatives. And that whoever does this exposes himself to be killed, just as he exposes the one to whom he intends to entrust authority to being killed as well. ¶

Furthermore, the Sahaba listened to this address, and no one objected to it; thus, it was a consensus on what was stated therein regarding the necessity of taking the opinion of the Muslims in choosing a Caliph, and a warning against those who want to usurp the affairs of the Muslims—in the words of Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him)—and that death lies in wait for these usurpers, and for those who deviate from the method of Shura (consultation) in reaching power, whether they are those aspiring to the Caliphate or their supporters! ¶

We have previously cited the statement of Umar ibn al-Khattab, narrated by al-Nasa'i, regarding this threat. Its text is: 'Whoever calls for his own leadership or that of another without consultation (shura) from the Muslims, it is not permissible for you not to kill him.' This relates to the first point, which is the legitimacy of fighting a usurper of authority. We now move to the next point: Second: What is the specific Shariah ruling regarding the legitimacy of fighting a usurper? The Shariah ruling on this legitimacy, in my view, is 'permissibility' (ibaha). This is because the rightful authority has the prerogative to waive his right to the usurper or to someone else, and he also has the right to fight to defend that right. Consequently, the Ummah has the right to fight whoever usurps its authority, just as it has the right to refrain from fighting. However, if the Ummah chooses not to fight the usurper, we look at the following: - If the Ummah pledges allegiance (bay'ah) to the usurper with consent and free will, the state of usurpation ceases, and matters proceed in their natural course. - If the Ummah does not pledge allegiance to the usurper, there are two scenarios: - First scenario: The Ummah refuses to fight the usurper despite having the capability to do so. In this case, the Ummah falls into sin three days after the usurper seizes power. This is because the Shariah ruling is that it is not permissible for the Ummah to remain for more than three days without a pledge of allegiance to an Imam on its neck, provided it is capable of doing so. The evidence for this ruling is consensus (ijma'), as Umar ibn al-Khattab designated a three-day period for the Shura members to choose a Caliph from among themselves as representatives of the general Ummah, and the Caliphate could not go to someone outside their number; he then ordered the killing of anyone who opposed the majority's decision. ¶

And none of the Companions objected to him—and this is a matter that would typically be objected to—so it constituted a consensus (ijma) on the purport of this ruling (1). ¶

Based on this, during these three days, the Ummah has two options: - Either to fight the usurper in order to pledge allegiance (bay'ah) to whom they approve, or to pledge allegiance to whom they approve so that he may fight the usurper with them. - Or to be content with this usurper and pledge allegiance to him. ¶

Regarding this, Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani says in his book 'Al-Khilafah': 'Based on this, if someone exerts dominance and seizes power by force, he does not become a Caliph by that, even if he declares himself the Caliph of the Muslims, because no Khilafah has been contracted for him by the Muslims. And if he takes the pledge of allegiance from the people by coercion and force, he does not become a Caliph even if the pledge is given, because a pledge taken by coercion and force is not considered valid, and the Khilafah is not contracted through it; for it is a contract of consent and choice, and it cannot be completed by coercion and force; therefore, it is only contracted by a pledge given with consent and choice. However, if this usurper is able to convince the people that the interest of the Muslims lies in his pledge and that the establishment of the Shariah rulings is fulfilled by his pledge, and they become convinced of this, are satisfied, and then pledge allegiance to him with consent and choice, he becomes a Caliph from the moment the pledge is given with consent and choice, even if he initially took power through dominance and force...' (2). ¶

This relates to the first situation, which is: that the Ummah is capable of fighting the usurper of power; in such a case, it must either fight this usurper or pledge allegiance to him with consent and choice. ¶

- As for the second situation: which is that the Ummah refuses to fight the usurper because it is incapable of doing so, then in this case, it is incumbent upon the Ummah to tread the path of gathering the forces that will enable it to fight the usurper and remove him, as long as it does not wish to accept him and pledge allegiance to him. During the process of gathering forces to fight the usurper, it is excused for having no pledge to an Imam for more than three days, because it is overwhelmed, and Allah the Almighty says: 'Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity' (3). ¶

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ says: 'Allah has lifted from my Ummah [the burden of] errors, forgetfulness, and what they have been forced to do.' ¶

However, this is conditional upon the constant striving to overcome one’s inability so that the Ummah may fight the usurper and pledge allegiance to whom it chooses once it attains the capacity to do so. ¶

This is necessary so that it may be considered to be engaged in the action leading to the appointment of a Caliph, as long as it is currently unable to appoint one, in order to lift the sin from itself—the sin represented in the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: 'Whoever withdraws his hand from obedience shall meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection with no argument for himself, and whoever dies while there is no pledge of allegiance on his neck, he dies a death of jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance).' ¶

Following this established right of the Ummah to fight the usurper of the Caliphate, it was on this basis that al-Husayn ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both), grandson of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, rose in revolt against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah. This is because Yazid took the pledge of allegiance for himself through coercion, and a contract made under coercion is void. Hence, Yazid was considered a usurper of authority, and the majority of the representatives of the Muslims refused to pledge allegiance to him. ¶

It is explicitly stated in the History of al-Tabari that the usurpation of authority by Yazid was the primary reason that incited the people of Iraq to urge al-Husayn ibn Ali to rise against Yazid, in order to restore to the Ummah the authority that had been usurped from it. This is the text of the letter sent by the people of Kufa to al-Husayn, as recorded in the History of al-Tabari: ¶

'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. To al-Husayn ibn Ali, from Sulayman ibn Surad, al-Musayyib ibn Najabah, Rifa'ah ibn Shaddad, Habib ibn Muzahir, and his followers among the believers and Muslims of the people of Kufa. Peace be upon you. We praise Allah, besides Whom there is no god. To proceed: Praise be to Allah who has broken the back of your tyrant and stubborn enemy who had encroached upon—meaning, jumped upon—this [Ummah].' ¶

The Ummah, which was hijacked—meaning: its authority was usurped, its fai (spoils) was seized, and rulers were imposed upon it without its consent! Then he killed its best people, kept its worst, and turned the wealth of Allah into a commodity circulating among his tyrants and the wealthy. So, away with him, just as Thamud were driven away! We currently have no Imam, so come to us; perhaps Allah will unite us with you upon the truth... (1). ¶

When this strength of the people of Iraq became available to al-Husayn, and he became convinced that it was sufficient force to fight Yazid and his supporters, he rose in this revolution (2). ¶

He marched towards the people of Iraq to fight the usurper of the Caliphate through them. ¶

It should be noted that those from among the Sahaba (Companions) who advised him against launching this revolution, such as Abdullah ibn Abbas and others, did not do so because they believed such combat was illegitimate; rather, they advised him out of fear of the treachery of the people of Iraq and a lack of confidence in their support. ¶

It is recorded in the History of al-Tabari that Abdullah ibn Abbas said to al-Husayn, when he had resolved to travel to Iraq, the following: 'I fear for you in this endeavor, destruction and extermination. If the people of Iraq truly want you—as they claim—then write to them, let them expel their enemy first, and then you may go to them...' (3). ¶

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), in this text—being one of the representatives of the Ummah and a senior Companion at the time—did not differ with al-Husayn on the legitimacy of rising against the usurper of the Caliphate, 'Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah.' Rather, he differed with him on relying upon the people of Iraq. There was a previous experience with them during the time of his father, Ali, and his brother, al-Hasan, which proved that they were a people upon whom one could not rely, nor could one find strength in them! There is no loyalty in their covenant, and no security from their treachery! Al-Husayn later recalled this advice of Ibn Abbas, saying on the night of Karbala, 'May Allah reward Ibn Abbas for what he advised me' (4). ¶

Even this perception of the people of Iraq at that time was mentioned to al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) by the poet al-Farazdaq, while he was leaving Makkah heading toward Iraq. ¶

(1) Tarikh al-Tabari: 5/252. (2) Al-Watha'iq al-Siyasiyya wa al-Idariyya, al-'A'ida lil-'Asr al-Umawi - Dr. Muhammad Mahir Hamada: 177. (3) Tarikh al-Tabari: 5/383. (4) Abu al-Shuhada' al-Husayn ibn Ali: Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad: 130. ¶

It is narrated in the History of al-Tabari from al-Farazdaq, who said: 'I went for Hajj with my mother... and met Husayn ibn Ali exiting Makkah. He asked: "Tell me about the people you left behind?" (referring to the people of Iraq). I replied: "Their hearts are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayya, and the decree is in the hands of Allah." He said: "You have spoken the truth." He then asked me about certain matters of vows and rituals of Hajj, which I explained to him. I then proceeded and saw a tent pitched in the Haram, in an elegant state. I approached it and found it belonged to Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas. He asked me, and I informed him of my meeting with Husayn ibn Ali. He said to me: "Woe to you! Why did you not follow him?" (meaning, to dissuade him from his intention to go to Iraq). "By Allah, he will surely be captured, and it is not permissible to use weapons against him or his companions." I was determined to follow him, and his words took root in my heart; then I remembered the Prophets and their killings, which deterred me from joining them!' (1). ¶

We have cited this story to illustrate the common perception regarding the treachery of the people of Iraq at that time—the very reason why the Sahaba warned Husayn against rising against Yazid; the reason for this warning was not that they believed it was illegitimate in the Sharia to rise against a usurper of the Caliphate! ¶

Furthermore, this story also indicates the opinion of another Muslim leader regarding Husayn's exit, namely Abdullah ibn Amr. He did not object to his exit except based on his belief that it would fail, and that Husayn and his companions would be captured and their revolution would not succeed. Despite this, he believed that it was impermissible to use weapons against Husayn and his companions—as the report says: 'It is not permissible [to use] weapons against them.' If they had been rebels rising against a legitimate sultan—and far be it from them to be so—then the use of weapons against them would have been permissible. However, since their killing was impermissible in the view of Abdullah ibn Amr, this proves that in his opinion, their exit was legitimate, and that the 'rebels' (bughat) were actually those in the other trench of the battle! ¶

