Islam And Rebellion: The Islamic Tradition Prohibits Revolt Even Against Despotic States (First Part)

By Grace Mubashir,  New Age Islam

13 December 2023

Radical Preachers Have Used Erroneous Islamic Political Ideas To Rise Against The Government And Sow The Seeds Of Anarchy. Still, Islamic Organizations And Jihadi Preachers Often Exhort The People To Revolt Against The Ruling Powers. Al Qaeda, Hizbul Mujahedeen, ISIS And Others Have Used The Same Call. This Article Refutes Such Political Ideas From The Perspective Of Both Classical And Modern Scholars.

Main Points:

1.        Classical scholars prohibited revolts against rulers if they caused anarchy and destruction

2.        The crux of the debate is human rights and civil liberties are to be considered not the religiosity of rulers

3.        The modern Jihadi organizations have exploited ambiguities in the political ideas of Islam to support their nefarious, debilitating acts

------

In Classical Islamic Discourses

Imamat is one of the integral parts of Deen. Many Qur'anic verses and hadiths shed light on this. Imam Taftasani (RA) says: It is established by Ijma'in that the appointment of an Imam is obligatory. Imam Ghazali (RA) says: “Deen and Dunya are complementary. The Deen is the foundation and the Sultan is its guardian….There is no dispute that the Imamate is a Shariah obligation of the Muslims.”

However, it is never one of the foundations of Iman/Aqeedah (الصول) like the belief in Allah and His Prophet but is of the optional matters (الفروع). Naturally, there can be differences of opinion and different positions on them. It is the accepted position of the Sunnism that such differences of opinion are never grounds for accusation of apostasy (تكفير).

Imamat is mainly classified by scholars into three categories:-

1.     A Righteous Muslim Ruler

2.     A Violent Muslim Ruler

3.     A Kafir/ Apostate Ruler

Scholars have taken different positions on each of the categories mentioned above. They are briefly explained below:

1) A Righteous Muslim Ruler

Obedience to a just Muslim ruler is mandatory in Islamic precepts. Allah says:

“O you who believe, obey Allah. Obey the Messenger of God and those who are in charge of you. If there is a dispute between you about anything, refer it to Allah and His Messenger. This is best if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is also the best for better results.”(Sura Nisa, 59).

The Prophet (PBUH) said: “Whoever obeys me, he obeys Allah. Whoever disobeys me, he disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys the Ameer (leader) obeys me. If anyone defies the Amir, he defies me.” (Al-Bukhari 2956)

It is haram to make a revolt against them. If someone does so, he is not a kafir but he is wrong, and in Fiqh, they are addressed by the term 'باغي' (aggressor). That is, fighting against rulers who are on the side of injustice and falsehood does not fall within the scope of بغي, but one is considered a 'باغي' when he fights against the ruler while he is righteous and lawful. Fighting the 'baghi' is permissible. But this does not mean that one should remain silent if one finds fault with the rulers. It is the Ummah's responsibility to correct them, advise them with goodness and pray for them.

 2) Aggressive Muslim Ruler

Enjoining good and forbidding evil is one of the primary tasks of the Muslim Ummah. Allah says: “You have become the best community raised for mankind. You enjoin good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah”(Alu Imran, 115). This verse evokes that the socio-political system of Islam is not caliph-centred, but its primary point is the ummah. Imam al-Haramaini (ra) says: “Muslims are the addressees of the law. The Imam is only one of the common people when it comes to following the law. But he is the appointed authority to implement the law". Also, Owamir Anjum explains the concept of "Umma-centred Khilafah" (community-centred view) in his book 'Politics, Law, and Community'. The other side of it is that it is the responsibility of the Umma to prevent violence from rulers. That is why the addresses 'people' and 'umma' came into the hadiths about preventing violence. For example, the Prophet (PBUH) says:

"If the people see the wrongdoer and then do not stop him, Allah will spread his punishment among them." (14)

"Allah will not purify a community that does not buy the rights of the weak from the strong." (Ibn Maja, 2426)

The basic principle is that if the ruler is violent and illegitimate, he should be deposed and replaced by a righteous person. It was because of their understanding of this basic concept that early Islamic greats, including Companions such as Husayn ibn Ali and Abdullah ibn Zubair (RA), led and supported revolutionary efforts. Historical records show that scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) and Imam Malik (RA) supported anti-government struggles. According to Imam Shafi'i (RA) a ruler is deposed by violence and fornication (الفسق). In the view of Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, “a military operation should be conducted against the exploitative ruler according to the line of the Salaf. However, the Salaf abandoned this position realizing that it would lead to great difficulties.” If the ruler is an aggressor, it is obligatory for the Ummah to reach one of two decisions: either expel him or straighten him out.

