Anda di halaman 1dari 27

Taken From

Ahlu Sunnah Wal


Jamaah.Com

How To Advise The


Muslim Rulers & How
Not To Advise The
Muslim Rulers According
To The Quran & Sunnah

By Abdul Kareem Ibn


Ozzie
Advising the Muslim Rulers is one of the most important matters of
the religion it is so important in Islam that the prophet Mohammed
said, “Three things that the heart of a Muslim will not
despise (does not have any hatred in his heart for): making
the action sincerely for Allah, advising the leaders of the
Muslims, and holding fast to their jamaah.” Ibn Maajah,
Authenticated by Shaykh al-Albaanee.

Advising the Muslim Rulers can lead to great benefits for the ruler
himself and the ummah as a whole when done properly.

However if advising the ruler is not done according to the Quran and
Sunnah it can also lead to great harm and oppression from the rulers
upon the ummah in general and if there is no caliph, the oppression
will be direct to the ruler’s subjects of his state.

Today we live in a time where many of the laymen have entered into
the area of sincerely advising the Muslim rulers of today. This is great
and should lead to a great overall benefit but instead it has lead to
oppression from the Muslim rulers.
The reason why this has happened is because many of those who
advice the Muslim rulers of today are laymen who have are takfire so
they do not or those influenced by the takfire dawah. So their
intention is for the sake of Allah when advising the ruler and they
wish to bring about good through their actions however they are
ignorant of the correct methodology in advising the Muslim ruler.
Therefore they often advise the ruler in a way that contradicts the
shariah and often leads to evil and rarely leads to any benefit.
Shaykh Ahmad Bazmool clarified the different ways of advising
the rulers in his book titled ‘As-Sunnah in that which is connected to
the one in charge of the affairs.’ Al-Ma'loom min Waajib il-'Ilaaqah
bain al-Haakim wal-Mahkoom, (pp.22-23).
After the shaykhs points in between the brackets are some extra
points or info from ME (ABDUL KAREEM IBN OZZIE, NOT THE
SHAYKH), to make it easier to understand the shaykhs advice
inshallah.

The shaykh said:

1. Advising the leader in a secret/private manner that's


between the leader and the one advising.

As for the first manner of giving advice to the leader, it is when it is


done privately. This is a foundation from the foundations of the
methodology of the salaf, which the people of desire and innovation
have opposed like the Khawarij and others. This is based upon that
which is on the authority of I'yaad (bin Ghanam) that the Prophet
said:

"Whoever wants to advise a sultan (leader/ruler) with a


matter, do not do it outwardly but let him take him by the
hand and go into seclusion with him. If he accepts it from
him then that (is good) and if not then he (the adviser) has
fulfilled that which was upon him (to do)." Musnad of
Ahmad, as-Sunnah of Ibn Abee Aa'sim, authenticated by
al-Albaanee.

(In the above hadeeth the prophet said “If he (the ruler) accepts
it (the advice) from him (the ruler’s subject) then that (is
good) and if not then he (the adviser) has fulfilled that
which was upon him (to do)”.

Therefore if a person gives a Muslim ruler advice and he does not


accept his advice leave him alone, this is because if he rejects the
sincere advice then ultimately the ruler is responsible for his
rulership and Allah will hold him accountable for it.
The prophet said, “If the ruler orders people with
righteousness and rules justly, then he will be rewarded
for that, and if he does the opposite, he will be responsible
for that (his rulership).” Recoded by Bukhari.
The Messenger of Allah said, "Hear and obey, for they will
bear responsibility for that entrusted to them (ruling over
Allahs servants), and you for that entrusted to you
(hearing and obeying the ruler and advising him
sincerely)". Recorded by Muslim
So the responsibility Allah has given the Muslim ummah in regards to
the Muslim rulers is that we give them the bay’ah (pledge of
allegiance) to hear and obey him in what they like and dislike to the
best of their abilities and to advice the leader secretly and sincerely
for Allahs sake. If a Muslim does this he has fulfilled that which was
upon him to do.
However even if he ruler rejects the advice the person still has
fulfilled that which was upon him to do. Thus when some of the
takfires or those affected by their dawah claims they are calling for
armed revolt or demonstrations or they are involved in both or either
due to the Muslim ruler not accepting the ummahs advice to rule only
by Allahs law these actions are haram. As these actions contradict
what the prophet speech as the prophet said “If he (the ruler)
accepts it (the advice) from him (the ruler’s subject) then
that (is good) and if not then he (the adviser) has fulfilled
that which was upon him (to do)”.
The prophet Mohammed did not say if the ruler accepts the advice
then that is good and if not then the adviser has to call for armed
revolt or demonstrations or be involved in both or either has fulfilled
that which was upon him to do.
Calling for armed revolt or demonstrations or be involved in both or
either only leads to more haram than then the rules bad rule as the
other actions will lead to more blood shed between the Muslims,
hatred among Muslims and disunity in that Muslim state all of which
is haram in the shariah.
Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin bin Naasir al-Ubaykaan used to be with
the Qutbiyyah in the early 1990's. The Qutbiyyeen would shower
praises upon him, accompany him and frequent his mosque in large
numbers. He said: “in the past, I expressed my opinion in
public; I now believe that public denunciations are a
mistake, both on a religious and rational level. I continue,
however, to give advice to and discuss matters with those in power, in
private.")

