Continued 1. Shaykh Usama Al-Rifa’i: “The Syrian people were asleep for 50 years and now they have awoken.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eSsRVd3ess http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHPm-8tRpME [Shaykh Usama Al-Rifa’i and Shaykh Sariya Al-Rifa’i] 2. Shaykh As’ad Kahil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owu3WF4VWxE 3. Shaykh Muhammad Ali Al-Sabuni [Advice and Dua for FSA and Mujahidin]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt-bDg3WG24 4. His Eminence Shaykh Sariya Al-Rifa’i: - “We must support the FSA. Soldiers must defect, join the Free Army and participate in the uprising. ” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u0xcMU3S5Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHPm-8tRpME 5. Shaykh Anas Suwayd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwnKsqhzX_k 6. Shaykh Mahmud Al-Dalati http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CavwrD40DM 7. Shaykh Isma’il Al-Majzub: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF72EZcc9tQ 8. Shaykh Mahmud Al-Hamid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC7TA9CMyNo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ZcaO4oCMQ 9. Shaykh Karim Rajih “The uprising is solely for Allah’s sake.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6wOUMxgwp0 10. Shaykh Umar Al-Rahmun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzyz0Deyp1A 11. Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Al-Sayrawan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH_t0MiXfKI 12. Shaykh Abd Al-Jalil Al-Sa’id: (I am a servant of the uprising – Refutation of Mufti Hassoun) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsCV2EoEHc 13. Shaykh Anas Abd Al-Rahman Ayrut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPAKGPiYPLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Lp1DXK9Ws (Note: News reporter without hijab) 14. Shaykh Rabi’i Junaydi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEBn13me4ys 15. Shaykh Ahmad Abd Al-Jabbar Al-Naqshbandi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYEpMU8F54I Given the number of qualified scholars who validate the Syrian uprising, to single out one of them for unfair criticism is abysmal behaviour. To finalise this discussion Al-Sharif Al-Jurjani says commenting on the statement of Al-Iji, “It is for the Ummah to oust the leader:” It is for the Ummah to oust and depose the leader when a factor necessitating this transpires. Such as the emergence of something from him which disrupts the affairs of Muslims or relapses matters of the religion. [Deposing and removing him] is upon the Ummah exactly as the initial selection and appointment of the leader for governance was upon them. If his removal will cause discord then the lesser of the two inflictions will be borne. Contrary to claiming consensus, Imam Al-Qurtubi states that the majority view is to oust the ruler who transgresses: الإمام إذا نصب ثم فسق بعد انبرام العقد فقال الجمهور: إنه تنفسخ إمامته ويخلع بالفسق الظاهر المعلوم “When a ruler is appointed who thereafter transgresses, the vast majority say: His leadership is annulled and he is to be ousted due to known, clear transgression.” Imam Al-Haramayn, as cited by Al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim (Kitab Al-Iman) [2] and Al-Taftazani in Sharh Al-Maqasid (Volume 5) says: وإذا جار والي الوقت ، وظهر ظلمه وغشمه ، ولم ينزجر حين زجر عن سوء صنيعه بالقول ، فلأهل الحل والعقد التواطؤ على خلعه ولو بشهر الأسلحة ونصب الحروب. “When the ruler of the time tyrannizes; his oppression and repression become manifest and he does not desist when verbally reproached about his misconduct, then it is for the people of responsibility to oust him – even if with raising arms and instating wars.” We wanted to clarify that there is a legal difference of opinion on this matter. The qualified Muftis and Ulema of Syria and elsewhere have issued legally valid verdicts in favour of the uprising. A verdict is what the common person requires, not detailed proofs. Guidance is only from Allah. May He keep us steadfast on the Way of the Ulema. Prayers and salutations upon the Best of Mankind, Supporter of the Oppressed, Muhammad, his family and companions who stood firmly against tyranny and injustice. Notes [1] Al-Dhahabi in Al-Siyar (Volume 7) after praising Al-Hasan ibn Salih, does relate some criticism. The focus of our citation though is not ibn Salih, but Ibn Hajar’s comments. [2] Imam Al-Nawawi comments labels this view as atypical – in light ofthe position Al-Nawawion this issue: . هذا كلام إمام الحرمين . وهذا الذي ذكره من خلعه غريب ، ومع هذا فهو محمول على ما إذا لم يخف منه إثارة مفسدة أعظم منه “This is the statement of Imam Al-Haramayn. This, what he mentioned about ousting the ruler, is atypical. Even then, it is understood as referring to when there is no fear of incurring an evil worse than it [oppression].”
