which one is right

[jihaadu nafs]

as salamu alykum wa rahma tullah wa barakatu


some people say islam will come back if we have hakimiyaa, ie. if we throw the evil rulers out and establish the hukum then islam will be established, others says islam will came back if you establish tawheed and teach others without getting involved with the goverments. which one is right?

[united]

SIMPLE ANSWER.
What did the Prophet saw do?
start small, bigger things will follow.

[FBI]

:sl:

Both at the same time

[jihaadu nafs]

SIMPLE ANSWER.
What did the Prophet saw do?
start small, bigger things will follow.

united u right but here is more explanation to the answer

You will need to first establish the foundation and then everything else will be the fruits. First we should go back to the Seerah of the prophet SAW, How did he establish his people? He taught them tawheed for 13 years before taking over Mekah. If we need to establish the kilafaah we need to first get the roots. Because Hakimiyah will not work until you cultivate the people so they have sound Aqeedah once this is established the rest will come. Allah SWA could have made the kilafah but he gives us fithnah in order to test us and to see who is truthfull and who the lier is.
Allah SWA tells us surah Ankabuut ayat 1-2

2. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say: "We believe," and will not be tested.
3. And We indeed tested those who were before them. And Allâh will certainly make (it) known (the truth of) those who are true, and will certainly make (it) known (the falsehood of) those who are liars, (although Allâh knows all that before putting them to test).

So every calamity we see is a test from Allah.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Dawud_uk]

as salamu alykum wa rahma tullah wa barakatu


some people say islam will come back if we have hakimiyaa, ie. if we throw the evil rulers out and establish the hukum then islam will be established, others says islam will came back if you establish tawheed and teach others without getting involved with the goverments. which one is right?

assalaamu alaykum,

the haddith is that we will not have this problem lifted until we return to our deen, but it also mentions people turning away from jihad as part of the problem in the same haddith.

so i would argue both have to come together, i am always sceptical of those who say we are in the mekkan period etc as the deen is complete, the rulings complete and the only other time the khilafate was destroyed it was restored through jihad.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Erundur]

as salamu alykum wa rahma tullah wa barakatu


some people say islam will come back if we have hakimiyaa, ie. if we throw the evil rulers out and establish the hukum then islam will be established, others says islam will came back if you establish tawheed and teach others without getting involved with the goverments. which one is right?

:salamext:

I believe that it is a cycle, like all great nations we're going through a period in which we have to find Islam within ourselves and actions order to come back to a time which Islam was prosperous. Within every empire within Islam that has fallen it was do to the lack of faith in Allah (swt) this always happens when an Empire is at its peak and the level of egocentrism that surrounds it within its people. When people realize this, the old way crumbles and a new ways starts.

besides Allah (swt) knows best

:sl:

[Umar001]

as salamu alykum wa rahma tullah wa barakatu


some people say islam will come back if we have hakimiyaa, ie. if we throw the evil rulers out and establish the hukum then islam will be established, others says islam will came back if you establish tawheed and teach others without getting involved with the goverments. which one is right?

Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rahmetulahi Wa Berekatu, Bro Jihaadunafs,

Is rebellion against 'evil' rulers allowed?

And if so what is classified as evil?

the rulings complete and the only other time the khilafate was destroyed it was restored through jihad.

Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rhametulahi Wa Berekatu,

Forgive my ignorace, when was there not a khalifa before now?

[Dawud_uk]

Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rahmetulahi Wa Berekatu, Bro Jihaadunafs,

Is rebellion against 'evil' rulers allowed?

And if so what is classified as evil?



Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rhametulahi Wa Berekatu,

Forgive my ignorace, when was there not a khalifa before now?

assalaamu alaykum,

i take your point about the evil rulers, the scholar and students of knowledge i have spoken to have told me we should only throw out even those rulers committing kufr and have left islam if they're is less fitnah in doing so than in not doing so as long as they rule by shariah.

but just being evil is not enough for being removed, such a ruler is still owed allegience as long as they dont command you to do haram or forbid you from the fard or wajib.

i will look up and see if i can find the exact reference and time, but when the tartars first invaded they killed the kalif in baghdad and for several years there was jihad against the tartars and eventually a new kalif came about through this process though it took a lot longer to remove the tartars and their evil rule of kufr and oppression from baghdad.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Hemoo]

well brothers and sisters of islam

as far as i know that we dont go against the rulers or hukaam because this will lead to the following :-
1- a greater evil and a greater corruption .
2- it leads to muslims killing muslims (and that is not jihad) specially that there is no leader to this jihad.(so its a complete mess)
3- besides you all go see what did some companians did in the time of "alhagag alsakafy" he was really a bad ruler but they didnt go against him.

