What do we say to Non Muslims who think that the Caliphate/Caliph is a Dictatorship/Dictator ?

truthseeker63

Junior Member
As Salaam Alaikum my question what do we say to Non Muslims who think that the Caliphate/Caliph is a Dictatorship/Dictator ? My question is can the Caliph be criticized by citizens if the criticizism is fair ore just ? Can the Caliph be removed if he is an Oppresser or do Citizens have to obey Caliph no matter what can the Caliph do no wrong ? Also a question I want to ask is does the Caliph allow Freedom of Speech and Opinion or and Expression as far as Politics go ? Aldo a question I want to ask is Caliph the same as a Pope where he can never be criticized ? My final or last question is are there any verses in Islamic Texts Quran and Hadiths that talk about if Caliph can be criticized or accept fair criticizism or freedom of opinions thank you for you're time I found this video below please tell me if the speaker is correct ?

Tameem al-Adnani - Issue of Democracy and Tyrants in Muslim Lands .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFnIJZ6o1ek
 

Mabsoot

Amir
Staff member
wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah,


This is a big topic, and quite easy to misunderstand, but I will try to keep it concise for the time, and add more to this answer in time in sha Allah.

Democracy is a man made system. Islam teaches us that the only system for humans is the Islamic one. This is from Allah, the most High. - From a creed basis, it is matter of disbelief for a Muslim to think that man-made laws and ideas which contravene the rulings from the Quran (Shari'ah) to be better/superior. Basically, if someone thinks that shariah should not be established, that it is not for today, they are committing a grave sin which can put them outside the fold of Islam.

At same time, those Muslims who live and work inside non-Muslim lands, should respect the country they live in, and abide by the rule of law there. Islam teaches us to cooperate, be kind and good to people of other faiths and ideas, even if they hate Islam, even if they do not believe in God or are immoral, we still must treat them with fairness. - The other day I saw a sister speaking about a non-Muslim woman, accusing her of being naked and dressed like a "tart". This is not from the manners a Muslim should have, fortunately she is in a minority, but it does go to show how misled and even "arrogant" some Muslims can be. It is easy to be like that when you feel passionately about something and are trying to be stronger, but we must be careful of not going into extremes. The Prophet Muhammad :saw: and his companions are our example, not our own emotions or ideas.

Back to your question, then according to Islam, the Muslim ruler should not be rebelled against. It is haram for Muslims to pick up arms and try to overthrow their Muslim ruler, even if he is a tyrant. This is established fact based on the Quran and Sunnah and many of the treatise of the early Muslims. Muslim rulers are not like "the pope". Whilst the disbelievers think the Pope to be infallible, Muslims know that their leaders can and do make mistakes and sin, sometimes terrible ones.

- Again, this opens a big debate and doors to those who begin making takfir of various rulers and accusing them of not being Muslim. The issue of rebelling was thus critisised much because of the bloodshed and problems stemming from it, especially when the people themselves are in a weak position.

Here is a fatwa by Shaykh Ibn Baz Rahimahullah:

There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and sin, we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion?

Praise be to Allaah.

The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.

Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 8, p. 202

And Ibn Uthaymeen:

Is it obligatory to obey a ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him)?.



Praise be to Allaah.


The ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should be obeyed in matters that do not involve disobedience towards Allaah and His Messenger, and it is not obligatory to fight him because of that; rather it is not permissible to do so unless he reaches the level of kufr, in which case it becomes obligatory to oppose him and he has no right to be obeyed by the Muslims.

Ruling according to anything other than that which is in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger reaches the level of kufr when two conditions are met:

1.When he knows the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger; if he is unaware of it, then he does not commit kufr by going against it.

2.When what makes him rule by something other than that which Allaah has revealed is the belief that it is a ruling that is not suitable for our time and that something else is more suitable than it and more beneficial for people.

If these two conditions are met, then ruling by something other than that which Allaah has revealed constitutes kufr which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers)” [al-Maa’idah 5:44]. The authority of the ruler becomes invalid and he has no right to be obeyed by the people; it becomes obligatory to fight him and remove him from power.

But if he rules by something other than that which Allaah has revealed whilst believing that ruling by that – i.e. that which Allaah has revealed -- is what is obligatory, and that it is more suitable for the people, but he goes against it because of some whims and desires on his part or because he wants to wrong the people under his rule, then he is not a kaafir; rather he is a faasiq (evildoer) or a zaalim (wrongdoer). His authority remains, and obeying him in matters that do not involve disobedience to Allaah and His Messenger is obligatory, and it is not permissible to fight him or remove him from power by force or to rebel against him, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) forbade rebelling against rulers unless we see blatant kufr for which we have proof from Allaah. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (2/118)


There were many people who fought for the right reasons in Afghanistan, as they had a Soviet invasion. Shaykh Jamil ur-Rahman who was a scholar and was killed there. The video you posted seems to be from the late 80s, before the take over of Afghanistan. Times have changed much from then.
 

Abdul-Halim265

Junior Member
wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah,

This is a big topic, and quite easy to misunderstand, but I will try to keep it concise for the time, and add more to this answer in time in sha Allah.

Democracy is a man made system. Islam teaches us that the only system for humans is the Islamic one. This is from Allah, the most High. - From a creed basis, it is matter of disbelief for a Muslim to think that man-made laws and ideas which contravene the rulings from the Quran (Shari'ah) to be better/superior. Basically, if someone thinks that shariah should not be established, that it is not for today, they are committing a grave sin which can put them outside the fold of Islam.

At same time, those Muslims who live and work inside non-Muslim lands, should respect the country they live in, and abide by the rule of law there. Islam teaches us to cooperate, be kind and good to people of other faiths and ideas, even if they hate Islam, even if they do not believe in God or are immoral, we still must treat them with fairness. - The other day I saw a sister speaking about a non-Muslim woman, accusing her of being naked and dressed like a "tart". This is not from the manners a Muslim should have, fortunately she is in a minority, but it does go to show how misled and even "arrogant" some Muslims can be. It is easy to be like that when you feel passionately about something and are trying to be stronger, but we must be careful of not going into extremes. The Prophet Muhammad :saw: and his companions are our example, not our own emotions or ideas.

Back to your question, then according to Islam, the Muslim ruler should not be rebelled against. It is haram for Muslims to pick up arms and try to overthrow their Muslim ruler, even if he is a tyrant. This is established fact based on the Quran and Sunnah and many of the treatise of the early Muslims. Muslim rulers are not like "the pope". Whilst the disbelievers think the Pope to be infallible, Muslims know that their leaders can and do make mistakes and sin, sometimes terrible ones.

- Again, this opens a big debate and doors to those who begin making takfir of various rulers and accusing them of not being Muslim. The issue of rebelling was thus critisised much because of the bloodshed and problems stemming from it, especially when the people themselves are in a weak position.

There were many people who fought for the right reasons in Afghanistan, as they had a Soviet invasion. Shaykh Jamil ur-Rahman who was a scholar and was killed there. The video you posted seems to be from the late 80s, before the take over of Afghanistan. Times have changed much from then.

Speaking as a prospective Muslim who's just come from Syria last month - I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but after all I've seen and all my friends there (Muslims, but I don't differentiate when it comes to humanity, we're all of equal value) have gone through, the part about it never being acceptable for Muslims to rebel against a leader seems obscene - what if he or she kills them by the millions, and what if he or she is a very bad leader? Besides, it simply isn't practical. People don't share this absolutist view - and as the Arab Spring has shown us all, will rise up again and again if a corrupt, brutal, inefficient leader doesn't deliver. This absolutist reasoning just isn't feasible or realistic, and seems to strike many (including Muslims I know, by no means a minority) as an obscene thought which opens the door for a whole manner of abuses by their leaders.

I know you mean well, but this point just seems rather cold blooded, albeit mistakenly. My friends did NOT throw out Assad, only to be forced to accept an ISIS-based regime which (seemingly following the point you mentioned) fires RPG's at their rallies when they call for them to withdraw their emirates, stop brutalising the population, etc. The population will never accept another dictatorship they can't criticise, thus making it impossible for your totalitarian idea to become reality.

I respect Islam and Muslims immensely, I just can't agree with this, and neither can most Muslims I know - in the words of one, when asked about these groups who follow this agenda, he disagreed and simply told me: "I am a normal Muslim."
 
Last edited:

uniqueskates

Rabbe Zidni Illma
wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah,

Back to your question, then according to Islam, the Muslim ruler should not be rebelled against. It is haram for Muslims to pick up arms and try to overthrow their Muslim ruler, even if he is a tyrant. This is established fact based on the Quran and Sunnah and many of the treatise of the early Muslims. Muslim rulers are not like "the pope". Whilst the disbelievers think the Pope to be infallible, Muslims know that their leaders can and do make mistakes and sin, sometimes terrible ones.

- Again, this opens a big debate and doors to those who begin making takfir of various rulers and accusing them of not being Muslim. The issue of rebelling was thus critisised much because of the bloodshed and problems stemming from it, especially when the people themselves are in a weak position.

Assalaamualaikum wa re wa barakatuhu.

I very well understand the intention behind the ruling of obeying a tyrant leader is because of the reason you have stated above brother. But, let's say that, if they don't rebel, what are the options they have got? Tolerate the dictatorship when they know that it is totally unislamic? The tyrant leader could himself be the reason behind hundreds of murders. So why should the people be quiet then? Please know that my intention is only to understand the reason behind the ruling. I am not here for a debate, but for a brother to brother(sister) discussion in order to comprehend things better. :)

As for @truthseeker63 - Yes, the Caliph can be criticized. There are many instances which I can share with you in which Umar RA was corrected. [Umar RA's biography is the only one I have read - partially] To answer the rest of your questions, I have near to little or no ilm brother. May Allah help you in finding the right answers.

Peace
 

a_stranger

Junior Member
Islam (the true Islam) teaches that we are all humble slaves of Allah subhanahu wa taaala : our creator, Islam rejects any kind of dictatorship, the early caliphs were humble, kind ,polite ........treated people like brothers and sisters.....accually they were acting like servants of people not like leaders following the example of the prophet salla Allah alaihi wa sallam . They were living in a very simple houses, treating all according to mercy and justice. This is the true example of Islam . What is going on in the so called Islamic countries is absolutely unislamic. We need to return to pure clear Islam .
 

Mabsoot

Amir
Staff member
Speaking as a prospective Muslim who's just come from Syria last month - I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but after all I've seen and all my friends there (Muslims, but I don't differentiate when it comes to humanity, we're all of equal value) have gone through, the part about it never being acceptable for Muslims to rebel against a leader seems obscene - what if he or she kills them by the millions, and what if he or she is a very bad leader? Besides, it simply isn't practical. People don't share this absolutist view - and as the Arab Spring has shown us all, will rise up again and again if a corrupt, brutal, inefficient leader doesn't deliver. This absolutist reasoning just isn't feasible or realistic, and seems to strike many (including Muslims I know, by no means a minority) as an obscene thought which opens the door for a whole manner of abuses by their leaders.

Neither Bashar al-Assad nor his family were Muslim. There have been more than one attempt at rebelling, which have led to disastrous results for the people. Having said that, such tyrants do not last long. If you read the fatawa and explanations given by scholars, it depends on the overall welfare of the people.
 

Abdul-Halim265

Junior Member
Neither Bashar al-Assad nor his family were Muslim. There have been more than one attempt at rebelling, which have led to disastrous results for the people. Having said that, such tyrants do not last long. If you read the fatawa and explanations given by scholars, it depends on the overall welfare of the people.

Of course they weren't Muslim - nobody who's religious would do what they have done. But I'm just showing you an example of the kind of abuses that could happen if you oppose people rebelling against their leaders - in ANY context. I respect Islam immensely, but believe that if any leader proves inefficient and tyrannical, the people have the right to unseat him.
 

kiana

Junior Member
There is evidence of Umar bin Khattab (RA) insisting that his followers stop him and bring awareness to him if he accidentally causes any form of injustice. This was a Caliph who made it law for people to punish him if he crossed any lines! Can you find a leader today who would do the same? Non-Muslim leaders like Bashar al Assad and his father, Hafez, would transgress and then kill the people before they could even utter their injustice.

My husband told me recently that he remembers when Hafez al Assad banned sisters from wearing veils in universities. Is that not anti-Islamic? The moment a dictator attempts to enforce anti-Islamic values in a land that belongs to Muslims, I believe such "leader" becomes illegitimate, and Muslims must, with all of their power, replace him with someone who can preserve Laws of Allah. Muslim land is Muslim land. From East in Morocco all the way West in Kashmir, the soil is made of our forefathers' blood and sweat, and we preserve what they died for.
 

Abdul-Halim265

Junior Member
There is evidence of Umar bin Khattab (RA) insisting that his followers stop him and bring awareness to him if he accidentally causes any form of injustice. This was a Caliph who made it law for people to punish him if he crossed any lines! Can you find a leader today who would do the same? Non-Muslim leaders like Bashar al Assad and his father, Hafez, would transgress and then kill the people before they could even utter their injustice.

My husband told me recently that he remembers when Hafez al Assad banned sisters from wearing veils in universities. Is that not anti-Islamic? The moment a dictator attempts to enforce anti-Islamic values in a land that belongs to Muslims, I believe such "leader" becomes illegitimate, and Muslims must, with all of their power, replace him with someone who can preserve Laws of Allah. Muslim land is Muslim land. From East in Morocco all the way West in Kashmir, the soil is made of our forefathers' blood and sweat, and we preserve what they died for.

My thoughts exactly. If a leader proclaimed himself Christian and started a genocidal massacre of his own people (including Christians), I know for a fact that the majority of people here would oust him/her too. The creator of the thread is definitely very wrong when he says that uprisings shouldn't be allowed - if everyone wants to rise up, they will rise up, and there is nothing that you can do about it. How would you enforce such a law? By brute force to stop them? Again, the more you harm them to stop them rebelling, the more determined they get to undermine you, and the more blood is shed. It simply isn't feasible, and opens the door for a whole range of abuses.
 
Top