بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Q: Why didn't the Salaf ever rise or make Takfeer against the rulers?
A: Many of the Salaf did rise against tyrant rulers and make Takfeer on them like those who rose against Hajjaj bin Yusuf. Among them were Tawus, Shi'bi, Sa'eed ibn Musayyab and Sa'eed ibn Jubair and Imam Ahmed opposed the rulers about the Fitnah of the Qur'an being created.
Q: Didn't the prophet order us to obey the rulers even if they are sinners or oppressors?
A: The Ahadith obliging obedience to the rulers are three types, (i) those that oblige unconditional obedience even under oppression , (ii) those that oblige obedience if they obey Allah and forbid obedience in disobedience to Allah and (iii) those obliging obedience unless they commit Kufr Bawaah (e.g. ruling by man-made law). We must take and combine all the evidences and cannot take some and leave some.
Q: Isn't ruling by other than what Allah revealed Kufr duna Kufr?
Ruling by other than what Allah revealed could be in different forms, some of which are Kufr duna Kufr such as the following:
a. The ruler who neglects to implement a particular Hukm out of Hawaa or laziness e.g. he doesn't punish a thief who was proven guilty because he is a relative.
b. The ruler who implements the Shari'ah rules or Hudud against people who do not deserve it out of Hawaa. e.g. he cuts the hand of an innocent man accused of theft without sufficient evidence, because he has a grudge against him etc.
c. The ruler who usurps other peoples' land and wealth for himself out of greed
d. The ruler who has people beaten unjustly out of partisan, racism, grudges etc
However it is known from Islam by necessity that other acts of ruling by other than what Allah revealed is Kufr Akbar that takes you out of the Millah of Islam including:
a. Istibdaal, replacing the Shari'ah rules with any other rules, whether derived from other Deens or from the mind and ration. E.g. if he punishes a thief (whether he was proven guilty or not) with a punishment different to the one set by the Shari'ah, e.g. by 100 lashes instead of cutting the hand.
b. Istihlaal, making Halal what the Shari'ah makes Haram, e.g. if he gives people licences to sell interest or alcohol or if he enforces the collection of interest in his courts.
c. Juhood, denying rulings and Ayaat known in Islam by necessity e.g. by forbidding the Hijaab, forbidding the Salah, forbidding the jihad, forbidding Da'wah etc.
d. Tahaakum, arbitrating to any other law instead of the law of Allah, e.g. by arbitrating to the UN and giving their resolutions precedence over the Shari'ah rules.
e. Tawallee, allying with disbelievers and helping them to attack the Muslims, spy on Muslims or to help those disbelievers to promote their religion e.g. by building churches in Muslim countries or by handing Muslims over to disbelievers to be tortured or punished by them.
f. Mocking the Deen and permitting the Deen to be mocked under his rule e.g. by permitting the publishing of books and films that mock the Messenger (saw) and his companions.
Q: Doesn't the ruler have to make Istihlaal in his heart before he can be called Kaafir?
A: This is a saying innovated by the Murji'ah and has no root in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Rather Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama'ah judge by the apparent and recognise that only Allah can see into a person's heart. Moreover, we do not separate the Imaan from the actions and so believe Kufr actions can take a person out of Islam just as easily as sayings of the tongue or beliefs in the heart can.
Q: Aren't these rulers under duress from the pressure of America?
You cannot be a ruler and under duress at the same time. If he was really under duress in the captivity of the Kuffar, the Muslims are obliged to replace him by giving Bay'ah to another ruler. But he cannot be free to rule and oppress the people and claim to be under duress. If that is the case, then let him stand down and save himself from this duress and let someone else rule by what Allah revealed instead. Either way we are obliged to rise against him and elect a new ruler that is not controlled by the Kuffar.
Q: Weren't Saudi Arabia making Isti'aanah against the Kaafir Saddam Hussein not Tawallee?
The prophet rejected the help of disbelievers to fight against the armies of the Mushrikeen, let alone to help them invade Muslim land and kill Muslims. Allowing the US armies to enter into Muslim land and establishes bases there and launch their bombs, rockets and soldiers from there to invade Muslims is Tawallee, regardless of the Kufr of Saddam. Besides which, the rulers of Saudi Arabia have left the Deen of Islam for the same reasons that Saddam was considered a Kaafir (i.e. ruling by man-made law instead of the Shari'ah).
Q: Why didn't the great scholars of Saudi Arabia rise against them?
Many scholars did rise against them and they were imprisoned, tortured and some of them were killed. For example, scholars like Sheikh Yusuf Al ‘Uyayri (rh), Sheikh Faris Al Zahraani, Sheikh Naasir Al Fahd, Sheikh Ali bin Khudr, Sheikh Abdullah bin Rushood (rh) and many others. Whether the other scholars are afraid that the same might happen to them or refrain from Takfeer for other reasons, that is not evidence in the Deen of Islam. They are not Anbiyaa' and their silence or consent to the rulers is not a divine evidence that it is permissible or that they are not Kaafir. In fact, the scholars that they refer to from Al Da'wah an Najdiyyah used to declare Saudi Arabia Dar ul Kufr and declared the law in Saudi Arabia Kufr law. Even scholars such as Sheikh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem, the sheikh of bin Baaz would say that the laws in Saudi Arabia were Kufr and that the one who rules by other than what Allah revealed is Kaafir and he compared him to the one who worships idols.