[^..sTr!vEr..^]

hey but aving islamic leaders is very necessary..if they r islamic it vil b easier to bring ppl closer to islam...
n dun forget that politics IS a part of Islam! :)

[snakelegs]

if the saudis rose up against their rulers, would they be wrong?

[Dawud_uk]

if the saudis rose up against their rulers, would they be wrong?

yes and no,

depends on which scholar you speak to.

some say the saudi rulers are sinful but not actually left the fold of islam,

some say they have left the fold of islam but not the time to rise up against them as more harm in doing so than leaving in place.

some say they have left the fold of islam and that is the time for rebelling against them but they are a tiny tiny minority and mostly amongst the mujahadeen the saudi rulers so dislike not suprisingly.

Abu Abdullah

[jihaadu nafs]

if the saudis rose up against their rulers, would they be wrong?

Muslims are required by their religion to submit to the authority of the country they live in. They must comply with their rulers and not create chaos in anyway. The Qur’an directs them to follow those in authority after following Allah and the Prophet (sws) in the following words:
Obey God and the Prophet and those of you who are in authority. (4:59)

He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear it, for he who even slightly disassociates himself from the state system and dies in this condition shall die the death of ignorance. (Bukhari: No. 7054)

but if they make you do haram you do not follow them on this, because then u will be dispobaying Allah ,
And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, surely his is hell-fire, wherin such dwell forever (The Qur'an 72:23)

also in hadith bukkhaari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. (See Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

Therefore it will absolutely be wrong to rebel against the Saudi rulers, especially when suadi is the only country that rules by the law of the shari’aa, you won’t even see people trading at the time of prayers, people will go to prayers and leave their shops open and unattended because they trust Allah and hardly nobody will steal because they fear Allah.

[Dawud_uk]

Muslims are required by their religion to submit to the authority of the country they live in. They must comply with their rulers and not create chaos in anyway. The Qur’an directs them to follow those in authority after following Allah and the Prophet (sws) in the following words:
Obey God and the Prophet and those of you who are in authority. (4:59)

He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear it, for he who even slightly disassociates himself from the state system and dies in this condition shall die the death of ignorance. (Bukhari: No. 7054)

but if they make you do haram you do not follow them on this, because then u will be dispobaying Allah ,
And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, surely his is hell-fire, wherin such dwell forever (The Qur'an 72:23)

also in hadith bukkhaari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. (See Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

Therefore it will absolutely be wrong to rebel against the Saudi rulers, especially when suadi is the only country that rules by the law of the shari’aa, you won’t even see people trading at the time of prayers, people will go to prayers and leave their shops open and unattended because they trust Allah and hardly nobody will steal because they fear Allah.

assalaamu alaykum,

i will leave the debate on whether the saudis truly rule by shariah, but taking your view that they do or at least intend to as correct then this also leaves aside another point.

what if in another matter they have been declared as apostates?

the rulings above do not apply to an apostate ruler, then different rulings apply. if i get time today at work i will find them but big time scholars like sheikh ash shu'aybi declared takfir on the previous saudi king.

but i understand the scholars are divided on whether to rebel under the present circumstances, even the greater part of those who believe the king to have left islam still say their ruling is that their is greater potential fitnah in removing him than leaving him in place and warning him and advising him to leave his crimes of taking the kuffar as his awliyah.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:salamext:

about all these corrupt muslim leaders, isnt it the duty of muslims as a whole to correct any leader? Didnt a man say to Umar RA that he would fix him with his sword?

So yes we obey the rulers (if its in the boundaries of shariah) but at the same time we should strive to correct them, not completely submit to the false ways and become comfortable with them.

