‫اﺑﻦ ﻣﻌﲔ‬

@Hudhayfah___

31 Tweets • 2023-03-04 •  See on Twitter

rattibha.com 

A Thread

IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON THE

IMPERMISSIBILITY OF REBELLING AGAINST AN
UNJUST RULER?

AND WHAT ARE THE STATEMENTS OF THE

SALAF IN RELATION TO THAT?
The answer to this is by speaking about different
subjects:
.
First: to state clearly the fuqaha did not say the one
who revolts against an unjust leader is considered a
rebel or sinful. This is apparent from their speech from
multiple angles:
.
a. Their texts concerning that. +

Imam an-Nawawi in Ar-Rawdah said: “The rebel

according to the terminology of the ‘ulama is the one
who opposes a just leader and departs from his
obedience by resisting to perform something that is
obligatory upon him or preventing it from others.” This
is a clear text
+
regarding the disputed matter. It is narrated from the
‘ulama in absolute terms and does not exclude
anyone.

b. “The talk of rebelling against oppressive leaders,

.
according to them, is from the issues
thaare dhanniyyah furu‘iyyah (speculative branch
matters) which one is +

not sinful for opposing. And due to that, the Shafi‘iyyah

permitted it (i.e., revolting against oppressive leaders)
in two known opinions” (an-Nawawi in Ar-
Rawdah and Majmu’ al-Madhhab fi Qawa‘id al-
Madhhab by Salah ad-Din al-‘Ala’i).

More than one scholar has mentioned this, +

and what is known is if it was explicitly haram like
drinking alcohol, they would not have two opinions
concerning it.
.
c. “And what proves this,” ibnul-Wazir stated in Ar-
Rawd al-Basim, “is that adh-Dhahabi said in his
book Al-Kashif:

‘Verily, Zayd [ibn ‘Ali (radiyallahu ‘anhu)] died as a

shahid.’ And this is a clear text from him in this
disputed matter. For indeed, the rebel is not a shahid
by ijma’.”

An-Nawawi related from al-Qadi 'lyad: "The scholars

have formed a consensus the leadership (imamah) is
+
permissible to contract the position of leadership to a
fasiq to begin with; and if oppression appears after he
was just, they differed if it is permissible to revolt
against him. And what is correct is it should be
prevented unless he disbelieves; in that case, +

it is compulsory to rebel against him" (see ibn Hajr,

Fath al-Bari).

And speaking of ibn Battal, he said: "The hadith is

proof for not rebelling against the leader, even if he
was oppressive. And indeed, the scholars agreed it is
obligatory to obey the ruler who comes to +

power by force and to wage jihad with him and

obeying him is better than revolting against him, when
that causes bloodshed. And they did not make any
exceptions, except if the leader falls into clear kufr. In
that event, it is not permissible to obey him; rather, it
is+
obligatory for those who possess the ability to strive
against him [to remove him]." ( ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari)

"In summary," ibn Hajr concluded, "he is to be

removed because of kufr according to ijma'. So it is
obligatory upon each Muslim to rise up for that" (Fath
al-Bari)+

"Abu Hanifah viewed it recommended or obligatory to

rebel against the leaders of Bani al-'Abbas when
oppression appeared from them. And he viewed
fighting them better than fighting the kuffar. However,
Abu Ishaq rejected that. The people of knowledge
differed in this regard. +

Those who viewed rebelling permissible saw it from

the angle of enjoining good and forbidding evil and
establishing the haqq. And those who disliked it saw it
as splitting the Muslimin apart and dividing their word"
(see al- Mu'allami al-Yamani, At-Tankil).

+
How can it be said after this rebelling against
oppressive rulers is forbidden by ijma.

Note: It is clear from the above there is not a

consensus established prohibiting rebelling against
the Muslim ruler who is oppressive in his rule. Notice
the stress on the Muslim label.+

Because this does not concern us from one angle as

the rulers today are not Muslim, by ijma'. But from
another angle it furthers emphasizes the need to
remove the murtadd rulers. If the fuqaha from the
Salaf have differed in relation to rebelling against an
oppressive, +

Muslim ruler, with some of the best of the ummah

rebelling against the son of a Sahabi, what would the
stance be about rulers who altered the rulings of the
Shari'ah, abolishing many parts from it, and allied with,
rather, are the servants of, Christian Crusader
nations,+
inaddition to other nullifiers of iman?

