It is haraam to revolt against the Muslim just or unjust ruler if this leas to more evil, this is what the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah have ijma on (scholarly consensus). Imam an-Nawawi said in Sharh Saheeh Muslim vol. 12, p. 229 “And as for revolt – meaning against the rulers – and fighting them, then it is haraam by unanimous agreement (ijma’) of the Muslims, even if they are sinful oppressors. And the hadeeth are abundantly overwhelming with the meaning that I have mentioned. And Ahlus-Sunnah are united that the ruler is not to be removed, on account of his sinfulness. As for the angle that has been mentioned in some of the books of fiqh of some of our associates, that he is to be removed, and which is quoted from the Mu’tazilah, then this is an error on behalf of the one who says it and is in opposition to the Ijmaa’. And the Scholars have said, that the reason for the absence of his removal and the forbiddence of revolting against him, is due to what arises from that of tribulations, and shedding of blood, and also corruption that is evident. Hence, the harm from his removal is greater than from him remaining in place.” An important point to note is that all Muslims must understand that before there was an ijmah on it being haraam to revolt against the unjust ruler the scholars use to be spilt into two groups those who believed it was halaal and those who held it was haraam. So in the past this is why there have been some instances of a person who is righteous and upright from the salaf revolting against the unjust tyrant Muslim ruler. However after these revolts and others by some deviated groups and individuals the scholars soon all came to understand that these revolts resulted in more harm and greater evil. Thus eventually all the scholars agree that it is haraam to revolted against the unjust ruler due to the evil that will occur.
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:27:40 +0000