What is the ruling on the statement of one who says: Not rising against the corrupt ruler is considered a departure from the consensus of the Ummah?

The questioner : The consensus of the Ummah on this is that one does not rise against the corrupt ruler; there is a consensus on this.

The Shaykh : Rising against the corrupt ruler?

The questioner : Not rising against the corrupt ruler.

The Shaykh : Why are you holding me to this? I am being frank with you, meaning...

The questioner : May Allah bless you. I am merely conveying his words. May Allah bless you, that is all.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. This is easier for me, my brother. Our previous discussion about the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is sufficient. It is stipulated that rising is not permissible except under the condition of explicit disbelief. So what does that mean? Does it mean that if one is a corrupt sinner, rising is permissible, or not? What does "consensus" mean, or is there no consensus? If you say there is no consensus, fine. What issue is there is a consensus on? Allah says, and you say about the man who is a student of knowledge, so he reads with us His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He: Fine. The scholars have differed on hundreds of thousands of issues. Do we resolve the problem by saying there is a consensus, or that there is no consensus? If the answer is that there is no consensus, we are done. Otherwise, we resort to His saying, the Exalted.

The questioner : His saying, the Exalted.

The Shaykh : So why is this question raised by that person?The questioner : Why is it raised when he is in the presence of the hadith I am not very concerned with understanding the issue from the perspective of consensus, because there are many, and very many, statements regarding consensus. What is the consensus that serves as proof? Is it the consensus of the Ummah in all its strata, from scholars, to students of knowledge, to the general Muslims? Or is the consensus specifically that of the Muslims and their scholars? Or is it the consensus of the people of Madinah, or the people of Kufa, or so on? Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says: I believe that the student of knowledge who asks whether there is a consensus on any issue or not has not been satisfied by the indication of the verse mentioned earlier, Because I will reverse the question and put it in the following form. I ask and say: Is it the way of the believers that a man who has installed himself as a ruler over the Muslims by force of arms? Is it permissible to rise against this rebel who has installed himself as a ruler over the Muslims? What we know in all these centuries is that the scholars issue rulings saying "No." It is not permissible. Why? To preserve the blood of the Muslims from both parties: those with the rebel and those who want to rise against this rebel. So the way of the believers is not to rise, in order to preserve the blood of the Muslims. Then I return to the previous question: if rising against the corrupt ruler, in the opinion of the people of authority and decision, requires the spilling of a little blood, how is this "little" regulated? Is this one of the material matters that a person can quantify, or are these purely chaotic matters? If the door of fighting between two groups is opened, you do not know where this fighting will end. Therefore, the issue first involves a contradiction of the explicit text of the hadith mentioned earlier, and second, it is not possible to control the slight harm when fighting is stirred up between two groups of Muslims.
Abu Malik: Here, my Shaykh, something is being raised.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Abu Malik: They divide rising for revolution into two categories, saying "white revolution" and "red revolution." The white revolution is one in which no blood is shed, and the red revolution is one in which blood is spilled. As if this analogy is a regulated analogy in every place and every time. And we have from reality, when we deviated from the correct fiqh in this specific issue, we have from reality what is regrettable. What is very, very regrettable is that rising does not happen now against those who rise against the ruler, but rather those who have risen against the rulers, each one of them wants to rise against the other. Nothing is clearer than the reality the Afghans are living now. Every day, hundreds, or rather thousands, of souls are slaughtered and blood is spilled on the land of the Afghans. Then another thing: this misunderstanding has also led to the fact that in the hearts of these rebels, some against others, there exists a love of domination and a love of possession and seizing the throne. The weak among them, or the strong, if he wants to seek support against his brother, he does not seek support except from one who is outside the religion, not just against the disbelieving ruler. This is also the reality in Afghanistan. These images are tragic and terrible. Therefore, the answer of our Shaykh, may Allah reward him with good, in this issue, we believe is the decisive one in this matter, and may Allah reward him with good.

The Shaykh : I see that completing the advice to that person you referred to is that he should be informed, or at least reminded, if he has not known before, that reform today does not begin with revolution and rising against the disbelieving ruler, let alone rising against the corrupt ruler. Rather, reform begins, as we always and forever say, from decades ago, with purification and education. If the man is with us in this methodology, he is reminded of this and that is sufficient. And if he is not with us, he should be informed, and we should understand from him how he wants to proceed and with whom he wants to rise. Most Muslims are ignorant, and most of the Muslims who know some of the rulings of the Shari'ah contradict them. Their women are clothed yet naked, their transactions contradict the rulings of the Shari'ah in many aspects, and so on. And we all believe that the victory of Allah for His believing servants is conditioned by one word: And the victory of Allah is, first, by knowledge, and second, by action. And knowledge today, as you all know, has a very great deviation from the knowledge that was upon the righteous Salaf. And so, in the hadith that you know, which begins with: and so on, The religion today has many concepts, not only in the branches, but as they say, in the principles. Not only in the rulings, but in the beliefs. You know today that most Muslims are either Ash'ari or Maturidi. Will Islam be victorious through them? So it is necessary to have purification and education. Allah has cast upon you a humiliation that He will not remove from you until you return to your religion, meaning with the correct concept. So we must begin by making people understand this Islam with the correct concept and educating them on it. Then the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah. As for any other path, it is absolutely impossible for the Muslims to regain their honor and glory.

The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah do you good.

The Shaykh : And to you.

The questioner : He stated at the beginning of his speech that this matter does not bring good to this Ummah, but if that matter is available, there is no harm if this matter is available.

The Shaykh : Is it available?

The questioner : He said if this matter is available, and this is very far-fetched, to say...

The Shaykh : What is the benefit of a discussion whose conclusion is that it is far-fetched?

The questioner : He said the word, and then what happened to this man of disparagement and speech and boycotting and so on. He only said this matter does not bring good, but if these conditions are met: no harm, and the people of authority and decision, and so on, he says there is no harm in that. But this is not available. Then he began to disparage him and speak about him from this angle.

The Shaykh : In any case, my brother, the man must be advised. What is in us is sufficient. We must look into real matters and treat them, and teach people about them, and educate ourselves on them. As for these theoretical and imaginary matters, it is not permissible to stir them up. It is enough, it is enough. What is the result? The result is that the man was boycotted. If his cause was that he raised this problem.
Abu Malik: The cause of this is ignorance, which must be addressed. In support of the words of our Shaykh (may Allah preserve him), when the legal rulings were being revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through revelation, they were not revealed to address future, unseen, or unreal matters; rather, they addressed real, existing matters. Therefore, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in many questions would wait and not answer until the revelation came to him. These are not just one or two instances, but many. So, the correct method of Islamic da'wah must adopt this approach and not deviate from it at all. As our Shaykh also mentioned, when a scholar was asked about an issue, he would ask, "Has it occurred?" If it had occurred, he would answer; otherwise, he would say, "Wait until it occurs." This is the correct and sound approach. Therefore, my brothers in all parts of the Islamic world, I say that they suffer from a great void. This void is what has led them to imagine things before they happen and to base some rulings and conceptions on these imaginations. They imagine that something has happened and then issue their ruling in reality. The last thing... Now, my brother Sulayman, I think he will present us with an issue where he says thatThe Shaykh : al-Ghazali, Muhammad al-Ghazali, issued a fatwa stating that it is not permissible to visit al-Aqsa Mosque now. Why? Because he considers it support for the state of the Jews. He considers it support for the state of the Jews. Look at the contradiction now between the fatwa and the reality that the entire Islamic world is living in. The Muslims there in Palestine and in every land of Islam say that al-Aqsa Mosque is the first of the two qiblas and the third of the two sacred sanctuaries, and that it is visited just as al-Masjid al-Nabawi and al-Masjid al-Haram are visited. What compels him to issue this fatwa? What compels him to do so? I say that this fatwa is completely reversed. When our Shaykh issued his fatwa regarding emigration, which was restricted by many conditions, and that emigration should be within the land of Palestine, and then if the land of Palestine does not allow the Muslim to establish the Shari'ah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and enable him to revive his religion, he should leave the land of Palestine, the world turned upside down. Now, what do the Muslims say about this fatwa? Is the fatwa of Muhammad al-Ghazali more dangerous: that a Muslim leaves and his wing is broken in his religion, or that Muslims refrain from visiting al-Aqsa Mosque, which Allah has prescribed visiting through the tongue of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? He says, "It is strange; supporting the state of the Jews. Visiting al-Aqsa is support for them." And who visits al-Aqsa except those who are able to enter the land of Palestine? Not every Muslim is able to enter the land of Palestine. The people of Palestine who emigrated from it and left, forty-eight and sixty-seven, cannot now enter the land of Palestine except by obtaining permission from the Jewish authorities. So where is the support for the Jews in this fatwa, which states that if a Muslim visits, he is supporting the Jews? This is a calamity.

The Shaykh : We seek help from Allah. We seek help from Allah.