What is your response to those who cite the actions of Aisha, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and Ibn al-Ash'ath as evidence for the permissibility of rebellion?

The questioner : Regarding this question, or the last part of the answer, O Shaykh, some people argue with what happened in Islamic history, such as the fitnah of Ibn al-Ash'ath and the rebellion of many reciters, led by Sa'id ibn Jubayr and those with him. Also, what happened with Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), al-Zubayr, and Talha against Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all). They claim that this happened, and that this counts as rebellion, but that it did not achieve the desired goal. However, they say this type of rebellion is permissible. Is this argument based on those stories from the early period correct? And what is the answer, because this is raised often—what happened in the fitnah of al-Ash'ath and what happened with Aisha and the Companions with her is raised often to justify the issue of rebellion?

The Shaykh : Yes, rebellion is not permissible, my brother. And these arguments are against those who use them, not in their favor at all. There is a wisdom attributed to Isa (peace be upon him), and we do not care about its authenticity as much as we care about the correctness of its meaning: "That he once admonished the disciples and informed them that there would be a prophet who would be the seal of the prophets, and that there would be false prophets before him. They said to him: How do we distinguish the truthful from the liar? He answered with the wisdom mentioned, which is his saying: 'By their fruits you will know them.'" So this rebellion and that rebellion, including the rebellion of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), we know the ruling on this rebellion from the fruit. Was the fruit bitter or sweet?
There is no doubt that Islamic history, which told us about this rebellion and that one, indicates that it was evil, and the blood of Muslims was spilled and wasted without benefit. Especially regarding the rebellion of Lady Aisha. Lady Aisha regretted her rebellion and wept bitterly, to the point that her head covering would become wet, and she wished she had not made that rebellion. There is a joke I read in some books, and I do not care about the authenticity of the chain now either: "It reached her that a dispute arose between her slaves and the slaves of another person from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), so she prepared to go out. A relative of hers asked her: Where are you going, O Mother of the Believers? She said: To look into the dispute that arose between these and those, regarding what? A mule that both parties claimed. He said to her: O Mother of the Believers, is the incident of the camel not enough for us until you stir up an incident of the mule for us anew?" The point is that arguing with such a rebellion: First, this is an argument against them because there was no benefit from it. Second, why do we hold on to the rebellion of Sa'id ibn Jubayr and not hold on to the non-rebellion of the great Companions who were in his time, such as Ibn Umar and others? Then the scholars of the Salaf all followed one after another in not rebelling against the ruler. So there are two types of rebellion: intellectual rebellion, and this is the most dangerous, and practical rebellion, which is the fruit of the first. So such rebellion is not permissible, and the arguments I mentioned earlier are naturally against them, not with them.