However, major changes are visible from the position of the Salaf to the position of the later scholars. Imam Nasafi says: Violence and adultery do not depose a ruler. Imam Tahawi opines that military action against rulers is not to be violent, even if he is violent. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) explains that the position of Ahlu Sunnah is that whether the ruler is good or immoral, it is obligatory to follow him, whether it is difficult or easy. Below are the three important opinions of the respected Imams of the Ahlussunna tradition. Therefore, it is not only possible to consider these as isolated opinions, but this proves that most of the later scholars are of this position. Some, including Nawawi Imam (RA), are of the opinion that there is ijma (consensus) on the subject.(23)

The change of opinion from resistance to adherence

Why did later scholars come to accept the basic idea of losing power when the ruler is an aggressor and an adulterer? Why did the early Salaf, including the Companions, carry out rebellious military movements (الخورة), but later scholars ruled that it was forbidden?

Orientalists have found the answer to this by saying that early Muslim scholars were idealists, but later scholars became realists and quietists, adapting to their contemporary circumstances. H. A. In R. Gibb's view, “The constant state rebellions and civil wars that arose in the first two centuries of Muslim history, the insecurity of the Khawarij and the strife caused by nepotism all led scholars to the idea of total subjugation to the state, whether the rule was just or not. Scholars not only accepted those who took power through coups (المتحبل), but also made obedience to them a legitimate and legally binding obligation. With that, fighting against the state became the most heinous crime in Muslim thought. In short, the Muslim scholars who were idealists in the early days became realists after taking into account the existing historical realities. In this way, scholars fully accepted the state and adopted a quietist approach that rejected even the struggle and struggles against the aggressive ruler. Gibb describes them as "idealists" because many great people like Husayn bin Ali, Abdullah bin Zubair, Ibn Ashas, Nafsuzakiyy (ra) made revolutionary efforts for the restoration of the Shariah caliphate in the early days.

Imam Gazali As Quietist Scholar

According to Khalid Abu Fadl, ignorance of the linguistic practice of the fuqaha led them to such a decision. Fiqh, like all subjects, has its language and practices. Ignorance of them leads to great misunderstandings and counter-knowledge. For example, the Orientalists present Imam Ghazali as one of the leading Quietist scholars. They also quote some of his quotes to support their argument. Let's check what was Imam Ghazali's position on this matter.

Imam Ghazali says:

“A violent ruler should be prevented from power. His removal is mandatory. Indeed, he is not a ruler". He continues: "If an aggressive ruler is assisted by authority and is difficult to remove, and if the appointment of another leads to fitnah, obedience to him is obligatory".

On the face of it, what Imam Ghazali said may seem contradictory, but they both refer to two meanings. In the first, he states the basic Sharia principle and in the second he refers to the imperatives of his time. How can a faqih become a quietist if he believes that violence and immorality can cause one to be deposed from the ruling power but understands the circumstances of his time and takes the position that temporary acceptance of the state is better than fighting against it.

Moreover, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim says that a “Faqih” is one who simultaneously considers the Islamic precepts (فقه الواجب) and the circumstances (فقه الوقع) in which he exists. This is the methodology that the Fuqahas have always adopted. While the early Salafs considered this methodology and supported the government's insurgent actions, the later ones discouraged it. But how can one group be idealists and the other group realists when both groups have come to different positions regarding the concept (Islamic precepts) and reality (existing time situation)? As mentioned earlier, ignorance of the workings and idioms of fiqh is seen here as well. Alternatively, the European epistemological discourse understands the Muslim scholarly tradition through terms such as 'quietist-activist' and 'idealist-realist'. However, the reality is that Muslim scholarly discourse is not limited to these facts.

A number of reasons have been given for the change of attitude among Muslim scholars in their approach to the state. Below are some of the important ones:-

Not only was it more unsuccessful than any previous government rebellion in Islamic history, but its outcome was tragic. The only exceptions to this are some revolutionary attempts like the Abbasid Revolution. As a result of this, there was great disappointment and concern among the distinguished scholars in the Muslim Umma. This is why the scholars called such struggles with the intention of re-establishing Islamic values as fitna. When the government changed according to the whim of the king instead of Islamic values, they were forced to come to one of two decisions - either accept the existing system of government to preserve the unity and cohesion of the Ummah, or fight against it in preference to the Islamic system of government. The unity and coexistence of the Ummah often became the first priority of the Fuqaha. Afraid of creating insecurity in the country, they viewed obedience to the state as a contextual imperative. That fear and sense of despair sometimes made them stay away from politics.

