1. On
the
Permissibility
And
Practices
of
Opposing
Unjust
Rulers
in
Islam
In
the
name
of
Allah,
the
Most
Gracious
and
Most
Merciful:
Faced
with
the
popular
and
(with
the
help
of
God)
world-­‐
changing
events
of
the
so-­‐called
“Arab
Spring”,
certain
rulers
of
Muslim
majority
nations
in
the
Middle-­‐East
have
sought
to
declare
those
who
question
or
oppose
their
conduct
as
rulers
as
perpetrators
of
a
“Fitnah”,
an
Arabic
word
meaning
“division”,
with
negative
connotations
of
unnecessary
conflict,
upheaval
and
chaos.
This
implication
is
then
being
used
to
justify
obviously
anti-­‐
Islamic
behavior
against
that
Muslim
nation’s
citizenry
by
that
ruler’s
followers,
not
limited
to
but
including
murder,
rape,
the
threat
of
rape,
torture,
coercion,
and
other
acts
of
oppression.
These
tragic
events
raise
three
basic
questions,
requiring
answer:
1. Must
Muslims
bow
to
authority,
when
they
consider
that
authority
to
be
unjust
in
intent
or
practice?
2. What
are
the
requirements
and
responsibilities
placed
upon
the
ruler
of
an
Islamic
State?
3. What
actions
are
permissible
to
Muslims
in
seeking
redress
when
those
requirements
and
responsibilities
are
not
being
fulfilled?
With
the
help
of
Allah,
His
revealed
message
to
humanity
through
the
pages
of
the
Holy
Quran,
and
the
example
of
our
beloved
prophet
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
and
his
earliest
followers,
it
is
our
intent
to
answer
those
basic
questions.

2. 1.
Must
Muslims
bow
to
authority,
when
they
consider
that
authority
unjust
in
intent
or
practice?
Alhamdulillah
this
is
the
easiest
question
to
answer.
The
Holy
Quran
itself
declares:
O
ye
who
believe!
Stand
out
firmly
for
justice,
as
witnesses
to
God,
even
as
against
yourselves,
or
your
parents,
or
your
kin,
and
whether
it
be
(against)
rich
or
poor:
for
God
can
best
protect
both.
Follow
not
the
lusts
(of
your
hearts),
lest
ye
swerve,
and
if
ye
distort
(justice)
or
decline
to
do
justice,
verily
God
is
well
acquainted
with
all
that
ye
do.
“The
Women”
4:135
This
Ayah
makes
it
clear
that
Justice
is
the
prime
virtue
for
which
Muslims
are
commanded
to
strive,
pursuing
it
to
the
best
of
our
ability
above
all
else
in
this
life.
Another
Ayah,
revealed
close
to
the
time
that
Muslims
became
dominant
in
the
Arabian
peninsula
made
it
very
clear
that
oppression
and
the
disruption
unjust
rulers
impose
upon
Muslim
lives
can
outweigh
the
value
of
even
those
lives
themselves.
When
unjust
rule
prevented
Muslims
from
following
their
religion
in
the
Holy
environs
of
Mecca,
the
earliest
Muslims
were
told:
And
slay
them
wherever
ye
catch
them,
and
turn
them
out
from
where
they
have
Turned
you
out;
for
tumult
and
oppression
are
worse
than
slaughter;
but
fight
them
not
at
the
Sacred
Mosque,
unless
they
(first)
fight
you
there;
but
if
they
fight
you,
slay
them.
Such
is
the
reward
of
those
who
suppress
faith.
“The
Heifer”
2:190
However,
valid
Hadithi
also
tell
us
Allah
loves
a
Just
ruler:
“There
are
seven
categories
of
people
whom
God
will
shelter
under
His
shade
on
the
Day
when
there
will
be
no
shade
except
His.
[One
is]
the
just
leader.”(Saheeh
Muslim)
This
valid
Hadith
confirms
that
a
Just
Muslim
ruler
has
God’s
blessing,
and
deserves
Muslim
support,
making
the
discerning
of
an
unjust
ruler
an
important
Muslim
task.