On the authority of Shaqeeq that it was said to Usaamah


bin Zayd: quote: "Will you not enter upon Uthmaan and
talk to him?" So he (Usaamah bin Zayd) said: "Do you see
that I don't talk to him except that I make you to hear
(what I say to him)? By Allaah I have spoken to him in
manner which was between me and him without opening
an affair that I do not love to be the first one to open it."
Recorded in Bukhari 3267.

In this narration, we see that the advise given out in the open is an
evil affair which will result in their being turmoil. Also we see that
giving the advise privately is the origin in which the advise can be
completed without their being turmoil.

(Advising the leader in a secret is a means of giving the Muslim ruler


sincere advice for the sake of Allah as no is watching you and it is
from the most excellent Jihad.
Indeed the Messenger of Allah said: “The most excellent
Jihad is a truthful word spoken to an oppressive ruler.”
The hadeeth was related by Ibn Maajah (no. 4012), and
Ahmad (5/251); and it was authenticated by Shaykh al-
Albaanee in Saheehul-Jaami’ (no. 1100).
Note how this most excellent Jihad takes a real man (i.e. brave person
not a coward) to undertake it as it can not be achieved by hiding
behind others and talking about the Muslim ruler behind his back in
the streets, masjids, gathering of friends or family, lessons, on the net,
on TV it can only be achieved by speaking to ruler directly in secret
and then keeping the conversation secret.
This most excellent jihad can also be achieved inshallah by using any
other means of communicating with the leader only like emailing his
office, a letter to his office or phoning his office etc and Allah knows
best.
Advising the leader in is secret also a way of implementing part of the
prophets saying, when the prophet said, "The Deen is
Naseehah (Sincerity/Advice)."We (The companions) said:
"For who?" The Prophet said: "For Allaah, His book, His
messenger, the leaders of the Muslims and their common
folk." (Muslim)

Imam An-Nawawee said “Sincerity to the Leaders is to help them


upon the truth. To obey them in it, to order them with it, to remind
and advise them with kindness and gentleness (does not
include backbiting, slandering or name calling the Muslim
ruler), to remind them of that which they are heedless and
neglectful of, to help them fulfil those rights of the Muslims that
have not reached them yet. Not to rebel against them and to
enamour the hearts of the people with obedience to them.”

Imam al-Khattaabee said “From sincerity to them is Prayer behind


them, Jihad along with them (not jihad against them), to give the
zakat (charity) to them, and not to rebel against them(the
Muslim rulers) with the sword when injustice or bad
treatment appears from them (the Muslim rulers). And that
they are not praised with false praises, and that duaa (supplication) is
made for their righteousness.
(Fudayl Ibn Iyaad (d.187H) said, “If I had a supplication that would
be answered, I would not make it, except for the ruler. Because when
the ruler becomes righteous, the towns and the servants become safe
and secure.” Refer to Hilyatul-Awliyaa (8/91-92).
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d.241H) said, “Verily I supplicate for
the ruler, for his correctness, success and support – night and day –
and I see this as being obligatory upon me.’’ Refer to as-Sunnah (no.
14) of Aboo Bakr al-Khallaal.
Imam Al-Barbahari states, “If you see a man supplicating against
the ruler, know that he is a person of desire (meaning a person from
Ahlu Bidah), and if you see a man supplicating for the ruler, know
that he is a Sunni (meaning from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah)
inshallah.” (Sharh Al-Sunnah p113, 114))
(Imam al-Khattaabee continues) All of this is based upon the fact
that what is meant by the leader of the Muslims is the Caliph and
other than him from the administrators who take charge of the
affairs of the Muslims.”

Also Shaykh Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaanee said, "Whoever advises


the leaders and the rulers is guided, and whoever deceives them is
misguided and has transgressed the bounds.")

2. Advising the leader in front of the people outwardly in his


presence while having the ability to advise him privately.

This is exposing (of the faults) and not advice (in reality). It is
prohibited for the following reasons:

1. It opposes the hadeeth of I'yaad bin Ghanam.

(The Prophet said, "Whoever wants to advise a sultan


(leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it outwardly but let
him take him by the hand and go into seclusion with him.
If he accepts it from him then that (is good) and if not then
he (the adviser) has fulfilled that which was upon him (to
do)." Musnad of Ahmad, as-Sunnah of Ibn Abee Aa'sim,
authenticated by al-Albaanee.)