With Allah's permission, any muwahhid could figure

that out However,the scholars of Islam have relieved
anyone from having to contemplate over it too much
as they have narrated an ijma'that is actually
established yet hardly ever cited+

When ibn Mujahid at-Ta'i al-Ash'ari (d. 370 H) claimed

an ijma' of the ummah on the impermissibility of
rebelling against the unjust leaders, ibn Hazm (d. 456
H) sternly rebuked and rejected it.

Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) then said: "It is known the

best of the Sahabah and the +

rest of the people on the Day of Harrah rebelled

against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyyah and that ibnuz-Zubayr
and those who followed him from the best of people
rebelled, as well. Additionally, al-Hasan al-Basri (d.
110 H) and major tabi'in rebelled against al-Hajjaj with
their swords. +
If this khilaf was a hidden matter then we may be able
to excuse him. However, this is famously well-known
even to the common people in the markets" (Muratib
al-lima).

From those who also rejected ibn Mujahid's claim of

ijma' in this matter was al-Qadi 'lyad al-Maliki. +

He stated: "And some of them refuted him with the fact

al-Husayn ibn 'Ali (radiyallahu 'anhu) and ibnuz-
Zubayr and the people of Madinah rose up against
Bani Umayyah, in which they agreed to use the action
of al-Husayn ('alayhis-salam) as proof.

And from them are those who used it as proof for the
permissibility to revolt against a tyrant absolutely...
And no Muslim from them, or others, says Yazid was
right and al-Husayn was a rebel, except what comes
from the Shaytan...

And what is strange is whoever cites +

ibn Battal in unrestrictedly prohibiting rebelling.
Indeed, ibn Battal relates from the fuqaha that they
stipulated obedience to the rejected it.

Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) then said: "It is known the

best of the Sahabah and the rest of the people on the
Day of Harrah +

rebelled against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyyah and that ibnuz-

Zubayr and those who followed him from the best of
people rebelled, as well.

Additionally, al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 H) and major

tabi'in rebelled against al-Hajjaj with their swords. If
this khilaf was a hidden +
matter then we may be able to excuse him. However,
this is famously well-known even to the common
people in the markets" (Muratib al-ljma).

From those who also rejected ibn Mujahid's claim of

ijma' in this matter was al-Qadi 'lyad al-Maliki.

He stated: "And some of them refuted him with the fact

al-Husayn ibn 'Ali (radiyallahu 'anhu) and ibnuz-
Zubayr and the people of Madinah rose up against
Bani Umayyah, in which they agreed to use the action
of al-Husayn ('alayhis-salam) as proof. And from them
are those +

who used it as proof for the permissibility to revolt

against a tyrant absolutely... And no Muslim from
them, or others, says Yazid was right and al-Husayn
was a rebel, except what comes from the Shaytan...

And what is strange is whoever cites +

ibn Battal in unrestrictedly prohibiting rebelling.
Indeed, ibn Battal relates from the fuqaha that they
stipulated obedience to the ruler who comes to power
by force in relation to the establishment of jihad and
the jumu'ah and the Id [with him], to even out the +

overwhelming injustice. Even with these matters

conditioned, ibn Battal did not cite from the fuqaha
obedience was wajib and rebelling is haram. Rather,
he stated from them when the situation is like that,
obedience is better than revolting against him, +

because of the bloodshed that would ensue"

(see Ibnul-Wazir, Al-'Awasim wal-Qawasim).

Ibnul-Qasim related from Malik: "If the leader is like

'Umar ibn 'Abdil- 'Aziz it is obligatory upon the people
to defend him and fight with him. As for those other
than his likes, then it +
Is not" (see al- Kharashi, Mukhtasar Khalil).

‫وا ﷲ ا ﻋﻠ ﻢ‬

These pages were created and arranged by Rattibha

services (https://www.rattibha.com)
The contents of these pages, including all images,
videos, attachments and external links published
(collectively referred to as "this publication"),
were created at the request of a user (s) from
Twitter. Rattibha provides an automated service,
without human intervention, to copy the contents of
tweets from Twitter and publish them in an article
style, and create PDF pages that can be printed and
shared, at the request of Twitter user (s). Please
note that the views and all contents in this
publication are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of Rattibha. Rattibha
assumes no responsibility for any damage or breaches
of any law resulting from the contents of this
publication.