If a group sees clear disbelief from a ruler and then rises against him, thinking they are capable of doing so, do we call them Khawarij if we see that they are mistaken in their ijtihad?

The questioner: This is a case related to the question, meaning.

The Shaykh: No problem, please, let the group allow us.

The questioner: If one person or a group of people sees that this is clear disbelief, and thus it is permissible to rise against him, and they think they are also capable of rising, thinking this, then in this case they are not rising against a Muslim ruler, but rather against a ruler whom they believe, based on their strong suspicion, to be a disbeliever who commits clear disbelief.

The Shaykh: Correct, what is this clay?
The student: This is clay, Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Good, may Allah reward you and make you well in this world and the Hereafter.

The questioner: Is it permissible for us to call them Khawarij, for example, for rising against the Muslim ruler?

The Shaykh: Is it permissible for us, is, this is a matter, the answer to it is simpler than the research that has passed. If an imam from the imams of the Muslims says that such and such a thing is lawful, and we see it as forbidden, do we refute him or not? - May Allah reward you with good, but - what do you say?

The questioner: We refute them.

The Shaykh: We refute them. So, if the one who legalizes what has been established by the Shari'ah as forbidden is from the mujtahid imams, we refute him. If he is not from the mujtahid imams, are we not even more justified in refuting him?

The questioner : A fortiori.

The Shaykh: Good, if you imagine that these people, within the scope of their opinion, saw that this ruler, meaning clear disbelief appeared from him, i.e., the cause that necessitates rising against him appeared.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Good, and we see that they have erred in that, so we treat them as the Khawarij, because you think that the Khawarij, meaning, did not exercise ijtihad when they rose against the imams of the Muslims previously? They certainly exercised ijtihad, but their ijtihad was wrong. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), do you know what he told us about them? He said: . So, the fact that these people exercised ijtihad and erred is not something that justifies us saying that they actually erred greatly, because they caused the Muslims to lose a strength that we should have reserved for a dark day when we are most in need of them. And in short, they are not people of ijtihad, so how do we try to find excuses for them? These people who caused the fitnah in the Sacred Mosque, I know some of them personally; they are young, naive, neither mature in knowledge nor thought. So we say, "By Allah, these people exercised ijtihad, and let the world perish because of their ijtihad," because they were what? Mujtahids? We say to them or about them that they are not people of ijtihad, so that we can offer them an excuse. This is first. Second, suppose they are people of ijtihad, knowledge, and fiqh, but we believe that it is necessary to refute them and expose them so that they serve as a lesson for others, because we have not yet recovered from the fitnah of rising up. I think that perhaps these people have consequences. If we say, "My brother, these are mujtahids," it means we have made the matter easy and opened the way for others to exercise such ijtihad. And I know people from outside the group; one of them told me once that he went to Paris or Germany, I forgot what he said, and he could barely read a verse or a hadith, let alone understand them. When he tells me about something strange from the issues, he says to me, "How?" I say to him, "How is this?" He says, "By Allah, I exercised ijtihad and saw this. I exercised ijtihad and saw this." Who are you to exercise ijtihad, forbidding and legalizing as you please? This is a calamity, my brother. Instead of finding an excuse for them, we want to turn the excuse into an argument against them, an argument against them.

The questioner: Given the difference.

The Shaykh: A difference in what?

The questioner: We excuse them; they actually encountered clear disbelief. I do not mean the group in the Haram.

The Shaykh: Our research is not about this. Our research is that they rose up because you said that, in their opinion, they could, that they could execute. Who is capable of making this judgment? How does one imagine that he is capable? A scattered group of people who do not have weapons of every kind, who do not have what was commanded in His saying: . I say that this group, if they are in the Sacred Mosque, the fitnah of the Sacred Mosque, or the group in Egypt, if they are Salafis in tawhid or in some issues, they are imitating the disbeliever revolutions that rise in the lands of the world. They followed the same path that the revolutionaries take on a moonless night, as they say. They gathered a little of the weapons, perhaps stolen from some of the state's weapon depots, and thought that by this they could establish the rule of Islam despite the nose of this state, which has various types of giants, from cars and planes, and so on. What does this indicate? It indicates that it is a childish mind, completely. Therefore, we do not want to find an excuse for them, and they have no excuse with Allah (Mighty and Majestic). We believe that they saw clear disbelief, but how did they estimate that they were capable of rising against this state? And where in Islam, when the state of Islam rises, is it to take the path of killing and treachery while they are still hiding in their holes and have not announced their Islam and the state of Islam, even in its first steps? Where in Islam is such a thing? I have pointed out in some of my comments that the coups happening today and the revolutions are not from Islam at all. Yes, when the Muslim state is established and there is a Muslim ruler with a Shura council and a system based on Islam, then it is said: . Then this commander orders, "You, so-and-so, save me from so-and-so," as came in the Sunnah. "Go, kill so-and-so." But one who puts himself in the position of a ruler over a group of people and thinks that he has become the ruler by the command of Allah, this is not from Islam at all.

The questioner: Does the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith of Muslim apply to them: ?

The Shaykh: It does not apply to them, because this is rising up when there is a valid, legitimate pledge of allegiance. But what suffices for them is what we mentioned that applies to them.

The questioner: But, Shaykh, meaning, the same concept: rising against the Ummah and not avoiding its believers, striking the righteous and the wicked, as if it is rising against the Ummah.

The Shaykh: I did not understand your last word now. Is it like what we said earlier, is there support for me or a follow-up?

The questioner: No, you said that the hadith does not apply to them.

The Shaykh: Yes, it does not apply to them.

The questioner: ... Our Shaykh, meaning, the same action described by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to many of the people rising up in these days. They rise against the Ummah, striking the righteous and the wicked, and do not avoid a believer, nor...

The Shaykh: But these people are not like that.

The questioner: I did not mean these people. I meant some of those who rise against the Ummah, striking the righteous and the wicked.

The Shaykh: Who do you mean, for example? Like whom?

The questioner : Hmm.

The Shaykh: Like whom, meaning?

The questioner: Meaning, like.

The Shaykh: I thought that this question was related to the previous research. So, you are saying: I do not mean this, like.

The questioner: Meaning, for example, the Takfir wa Hijrah group in Egypt.

The Shaykh : What... .

The questioner: In Asyut Governorate, they came to invade the governorate, but they did not reach those they claimed to be disbelievers or committing clear disbelief, but rather they struck some of the ta'wil practitioners and the ignorant. They claim that these people shield the ruler, so it is permissible to kill them, and they judge by their intentions. Does this mean the issue of shielding (tatriss) that they always talk about?

The Shaykh: I do not know. If this is true about the group, then the hadith applies to them. But is this report true?

The questioner: The issue of shielding, I heard it from them personally. The shielding that the ruler uses, it is permissible to kill [the shield] to reach the ruler. And there is a fatwa attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah on the subject.

The Shaykh: Look, my brother, this fatwa, when the Muslim state is established, they are not here establishing a state, but a small state, and applying the rulings that apply. This is like, do not gather a group of a thousand, two thousand, three thousand, and then whenever they see a thief, they cut off his hand, whenever they see an adulterer, they stone him or flog him, and so on, while their state has not yet been established in their minds. I want to go out a little to take care of something. Yes.
The student: Go ahead.

The Shaykh : Oh God.