But
that
realization,
that
Allah’s
beneficence
demands
a
Just
Ruler,
begs
an
obvious
question:
How
then,
can
a
Muslim
discern
the
characteristics
of
a
Just
Ruler,
truly
deserving
our
fullest
Muslim
support?

3. 2.
What
are
the
requirements
and
responsibilities
placed
upon
the
ruler
of
an
Islamic
State?
Alhamdulillah,
to
answer
this
question
we
have
the
example
of
our
beloved
prophet
Muhammad’s
(peace
be
upon
him)
earliest
companions
and
the
dictates
of
Sharia.
Few
familiar
with
the
history
and
character
of
Caliph
Umar
would
question
that
if
there
were
to
be
an
absolute
and
dictatorial
ruler
over
the
Muslim
people
it
would
have
been
Umar.
Physically
and
intellectually
imposing,
respected
by
all
and
feared
by
his
enemies,
Umar
was
a
man
who
knew
his
own
mind.
And
yet,
all
Muslims
know
that
his
governance
was
one
of
enlightened
empowerment
for
all
Muslim
and
non-­‐Muslim
alike.
When
he
sought
to
impose
his
own
wishes
upon
the
Ummah
regarding
the
size
of
a
woman’s
wedding
dower,
the
voice
of
one
woman
alone
speaking
the
words
of
the
Holy
Quran
was
sufficient
to
call
him
back
to
the
true
path
of
Islam.
When
he
could
have
conquered
Jerusalem
through
military
might
alone,
he
instead
chose
to
walk
up
to
the
gates
with
one
servant,
and
instead
left
Jerusalem’s
governance
in
the
hands
of
it’s
then
Christian
governor,
merely
confirming
that
governor
would
ensure
equal
rights
and
freedoms
for
all,
regardless
of
race,
gender
or
creed.
Under
Umar,
Islamic
governance
does
not
empower
a
ruler
over
their
subjects.
In
fact,
according
to
his
example
Islamic
governance
is
an
act
of
obedience,
a
daunting
task.
Caliph
Umar
summarized
a
Muslim
ruler’s
responsibilities
by
pointing
out
that
before
God,
if
a
she-­‐donkey
stumbled
in
Iraq,
he
would
be
responsible
in
the
eyes
of
God
for
neglecting
to
pave
the
roads
for
her.
Instead
of
conferring
power
on
rulers,
Sharia
makes
it
clear
that
the
obligations
of
an
Islamic
State
towards
those
under
that
State’s
authority
are:
1.
The
right
to
the
protection
of
their
life.
2.
The
right
to
the
protection
of
their
family.
3.
The
right
to
the
protection
of
their
education.
4.
The
right
to
the
protection
of
their
religion.
5.
The
right
to
the
protection
of
their
property.
6.
The
right
to
the
protection
of
their
human
dignity.
Any
state
that
does
not
recognize
and
protect
those
rights
for
it’s
citizens
is
not
an
Islamic
State,
and
a
ruler
who
does
not
protect
those
rights
to
the
best
of
his
or
her
ability
is
not
a
“Just”
ruler,
under
the
expectations
of
our
Lord
Creator’s
Islam.

4. 3.
What
actions
are
permissible
to
Muslims
in
seeking
redress
when
the
requirements
and
responsibilities
incumbent
upon
an
Islamic
State
are
not
being
fulfilled?
Alhamdulillah,
to
answer
this
most
difficult
question
we
have
nothing
less
than
the
example
of
our
beloved
prophet
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
himself.
There
are
four
occasions
well
know
to
all
Muslims
familiar
with
the
Sunnah
of
our
prophet,
during
which
he
was
forced
to
respond
to
an
unjust
State.
The
first
occasion
was
during
his
early
life
and
the
early
years
of
our
Ummah
in
the
city
of
Mecca.
At
that
time,
when
he
and
his
followers
were
weak
and
powerless
before
the
temporal
powers
of
the
day
they
were
forced
to
dissemble,
accommodate
and
to
eventually
flee.
From
this
example
we
may
conclude
that
when
Muslims
are
weak
and
powerless
and
facing
oppression,
we
should
dissemble,
accommodate
and
perhaps
even
flee,
avoiding
conflict.
The
second
occasion
that
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
was
forced
to
respond
to
unjust
rule
was
in
the
early
days
of
his
leadership
in
Medina,
when
Medina
was
plagued
by
inter-­‐tribal
strife
and
intrigue.
In
response,
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
authored
what
today
is
known
as
the
“Charter
of
Medina”,
a
document
which
spelled
our
clearly
the
independent
rights
and
freedoms
of
Medina’s
citizens
regardless
of
race,
or
creed,
and
clearly
stated
the
responsibilities
of
those
citizens
towards
the
nascent
City-­‐State
of
Medina,
and
towards
each-­‐other.
Once
the
leaders
of
Medina
had
accepted
those
terms,
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
governed
himself
and
that
State
according
to
the
terms
of
that
mutually
acceptable
Charter.
That
document
created
a
consultative
form
of
government
termed
“Shura”
which
many
now
consider
most
similar
to
representational
parliamentary
democracies
found
in
Britain
and
Canada,
with
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
acting
as
Prime
Minister.
From
this
example
we
may
conclude
that
when
governing
a
diverse
people
including
Muslims,
non-­Muslims,
and
different
interpretations
of
Islamic
jurisprudence,
Islamic
government
should
be
consultative,
democratic
and
representational,
confirming
and
protecting
the
rights
and
freedoms
of
all.
The
third
occasion
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
was
forced
to
respond
to
unjust
rulers
was
upon
his
return
to
Mecca,
best
demonstrated
in
his
negotiations
with
the
Meccan
leadership
at
the
well
of
Huddaybiyyah.
There,
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
and
his
companions
were
present
in
force,
with
sufficient
power
to
enforce

5. justice
upon
the
rulers
of
Mecca
immediately,
but
at
significant
cost
of
human
life
both
Meccan
and
Medinan.
The
Medinan
and
Meccan
expectations
were
clear:
Mecca
expected
a
bloody
battle
to
defend
their
oppressive
power,
and
Medina
craved
a
bloody
conquest
for
the
sake
of
justice
and
Islam.
However,
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
saw
a
better
way.
Instead
of
battle
he
pledged
to
retreat,
requiring
nothing
from
the
Meccans
at
that
time
and
demanding
no
immediate
justice,
in
return
for
the
right
to
return
a
year
later
to
see
justice
fulfilled.
It
is
important
to
note
that
when
the
Medinans
did
return
to
Mecca
a
year
later,
even
though
they
had
received
permission
to
pursue
bloody
conquest,
Mecca
fell
without
bloodshed,
and
even
without
a
blow
being
struck
by
either
side.
From
this
example
we
can
conclude
that
Muslims
granted
near
absolute
power
must
still
protect
the
life,
rights
and
freedoms
of
their
enemies
as
well
as
their
own.
If
justice
delayed
can
be
achieved
through
peaceful
means,
then
justice
delayed
remains
a
better
path
to
resolution
than
unnecessary
conflict.
The
final
occasion
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
was
forced
to
respond
to
unjust
rule
was
in
the
conflict
between
the
Arabs
of
Medina
and
the
Jews
of
Khaybar.
In
that
conflict,
Khaybar’s
Jews
were
weak,
and
their
leadership
pursued
a
pact
with
non-­‐Muslim
Arabs
to
exterminate
every
Muslim
in
the
world,
in
return
for
surrendering
half
Khaybar’s
possessions
and
produce
from
that
point
onwards.
This
unquestionably
evil
and
provocative
pact
begged
for
a
commensurate
response.
However,
instead
of
seeking
to
exterminate
all
Khaybar’s
Jews
in
return
for
that
evil,
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
punished
Khaybar’s
leadership
alone,
and
even
accepted
the
terms
of
the
pact
upon
himself
and
his
fellow
Muslims,
pledging
to
protect
them
according
to
their
contract,
a
pact
the
Muslims
kept
for
over
a
thousand
years.
It
should
be
noted
that
at
a
banquet
thrown
by
the
Jews
of
Khaybar
to
honor
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him),
a
young
Jewess
tried
unsuccessfully
to
poison
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him),
instead
killing
one
of
his
closest
companions.
When
the
poisoner
was
brought
before
Muhammad
for
judgment,
she
proclaimed
the
poisoning
was
an
attempt
to
test
his
prophet-­‐hood
that
he
passed
by
surviving.
Muhammad
(peace
be
upon
him)
spared
her
life,
perhaps
in
hope
for
the
peace
to
come.
From
this
example
we
can
conclude
that
even
when
faced
with
the
greatest
of
possible
injustice
at
the
hands
of
people
living
far
from
Islam
and
pursuing
an
obviously
evil
course
(like
those
Muslims
supporting
unjust
dictators
in
the
Muslim
world
today),
Muslims
should
punish
only
those
in
command,
while
still
striving
to
protect
the
rights
of
those
in
conflict
with
them,
but
not
themselves
directly
responsible
for
the
conduct
of
the
conflict
itself.

6. Conclusion:
Pertaining
to
the
permissibility
and
practices
when
opposing
an
unjust
ruler
in
Islam.
Alhamdulillah,
on
this
issue
our
religion
is
clear.
Rather
than
being
guilty
of
a
“Fitnah”,
when
faced
with
the
necessity
of
opposing
unjust
rule
in
a
Muslim
country
Muslims
have
an
obligation
to
do
so,
because
justice
for
all
is
Islam’s
primary
goal.
However,
it
is
incumbent
upon
us
to
do
so
in
accordance
with
the
commands
of
our
Holy
Quran
and
the
example
of
our
prophet
and
his
earliest
followers.
To
honor
those
commands
and
that
example,
Muslims
have
a
responsibility
to
avoid
unnecessary
conflict
and
upheaval,
to
seek
a
moderating
course,
and
to
protect
the
life
and
freedoms
of
all
others
to
the
best
of
our
ability.
Muslims
should
never
forget
our
duty
to
Allah,
as
stewards
over
His
Creation.
When
opposing
unjust
rule
certain
principles
stand
clear:
Our
rulers
deserve
our
support
when
they
are
seeking
justice,
and
also
deserve
our
help
if
at
all
possible,
when
seeking
to
find
a
better
path
if
they
have
gone
astray.
Even
if
active
opposition
proves
necessary,
discretion,
consultation
and
mercy
remains
the
best
course
for
all.
In
a
State
blessed
with
diverse
tribes,
cultures
and
religions,
the
Sunnah
of
Medina’s
governance
indicates
that
a
consultative
form
of
democracy
similar
to
a
modern
representational
parliamentary
system
is
likely
best.
In
true
Islamic
practice,
violent
opposition
and
conflict
is
a
last
recourse,
reserved
purely
for
purposes
of
self-­‐defense.
Instead,
the
earliest
Muslims
sought
consultation
with
even
their
worst
enemies,
and
protected
the
rights
of
even
those
they
found
the
furthest
from
Islam.
When
dealing
with
claims
and
counter-­‐claims
of
“Fitnah”,
it
should
perhaps
be
remembered
that
the
word
“fitnah”
first
referred
to
the
act
of
refining
pure
metal
from
base
ore.
That
process
certainly
demands
some
division,
requires
some
loss,
and
permits
some
destruction,
but
it
requires
discretion,
discernment
and
wise
judgment
as
well.
InshaAllah,
the
so-­‐called
“Arab
Spring”
will
be
most
successful
when
all
voices
are
heard
equally,
all
perspectives
sought
avidly,
and
all
our
lives,
rights
and
freedoms
are
protected
and
respected
honorably
and
reliably
by
all,
for
the
sake
of
the
One
Who
Made
Us
To
Be
Together.
AMEEN