Continuation of the benefits of His saying, the Exalted: << فلما جآءه وقص عليه القصص . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The original ruling is that obedience to the ruler is obligatory, and there is nothing that prevents this original ruling, for you do not know whether he is a tyrant or not. Also, it is difficult for a soldier, for example, if his superior orders him to strike or imprison someone, to say, "Why should I strike? Why should I imprison?" Furthermore, this leads to chaos and the disintegration of the government and the state. Therefore, he says: You must carry out the order unless you know that it is a disobedience to Allah. Yes. Some scholars have stated a detailed ruling: if the one giving the order is known for tyranny, it is not permissible for a person to agree with him unless you know that the tyranny is absent in this specific case, giving precedence to the apparent reality over the original ruling. And what is the apparent reality?
The student: That he is a tyrant.
The Shaykh : The apparent state of a person, such as this prince, is that he is a tyrant, so this is given precedence over the original ruling, which is the absence of tyranny and the obligation of obedience. This division is acceptable, yes. However, it is also burdensome, because even if he is a tyrant, he may not be tyrannical in every matter. It is well known that—may Allah not test us or you—that it is very difficult for a soldier to say to his commander, "What is the reason for striking? What is the reason for imprisoning?" Therefore, among the rules of study in their military and army training is that the junior obeys the senior with blind obedience, to the extent that some of them hold that it is obligatory to obey him even in disobedience to Allah. But this is not accepted, because what I mean is that they obey him with blind obedience, as if the person were deaf and blind. In any case, whoever takes the position that obedience is obligatory absolutely, unless one knows that it is tyranny, has taken the original ruling and has ease with it... And if one is able to inquire about the order of the prince regarding this matter—the prince whose apparent state is tyranny, and the one who is just and has not... that he is a tyrant, his obedience is obligatory and there is no need for detail, so there is no harm in that. As for taking this verse that the soldiers of the tyrant are tyrants, of course, if they agree with him on evidence, you are saved from the people of tyranny.
The student: That he is a tyrant.
The Shaykh : The apparent state of a person, such as this prince, is that he is a tyrant, so this is given precedence over the original ruling, which is the absence of tyranny and the obligation of obedience. This division is acceptable, yes. However, it is also burdensome, because even if he is a tyrant, he may not be tyrannical in every matter. It is well known that—may Allah not test us or you—that it is very difficult for a soldier to say to his commander, "What is the reason for striking? What is the reason for imprisoning?" Therefore, among the rules of study in their military and army training is that the junior obeys the senior with blind obedience, to the extent that some of them hold that it is obligatory to obey him even in disobedience to Allah. But this is not accepted, because what I mean is that they obey him with blind obedience, as if the person were deaf and blind. In any case, whoever takes the position that obedience is obligatory absolutely, unless one knows that it is tyranny, has taken the original ruling and has ease with it... And if one is able to inquire about the order of the prince regarding this matter—the prince whose apparent state is tyranny, and the one who is just and has not... that he is a tyrant, his obedience is obligatory and there is no need for detail, so there is no harm in that. As for taking this verse that the soldiers of the tyrant are tyrants, of course, if they agree with him on evidence, you are saved from the people of tyranny.