What are the conditions for rising against a Muslim ruler?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The first question was raised by one of the brothers, who said: What is our position regarding a ruler who suspends the Shari'ah of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and does not rule by it? And is it permissible to rise against him?
The Shaykh : Do you mean, is it permissible to rise against him? Is it permissible to rise against him?
The questioner : Against him, yes.
The Shaykh : Not from him.
The questioner : Rising against him, yes.
The Shaykh : Because leaving him is easy, and that is the obligatory thing if you find a ruler better than him, clear?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is an answer to what you did not ask.
The questioner : I mean, and fighting him, as some say.
The Shaykh : As for rising against him, this is a question that is, as they say today, the trend of the hour among the youth in the Islamic world. Some of them ask and stop at the answer of the people of knowledge, and some do not ask, but get enthusiastic and try to rise against the ruler, and then they are unable to do anything. What I want to say is that rising against the ruler, from the Shari'ah perspective, is a permissible matter, and it may become obligatory, but on the condition that we see clear, open disbelief. The second condition is that the people must be able to rise against this ruler, take control of him, and replace him without shedding much blood, and very much blood. Furthermore, if the people, as is the reality today in all Islamic countries, are unable to rise against the rulers, that is because the rulers have surrounded themselves with types of power and weapons, and made that a wall and a fence with which they repel the evil of anyone who might rise against them from their people or their ummah (the Muslim community). And therefore, in my opinion, if the answer were that it is permissible to rise against the rulers without exception and without any detail, I would say that the question in these days is irrelevant, because there is no one who rises. And if we found peoples who could rise against their rulers, we would tell them to rise against the disbelievers before them. So this question has no place in the grammar, as the grammarians say. But from the Shari'ah perspective, it is permissible to rise against the ruler if he declares his disbelief, and this exists in some countries, with great regret, but there is no people who can rise against the ruler, win the round, and replace him. And for this reason, we say that the Islamic peoples should focus on what they can do, focus on what they can do, which is to learn Islam, a purified Islam, and then to raise themselves upon this correct Islam. This is what they can do, and even if the ruler is a disbeliever or an atheist, they should not be preoccupied with what is not in their control and power by thinking about doing what is not in their capacity. Yes.
The Shaykh : Do you mean, is it permissible to rise against him? Is it permissible to rise against him?
The questioner : Against him, yes.
The Shaykh : Not from him.
The questioner : Rising against him, yes.
The Shaykh : Because leaving him is easy, and that is the obligatory thing if you find a ruler better than him, clear?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : This is an answer to what you did not ask.
The questioner : I mean, and fighting him, as some say.
The Shaykh : As for rising against him, this is a question that is, as they say today, the trend of the hour among the youth in the Islamic world. Some of them ask and stop at the answer of the people of knowledge, and some do not ask, but get enthusiastic and try to rise against the ruler, and then they are unable to do anything. What I want to say is that rising against the ruler, from the Shari'ah perspective, is a permissible matter, and it may become obligatory, but on the condition that we see clear, open disbelief. The second condition is that the people must be able to rise against this ruler, take control of him, and replace him without shedding much blood, and very much blood. Furthermore, if the people, as is the reality today in all Islamic countries, are unable to rise against the rulers, that is because the rulers have surrounded themselves with types of power and weapons, and made that a wall and a fence with which they repel the evil of anyone who might rise against them from their people or their ummah (the Muslim community). And therefore, in my opinion, if the answer were that it is permissible to rise against the rulers without exception and without any detail, I would say that the question in these days is irrelevant, because there is no one who rises. And if we found peoples who could rise against their rulers, we would tell them to rise against the disbelievers before them. So this question has no place in the grammar, as the grammarians say. But from the Shari'ah perspective, it is permissible to rise against the ruler if he declares his disbelief, and this exists in some countries, with great regret, but there is no people who can rise against the ruler, win the round, and replace him. And for this reason, we say that the Islamic peoples should focus on what they can do, focus on what they can do, which is to learn Islam, a purified Islam, and then to raise themselves upon this correct Islam. This is what they can do, and even if the ruler is a disbeliever or an atheist, they should not be preoccupied with what is not in their control and power by thinking about doing what is not in their capacity. Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.