2.     It is clear from Islamic political history and the positions of scholars of that time that Fiqhul Maqasid (the inner spirit and struggle of Sharia) and Fiqhul Ma'alat (the branch of the study of the consequences of deeds) are the basis of fighting against a violent regime/ruler without Sharia validity in practice and proceeding according to him.

As mentioned above, the position of Imam Tawahawi is that even if the ruler is unjust and exploitative, he will not be deposed. The commentators explain that he took such a position based on the Fiqh principle of taking the relatively light one (ارتكاب اخف عردين) in order to avoid the more serious of the evils, as this can lead to great trouble and damage. Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) says: “When benefits and harms clash, the general principle is that the lesser of them should prevail over the greater.

3.     The Fuqaha have theorized that it is not enough to have the ability to eradicate political evil but to achieve Sharia Maslahat (good) through it and not lead it to great Mafsadat (evil). Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says: “Sharia capacity for action (الاستطاعة الشرعية) does not mean mere capacity for action. Rather, the lawgiver considers its consequences. Even if a deed can be done, it is not considered in the Sharia if it leads to more mischief." In other words, the scholars have formed a position on the subject as in all subjects by considering Fiqhul Maqasid and Fiqhul Ma'alat.

4.     Obligation makes the forbidden permissible (التعرفات تبيح المحزورة) is one of the recognized principles of Fiqh. Scholars (considering Fiqhul Maqasid and Fiqhul Ma'alat) who recognized that the prevailing system of governance, however un-Islamic, would lead to great calamities if not accepted, accepted it as a contextual concession (permission). That is why Imam Ghazali (RA) likened obeying a ruler who does not have Sharia to eating a corpse under duress.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says: Based on this (the jurisprudential principle that compulsion makes the forbidden permissible) it is sometimes permissible to deviate from the Sunnah of the Khulafau Rashids. It is as if it is permissible to abandon some Sharia duties and to do some Haram. It is because they are unable to observe some of their Sunnas, or under duress, that harms and inconveniences should be minimized in the performance of duties related to the state.”

However, citing Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Mukhtar Sanqeeti asserts that when the fuqahas used the contextual exemption for a long time, the said exemption was misunderstood as being in the position of the basic law (العزيمة). The result of this is that it reached the level of accepting the administrative system no matter how unIslamic it may be. It's like eating a corpse even if the compelling situation goes away. It is slowly being forgotten that the source and fundamental source of fitnah is tyranny and political violence.

Regarding the technical meaning of fitnah in the Qur'an, Imam Abu Zahra says: "It is the harm that prevents a believer from believing or continuing in what he is convinced is true." It is not fitna for those who are naturally prone to violence to stop the aggressor. It is not fitna to fight and revolt against the ruler killing them, but to prevent fitna.

3) Kafir/Apostate Ruler

If a ruler becomes a Kafir/Murtad, it is not permissible to obey him.

Narrated Junadatubn Abi Umayyah: “We went to Ubadatubnuswamit when he was ill. Said to him: 'May Allah bless you. Tell us a hadith that you heard from the Prophet, which Allah will make useful.' Then he said: 'The Prophet called us and we pledged allegiance to the Prophet. This is the covenant that He then took from us: the pledge that we will listen to them and obey them when they are willing and unwilling, difficult and easy, and when they (the ruler) act selfishly and that we will not oppose those who wield it in matters of authority and leadership. Then the Prophet added; "Unless you see in them a severe disbelief (Kufr) established with you by a clear proof from Allah".(Bukhari, 7055)

Elaborating on this hadith, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says: “If a ruler deviates as a kafir, it is not permissible to obey him. Moreover, those who are able should wage Jihad against him.” However, Fiqh al-Maqasid and Fiqh al-Ma’alat must be considered even when rebelling against him. Imam Aluddin al-Eji says: ” When a ruler is forced to be removed. But if it leads to fitnah, a relatively mild evil (أخف العربين) should be accepted”.

So far, it has been explained how scholars have viewed the struggle against the state in the Islamic tradition. It could be clearly explained that classical scholars have refuted that revolt against the rulers is prohibited as long as they protect human rights. The crux of the debate is human rights and civil liberties are to be considered not the religiosity of rulers. If anarchy trails political upheavals it is prohibited to revolt against rulers. Seeking a redressal mechanism is the solution suggested by classical scholars. The modern Jihadi organizations have exploited ambiguities in the political ideas of Islam to support their nefarious, debilitating acts.

-----

A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Mubashir V.P is a PhD scholar in Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia and freelance journalist.

 

URL:   https://newageislam.com/debating-islam/islamic-tradition-revolt-despotic-states/d/131306

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism