Forgive me for taking this quote, but I wanted to take this chance to discuss this topic
Now I know about the hadith and counter hadith in this argument ( so spare me the copy paste plz) and the treatment of this by traditional scholars but the question is not of technicality of isnads.Its a bigger issue. Does this make sense ?
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
What BS.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
huh??!!
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
how u define tyranny
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
^ Rulers who :
donot follow Quran and violate Sunnah
Oppress the religious people
usurp Bayt ul Mal
curb frêedom of spêech
Does not gain power by consultaion amongst pious muslims but grab power by force of arms or by Hereditary succession.
Rulers who bring peace, allow religious freedom, allow social and judicial rights of a citizen, should be obeyed as a ruler. Otherwise, it is better to migrate.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
True but i am talking about muslim rulers in muslim lands should we flee from them as well ? or do we rise up against them
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
rising up against the ruler (use of arms) is not allowed as far as i know, untill the ruler becomes kafir.
but u can use other medium (speech and writing) to build a social pressure on him in oder to keep him in the limit.
beside goverment/executive does not means ruler only ........... it is group of ppl. like in pakistan we have MNA and MPAs.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
makes sense. tyranny is tyranny, no matter which God you claim to follow.
^^right. Tyranny has nothing to do with religion of the ruler. If you are not happy under certain ruler, migrate. rising up is not advisable unless you are left with no options and there is a dire need of doing so. The people need to think through whether they are capable of bringing about any change or the result will only be chaos and anarchy.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
Some rulers have often used tryranical tactics but these were against the enemies of thier own kaum/nation/people etc
This has very little to do with religion, for example to some people men like, Napoleon, Tipu Sultan, Ghengis Khan, Takeda Shingen, Oliver Cromwell, Willain the conqueror.....etc
There are two edges to the sword, what one side will call a tyrant might be the hero of another. In the case of these types of personalities it depends if you are with them or not, but they do not nessacarily class as tyrants, they have good qualities as well as bad, but overall the people they represent were happy to have them lead.
A tyrant is ussually someone who is outright mad, and has no pitty for anyone..... the sort of person who would not only kill his own Kaum but also his own flesh and blood, such as rival siblings simply out of vanity obsession and jeloausy for power.
A Tyrant on the later scale is something nearly all Religions oppose, unless your religion is satanism or something then a true tyrant like Vlad the Impaler, and Joseph Stalin, Yazid (pleeth) etc have no place and should be opposed by whatever means possible.
What Kchughtai has said makes sense enough, and seems to have a firm grasp of the ideals involved in this discussion, but before religion can even play in this one must define a tyrant first.
[QUOTE]
rising up against the ruler (use of arms) is not allowed as far as i know, untill the ruler becomes kafir.
[/QUOTE]
no tyrant is gonna be dumb enough to say that in public, of all the tyrants in history of islam probably not one has said that
[QUOTE]
but u can use other medium (speech and writing) to build a social pressure on him in oder to keep him in the limit.
[/QUOTE]
okay if they allow religious freedom or freedom of speech otherwise we will be rotting in jails.... again how many tyrants bow to social pressure ? very very few..if any
plus they can bribe people to launch a propoganda campaign in their favor
[QUOTE]
beside goverment/executive does not means ruler only ........... it is group of ppl. like in pakistan we have MNA and MPAs
[/QUOTE]
true but i am talking about govts which have no elective basis i.e one man rule or one party states not coalition govts
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
[QUOTE]
A tyrant is ussually someone who is outright mad, and has no pitty for anyone..... the sort of person who would not only kill his own Kaum but also his own flesh and blood, such as rival siblings simply out of vanity obsession and jeloausy for power
[/QUOTE]
in islam religious defination of a tyrant is someone who does not enforce shariah we are not concerned with other secular definations of tyrants.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
[QUOTE]
The people need to think through whether they are capable of bringing about any change or the result will only be chaos and anarchy.
[/QUOTE]
no way to tell that until a uprising is attempted usually opposition is fragmented and disorganized but that does not make it morally wrong
makes sense. tyranny is tyranny, no matter which God you claim to follow.
plz explain
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
[QUOTE]
true tyrant like Vlad the Impaler, and Joseph Stalin, Yazid (pleeth) etc have no place and should be opposed by whatever means possible
[/QUOTE]
all 3 of these are heroes to specific groups too even today so it dosent add up.You cannot say that oliver cromwell or william the b-a-s-t-a-r-d ( thats his real name incase trigger happy moderators edit that) were any less evil.Which again is a subjective comparsion.
ANd agaon plz stick to position of tyrants in islam.Thanks
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
I think the question at the heart of this topic is … Is one justified to enforce something good by coercion or terror tactics? Especially when not all people accept the good of it. This is a very circumstantial question and I think it would be difficult to have an absolute answer to it.
A small example, the Shurta in SA. If they find you outside during prayer you’ll probably be on the receiving end of it. Now the question is, they are forcing you to something good i.e. Salah, but by coercion. Are they justified? Has Allah SWT allowed us to take punitive action against one of is not fulfilling his obligatory actions? Are their other means to correct this problem?
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
^ closer to the heart of the matter.
not about taking up arms etc. obeying a tyrant if 'if his tyranny is aligned to promote God. '. for those who say yes, please clarify what tyranny promotes God (I suppose more examples might be Taleban style Islamic rule imposed by force etc..), and why that isnt a contradiction in terms (tyranny implies zulm, zulm cannot be aligned with a Just God?)
not a topic of interest for me , but i am reasonably sure that it is justified to use force against muslims in a muslim state if they dont pray or pay zakat ( if eligible) atleast in hanafi fiqah.So I think its justified
^ closer to the heart of the matter.
not about taking up arms etc. obeying a tyrant if 'if his tyranny is aligned to promote God. '. for those who say yes, please clarify what tyranny promotes God (I suppose more examples might be Taleban style Islamic rule imposed by force etc..), and why that isnt a contradiction in terms (tyranny implies zulm, zulm cannot be aligned with a Just God?)
i think u r confusing 2 different things
tyranny in islam which is not enforcing shariah
and use of force in certain matters to enforce shariah
latter is not tyranny , former is
i dont claim that talibs r doing it perfectly by any means but here we are talking interms of a best case scenario.
Zulm is NOT flogging someone guilty of a crime ( which justifies flogging) Adal is giving that punishment.
Even though to non-muslims it may seem opposite