-
State, Rebellion & Karbala
(I used AI for the questions).
Dear Ghamidi Sahib,
Assalamu Alaikum,
I have a few sincere questions regarding some of your statements about political authority and rebellion in Islam.
-
You have said that “rebellion against a Muslim state is not allowed.” Could you please clarify why that is so?
- What if the government is openly committing haram acts or has come into power without the proper mandate of the people?
- In such a situation, are Muslims still religiously obliged to obey that authority just because it is in power?
- Does Islam really teach obedience to anyone who seizes power by any means, regardless of their legitimacy or morality?
-
In one of your interviews, you mentioned that “we have to accept the reality and the power structures in the world we live in, because we cannot change them.”
- If this is the case, then what about the early Muslims who challenged the status quo and transformed societies?
- If they had simply “accepted reality,” the message of Islam would never have spread. How do we reconcile your statement with their example?
-
Lastly, I would like to ask about Karbala.
- If Yazid was committing haram acts and deviating from the teachings of Islam, did Imam Hussain (RA) not have the right — or even the duty — to stand against him?
- Wouldn’t his stand contradict the idea that rebellion against a Muslim ruler is always forbidden?
I am asking these questions with utmost respect and a sincere desire to understand your reasoning and the Islamic basis for these views.
JazakAllah khair.
-
-
2 Replies
-
State, Rebellion & Karbala
updated 3 weeks, 5 days ago
2 Members
·
2
Replies
-
Once a rule is established by any means, and the order is restored, it is unnecessary to change it with force or armed struggle. It will result in chaos, which is a greater evil.
The masses can launch an armed resistance against a cruel regime only when they or their majority agree upon a single leadership. Otherwise, common people are not obliged to stand against it in their individual capacity.
The Holy Prophet did not challenge the status quo. If Quresh had accepted the message of God, that they had to worship only one God, the power would have remained with the same chiefs of Makkah.
Harat Husain’s movement against Yazid was not a legitimate one. Therefore, all the companions of the Prophet tried to stop him from creating a rift between the Muslims. Yazid was not labelled bad then.
-
Assalaam o Alaikum Brother
Thank you for your previous response. I still have some important points I would like clarification on:
1. You have stated that once a rule is established by any means, even by force, and order is restored, armed resistance is not allowed because it leads to chaos. My question is:
If a system established by force is based on ẓulm (oppression) and even kufr (clear disbelief), why is fighting against such a system prohibited?
Does Islam require Muslims to tolerate a tyrannical and illegitimate regime simply because it has managed to gain power?2. Regarding Yazīd, you mentioned that Sayyidunā Ḥusayn’s (RA) movement was not legitimate and that Yazīd was not considered bad at that time.
If Yazīd’s actions included oppression, corruption, and violations of Sharīʿah, was he still deserving of obedience?
How should Muslims today understand and interpret Imām Ḥusayn’s stand if it was, as you say, “not legitimate”? Was he wrong to refuse bayʿah to such a ruler?I ask these questions with sincere respect and a genuine desire to understand how these positions align with the Qurʾānic commands to stand against injustice (4:135) and the Prophetic teaching that “the best jihād is a word of truth before a tyrannical ruler.”
Jazakallah Khair.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
