Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
tyranny is different to different people right. i dont want to get into the debate on what shariah is right, flogging etc etc. theres going to be no agreement there.
what do you take to mean from: tyrant ruler if his tyranny is aligned to promote God.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
[QUOTE]
what do you take to mean from: tyrant ruler if his tyranny is aligned to promote God.
[/QUOTE]
there is a big contradiction in this statement
in islam if a ruler promotes God i.e enforces shariah then he is NOT a tyrant.
in other words if somehing promotes shariah it CANNOT be tyranny for muslims regardless of what theymay feel about it.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
[QUOTE]
tyranny is different to different people right.
[/QUOTE]
yes ! but we are concerned here only with muslims
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
tyranny is different to different Muslims. Shariah is different for different Muslims. there is always room for me to call what you are regarding as shariah as tyranny and vice versa. Let us stick with abstractions we can both work with, i.e. tyranny that is 'aligned to promote God', including that promoting religious rule, which can happen even for you given that you cite the taleban as not being perfect.
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
I can understand use of force to enforce those aspects which are considered as violating the shariah law of an Islamic state but not all fall in that category. Zakat for instance, collection and distribution is the responsibility of the state and hence violation of the state governance in this case would invoke punitive measures. In cases where no Islamic state government exists, we are not liable to any punitive measures under the state law.
What kind of coercion is justified? So if one does not pray should he be whipped for it OR can we bouycott the person from society until they start praying? Which one is more effective on the psyche of the person.
Anyway, a Tyrant in general is one who uses force to have his way irrespective of the will and wishes of those upon whom he rules. In Islam it would be a bit different since our code of conduct is to follow Allah SWT teachings and guidelines. So neither the people or their ruler has the right to govern in any other way in an Islamic state. So one who uses force to eject the rule of proper shariah (emphasis on PROPER) would be a Tyrant.
there is a big contradiction in this statement in islam if a ruler promotes God i.e enforces shariah then he is NOT a tyrant.
in other words if somehing promotes shariah it CANNOT be tyranny for muslims regardless of what theymay feel about it.
What if the subjects are non-muslims of another soverign state? Can a muslim ruler just go to war with another state to propagate Islam?
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
Where it gets interesting is to whom do you listen about a Muslim ruler being a tyrant or not?
The Ottoman Khalifat face many religious revolts, where a lay preacher would teach that the Khalif had strayed from Islam and Shariah and was oppressing the people.
The religious authorities such as the qadis appointed by the Khalif would issue fatwas stating that the Khalif was an upright Muslim.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
to wear away some of the alleys to nowhere arguments, the question is this: do you regard as a religious duty to obey a government that you see (on whatever basis... qadi's judgement, your own intellect, magic divination.. whatever) as tyrannical when it is acting, or atleast claims to act (we can never know intentions) in the name of Allah/Shariah?
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
ravage how do you define tyranny ?
Where it gets interesting is to whom do you listen about a Muslim ruler being a tyrant or not?
The Ottoman Khalifat face many religious revolts, where a lay preacher would teach that the Khalif had strayed from Islam and Shariah and was oppressing the people.
The religious authorities such as the qadis appointed by the Khalif would issue fatwas stating that the Khalif was an upright Muslim.
good point however that does not mean he cannot be questioned
problem is also that the caliphs themselves rely on a mass of bribed mullahs who will twist any fact to justify their actions
What if the subjects are non-muslims of another soverign state? Can a muslim ruler just go to war with another state to propagate Islam?
if muslim ruler does not enforce shariah properly in his own land he has no right to do that. Atleast in theory
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
for me the short answer is 'i know it when i see it'. i can sit here trying to devise various kinds of rules but I dont think anything captures it really for me. I can tell you it usually involves coercion, over-use of force, using people as means to an end, not caring about individual human lives and focusing on some grander vision of what the world should be like, enacting your own personality through your status and power, subjecting the populace to your subjective understanding of religion, God and humanity and expecting that diversion from that is grounds for violent correction.
and so on.
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 ?
^ 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?)
Well ravage if thats what you mean, then, its not just a sunni imperative. Shiite religious state have used tyranny to promote their version like any other.
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
the difference is the rationalizations offered. shias generally will never accept that an 'Islamic' government, atleast one that should be obeyed can at the same time be tyrannical. conversely I have heard this argument before in sunni circles, of obeying tyrants so long as their tyranny promotes God (I was quoting I think psyah from another thread).
Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty
Das:
[quote]
in islam if a ruler promotes God i.e enforces shariah then he is NOT a tyrant.
[/quote]
Who defines what is 'God's rule'? What if the person who defines it is a tyrant himself?
If we follow the "golden" rule you just cited then it would be easy for any tyrant to enforce tyranny in the name of 'promoting God's rule that is, shariah', even though it is not shariah. Again, point is that who defines what is true shariah?
I believe tyranny and Islam are opposites. There is no room for tyranny and oppression in Islam.
I would like to know some of these "good" religious tyrants from history. Anyone?
^ Rulers who : Oppress the religious people
So oppression of non-religious people, including non-Muslims, is ok?
That’s how Taliban supporters tend to justify their support. It’s perfectly okay to be oppressive as long as they impose their austere version of Islamic law on others. 
Das:
Who defines what is 'God's rule'? What if the person who defines it is a tyrant himself? If we follow the "golden" rule you just cited then it would be easy for any tyrant to enforce tyranny in the name of 'promoting God's rule that is, shariah', even though it is not shariah. Again, point is that who defines what is true shariah?
I believe tyranny and Islam are opposites. There is no room for tyranny and oppression in Islam.
I would like to know some of these "good" religious tyrants from history. Anyone?
again "good" religious tyrants wud be an oxymoron.You are not defining oppression
who defines God's rule, thats a whole seperate discussion depends on who u ask
e.g in a 12er state its the ulema who are expert in their fiqah and so on
it should atleast be binding on those who follow 12er fiqah
there is no one single defination of that as muslims have no one single consensus on it.
So oppression of non-religious people, including non-Muslims, is ok?
what i meant was specific oppression of religious conscientious people.As these people are most likely to resist the rule of tyrants.Just as corrupt "religious" people are most likely to support tyrants
[QUOTE]
the difference is the rationalizations offered. shias generally will never accept that an 'Islamic' government, atleast one that should be obeyed can at the same time be tyrannical
[/QUOTE]
.
that has more to do with the socio-political conditions at the time of formualtion of the 12er and other related fiqahs.When they were mostly the disadvantaged group.The emphasis then was more on criticiszing the ruling authorities while extolling the position of an ideal just ruler.The imami shia ulema did not have to deal with the practical problems of leading a religious community under the heel of an oppresive monarch.When however they did gain power in certain areas their ulema used pretty much the same justifications for promoting the rule of the tyrants as did sunnis.And the situation remained the same until this passive position was challenged in recent times by Sadr and Khoemini.
[QUOTE]
conversely I have heard this argument before in sunni circles, of obeying tyrants so long as their tyranny promotes God (I was quoting I think psyah from another thread
[/QUOTE]
This isnt the unanimous position of sunni salaf ( here the distinction blurs between sunni and proto-shia salaf) ,many of whom actively rose up against muslim tyrants or atleast covertly supported such uprisings. Rather this apathy is the culmination of coercion and intimidation by muslim kings during the formative years of sunni fiqahs.This is actually the subject of a huge debate within the sunni circles but its largely ignored by state sponsered mullahs