Source: islam4uk
A: Many of the Salaf did rise against tyrant rulers and make Takfeer on them like those who rose against Hajjaj bin Yusuf. Among them were Tawus, Shi'bi, Sa'eed ibn Musayyab and Sa'eed ibn Jubair and Imam Ahmed opposed the rulers about the Fitnah of the Qur'an being created.
Q: Didn't the prophet order us to obey the rulers even if they are sinners or oppressors?
A: The Ahadith obliging obedience to the rulers are three types, (i) those that oblige unconditional obedience even under oppression , (ii) those that oblige obedience if they obey Allah and forbid obedience in disobedience to Allah and (iii) those obliging obedience unless they commit Kufr Bawaah (e.g. ruling by man-made law). We must take and combine all the evidences and cannot take some and leave some.
Q: Isn't ruling by other than what Allah revealed Kufr duna Kufr?
Ruling by other than what Allah revealed could be in different forms, some of which are Kufr duna Kufr such as the following:
a. The ruler who neglects to implement a particular Hukm out of Hawaa or laziness e.g. he doesn't punish a thief who was proven guilty because he is a relative.
b. The ruler who implements the Shari'ah rules or Hudud against people who do not deserve it out of Hawaa. e.g. he cuts the hand of an innocent man accused of theft without sufficient evidence, because he has a grudge against him etc.
c. The ruler who usurps other peoples' land and wealth for himself out of greed
d. The ruler who has people beaten unjustly out of partisan, racism, grudges etc
However it is known from Islam by necessity that other acts of ruling by other than what Allah revealed is Kufr Akbar that takes you out of the Millah of Islam including:
a. Istibdaal, replacing the Shari'ah rules with any other rules, whether derived from other Deens or from the mind and ration. E.g. if he punishes a thief (whether he was proven guilty or not) with a punishment different to the one set by the Shari'ah, e.g. by 100 lashes instead of cutting the hand.
b. Istihlaal, making Halal what the Shari'ah makes Haram, e.g. if he gives people licences to sell interest or alcohol or if he enforces the collection of interest in his courts.
c. Juhood, denying rulings and Ayaat known in Islam by necessity e.g. by forbidding the Hijaab, forbidding the Salah, forbidding the jihad, forbidding Da'wah etc.
d. Tahaakum, arbitrating to any other law instead of the law of Allah, e.g. by arbitrating to the UN and giving their resolutions precedence over the Shari'ah rules.
e. Tawallee, allying with disbelievers and helping them to attack the Muslims, spy on Muslims or to help those disbelievers to promote their religion e.g. by building churches in Muslim countries or by handing Muslims over to disbelievers to be tortured or punished by them.
f. Mocking the Deen and permitting the Deen to be mocked under his rule e.g. by permitting the publishing of books and films that mock the Messenger (saw) and his companions.
Q: Doesn't the ruler have to make Istihlaal in his heart before he can be called Kaafir?
A: This is a saying innovated by the Murji'ah and has no root in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Rather Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama'ah judge by the apparent and recognise that only Allah can see into a person's heart. Moreover, we do not separate the Imaan from the actions and so believe Kufr actions can take a person out of Islam just as easily as sayings of the tongue or beliefs in the heart can.
Q: Aren't these rulers under duress from the pressure of America?
You cannot be a ruler and under duress at the same time. If he was really under duress in the captivity of the Kuffar, the Muslims are obliged to replace him by giving Bay'ah to another ruler. But he cannot be free to rule and oppress the people and claim to be under duress. If that is the case, then let him stand down and save himself from this duress and let someone else rule by what Allah revealed instead. Either way we are obliged to rise against him and elect a new ruler that is not controlled by the Kuffar.
Q: Weren't Saudi Arabia making Isti'aanah against the Kaafir Saddam Hussein not Tawallee?
The prophet rejected the help of disbelievers to fight against the armies of the Mushrikeen, let alone to help them invade Muslim land and kill Muslims. Allowing the US armies to enter into Muslim land and establishes bases there and launch their bombs, rockets and soldiers from there to invade Muslims is Tawallee, regardless of the Kufr of Saddam. Besides which, the rulers of Saudi Arabia have left the Deen of Islam for the same reasons that Saddam was considered a Kaafir (i.e. ruling by man-made law instead of the Shari'ah).
Q: Why didn't the great scholars of Saudi Arabia rise against them?
Many scholars did rise against them and they were imprisoned, tortured and some of them were killed. For example, scholars like Sheikh Yusuf Al ‘Uyayri (rh), Sheikh Faris Al Zahraani, Sheikh Naasir Al Fahd, Sheikh Ali bin Khudr, Sheikh Abdullah bin Rushood (rh) and many others. Whether the other scholars are afraid that the same might happen to them or refrain from Takfeer for other reasons, that is not evidence in the Deen of Islam. They are not Anbiyaa' and their silence or consent to the rulers is not a divine evidence that it is permissible or that they are not Kaafir. In fact, the scholars that they refer to from Al Da'wah an Najdiyyah used to declare Saudi Arabia Dar ul Kufr and declared the law in Saudi Arabia Kufr law. Even scholars such as Sheikh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem, the sheikh of bin Baaz would say that the laws in Saudi Arabia were Kufr and that the one who rules by other than what Allah revealed is Kaafir and he compared him to the one who worships idols.
Source: islam4uk