2. It opposes the narrations of the salaf, as well as their


methodology like we have seen in the narration of Usaamah
bin Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with them both).

(The narration is: "Will you not enter upon Uthmaan and
talk to him?" So he (Usaamah bin Zayd) said: "Do you see
that I don't talk to him except that I make you to hear
(what I say to him)? By Allaah I have spoken to him in
manner which was between me and him without opening
an affair that I do not love to be the first one to open it."
Recorded in Bukhari 3267
From the salaf - In Aqeedah at-Tahawiyah of Imam Tahawi it says
“When changing the evil of the rulers, then this should be done by the
scholars and not openly as is mentioned by a clear Ahaadeeth of the
Prophet “When you wish to correct the sultan then take him
by the hand in secret and advise him.”” The full length
version of this hadeeth was reported by Ahmad (3/403)
and Ibn Abee 'Aasim in Kitaabus-Sunnah (2/251):
‘‘Chapter: How are the leaders of the common-folk to be
advised?’’ (2/521) with a Saheeh isnad and it was
authenticated by Shaykh al-Albaanee in Dhilaalul-Jannah
fee Takhreejis-Sunnah (no. 1096))
3. It opposes the statement of the Prophet.

(The prophet said) “Whoever disgraced the ruler of Allah


(by backbiting, slandering (lying) or twisting the truth
about him) in the earth, Allaah will disgrace him." at-
Tirmidhee, authenticated by Imaam al-Albaanee
(In addition the story of Ibn Aamir when he was the Muslim ruler
shows the impermissibility of disgracing the leader.

Once when Ibn Aamir was delivering a sermon and he was wearing a
fine garment. So Abu Bilaal said 'Look at our ruler wearing the
garment of the sinners!' So Abu Bakrah said 'Be Silent!! I heard the
Messenger of Allah say '' Whoever sends scorn upon the
one whom Allah has given rulership to upon the earth,
Allah will scorn him.' hasan by Shaykh Albaani in Ibn Abee
Asim's As Sunnah)

3. Advising the leader in a private manner - which is


between the leader and the adviser - then the adviser goes
out and spreads what took place amongst the people.

As for the third manner, it is to advise the leader privately in that


which is between the adviser and the leader then the adviser goes and
spread that which took place amongst the people. This is prohibited
based upon the following points:

1. It opposes the hadeeth of I'yaad bin Ghanam.

(In that hadeeth the Prophet said, "Whoever wants to


advise a sultan (leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it
outwardly but let him take him by the hand and go into
seclusion with him. If he accepts it from him then that (is
good) and if not then he (the adviser) has fulfilled that
which was upon him (to do)." Musnad of Ahmad, as-
Sunnah of Ibn Abee Aa'sim, authenticated by al-Albaanee.)

That is because the intent is to not allow the people to be aware of


that which has taken place, as (the) evil (that has) taken place
can/will be the result of that.
2. It is subjected to ar-Riyaa (showing off) and it is a sign of
the weakness of one's sincerity.

(Riyaa is minor shirk thus it weakness a person sincerity. Sincerity to


Allah while doing an act of worship means to do that act of worship
only for the sake of Allah.

But riyaa contradicts sincerity to Allah as it involves someone doing


an act of worship with the intention that people may see them and
praise them for doing this act of worship.

Riyaa also includes doing an act of worship sincerely for Allah and
then realising some people are watching, so the doer then tries to
make the act of worship even better to impress the on lookers.

The Messenger of Allah said, “Indeed the thing that I fear


most for you is the minor shirk.” The companions asked,
“And what is minor shirk, Oh Messenger of Allah?” He
said, “It is Ar-Riyaa. Allah will say to the people of riyaa
on the Day of Judgement – when the people are being re-
payed for their deeds – ‘Go to those who you showed off
your deeds to in the worldly life then see if you can find
any reward with them!’” Reported by Imam Ahmad and
Authenticated by Shaykh Al-Albani)

3. It leads to turmoil, chaos, and separation of the Muslim


jamaah.

(The jamaah shaykh Bazmool was referring to his the main body of
Muslims that are either united behind one caliph due to their bay’ah
(pledge of allegiance) to him if that exist or those united by the
Muslim ruler due to their bay’ah (pledge of allegiance), who rules an
individual state if no caliph exist like in our times.
Shaykh As-San'aani explained the in the first hadeeth below from
Saheeh Muslim that separated from the jamaah (main body) means
“split off from the Jamaah (main body) who agreed upon an imam (a
Muslim ruler), under whom their body and affairs are organized,
their word is united, and their protection from their enemy is
achieved.”