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate. Rebellion against a tyrant Muslim ruler - a very brief elucidation. Muhammad Adnaan Imam Al-Nawawi cites consensus (‘Ijmā’) on the impermissibility of rising against an oppressive Muslim ruler. Consensus has levels; the top levels being explicit (Sarīĥ) or inexplicit (Sukūtī) consensus of the Noble Companions. Rejecting this type of consensus equates to rejecting Quranic verse or a mass related (Mutawātir) tradition, respectively. Clearly, such consensus does not exist on this issue, because several companions actively revolted against tyrant rulers; Imam Husayn against Yazid, Abd Allah ibn Al-Zubayr and the People of Madina against the Umayyads. Consensus may be reached and established during the era of the Followers (Tabi’in). Yet, on this issue this could not have been the case, given the fact that several Followers too validated and actively participated in rising against tyrant Muslim rulers. The teacher of Imam Al-Baqilani, Ibn Mujahid Al-Basri was among the earliest scholars to unequivocally claim consensus on this issue - (was there anyone before him?) – but he lived in the fourth century; a distant time from that of the followers. Nonetheless, his claim was not accepted by all. Qadi Iyad writes: وقد ادعى أبو بكر بن مجاهد في هذا الإجماع وقد رد عليه بعضهم هذا بقيام الحسن وبن الزبير وأهل المدينة على بني أمية وبقيام جماعة عظيمة من التابعين والصدر الأول على الحجاج مع بن الأشعث “Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid claimed consensus on this matter. Some of them [the Ulema] countered this with (i) the uprising of Al-Hasan[?], Ibn Al-Zubayr and the People of Madina against the Umayyads; (ii) the uprising of several Followers – alongside Ibn Al-Ash’ath - against Al-Hajjaj in the first century. “ Some of the Ulema replied to this saying that Hajjaj was not a believer, thus rising against him was permitted. Nevertheless, this is conjecture and not conclusive as the revolt was not only against Hajjaj – who was a governor – but against the ruler ‘Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan. Imams among the Followers such as Ibn Abi Layla, Al-Sha’bi and Sa’id ibn Jubayr participated in this uprising. Commenting on the biography of Al-Hasan ibn Salih ibn Hayy, Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani says: و قولهم : كان يرى السيف يعني : كان يرى الخروج بالسيف على أئمة الجور ، و هذا مذهب للسلف قديم ، لكن استقر الأمر على ترك ذلك ، لما رأوه قد أضى إلى أشد منه “Their [the Ulema] saying about him that he “permitted the sword,” means that he permitted armed uprising against oppressive rulers. This is the earlier position of the predecessors (Salaf) however the matter was then settled upon abstaining from uprising because they saw that uprising leads to that which is worse than oppression.” [1] Though Ibn Hajar himself did not permit rising against oppressive rulers, he acknowledged the contrary position. These are just some of the scholarly edicts which demonstrate that this issue is differed on. The earlier Muslims permitted uprising, then later – as Ibn Hajar states, the Ulema forbade it for a specific reason. That reason is also mentioned by Ibn Hajar: لما رأوه قد أضى إلى أشد منه “Because they saw that uprising leads to that which is worse than oppression.” In later times though, scholars saw the socio-political climate change. So, their take on this issue was different to that of the earlier scholars. Al-Haskaf states: وشرعا ( هم الخارجون عن الإمام الحق بغير حق ) فلو بحق فليسوا ببغاة ، وتمامه في جامع الفصولين “They (the renegades) are the ones who rebel against the lawful ruler without a valid cause. If, however, with a valid cause, then they are not renegades. The details of it are in Jam’i Al-Fusulayn.” Ibn Abidin goes on to firstly quote Jami’ Al-Fusulayn (marked by brackets) before adding his comments: قوله : )وتمامه في جامع الفصولين ) حيث قال في أول الفصل الأول : بيانه أن المسلمين إذا اجتمعوا على إمام وصاروا آمنين به فخرج عليه طائفة من المؤمنين ، فإن فعلوا ذلك لظلم ظلمهم به فهم ليسوا من أهل البغي ، وعليه أن يترك الظلم وينصفهم . ولا ينبغي للناس أن يعينوا الإمام ، عليهم ; لأن فيه إعانة على الظلم ، ولا أن يعينوا تلك الطائفة على الإمام أيضا ; لأن فيه إعانة على خروجهم على الإمام... لكن قوله ولا أن يعينوا تلك الطائفة على الإمام فيه كلام سيأتي “He [the author of Jami Al-Fusulayn] says in the beginning of chapter