[UtidaBrar]

This post is not about denying the atrocities and massacres that the govt of Syria has carried out. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that the scholars consider

anarchy to be worst than tyrrany. I only understood this after Bush's misadventures in Iraq and the subsequent unrest in Iraq.

I may have also read that rebellion against a ruler is only allowed if there is a reasonable/strong chance of success AND the ruler is not upon haqq. The second condition is met by many if not all of the current rulers.

In light of this and the fact that syrian oppsition is fractured from Day1, can there be a fiqhi support for the initial rebellion, before it became a bloodbath after a bloodbath.
Was Bashar and his thugs making people bow to his picture before the rebellion ? Does this fall under the ruling of a ruler imposing kufr on the people ?

I understand that Sh Yacqoubi supported the opposition and left Syria soon afterwards.
Please dont reply that most Shuyookh oppose Bashar, so there must be fiqh reasoning behind it. Whereas it is most likely true, but I want to understand the reasoning.

[ChebuRAtoR]

most people were not calling for the overthrow from day 1. the first protestors were doing so to get their children removed from their detention with the security forces. then, this moved on to calling for reform. it was only after people started being openly shot at that most people jumped onto the revolution band-wagon, and that included as-Sayyid al-Ya'qubi (hafizahu Llah).