[Dawud_uk]

:salamext:

about all these corrupt muslim leaders, isnt it the duty of muslims as a whole to correct any leader? Didnt a man say to Umar RA that he would fix him with his sword?

So yes we obey the rulers (if its in the boundaries of shariah) but at the same time we should strive to correct them, not completely submit to the false ways and become comfortable with them.

assalaamu alaykum,

yes but we shouldnt rebel just because they are sinful, as long as the shariah is observed and enforced and as long as the ruler doesnt become an apostate then their is no question of rebelling against them.

other than that it is the scholars who should make rulings on this matter but the problem is many of the scholars are in the pockets of the rulers or affraid of them so will not speak the truth. many of the truthful ones are either dead, imprisoned or on the front lines already.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Jayda]

hola jihaadu nafs,

i do not wish to interrupt your conversation but i am very confused by your question... do muslims believe islam is not complete or not fully a religion yet? is there supposed to be another prophet... i thought the quran said that mohammed is the last prophet...

gracias

[jihaadu nafs]

:salamext:

about all these corrupt muslim leaders, isnt it the duty of muslims as a whole to correct any leader? Didnt a man say to Umar RA that he would fix him with his sword?

So yes we obey the rulers (if its in the boundaries of shariah) but at the same time we should strive to correct them, not completely submit to the false ways and become comfortable with them.

Absolutely if we can we should try to correct the rulers but we should take in consideration the following word by sheikh Ibn Baz on the Manhaj of Correcting the Rulers.

It is not to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion, disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. However is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.

And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan, some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to 'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate."

And when they (the Khawaarij) opened up the evil in the time of 'Uthmaan and rejected 'Uthmaan openly, the fitnah, the killing and the mischief, which has not ceased to affect the people to this day, was brought about And this caused the fitnah to occur between 'Alee and Mu'aawiyyah and 'Uthmaan was killed for these reasons.

(Furthermore) a large number of Companions and other besides them were killed due to this open rebellion and the open proclamation of the faults (of the ruler), until the people began to hate the one charged with authority over them and killed him. We ask Allaah for success." End of the words of the Shaykh.

[jihaadu nafs]

:sl:

Both at the same time

I will disagree on the fact that both should come together at the same time. Because the prophet SAW did not do this he concentrated on twheed first for 13 years, we should look back to the Seerah of our prophet SAW. And the best of guidance is the guidance of the prophet SAW if we leave his guidance then it will not work. You have to remove the Jahal from the people first and make them understand the deen.

Furthermore you can’t plant a tree and eats it fruit at the same time, so how can you do both at the same time. There is way to do things, everything should be done step by step, this is the way of Allah he created everything step by step.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i understand what you mean jihaadu,

invite to the way of your lord with wisdome and beautiful preaching,

i guess this implies when talking to rulers aswell...

[snakelegs]

what about a country that used islam or that called itself an "islamic republic" but didn't really follow islam?

[Dawud_uk]

hola jihaadu nafs,

i do not wish to interrupt your conversation but i am very confused by your question... do muslims believe islam is not complete or not fully a religion yet? is there supposed to be another prophet... i thought the quran said that mohammed is the last prophet...

gracias

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence jayda,

islam is complete. however some muslims do not follow it completely.
now islam has divine legislation covering all aspects of society, from a legal prospective, from a moral prospective, from a military prospective, from an economic prospective etc etc.

one of the biggest areas we as muslims are failing to impliment islam completely is implementing islam from a governmental prospective in that the muslims are at the moment ruled by tyrant kings and presidents who have mostly been imposed upon the muslims by their former colonial rulers before they left or through western interference afterwards.

so what we are discussing is whether it is allowable to rebel against such rulers or not, and the rulings about that from the scholars of islam.

does that help explain things?

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence,
Abu Abdullah

[Dawud_uk]

what about a country that used islam or that called itself an "islamic republic" but didn't really follow islam?

you mean like the islamic republic of iran? which is about as islamic as the democratic republic of china is democratic.

the same aplies, the name doesnt mean anything if the actions dont back it up.

Abu Abdullah

[snakelegs]

thanks for your reply. actually, i was thinking of pakistan, but no matter.