The prophet said, “One who defected from obedience (to


the ruler) and separated from the jamaah (the main body)
of the Muslims, if he died in that state he would die the
death of one belonging to the days of Jaahiliyyah. Saheeh
Muslim

The Prophet said, “Whosoever sees something from his


leader of sin, then let him hate whatever occurs from sin.
And let him not remove his hand from obedience, since
whoever removes his hand from disobedience and splits off
from the Jamaah (united body), then he dies the death of
Jaahiliyyah.’’ Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim

The Prophet said: "... and whoever dies split off from the
Muslims (jamaah/main body) will die the death of
Jaahiliyyah!” Recorded by Muslim

Ibn Umar reported that the Prophet said: "Anyone who


removes his hand from obedience (to the Muslim ruler)
will meet Allah on the Day of Rising with no proof. Anyone
who dies without having given the oath of allegiance will
die the death of the Jaahiliyyah". Recorded by Muslim

Ibn Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah said:


"Anyone who dislikes something from his leader should be
patient. Anyone who abandons obedience to the Emir
(leader/ruler) for even a short time dies the death of the
Jaahiliyyah". Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim
The prophet said, “…one who dies without having bound
himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Muslim ruler) will
die the death of one belonging to the days of Jaahiliyyah.”
Saheeh Muslim

Therefore it is clear that those who publicly speak about the ruler are
those who causes a split among the Muslims who where originally
united in their obedience to the Muslim ruler of an individual state or
the caliph (if it exists).

However when a person or in our times groups of people go around


talking about the Muslim ruler behind his back then some people take
back their bay’ah or with hold it altogether from the ruler.

These Muslims then become their own jamaah which is one that is in
oppositions to the rulers as they are a jamaah of Muslims who refuse
to hear and obey the ruler.

These Muslims are threatened in all of the above hadeeth based on


their not hearing and obeying the ruler and their splitting from the
jamaah of the Muslims. They are threatened by the prophet
Mohammed that they will die a death of Jaahiliyyah.

The reason why they are threatened with this is because Jaahiliyyah
specifically refers to the period before the coming of the Prophet.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen said: What is


meant by Jaahiliyyah is the time before the Prophet was sent…” Al-
Qawl al-Mufeed ‘ala Kitaab al-Tawheed (2/146); Majmoo’ Fataawa al-
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (10/ p. 601).

However Jaahiliyyah in a general sense Shaykh al-Islam Ibn


Taymiyah said it refers to, “everything that was contrary to the
message brought by the Messengers, namely Judaism and
Christianity, was Jaahiliyyah. That was Jaahiliyyah in the general
sense… although the word Jaahiliyyah is usually used to refer to the
Arabs and their former ways, the meaning is still the same.” Iqtida’ al-
Siraat al-Mustaqeem

In this time there was much ignorance this is also it was called
Jaahiliyyah as it refers to two things that where combined in this
period: jahl (ignorance) and jahaalah (foolishness).

In al-Mu’jam al-Waseet (1/300) it says, “Jaahiliyyah refers to the


ways of the Arabs before Islam, namely foolishness and misguidance”

Al-Mannaawi said, “Jaahiliyyah refers to the time before the


Prophet was sent; they called it that because of the extent of their
ignorance.” Fayd al-Qadeer (1/462).

Due to the Arabs ignorance in this time they never used to hear and
obey their rulers and they use to die in this state hence the prophet
referred to the Muslims who do not hear and obey their ruler and
therefore spilt off from the jamaah and die in this state as people who
died in the state of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance). The reason
for this description was because this sort of behavior just described
was a characteristic of the Arabs in Jaahiliyyah and is not a
characteristic of a Muslim.

Imam Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab said in Jaahiliyyah the


people “They held the acts of opposing the figure of authority and
failing to comply with him as being something virtuous. And they saw
the acts of hearing and obeying as being humiliating and degrading.
So Allaah's Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, opposed them
and commanded that patience be observed when facing the
oppression of the rulers. And he commanded with hearing and
obeying them,3 as well as advising (them). And he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi
wa sallam, spoke extensively in regards to that and he constantly
brought it up and repeated it. Taken from his book Aspects of the
Days of Ignorance (Masaa'il-ul-Jaahiliyyah))

4. It is from disgracing the leader, therefore opposing the


statement of the Prophet which was mentioned previously.

(The statement is “Whoever disgraced the ruler of Allah


(by backbiting, slandering (lying) or twisting the truth
about him) in the earth, Allah will disgrace him." at-
Tirmidhee, authenticated by Imaam al-Albaanee)
4. Criticizing the leader in his absence in gatherings,
lectures, khutbas (sermons) and classes.

This is also prohibited for following reasons:

1. It is considered from the spreading of evil.

Allah has said, "Verily those who love to spread indecency


amongst those who believe for them is a painful
punishment in the life of this world and in the hereafter,
and Allaah knows and you do not." (Surah an-Noor:19)

2. It is backbiting.

Allah has said, "and Do not backbite one another." (Surah


al-Hujaraat:12)

On the authority of Abee Hurayrah that the Prophet said:


"Do you know what gheebah (backbiting) is?” The
companions said: "Allaah and His messenger knows best."
The Prophet said: "Your mentioning of your brother that
which he dislikes." It was said: "Do you see it (to be ok) if
what I say is [true] present in my brother?" The Prophet
said: "If what you say is in him then you have backbit him
and if it is not in him, then you have slandered (because of
the lies told about) him." Recorded in Muslim 2579.

3. It opposes the hadeeth of I'yaad bin Ghanam.

(In that hadeeth the Prophet said, "Whoever wants to


advise a sultan (leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it
outwardly but let him take him by the hand and go into
seclusion with him. If he accepts it from him then that (is
good) and if not then he (the adviser) has fulfilled that
which was upon him (to do)." Musnad of Ahmad, as-
Sunnah of Ibn Abee Aa'sim, authenticated by al-Albaanee.)

4. It opposes the guidance of the righteous predecessors


(the salaf as-saalih) in how the advice should be given.

(A beautiful story from the times of the very early salaf about a
conversation and advice given by Abdullaah Ibn Abee Awfaa to Sa’eed
Ibn Jumhaan related to advising the Muslim ruler who is oppressive
explains the guidance of the righteous predecessors (the salaf as-
saalih) in how advice should be given to the Muslim ruler.

(Shorten version of the story)

So I (Sa’eed Ibn Jumhaan) said: Verily the ruler is


oppressing the people and affecting them.

He said (Abdullaah Ibn Abee Awfaa), So give him your


hand, and connect your hand to his firmly.

Then he (Abdullaah Ibn Abee Awfaa) said, “Woe to you O


Ibn Jumhaan! Stick to the Suwaadul-A’dtham, stick to the
Suwaadul-A’dtham!
If the ruler will listen to you, then go to his house and
inform him of what you kfnow. So he may accept from you,
but if not, then leave him; since you do not know more than
him.’’’

This incident was reported by Ahmad (4/3272-372), it was


authenticated by Shaykh al-Albaanee in Dhilaalul-Jannah
(no. 508).

Abdullaah Ibn Abee Awfaa adviced Ibn Jumhaan to speak with the
ruler in the rulers house. So he advised him to speak to the ruler in
private not openly in public, not behind his back in private with a
small amount of people or in public with many people via the masjids,
internet, TV, newspapers, magazines or leaflets etc.

However unfortunately today you find takfires claiming to be upon


the Sunnah while they often criticize the Muslim rulers and
governments in their absence in their sittings, their lectures,
khutbahs (sermons), the classes, on TV and on the net etc. Therefore
they do not advice the ruler in private.

The Prophet said, "Whoever wants to advise a sultan


(leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it outwardly but let
him take him by the hand and go into seclusion with him.
If he accepts it from him then that (is good) and if not then
he (the adviser) has fulfilled that which was upon him (to
do)." Musnad of Ahmad, as-Sunnah of Ibn Abee Aa'sim,
authenticated by al-Albaanee. This hadeeth indicates the ruler
must be advised in private not publicly like many takfires do.

Advising the ruler could also involve other private ways such as: the
person could write a letter, give the letter to someone (only this
person) who may be able to give it to the ruler directly, email his
office, phone his office or tell someone (only this person) who may be
able to advise him your advice in the hope it will get to the ruler (due
necessity) or any other private non public way.

Also Abdullaah Ibn Abee Awfaa adviced Ibn Jumhaan to speak with
the ruler as this does not involve backbiting which is haram, but the
takfires still do it in way especially in their protests, lessons and
writing. They are often full of backbiting the Muslim ruler and the
Muslim governments.

Allah said, “and Do not backbite one another." (Surah al-


Hujaraat:12))

5. It is from disgracing the leader which is prohibited as has


preceded.

(The prophet Mohammed said, “Whoever disgraced the


ruler of Allaah (by backbiting, slandering (lying) or
twisting the truth about him) in the earth, Allaah will
disgrace him." at-Tirmidhee, authenticated by Imaam al-
Albaanee)

6. It leads to the unlawful shedding of blood and unjust


killing.

(Criticizing the Muslim ruler in public often leads to the


Muslims becoming divided and often leads to the takfires
(the Khawarij of this era) fighting the Muslim arm, and
Muslim police force of that particular state and sometimes
they even fight those who support the Muslim leader and
dislike them for causing turmoil in their home land.

Due to the fact the Khawarij of every era kill Muslims, the
prophet said about the Khawarij “…They will murder the
people of Islam while ignoring the people of idol-
worship…” Recorded by al-Bukhari (no. 3344), Muslim (no
1064), al-Nasa’i (no. 2578), and Abu Dawud (no.4764). It is
also in “Ṣaḥeeḥ al-Jami’” by al-Albani (no. 2223) and “al-
Lu’lu’ wa al-Marjan” (no.639).

Once the Prophet (Mohammed) was riding his camel and a


man was holding its rein. The Prophet asked, "What is the
day today?" We kept quiet, thinking that he might give
that day another name. He said, "Isn't it the day of Nahr
(slaughtering of the animals of sacrifice i.e. Eid al-Adha)"
We replied, "Yes." He further asked, "Which month is
this?" We again kept quiet, thinking that he might give it
another name. Then he said, "Isn't it the month of Dhul-
Hijja?" We replied, "Yes." He said, "Verily! Your blood,
property and honour are sacred to one another (i.e.
Muslims) like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this
month of yours and in this city of yours (I think the city is
Mecca but it may be Medina Allah knows best)." Recorded
in Bukhari & Muslim.

Ibn Massood narrated that the Messenger of Allah said,


"The blood of a man who is a Muslim is not lawful (i.e.
cannot be lawfully shed), save if he belongs to one of three
(cases):
1. a married man who is an adulterer (commits illegal
sexual intercourse);
2.life for a life (i.e. for murder);
3. One who is a deserter of his religion (apostate)
abandoning the community (leaves the Muslims)."
Recorded in Bukhari & Muslim.

Ibn Rajab stated that this hadeeth of Ibn Massood makes it clear
that the death penalty is in any of the three cases...
1. when a person leaves the religion,
2. when a person wrongfully spills the blood of another,
3. and when the person engages in illegal sexual intercourse.
Ibn Rajab then goes on to say that the stated punishment for the
married adulterer is simply an example of the type of crime that leads
to the death penalty.

If a person has legal means to sexual intercourse and then he still


insists on committing illegal sexual intercourse, he has committed
such a heinous crime that he no longer deserves to live. If that is true,
what about those people who indulge in sexual practices that are not
allowed under any circumstances, such as homosexuality and animal
bestiality.

These cases are even worse and more deserving of such punishment
than adultery. Hence, the stated punishment for adultery implies that
these other cases should also be dealt with in the same way.

The second category (this the category that criticizing the Muslim
ruler behind his back in public leads to), is the one who sheds
another's blood unlawfully. Certainly, causing civil commotion and
disruption among the Muslim nation also leads to the same result.
Hence, the one who does the act that would lead to the same result is
to receive the same punishment, as mentioned in the hadeeth above.
The same holds true for the alcoholic. His actions may certainly lead
to the spilling of blood. Hence, he is deserving of that same
punishment.

The third category is the one who apostates. This includes all forms of
apostasy. In fact, some scholars even say that those who are calling to
clear innovations that contradict the basis of Islam are to be killed,
based on this hadeeth. In fact, the prophet even stated that the
Khawarij should be killed. The scholars though differ about whether
they should be killed due to their heresy (i.e. their innovated beliefs
that are completely different from the Islamic beliefs taught in the
Quran and Sunnah) or due to their revolt against the Muslim
rulers. Ibn Rajab, Jaami volume 1, pp 326-330)
From Shaykh Ahmad Bazmools words it is clear that when
advising the ruler a person must do it in accordance to the shariah. If
these guidelines are not adhered to then people’s actions of advising
the leaders of today will be haram as their actions will most likely lead
to evil and rarely lead to any benefit. This is because when the shariah
rules of advising the Muslim ruler are not followed it leads to
speaking out against the Muslim rulers in public which is haram.

The main reason it is haram is because this action can lead to


uprisings and other fitaan (trials and tribulation) and in the shariah
preventing harm (uprisings, trials and tribulation) due to speaking
out against the Muslim rulers in public takes priority over securing
the benefit which may result from speaking out against the Muslim
rulers in public.

Statements Of Other Scholars From Ahlus Sunnah Wal


Jamaah On Speaking Out Against The Muslim Ruler

Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baz

Question "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise


the Rulers from the mimbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of
the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded:

Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baz said, "It is not from the manhaj of
the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such
things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion, disorder and
the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. It also
results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters,
arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit.
The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice)
with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the
leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who
keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed
towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the
doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking
of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such
things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is
sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person
does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.

And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan, some of the
people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to 'Uthmaan?"
So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you
know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that
which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do
not love to be the first to initiate."

And when they (the Khawaarij) opened up the evil in the time of
'Uthmaan and rejected 'Uthmaan openly, the fitnah, the killing and
the mischief, which has not ceased to affect the people to this day, was
brought about And this caused the fitnah to occur between 'Alee and
Mu'aawiyyah and 'Uthmaan was killed for these reasons.

(Furthermore) a large number of Companions and other besides


them were killed due to this open rebellion and the open
proclamation of the faults (of the ruler), until the people began to
hate the one charged with authority over them and killed him. We ask
Allah for success." End of the words of the Shaykh.

Shaykh Uthaymeen
Question: Esteemed Shaykh, there is one who says, “To make
rejection of the rulers openly is from the manhaj of the Salaf”, and
then he uses as evidence the hadeeth of Abu Saeed al-Khudree, in his
rejection of Marwaan bin al-Hakam, when he gave the khutbah before
prayer, on the day of Eed, and also by his (alaihis salaatu was salaam)
saying, “There will be leaders (Umaraa), and so you will see both good
in them and bad in them. So whoever hated (that which was bad),
then he will be freed (of blame), and whoever rejected (the bad), then
he will be safe”. And also by the hadeeth, “The chief of the martyrs is
the one who stands in front of a tyrannical leader and then
commands and forbids him, and so he (the ruler) kills him”.

So is this speech correct? And how can we combine between these


authentic narrations and between his (alaihis salaatu was salaam)
saying, “Whoever wishes to give advice to the one in authority, then
let him not make it open…”?

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said, “This is an important question, but


the answer to it is more important in reality, and there is not doubt
that showing rejection to evil is obligatory upon everyone who is able
to do it, due to the saying of Allaah, the Blessed and Exalted, “Let
there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good
(Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that
Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and
disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the
successful. (Aali Imran 3:104) ”, and the “laam” in His saying, “wal-
takun”, is the “laam” of command.

And the Prophet said, “You shall certainly command with good and
forbid the evil, and you shall take the hand of the oppressor and you
shall make him return to the truth, otherwise Allaah will strike some
of you with the hearts of others, then He will curse you, as He cursed
them”. Meaning, as He cursed Banee Israa’eel, about whom Allaah
said, “Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were
cursed by the tongue of Dawûd (David) and 'Iesa (Jesus), son of
Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allâh and the
Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used
not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins,
polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was
what they used to do.” (Al-Maa’idah 5:78-79)

However, it is obligatory that we know that the Shariah commands in


the likes of these affairs have a place, and it is vital that wisdom is
adopted. So when we see that rejection, (of the evil) openly will it put
an end to the evil, and that goodness will arise on account of it, then
we reject it openly. And when we see that open rejection does not end
the evil, and that goodness does not arise on account of it, rather the
hatred of the rulers for those who desire goodness and who reject the
evil only increases, then the goodness is that we show rejection to this
evil in private. And in this manner, are the evidences combined.

Hence, the evidences that indicate that rejection is to be shown


openly, then it is only in that in which we anticipate some benefit,
which is the bringing about of good and ending what is evil. And the
evidences that indicate that rejection is to be shown secretly, in
private, then that is when open rejection will only lead to an increase
in evil, and goodness is not attained by it.

So it is obligatory that we advise the rulers, exactly as has come in the


text which the questioner has mentioned [“Whoever wishes to give
advice to the one in authority, then let him not make it open…”].

And we say that the texts do not falsify each other and nor do they
contradict each other. Hence, the rejection is made openly, when
there is benefit, and the benefit is that the evil actually ends and that
goodness replaces it, and it is done privately, when open rejection
does not serve a good purpose, meaning the evil will not stop by it,
and nor will goodness replace it. And we know that the rulers cannot
ever please all of the people, until even the Imaam of a mosque, he is
not able to please all of those who pray behind him.

And so some of them will say that he makes the prayer too long, and
others will say that he shortens it too much, and others prefer making
the prayer earlier, and others prefer for it to be delayed slightly. So
this is in reference to the Imaam of a mosque, so how then will it be
for the rulers, whose authority is much greater than his (i.e. the
Imaam of a mosque). So when he makes his rejection open against
the rulers, then those who hate the unity of the Muslims will actually
use him [i.e. to reach their goals].

Hence, is obligatory upon the youth that they look at the texts from all
angles, and that they do not give precedence to anything until they
look at its results, for the Prophet said, “Whoever believes in Allaah
and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent”. Hence, make
this the scales of balance for yourself in all of your statements, and
likewise in all of your actions, and Allaah is the one who gives
success.”

Questioner: O Noble Shaykh, do your previous words concerning the


rejection against the rulers mean that it is not permissible to openly
reject the evils that are present in the society?

Shaykh Uthaymeen said, “No. But we are talking about rejection


against the rulers, and not about the common evils that are present.

So for example, we have common evils amongst us, such as usury,


gambling, and insurance (policies) that are found amongst us, then
the majority of them amount to gambling. And it is strange that the
people have adopted them with acceptance, and you will not find
anyone show rejection against them, alongside the fact that Allaah
has placed them with intoxicants, and al-Ansaab (idols, statues
around which animal sacrifices are made), and al-Azlaam (arrows for
seeking luck or a decision). However, the people do not show
rejection towards the likes of these things nowadays. Hence, you will
not find anyone show rejection towards the likes of these dealings, so
you get insurance on your car, or your house, you submit your wealth,
and then you do not know whether you will lose most of it, or only a
part of it, and this is gambling.

So I say that showing rejection to the common evils present is


required and there is no harm in that. However, our words are
concerning rejection against the ruler. Such as when a person stands
in a mosque and says, “The state (i.e. government) is unjust”, and
“the state did such and such”, and then he speaks about the rulers in
this manner, openly, despite the fact that the ones about whom he is
speaking are not even present in that gathering.

And there is a great difference between the ameer or the haakim


about which you desire to speak out against is actually in front of you
and between him being absent. Since, all of the rejections that have
been reported from the Salaf, all of them took place in front of the
ameer or the haakim himself. Hence, the difference is that when he is
present he is able to defend himself, and explain his viewpoint, and
he could actually be right and we (the ones who criticise) could
actually be wrong. Hence, if you are eager for goodness, then go to
him, and face him, and advise him in that which is between you and
him. Fataawaaa Lil-Aaamireen bil-Ma’roof wan-Naaheen anil-
Munkar, and also in Liqaa al-Baab al-Maftooh, 62/39

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan


Question: Respected Shaykh, yourself and the your brothers who are
Ulamaa in this country (Saudi) are Salafis – and all praise is due to
Allaah – and your method in advising the rulers is that of the Shariah
and as the Prophet has explained – and we do not purify over and
above Allaah’s estimation of him -, yet there are those who find fault
with you due to your neglect in openly rejecting the various
oppositions [to the Shariah] that have occurred. And yet others make
excuses for you by saying that you are under the control and pressure
of the state. So do you have any words of direction of clarification to
these people?

Answer: There is no doubt that the rulers – just like people besides
them – are not infallible. Advising them is an obligation. However,
attacking them in the gatherings and upon the pulpits is considered
to be the forbidden form of backbiting. And this evil (munkar) is
greater than that which occurred from the ruler since it is backbiting
and because of what results from backbiting such as the sowing of the
seeds of discord, causing disunity and affecting the progression of
dawah.

Hence what is obligatory is to make sure advice reaches the rulers by


sound and trustworthy avenues, not by publicising and causing
commotion.

And as for reviling the Scholars of this country, that they do not give
advice [to the rulers], or that they are being controlled in their affairs,
this is a method by which separation between the Scholars, the youth
and the society is desired, until it becomes possible for the mischief-
maker to sow the seeds of his evil. This is because when evil
suspicions are harboured about the Scholars, trust is no longer placed
in them and then the chance is available for the biased partisans to
spread their poison.

And I believe that this thought is actually a schemed plot that has
come into this country, and those who are behind it are foreign to this
country. It is obligatory upon the Muslims to be cautious of it.

Al-Ajwibah al-Mufidah of Jamal bin Farihan al- al- al-Harithi

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan


Question: Is it permissible to openly criticise the Muslim ruler in
front of a gathering and the people?

Answer: “We have spoken about this issue many times before! It is
not permissible to speak about the rulers because this brings about
evil and differing in the society and it splits the unity of the Muslims
and cause hatred between the ruler and the ruled. And this splitting
and evil leads to rebellion against the ruler and the shedding of blood
and matters which have blameworthy consequences. So if you have a
comment about them, take it to the ruler secretly by visiting him, if
possible, or by writing to him or by informing someone who can
convey it to the ruler as a sincere advice to him, and it should be done
secretly not openly and this has been mentioned in the hadeeth,
Whoever wishes to advise the ruler, then let him not mention it in
public, rather let him take the ruler by his hand. So if he listens then
that is that, and if not then he has fulfilled that which was upon him.
And this meaning has been reported from the Messenger of Allaah.”
Al-Ijaabaat al-Muhimmah fee Mashaakil il-Mudlahimmah by
Muhammad bin Fahad al-Husa

Shaykh Muqbil ibn Haadi said “I do not advise you to speak about
the rulers rather there must be verification (of what is spread about
them). I do not advise anyone to clash with their governments.”
We (Ahlus Sunnah) are not Du’aat-ul-Fitan (callers of trials and
tribulations)…
We do not allow revolts, overthrowing the governments, or running
the rulers off. The laypeople are in need of returning to Allah, the
Glorified the Most High. We advise the servants with the Hand of
Allah, the Glorified the Most High, “Indeed Allah does not
change a people until they change what is in themselves.”

Taken from Al-Masaa’il al-‘Ilmiyyah fee Qadhaayaat al-Imaan wa at-


Takfeer Al-As’ilat-ul-Yamaneeyah wa Ajwibah Fadheelah al-
Muhaddith al-Allaamah Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi’ee Compiled by
ash-Shaykh Ali al-Halabee