“Muslims are revolutionists. They revolt against cruelty and injustice.”
This idea of his does not conform with what the Islamic scholars reported. Muslims do not revolt. They do not arouse sedition and mischief. It is a sin to revolt against even a cruel government. It is not jihâd but fitna (mischief) to violate the laws and commands. Sayyid Qutb, Mawdûdî and those who have been deceived by them misinterpreted the thirty-ninth âyat of the sûrat al-Hajj, an offense that brought them destruction. This âyat states, “Jihâd against the cruel who attack Muslims has been permitted.” When the unbelievers of Mecca oppressed, injured and killed Muslims, the Sahâba repeatedly asked for permission to fight against them, and their requests were turned down with a mollifying rejection. This âyat was revealed upon the migration to Medina, permitting the newly founded Islamic State to perform jihâd against the cruel in Mecca. This âyat does not permit Muslims to oppose their cruel government; it permits the Islamic State to make jihâd against the armies of cruel dictators who prevent their peoples from hearing about Islam and becoming Muslims. The hadîths quoted on the forty-first and seventy-first pages of the translation of As-siyar al-kabîr
declare, “Paradise is harâm for a person who revolts against the ruler,” and “Perform jihâd under the command of every ruler, just or cruel!” Jihâd, as it is written in books means ‘war against the unbelievers of other countries’. The hadîth given in the books Radd al-muhtâr, Kâmil
and al-Baihakî’s Shâ’b al-îmân, declares, “When you cannot correct something wrong, be patient! Allâhu ta’âlâ will correct it.” This hadîth commands not to oppose or revolt againt the laws but to advise through legitimate ways and to be patient. A hadîth quoted by al-Manâwî, at-Thirmidhî and at-Tabarânî declares, “The most valuable jihâd is to make a statement guiding to the right way in the presence of a cruel sultan.” Scholars should advise the state officials as much as they can. But they should be very careful lest sedition should arise while performing al-amru bi ’l-ma’rûf; this means that Muslims neither revolt nor surrender to cruelty and injustice. They seek for their rights through legitimate ways. It is wâjib for every Muslim to obey the government’s legitimate (mashrû’) commands. No person’s commands are to be carried out if they are harâm, yet one should not revolt against them and cause fitna[1]. One should not defy the cruel or dispute with them. For example, while it is one of the gravest sins not to perform salât, if a person’s chief or commander is a cruel unbeliever and says, “Don’t perform salât,” he should answer, “With pleasure. I won’t,” and think of saying, “This will prevent the fitna. For it is harâm to cause fitna, which in effect would cause Muslims to be persecuted.” However, he should perform salât in the absence of that cruel person.
’Abd al-Haqq ad-Dahlawî [d.
---------------------------------
[1] Fitna means mischief, commotion, sedition, turmoil, chaos, instigation, etc. Any act, behaviour, statement, writing, article or attitude that would lead to harmful consequences is fitna, and therefore harâm, even if it is done with good intentions apparently
these days of bliss?” “Yes, there will!” he said. I asked, “Will good days come again after that badness?” Again he declared, “Yes, they will. But that time will be blurred.” That is, the good and the bad will be confused in those days. The hearts will not be as pure and clear as they were in the initial days. I’tiqâd’s being sahîh, a’mâl’s being sâlih and the leaders’ justice will not be the same as those in the first century [of Islam]. Vices and bid’a will spread everywhere. The bad will go among the good, and bid’a will take place among the Sunna. I asked what ‘blurred’ meant. He declared, “They are those who do not adapt my sunna and follow my path. They both perform ’ibâda and commit sins.” They do goodness and wickedness. They commit bid’a. I asked, “Will there come a bad time again after that good period?” He declared, “Yes. There will be those who will call [people] to the doors of Hell. Those who will listen to them will be thrown into Hell.” I inquired, “O Rasûl-Allah! How will these people look like?” “They, too, are human like us. They speak as we do,” he said. That is, they will speak Arabic. Quoting âyats and hadîths, they will preach and give advice, but there will be no goodness or goodwill in their hearts. I said, “What do you command us to do if we reach their time?” He declared, “Adhere to the Muslims’ jamâ’a (community) and government.” I asked, “What shall we do if there is not a Muslim jamâ’a and government?” He declared, “Get yourself into a corner. Never go among them. Live alone till you die!” ’ He declared in a hadîth sherîf, “After me, there will be such governments that will leave my path. Their hearts are the home of the Satan. Obey them, too! Do not revolt against them! Do not revolt even if you are beaten and your property is expropriated!” That is, do not rise against the cruel government that attacks your property and lives; do not cause fitna; be patient and busy with your ’ibâdât; if you cannot protect yourselves against fitna in the town, take refuge in the forest; if you go into the forest and have to eat grass and leaves in order not to be among the holders of fitna, stay in the forest so you should not join them! He declared,
‘Listen well and obey.’ This last command means that we should be very careful not to rise against the government and not to cause fitna.” As it is understood from these hadîths and from the explanations of the ’ulamâ’ of Islam, men of religious post should not get involved in the formation of the State and in law-making; they should not go into politics; they should not become tools in the hands of politicians; they should not advocate this or that form of regime.
The ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna obeyed this prohibition strictly and stated that religious men’s getting involved in politics would be the same as holding burning fire.
It is idiocy to stand against power, to revolt against the government, since it is to throw oneself into danger, which is harâm. It is not permissible for a Muslim visiting non-Muslim countries to harm unbelievers’ property, lives or chastity. One can receive benefit from unbelievers by pleasing them. It is more important to observe the rights of dhimmîs, unbelievers living in dâr al-Islâm, and of the harbîs, unbelievers coming as guests, tourists and merchants to the Muslim country, than it is to observe Muslims’ rights. It is worse to attack or even to backbite and slander them than it is to attack Muslims. Muslims are never idle. They become powerful by studying religious and scientific knowledge hard. Thus, they become victorious and dominant. For a Muslim,
jihâd does not mean to rise in rebellion against the government but to spread the religious knowledge.
Ibn ’Âbidîn wrote, “Certain sins become mubâh (permissible), and even fard (obligatory), under the oppression of a sultân or another cruel ruler who employs coercive methods, such as threats of death, imprisonment and torture, to get you to commit those sinful acts. It is sinful to disobey his commandments.” It is written on the 91st page of Berîqa, “A hadîth says, ‘Obey your commanders!’ Even if your commander is the most inferior one among you, it is wâjib to obey his orders agreeable with Islam. A sinful command should never be obeyed, regardless of whose command it is; yet it will be obeyed if disobedience causes fitna, for, as written in Ashbâh, it is permissible to commit minor harm in order to escape grave harm. It is wâjib to do the mubâh commanded by the ruler.” ’Abd al-Ghanî an-Nablusî wrote on the 143rd page of al-Hadîqa,
“It is not wâjib to obey a sultân’s commands if they reflect his personal thoughts and predilections. If he is unjust, coercive and oppressive, however, it becomes a necessity to obey also his orders and prohibitions disagreeable with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s rules. In fact, if the sultân commands that those who disobey him should be killed, it is not permissible for anybody to throw himself into danger. Detailed information on this subject is given in my commentary to Hadiyyatu ibni ’l-’Imâd and in the book al-Matâlib al-wafiyya.”
Ibn ’Âbidîn wrote in the subject on ‘Bâghî’: “When Muslims freely perform ’ibâdât and live in peace in a country, it is not permissible for them to rebel against the government. If the
government oppresses and if opposing this oppression causes fitna, it is not permissible in this case, too. Helping such a ruler is a support given to cruelty. One should not help those who disobey him, either, for, one should not help in an action that is not permitted[1]. Those who rebel, for the purpose of seizing power, against the government that does not oppress people are called ‘bâghîs’, and in this case Muslims should help the State against them. For a hadîth declares, ‘May Allâhu ta’âlâ damn him who wakes fitna!’ If the rebels call the government and Muslims ‘disbelievers’ and attack Muslims’ property and lives, they are called ‘Khârijîs’. Likewise, today, some people called Wahhâbîs[2] attack other Muslims and call them ‘disbelievers’ because they do not believe as they do. Since this behaviour is (one of those acts that are) definitely harâm, they themselves become disbelievers by doing so. Regardless of whether the sultân is fairminded or cruel, it is wâjib to obey his commandments agreeable with the Sharî’at. If the Khalîfa is a murtadd or insane or unable to practice Islam he is to be dismissed. If his dismissal would cause fitna and his staying in office would be less harmful, he is to be tolerated. If a Muslim assumes
the office of Khalîfa by subjugation and force and seizes power, he is to be obeyed. A governor appointed by a non-Muslim government is obeyed if he practises Islamic rules. If he cannot put Islamic rules into practise, or if the governor is a kâfir, too, Muslims elect one from among them as muftî or head. The muftî practises Islamic rules. If this is not possible, either, which means a life of slavery, a possible fitna should be avoided. As it is understood from this passage, the fatwâ signed by Shaikh al-Islâm Hasan Hayrullah Effendi under duress for the dethronement of Sultân ’Abdul’azîz Khân and the fatwâ signed -when the fatwâ officer Hâji Nûrî Effendi refused to sign- by a bigot threatened with death for the dethronement of ’Abdulhamîd Khân II were not mashrû’ (legal). It is written in the twelfth volume of
Türkiye Târîhi (History of Turkey) that these fatwâs were not sahîh and were based on absolute falsehoods. Therefore, the two Sultans were the mashrû’ Khalîfas till they passed away. And because of this turpitude, the Ottomans lost the wars of “
---------------------------------
[1] The greatest cruelty is to prevent Muslims from performing ’ibâdât and from teaching religious knowledge to their children, to cause them to commit harâm and to spoil their îmân.
[2] Please see our publications Advice for the Muslim, Endless Bliss, II, 34, and Confessions of a British Spy for details about Wahhâbîs.
First World War; for, these three wars were started and directed not by Muslim governments but by secret revolutionists who had no connection with Islam.