[Dawud_uk]

thanks for your reply. actually, i was thinking of pakistan, but no matter.

pakistan is a muslim country it is not islamic.

even its 'islamic laws' are pretty mixed and were brought in under a military dictator called general zia who was trying to move pakistan to make it more islamic and more moral,

so it is not purely islamic in its government and has a lot of secular law mixed in no matter what it claims.

saying that, pakistan is where i have most hope for the islamic revival, the people might be cultural but they have a lot of love in their hearts for islam but have been sold a falsehood, they have been told their nation is islamic when it is not.

the natural consequence of them being told the truth will be a demand for the genuine article increasingly from the muslims there.

Abu Abdullah

[snakelegs]

pakistan is a muslim country it is not islamic.

even its 'islamic laws' are pretty mixed and were brought in under a military dictator called general zia who was trying to move pakistan to make it more islamic and more moral,

so it is not purely islamic in its government and has a lot of secular law mixed in no matter what it claims.

saying that, pakistan is where i have most hope for the islamic revival, the people might be cultural but they have a lot of love in their hearts for islam but have been sold a falsehood, they have been told their nation is islamic when it is not.

the natural consequence of them being told the truth will be a demand for the genuine article increasingly from the muslims there.

Abu Abdullah

yes, i know but it uses the name "islamic republic of" since zia.
not surprisingly, my hopes for pakistan are different than yours.

[Dawud_uk]

yes, i know but it uses the name "islamic republic of" since zia.
not surprisingly, my hopes for pakistan are different than yours.

yes, they use the name but a name doesnt mean anything, as in my use of the 'democratic republic of china' as an example.

i have no doubts your hopes are different, but i know what God would want and it makes me happy that pakistan is heading in the right direction, even if it is two steps forward, one step back.

[Musalmaan]

as salamu alykum wa rahma tullah wa barakatu


some people say islam will come back if we have hakimiyaa, ie. if we throw the evil rulers out and establish the hukum then islam will be established, others says islam will came back if you establish tawheed and teach others without getting involved with the goverments. which one is right?

:sl: i support and agree with the later one "to give dawah of tauheed, greatness superiorty power of Almighty Allah, calling ppl to His command" this is our main work and getting government is Allah's work, He knows the best time for it.

dawah is important tool for muslims to survive with their Islam intact, as well as, to get help of Allah Taala, which is the main thing in our life. getting government is not the "sabab" reason to spread islam,
following the command of Allah Taala and sunnah of Muhammad Sallalahu alayhi wa salaam is the real "sabab" cause for muslims to progress.

[FBI]

:sl:

guidance of the prophet SAW if we leave his guidance then it will not work.

I often hear scholars make excuses for their lack of development saying "Oh where in the mekkan period" but where not were in the year 2007, the deen has been perfected, also your argument is invalid, what happened to 'tawakul', do you sit at home and make dua to allah to provide for u while u sit there and do nothing, of course u don't, the deen won't just fall into place, also u say we must make people understand the deen, again that's not a valid argument, what u saying we must make 1.5 billion muslims learned before we attempt to establish a sharia run country?

[jihaadu nafs]

Wa alykuma salam

Your statement doest make sense FBI


You said’
"Oh where in the mekkan period" but where not were in the year 2007:”

Whether we are in the year 2007, or in the 80s or 60 or even the mekkan times, it makes no different because the deen has been complete.

Allaah says, "this day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion" (5:3)

This verse embodies a clear statement that the religion has been completed and so has no need of addition and deletion, and our noble Messenger (SAW) said, "there is nothing that Allaah ordered you with except that I have ordered you with it, and there is nothing that Allaah forbade you from except that I have forbidden you from it" (al-Bayhaqee and others)

So am confused what do mean when you say we are 2007? Are you saying we should have a new up to date Islam???


You said;
We must make people understand the deen, again that's not a valid argument, what u saying we must make 1.5 billion muslims learned before we attempt to establish a sharia run country?


If we try to take the hakimiya, how can we do this if the majority of the people don’t even know the importance of tawheed, when they are ignorant and are involve is usury, shirk and many evil things, are you going to force the hukum on them? Wouldn’t they retaliate?