Moreover, it has been previously discussed how al-Shawkani criticized the 'Karramiyya' who considered Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) a rebel against the authority of Yazid, and how he mentioned that his uprising was based on Ijtihad (2)! ¶

Imam Ibn al-Jawzi also holds this view regarding the revolution of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), namely that his revolution was legitimate and that the usurpation of the Caliphate by Yazid ibn Mu'awiya was the reason behind that revolution. ¶

In the Tafsir of al-Alusi, the following text is stated: «Ibn al-Jawzi - may Allah have mercy on him - said in his book 'Al-Sirr al-Masun': Among the common beliefs that have prevailed over a group attributing themselves to the Sunnah is to say: 'Yazid' was in the right, and 'Husayn' - may Allah be pleased with him - was mistaken in rebelling against him. If they were to look into the Sira (biography), they would know how the pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) was contracted for him, and how people were compelled to accept it!! He committed every ugly deed. Furthermore, even if we were to assume the validity of the contract of allegiance, signs appeared from him that necessitated the annulment of the contract, and no one leans toward that (supporting Yazid) except every ignorant, common-minded person who thinks that by doing so, he is angering the Rafidah!»(1). ¶

Thus, Ibn al-Jawzi holds the view that the contract of allegiance to Yazid was invalid, because it was a contract obtained through coercion against those who gave it. This is the root of the illegitimacy of 'Yazid's' authority, for it was a usurped authority! This is in addition to the deviations that occurred at the hands of 'Yazid' later on, which necessitated the annulment of the contract - even if we were to assume its validity! ¶

Furthermore, 'al-Alusi' quoted this text from the book of Ibn al-Jawzi in the context of supporting the opinions contained within it, which indicates that 'al-Alusi' also holds the view that the illegitimacy of 'Yazid's' authority, i.e., his usurpation of the Caliphate through coerced allegiance, alongside other reasons, was behind the revolution of 'al-Husayn' - may Allah be pleased with him - against 'Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah'! ¶

Among those who hold this opinion—that the usurpation of authority by 'Yazid' was the reason for the revolution of 'al-Husayn' - may Allah be pleased with him—I say: among the contemporaries is Dr. 'Mahmoud al-Khalidi' in his book 'Ma'alim al-Khilafah fi al-Fikr al-Islami' (The Milestones of the Caliphate in Islamic Thought)(2). He followed in this the Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani in a memorandum of his on Islamic thought(3), although the author of 'al-Ma'alim' did not indicate his source for this opinion! ¶

Now, before I conclude this point in which I have clarified that the Shariah ruling that I hold regarding fighting the usurper of authority is that it is permissible... perhaps a questioner might ask: And what is the explanation for the statement of Umar ibn al-Khattab - may Allah be pleased with him... ¶

may Allah be pleased with him, which has previously been mentioned regarding this subject: 'Whoever calls for his own leadership (imara), or that of another, without consultation (shura) from the Muslims, then it is not lawful for you not to kill him.' That is: How can the ruling of permissibility (ibaha) be reconciled with the obligation of killing (wujub al-qatl) understood from this text? The answer is that the statement of Umar ibn al-Khattab here applies to the situation where the Muslims do not accept the pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) to the one who wants to usurp authority from them without their consultation and consent. In this case, it is not permissible for them to remain silent while not pledging allegiance to him, provided they are capable of fighting him. ¶

However, this does not prevent that if they waive their right and pledge allegiance to this usurper, it is permissible for them. Thus, we see that there is no contradiction between the statement of Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and what we have observed: that the Shariah ruling regarding fighting a usurper of authority is one of permissibility. ¶

We now come to the final point in this discussion. ¶

Thirdly: Is fighting a usurper of authority considered Jihad in the path of Allah? ¶

Fighting one who usurps authority or the Caliphate is a type of fighting against the 'people of transgression' (ahl al-baghy). We have previously learned in the discussion on fighting the rebels (bughat) that there are two jurisprudential views regarding this fighting: ¶

- Some label it as Jihad in the path of Allah; in fact, some consider it better than Jihad against the disbelievers (kuffar), and they treat the casualties of the people of truth in this fight as martyrs (shuhada) in this world and the hereafter, thus they are not washed (ghusl is not performed), just as the martyr of a war against the disbelievers is not washed! ¶

Hence, Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, did not wash those of his companions who were killed in his wars against the people of transgression. ¶

- There is another jurisprudential view that does not bestow the name of Jihad upon this fighting. Instead, it says: It is a fight for the discipline (ta'dib) of the rebellious disobedient ones. Consequently, whoever from the people of truth is killed in this fighting is not considered a martyr in the worldly sense, even if he is a martyr in the decree of the hereafter alone, provided his intention was sincere in supporting the religion and the people of truth. Based on this, he is treated in terms of post-mortem preparations like any other deceased Muslim. ¶