one: {If the Muslims agree on a leader, accepting him, and thereafter a group from the believers rises against him, then if they rise because of his oppressing them then they are not renegades; it is obligatory on him to abstain from oppression and to exercise justice to them. The people must not support the ruler because this will be aiding him in oppression. Nor must they support that group against the ruler because this will be helping them rise against the ruler} [end of quote from Jami Fusulayn]. However his saying {nor must they support that group against the ruler} has some discussion to it which is forthcoming.” Ibn Abidin then presents his discussion on the statement {nor must they support that group against the ruler}: ، لكن في الفتح : ويجب على كل من أطاق الدفع أن يقاتل مع الإمام إلا إن أبدوا ما يجوز لهم القتال كأن ظلمهم أو ظلم غيرهم ظلما لا شبهة فيه بل يجب أن يعينوهم حتى ينصفهم ويرجع عن جوره “However, it is stated in Fath [Al-Qadir]: It is obligatory upon whoever has the capability, to fight alongside the ruler, unless they [the revolting group] express something which permits them to fight [against the ruler] such as his oppressing them or others without any doubt in the oppression. Then it is obligatory on the people to support them until he [the ruler] exercises justice and desists from his oppression.” Ibn Nujaym - in Al-Bahr - also cites from Al-Fath saying: فلو أبدوا ما يجوز لهم القتال كأن ظلمهم أو ظلم غيرهم ظلما لا شبهة فيه لا يكونون بغاة ولا يجوز معاونة الإمام عليهم حتى يجب على [ ص: 152 ] المسلمين أن يعينوهم حتى ينصفهم ويرجع عن جورهم “If they express [a reason] which permits their fighting, such as his oppressing them or others and there is no doubt in the oppression, then they are not renegades and supporting the ruler against them is not permissible. In fact, it is obligatory on the Muslims to support them [the group] until the ruler does justice with them and desists from oppressing them.” Clearly, Ibn Abidin and others selected the position of permitting uprising against the tyrannical ruler – in contrast to the earlier verdicts. That is because the reason why it was made impermissible in the first place ceased to be. Ibn Hajar said that the Ulema saw uprising lead to worse outcomes than oppression. The later Ulema saw that oppression had become so severe that uprising could not lead to worse outcomes. Imam Al-Tahtawi in his commentary on Al-Dur explains this: فلو أبدوا ما يجوز لهم القتال كأن ظلمهم و ظلم غيرهم ظلما لا شبهة فيه لا يكونون بغاة ولا يجوز معاونة الإمام عليهم بل يجب على المسلمين أن يعينوهم حتى ينصفهم ويرجع عن جوره بخلاف ما إذا كان الحال مشتبها...و في السراج اذا تحقق ظلمه و كانت لهم شوكة و قاتلهم ينبغي ان لا يعان الامام و لا يعان البغاة و يعكس الجواب عن المخالفة بانها لاختلاف الزمان لا لاختلاف البرهان فعدم معاونتهم هو الاشبه بزمانهم لعدم جور الولاة و معاونتهم هو الانسب بزماننا لجور الولاة حموي “If they[the rebels] express something which permits fighting for them such as his [the ruler’s] oppressing them or others with an unequivocal oppression, they are not deemed renegades and aiding the ruler against them is not permissible. Rather, it is obligatory on the Muslims to aid them until he does justice with them and desists from his oppression,- as opposed to when the matter is unclear. It says in Al-Siraj though {When his oppression is proven, they have power and he fights them, then nor the ruler nor the rebels must be supported}. The answer is different because of different times, not because of different proofs. Not supporting the rebels was reflective of their times because the rulers were not oppressive but supporting the rebels is most appropriate for our times because of the oppression of rulers.” It is more than evident that the legal matter of rising against a tyrant Muslim ruler is not absolute – it is not absolutely impermissible, nor absolutely permissible. Instead, the ruling depends on the context; time, place, people, benefits and harms, etc. Qualified Muftis will give a verdict based on their analysis of the context. Outsiders, who are ignorant of the true context, lack the perquisite to comment. Ibn Abidin says: من لم يكن عالمًا بعادات أهل زمانه فهو جاهل “Whoever is not aware of the customs of the people of his time, he is in reality an ignoramus.” If a scholar disagrees with their analysis and subsequent verdict, that is not unacceptable. However, to say their verdict contravenes the foundations of Islam is malicious. In terms of Syria, who is better aware of the status quo, the context, than its own local scholars? Countless Syrian Sunni scholars supported and continue to support the uprising, including:
