Table Of Contents

• Introduction
• The View of Fighting Rulers In Order to Usurp Authority is Corrupt and Leads to Much Greater Evil
• Allaah Does Not Order Something By Which Rectification of the Worldly and Religious Affairs Is Not Attained
• There Was Not in Any Revolt Any Rectification or Benefit For the Religion
• Fighting Against the Khawaarij is Commended in the Religion and Those Who Revolted Did So Believing They Were Enjoining the Good
• The Two Types of People That Fall Into Rebellion and Revolt And the Nature of Their Error
• The Necessity of Having Patience Upon the Injustice, Misappropriation and Self-Preferential Rule of the Leaders

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah continues:

And for this reason, when al-Husayn (radiallaahu anhu) desired to revolt against the people of 'Iraaq, they wrote many letters to him, as has been indicated by the people of knowledge, such as Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbaas, 'Abu Bakr bin Abdur-Rahmaan bin al-Haarith bin Hishaam, that he should not revolt, and their overwhelming belief was that he would be killed... and they were actually desiring to give sincere advice to him, and were seeking what was beneficial and better for him, and for the Muslims in general, and Allaah and His Messenger, verily, they only command with rectitude, not with corruption. However, the opinion can sometimes be correct and can sometimes be wrong.

So it has become clear that the correct affair was what they had said, and there was not to be found in the revolt any rectification or benefit for the Deen and nor for the Dunyaa. Rather, those oppressive wrongdoers were able to overcome the grandson of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) until they killed him as one oppressed, a martyr. And in his revolt and his fighting (against them) was such corruption and mischief that would not have occurred had he sat and remained in his own town.

For whatever he intended of the attainment of good and repelling of evil, then nothing from it occurred. Rather, only evil increased by his revolt and his fighting, and the goodness diminished on account of that. And that was also the cause of a great deal of evil, and the killing of Husayn itself was what brought about the tribulations, just as the killing of 'Uthmaan was from that which brought about tribulations (5).

And all of this is what explains that whatever the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded of patience towards the tyranny of the rulers and abandonment of fighting against them and revolting against them, that this is of the most beneficial and rectifying of affairs, in both this life and the next, and that whoever opposes this deliberately, or due to an error, then no rectification is attained by his action, rather only corruption.

And for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) praised al-Hasan with his saying, "Verily, this son of mine is a leader (Sayyid) and Allaah will bring about reconciliation through him between two great factions from amongst the Muslims", but he did not praise anyone on account of fighting in the time of tribulation, and nor on account of revolting against the leaders, and nor on account of withholding from obedience, or separating from the Jamaa'ah.

And the ahaadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) that are established in the Saheeh, all of them indicate this... and this explains that the reconciliation between the two parties was praised and was loved by Allaah and His Messenger, and that what was done by al-Hasan in bringing this about was from the greatest of his excellencies and his stations, on account of which the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) praised him. And if fighting had been obligatory or reccommended - and the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) never praised anyone for the abandonment of that which is obligatory or reccommended - and for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) did not praise anyone on account of what happened of fighting on the Day of the Camel, and Siffeen, let alone what occurred in Madinah on the Day of Harrah, and whatever happened in Makkah in the besieging of Ibn az-Zubayr, and what happened in the fitnah of Ibn al-Ash'at and Ibn al-Mihlab and other such tribulations (6)

Notes

(5) This is the very same as what Imaam Ahmad feared when a group from the people of knowledge came to him, and asked concerning the revolt against the Khaleefah, for his preaching the doctrine of Kufr, the saying that the Speech of Allaah is created, so he rejected this and said that there would be much bloodshed and that the tribulation would increase. And the likes of this Fiqh (understanding) is only granted to the firmly rooted Imaams, who speak with knowledge and insight (baseerah). And this insight is the very same that the firmly rooted Imaams of our times speak with in their advice to the Ummah.

Ibn al-Qayyim - may Allaah have mercy upon him - said: "This is a great topic, containing much benefit and due to ignorance of this topic a great mistake has fallen upon the Sharee'ah..." up until he said, after mentioning that the basis of the Sharee'ah is built upon the welfare and benefits of the servants: "...The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi-wasallam) legislated for his ummah, the obligation of rejecting the evil so that by its rejection, the goodness that Allaah and His Messenger love is obtained. And when rejecting the evil leads to what is more evil and more hated by Allaah and His Messenger then it is not allowed to reject it - even if Allaah hates it and detests those who perform it (the evil). And this is like rejection [inkaar] against the kings, and the ones in authority by coming out against them [with arms etc. to fight them] - for verily, that is the basis and foundation of every evil (sharr) and every tribulation (fitnah) till the end of time." (I'laam al-Muwaqqi'een)

Stated Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, "These words are very good (i.e. Imaam al-Albaanee's). Meaning, that those people pass judgement against the rulers of the Muslims, that they are disbelievers, what benefit do they achieve by judging them to be disbelievers? Are they able to put an end to them? They are not able. And when it is the case that the Jews have occupied Palestine for around 50 years, yet despite that the Islamic Ummah has not been able in its entirety - Arabs and Non-Arabs alike - to remove them from their place! How then, after this, can we go and strike those who rule over us with our tongues (i.e. make takfir of them) while we know that we are not capable of putting and end to them, and that blood will be shed, and the taking of wealth will become lawful, and even the honours of people. And then we will not even have achieved the desired result!! Therefore, what is the benefit - such that if a person was to believe - in that which is between him and his Lord - that amongst the rulers is one who is a disbeliever in truth, with the kufr that ejects from the religion - what then is the benefit in announcing this and spreading this, except the kindling of tribulation?!" (Fitnah of takfir, p.74)

(6) As for what is argued by those affected by Sayyid Qutb's Leninism - that this was only for those rulers in those times, and not for the rulers of our times - then this is falsehood, and they know it is falsehood. For the prohibition of revolting is based upon the prevention of greater evil and corruption in the land and the prevention of greater harm to the Muslims in general that almost invariably arises from such revolts. As for when clear, manifest disbelief is observed from the one in authority, then this in and of itself does not warrant revolt and rebellion and fighting without exception - as the people of knowledge have explained. Rather, a further matter is required: Consideration is given to what harm may result from the revolt and fighting - a matter alien to the contemporary Leninist takfiris.

---