Rememeber the saying of Allah

"Let there be no compulsion in religion..” Qur'an 2:256.

Furthermore all I am saying is if we want to establish something Islamicallay we should follow the way of the prophets SAW as he was our best example. So are you saying we are better then HIM or HE is not a good example for us? Or because of the fact we are in 2007 HIS way is no longer sufficient for us and we should therefore appose his way??.

If this is what you mean then how are we gona establish hukum if we oppose the way the prophet SAW?

Disobedience results in defeat, remember that story of the battle Uhud which gave us an important lesson by which befits us, which is that when a Muslims suffer defeat they blame themselves, As Allah the mighty and majestic has informed the Muslims the reason for their defeat in the battle of Uhud was themselves as they disobeyed the Prophets SAW. Contemplate on this Akhi and be objective.

Stick to the Quran and Sunnah, Islam is a complete and perfect religion. All harm, injustices and crookedness is raised from it.

Remember the saying of Imaam Malik ‘The later part of this Ummah will not be corrected except, by that which corrected its former part.”


Therefore the key to establish the hakimiyah is implementing of the beneficial knowledge and establishing righteous and correct action, which is achieved by Tasfiya (purification of the deen) and Tharbiyah (Cultivating the people about Islam).


You have also said:
‘Do you sit at home and make dua to allah to provide for u while u sit there and do nothing, of course u don't, the deen won't just fall into place,’

Answer:

Firstly I haven’t said anything about sitting and doing nothing.
In fact to bring about Tasfiya wa Tharbiyaa requires a great deal of effort and sincere cooperation between all Muslims, from all those concerned with establishing the desired Islamic society.

Secondly lets not under estimate dua. As Dua is the most potent weapon of a believer. It is the essence of ibadah or worship. With it we can never fail; without it we can never succeed. In the proper scheme of things, dua should be the first and the last resort of the believer, with all his plans and actions coming in between.

Stick to the Quran and Sunnah Akhi, as this is sufficient for us.


May Allah guides us and give us knowledge. Amen

May Allah forgive me, any mistakes I have made is from myself and the shydaan, and any good is from Allah alone.

[Dawud_uk]

assalaamu alaykum,

sometimes force is possible, allowable and necessary.

didnt abu Bakr (ra) and other sahabah not fight the rebelling tribes as apostates in some cases just for a refusal of paying zakat?

so yes force is sometimes necessary to bring people into line in islam. if an islamic state comes about they must forbid evil and enjoin good and if people continue to commit evil and call to it then it is the states responsibility to stop them.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[jihaadu nafs]

wa alykuma salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatu

These people that the sahabaas fought were mubtaduun (people who believed then disbelieved) And abu bakr was the kalifaah at the time so he had the authority, so if there is Islamic state then your right force is necessary in order to forbid evil and enjoy the good.and Allah knows best.

[Dawud_uk]

wa alykuma salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatu

These people that the sahabaas fought were mubtaduun (people who believed then disbelieved) And abu bakr was the kalifaah at the time so he had the authority, so if there is Islamic state then your right force is necessary in order to forbid evil and enjoy the good.and Allah knows best.

yes, they had disbelieved after delieving, and yet for some of them the very fact they refused to pay zakaat was enough they prayed and still professed to be muslim?

Abu Abdullah

[Musalmaan]

yes, they had disbelieved after delieving, and yet for some of them the very fact they refused to pay zakaat was enough they prayed and still professed to be muslim?

Abu Abdullah

the sahabah used their strength, moreover, the Help of Allah SWT were with them against the rebellious nations and tribes, when UMMAH had already been formed.
today the ummah is shattered and disunited. All these destruction are there in muslim lands because the Ummah has not remained an Ummah. the ummah is divided into alot of things. many strange slogans and ideologies are being raised which further divides the ummah.
Those who know truth should call upon people who dont know it. ignorance and disobedience of Allah is common in muslim societies. Allah SWT does not punish the nation until unless there comes messenger who call people to truth. if they reject truth, then the war is not atually between the believers and disbelievers, but actually it is the war between Allah and the disblievers.
dawah is important work to be initiated to get the help of Allah SWT which at present is lost in general ummah, for there is no ummah.

little points to share.
:w: