What is the ruling on killing the tyrants, and on verifying a fatwa attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah regarding this?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, if you would be so kind, some groups say that the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) issued a fatwa to kill the tyrant, and any tyrant, he said: and any tyrant, whether he is a king, a president, a minister, a judge, down to the lowest military officer or police officer, it is said. They said this fatwa is from Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). So we asked where? They said in the Majmu' al-Fatawa (the Great Fatwas), meaning we have not read the Majmu' al-Fatawa. If you would be so kind, if this matter is true, if you would be so kind, explain this to us, may Allah reward you?

The Shaykh : I am not more knowledgeable about what is being asked thanThe questioner : I am like you; I do not know of such a fatwa from Ibn Taymiyyah with this level of detail. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, suppose he did say that, he said it in a time that was not our time. He said it in a time when Islam was being implemented, and he himself was directly engaged in actions that are the duty of governors and rulers. Today, a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah who is sincere in his work for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) cannot do, not even a thousandth of what Ibn Taymiyyah did in his time. For example, whenever he saw a tree being worshipped other than Allah, with rags tied to it, as they used to and still do in some lands, he would cut it down, and no governor or ruler would stand between him and it. Why? Because these governors and rulers were mostly either aware of what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was condemning, or if we assume they were ignorant, they knew that this was not done except in accordance with what the Shari'ah requires. Now, in Saudi Arabia, which claims to rule by what Allah has revealed? If an individual from the Commission for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice, who are among the governors and rulers, changed something with his hand, he was punished by the ruler. Therefore, it is not permissible to take this statement, if it is true and with the detail you transmitted, it is not permissible to apply it today. Because if you kill a tyrant from among the tyrants, as mentioned in the question, first, who will judge that this is a tyrant? It must be a scholar. And those who transmit such words are not scholars. These people are barely students of knowledge, and students of knowledge who are deluded about themselves; they learned a little and thought they had encompassed much knowledge, but that is not the case. And whenever we hear such fatwas from them, it becomes clear to us that they are ignorant and that they do not know the rule of removing harm before seeking benefit. So we say, if it is assumed that there is indeed a tyrant, and an individual from among the Muslims kills him, dozens and hundreds will be killed in exchange for this tyrant. Is that what Ibn Taymiyyah says? No, Ibn Taymiyyah does not say that, far be it from Allah. Therefore, if such an explicit and clear fatwa is found, it is not applied in this time, because the best ruler today, it can be said, is the one who until recently applied the Shari'ah rulings, but today they are all the same, as that Turkish Habsi Barbari said, meaning the rulers are all almost the same. We cannot say a ruler who establishes the limits of Allah and a ruler who does not establish the limits of Allah, but we can say some are worse than others. So implementing this fatwa is what we suspect is the cause of those who revolt in Egypt, and revolt in the Sacred Mosque in Makkah, recently in Syria, in Algeria. It is these fatwas that may have validity, issued by some scholars. It must be studied first of all: is this fatwa authentic in its transmission from that scholar? After it is established from that scholar, it should be studied objectively, because not every statement a scholar makes is correct. It must be studied with its Shari'ah evidence. If we assume, as is authentic in its transmission from that scholar, that it is authentic in its transmission from the Lawgiver, third and finally, I say this is a right, but is it possible now? For example, we say we are in jihad. Is there any doubt that jihad is obligatory? No, there is no doubt. Okay, let us go to jihad. We cannot go to jihad, because this jihad will return to the Muslim mujahideen with greater evil than what they are in now. And whoever does not believe should look at Saudi Arabia and what happened to the Salafi call because of the exit of the group of al-Juhayman in the Sacred Mosque in Makkah. Indeed, in that is a reminder for one who has a heart or who lends an ear while being a witness. Yes.