[Uhmavano]

contraversial topic. both sides have there daleel. someone who believes they are apostates is going to come on here and say ''oh you who believe dont take the jews and christians as friends'' to the end of the ayah, they give other dalaail which are from the sunnah aswell, i just cant think right now. then they'll also say that these fataawa not to rebel are for fasiq rulers and not apostates like todays who take there deen from obama. what is needed from both sides of the argument is with daleel we need an answer to the opposing fatwa and then it could be discussed, otherwise you'll be going back and forth forever. btw i dont have an opinion on this issue so dont say im biased, im just presenting a daleel which iv heard.

It is arguably one of the most critical and pivotal issues facing the Muslim Ummah: the legitimacy of the Muslim governments. And mufti Desai is not alone in his opinion, in the sense that he originated it. Rather, many fuqaha have preceded him on it. I presented the adillah for it, which are all sahih. The issue of contention which fuqaha disagree on is the interpretation of this particular meaning.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The best among your rulers are those whom you love and they love you in turn, those who pray (make supplication) for you and you pray for them. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you in turn, and you curse them and they curse you.”

Someone asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we confront them with swords?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No, as long as they hold prayers among you. If you see from your rulers what you hate, hate the action they do but do not rebel against them.” [Sahîh Muslim]
Many fuqaha interpret this to mean that as long as salah is established by the ruler and his regime: both meaning regime members pray and maintain masajid with regular salaat, then the regime fulfills the meaning of the text and is legitimate, even if it implements kufr rules in other matters. And they have some more texts to support their interpretation.

As a result, many regimes have made rulers praying in Ramadan in particular a showcase of public relations, with TV cameras and so on filming so and so praying behind an imam.

Other fuqaha interpret this particular text to mean "establishing prayers", or establishing iqaamatul salaat, to mean establishing the entire Deen of Islam, as salah being an indispensible segment of the greater whole, (called "meronymy" in english such that the saying "don't touch a hair on his head" means don't touch any part of him, NOT just don't touch his hair'). This is supported by the other sahih text which addresses the same issue, such as:

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah (swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr (kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah. The hadith was reported by At-Tabarani as “kufran Surahan (open kufr)”, and as “unless the disobedience of Allah is bawahan”. It was also reported by Ahmad as “unless they order you of ithmin bawahan (open sin)”.

In this instance, " establish prayers" and "open disbelief" have similar meaning, and both texts address the same specific topic. If the Muslim government demostrates "kufr buwah" or "kufr surahan" or "ithmin bawahan", then the regime's authority is illegitimate.

In addition, it is known during the era of the sahaba, of the Prophet (saaw) himself, that a land once ruled by Islam can descend into a status of disbelief while the people are still Muslims.

In a narration of Al-Tirmithi, it was reported on the authority of Ibnu Isam Al-Muzani, on that of his father, who had accompanied the Messenger of Allah (saw); he said: “Whenever the Messenger of Allah (saw) dispatched a task force or an expedition, he used to say to them: “If you see a mosque, or if you hear a Muath’thin, do not kill anyone.” Thus, the authority of such a land was in question even if the people are actually Muslims.

As well, sahaba joined the army of Muawiyah against the khilafah of Ali () to confront the legitimacy of the government over the appearance of open sin- ie. lack of prosecution of the murder of Uthman (). This act showed sahaba taking arms against a ruler who they knew prayed and established prayers alone, but from their viewpoint (which was later corrected) failed to oppose munkar/ allowed for open sin.

Since then, Qadi Iyad al Yahsubi and shaykh Ibn Taymiyah (rhm) recognized the possibility of a ruler who was a practicing, praying Muslim, leading a government according to "open kufr", for which rebellion is allowed. Their interpretation of these texts are known.




And Allah knows best.