Rebellion against a ruler who is committing open kufr

[Mr.President]

I'm not a scholar therefire I read and follow the fatwas of scholars in regards to rebalion against a ruler I follow and endorse the fatwa of sheik bin baaz
http://islamqa.info/en/9911

Now let me come to the question its clarification regarding a fatwa on Islamqa by sheik bin uthaymeen

http://islamqa.info/en/128453

Is it obligatory to obey a ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him)?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should be obeyed in matters that do not involve disobedience towards Allaah and His Messenger, and it is not obligatory to fight him because of that; rather it is not permissible to do so unless he reaches the level of kufr, in which case it becomes obligatory to oppose him and he has no right to be obeyed by the Muslims.*

Ruling according to anything other than that which is in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger reaches the level of kufr when two conditions are met:

1.**** When he knows the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger; if he is unaware of it, then he does not commit kufr by going against it.

2.**** When what makes him rule by something other than that which Allaah has revealed is the belief that it is a ruling that is not suitable for our time and that something else is more suitable than it and more beneficial for people.*

If these two conditions are met, then ruling by something other than that which Allaah has revealed constitutes kufr which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):*“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers)” [al-Maa’idah 5:44]. The authority of the ruler becomes invalid and he has no right to be obeyed by the people; it becomes obligatory to fight him and remove him from power.*

But if he rules by something other than that which Allaah has revealed whilst believing that ruling by that – i.e. that which Allaah has revealed -- is what is obligatory, and that it is more suitable for the people, but he goes against it because of some whims and desires on his part or because he wants to wrong the people under his rule, then he is not a kaafir; rather he is a faasiq (evildoer) or a zaalim (wrongdoer). His authority remains, and obeying him in matters that do not involve disobedience to Allaah and His Messenger is obligatory, and it is not permissible to fight him or remove him from power by force or to rebel against him, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) forbade rebelling against rulers unless we see blatant kufr for which we have proof from Allaah. End quote.*

I do not understand the second condition can anyone elaborate ?

BTW stand with the fatwa of sheik bin baaz and my understanding of the second fatwa is that

If a ruler rules by secular law and doesn't oppose sharia law/ rule by the book of Allah then I guess he is an evil doer and not kufr (what I understand feel free to correct me )

I guess its similar to a person saying that he is gay and follows Islam , I consider him still a Muslim
But if he says homosexuality is halaal in Islam and he preaches it publicly then now he is entering dangerous territory ....

Likewise if a ruler rules by secular law and doesn't oppose/ preach publicly that Allah's and messengers rules are outdated and can't be used ...etc then he is a sinner (according to the fatwa)... And still a Muslim

But if he says Allah's laws are outdated and claims its incompatible with current society and makes it haram then he is in dangerous territory

Am I right can any one clarify ...

[syed_z]

Asalaam O Alaikum... in the light of events taking place in the middle east I just want to share my thoughts. I don't know much about the Fatwa, therefore not in a position to comment on it.

However I do believe that if there will be greater fitnah in overthrowing a govt then Muslims should remain patient rather than picking up arms and destabilizing the government. In our times it is strange, that most of the Muslim countries are being ruled by those who are either in control by another stronger and influential muslims country in the region or a non muslim country.

The Prophet (saw) said "The best Jihad (struggle) is to say a word of truth in the face of an oppressive ruler." .... SubhanAllah he (saw) didn't say best Jihad is to pickup arms or begin an insurgency.

He (Saw) also said that "every one of you is a shepherd of his flock and will be questioned about it on the day of judgement. The wife will be asked about her husband and children. The employee will be asked about his employer's property. The ruler will be questioned about his subjects."

The ruler will be answerable on how did he rule. The work of the believers is to remind him and advise him, and maybe that's why Messenger of Allah (saw) said to say a word of truth is considered best Jihad.

the Fitnah increases when Muslims even stop advising him, and it becomes even worst when Muftis start giving Fatwahs in favor of them.

Allah (swt) knows best.

[ZeeshanParvez]

I'm not a scholar therefire I read and follow the fatwas of scholars in regards to rebalion against a ruler I follow and endorse the fatwa of sheik bin baaz
http://islamqa.info/en/9911

Now let me come to the question its clarification regarding a fatwa on Islamqa by sheik bin uthaymeen



I do not understand the second condition can anyone elaborate ?

BTW stand with the fatwa of sheik bin baaz and my understanding of the second fatwa is that

If a ruler rules by secular law and doesn't oppose sharia law/ rule by the book of Allah then I guess he is an evil doer and not kufr (what I understand feel free to correct me )

I guess its similar to a person saying that he is gay and follows Islam , I consider him still a Muslim
But if he says homosexuality is halaal in Islam and he preaches it publicly then now he is entering dangerous territory ....

Likewise if a ruler rules by secular law and doesn't oppose/ preach publicly that Allah's and messengers rules are outdated and can't be used ...etc then he is a sinner (according to the fatwa)... And still a Muslim

But if he says Allah's laws are outdated and claims its incompatible with current society and makes it haram then he is in dangerous territory

Am I right can any one clarify ...

But he has also said the following in الباب المفتوح

وقال ابن عثيمين رحمه الله عن الخروج على الحاكم الكافر : « إن كنا قادرين على إزالته فحينئذ نخرج , وإذا كنا غير قادرين فلا نخرج ؛ لأن جميع الواجبات الشرعية مشروطة بالقدرة والاستطاعة

Ibn Uthaymeen said regarding Al-Khurooj against a Kaafir Haakim: If we are able to remove him, then we will proceed against him and when we are not able to then we will not because all of the obligations of Islamic legislation are conditional upon ability to do.


Don't think this will answer your question but might add to the discussion.

[ZeeshanParvez]

I do not understand the second condition can anyone elaborate ?

Perhaps the following Fatwaa http://islamqa.info/en/974 will help clear up the second condition. According to the Ahl Al-Hadith anyone who judges by anything other than the Book of Allah is a Kaafir. Once a Kaafir then one is no longer fit to remain a Haakim as one of the conditions to be a Haakim is that you have to be a Muslim.

[amreeki]

Allahu Akbar and thanfully

[Misbah0411]

Also if that ruler abandons prayer then he has to be removed from power due to his disbelief.