Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

[Das_Reich]

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.

I understand where you are coming from, and i hope you dont misunderstand me when i say that your defination reflects a departure from the conventional understanding of oppression in islam.
It seems to me that you are more concerned with the individual than society.While islam like judaism preaches certain moral codes ( some of which may go against the individual freedom which we living in the west so much cherish).Violation of these God-given codes is likely to invite what we may consider harsh retribution.This could involve use of coercion, force and "subjecting the populace to your subjective understanding of religion and expecting that diversion from that is grounds for violent correction" this quote of yours is an essential part of "forbidding evil" in religion.This is not simply a feature of the "bad apples' amongst the religious or pseudoreligious class e.g talibs but a feature of all relgious reformers past and present.SOme of which are highly regarded amongst various groups of muslims.

The big question remains ( as PA hinted) whose version of religion is to be followed ? and thats the argument used to advocate the seperation of religion and state.However its not as hard as one might think it is, the vast majority of muslims claim to follow one fiqah or more and they could be judged according to the rules of their respective fiqahs.

[Das_Reich]

@dhj786

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.

Thats actually because of the ignorance of the common people about laws protecting minorities in islam.beacuse of this they cannot challenge the talibs which gives them a free hand.

part of the talib problem is the alienation and ignorance of common people from religion which gives these people their steady stream of willing recruits.
Solving the talib problem is not secularization but rather islamization, which if properly enforced will eliminate the support of talib in the longterm.

[Prince_Abbas]

The big question remains ( as PA hinted) whose version of religion is to be followed ? and thats the argument used to advocate the seperation of religion and state.However its not as hard as one might think it is, the vast majority of muslims claim to follow one fiqah or more and they could be judged according to the rules of their respective fiqahs.

But there are severe differences within the fiqhs themselves. Remember, it has been hundreds of years since last of the four imams die and did their ijtehad. And these imams can not rule on new issues of today. Thus within one fiqh, there are differences about whether music is allowed, or what kind of music is allowed. Or whether picture taking is allowed, or how severe a sin it is.
So who has authority now to resolve these differences? Which version would the state follow? The "official" version of tyrant, obviously. But that version may or may not be accurate.

[Das_Reich]

But there are severe differences within the fiqhs themselves. Remember, it has been hundreds of years since last of the four imams die and did their ijtehad. And these imams can not rule on new issues of today. Thus within one fiqh, there are differences about whether music is allowed, or what kind of music is allowed. Or whether picture taking is allowed, or how severe a sin it is. So who has authority now to resolve these differences? Which version would the state follow? The "official" version of tyrant, obviously. But that version may or may not be accurate.

there is no one official version thats the answer, and we are not talking of a time when the tyrants is in power rather a utopian view of things

[QUOTE]

And these imams can not rule on new issues of today. Thus within one fiqh, there are differences about whether music is allowed, or what kind of music is allowed. Or whether picture taking is allowed, or how severe a sin it is.

[/QUOTE]

these are minor issues on which further debates and ijtehad might be needed but the opinion on big issues are fairly consistent in various fiqahs and even within different fiqhs

afterall within 12ers there is difference of opinion yet they are quite successful in maintaing a consensus for bigger issues.

[dhj786]

Thats actually because of the ignorance of the common people about laws protecting minorities in islam.beacuse of this they cannot challenge the talibs which gives them a free hand.

part of the talib problem is the alienation and ignorance of common people from religion which gives these people their steady stream of willing recruits. Solving the talib problem is not secularization but rather islamization, which if properly enforced will eliminate the support of talib in the longterm.

What type of Islamization? If one is to use the Shi'a route, it will not eliminate the support but in fact strengthen their numbers since the Shi'a Islamization will be opposite of what they believe.

[ravage]

Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

.

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.

That is a rationalization. Neither the sunni true believer nor the shia true believer would find it acceptable to believe that the religious rules they consider divinely revealed are subject to political contingencies.

Everything is open to question if everything is dictated by historical circumstances. And in practical terms, my philosophy is that it doesnt matter how we got there so much as it does where we are now.

[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.

[/quote]

Fair enough, restrict my comment to the sunni (i believe mainstream) view that does advocate obedience to a tyrant aligned to promote God.

[quote]

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
[/QUOTE]

Is it really a 'huge' debate? I think you are in a bit of a minority here.

However if you agree that obedience to a tyrant promoting Allah is not your duty then we're on the same page.

I understand where you are coming from, and i hope you dont misunderstand me when i say that your defination reflects a departure from the conventional understanding of oppression in islam. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the individual than society.While islam like judaism preaches certain moral codes ( some of which may go against the individual freedom which we living in the west so much cherish).Violation of these God-given codes is likely to invite what we may consider harsh retribution.

How do you know that this is not a result of the same historical processes you were talking about earlier? Why not apply the same deconstruction to communitarian society. Most societies in medieval ages tended to be communitarian, this is the source for things like human sacrifices, where the needs of the group outweighed individual priorities like 'i dont want to be killed please'.

[quote]

This could involve use of coercion, force and "subjecting the populace to your subjective understanding of religion and expecting that diversion from that is grounds for violent correction" this quote of yours is an essential part of "forbidding evil" in religion.

[/quote]

Not really. I see nothing in my understanding of Islam, including the specific verses dealing with the issue in the Quran to suggest that this is necessarily a)coercion and force or b) through state machinery.

[quote]

This is not simply a feature of the "bad apples' amongst the religious or pseudoreligious class e.g talibs but a feature of all relgious reformers past and present.SOme of which are highly regarded amongst various groups of muslims.

[/quote]

Perhaps. Depending on which historian you read, it seems like Muslim societies historically were perhaps more diverse intellectually than they are today, nor do you uniformly get a feeling that as you go further back in time the Muslim world looks more and more like a Taleban/Saudi Arabian ideal state (ignoring their various foibles, focusing on what they want to achieve).

If you wish to take a historical view of things, you will be aware that it is rare that the ruling ideas of an age arent the ideas of the ruling class. When you wish to draw commonalities across different sects, what you need to bear in mind is that these are the ideas that won out in each sect over time. There is going to be a bias there in favour of ideas that were favoured by the ruling classes... who sharing similar circumstances could come to similar conclusions even across sects.

That is if you want to take the historical route, ofcourse.

[quote]

The big question remains ( as PA hinted) whose version of religion is to be followed ? and thats the argument used to advocate the seperation of religion and state.However its not as hard as one might think it is, the vast majority of muslims claim to follow one fiqah or more and they could be judged according to the rules of their respective fiqahs.
[/QUOTE]

And is there any criterion on which 'fiqahs' are included in this more inclusive Muslim government?

[Das_Reich]

[QUOTE]

That is a rationalization. Neither the sunni true believer nor the shia true believer would find it acceptable to believe that the religious rules they consider divinely revealed are subject to political contingencies.

[/QUOTE]

thats what they would like to believe but that is nothing more than pious fiction.Humans are not infalliable, when we read muslim history we often fail to recognize these factors and tend to idolize personalities too much.

[QUOTE]

Fair enough, restrict my comment to the sunni (i believe mainstream) view that does advocate obedience to a tyrant aligned to promote God.

Is it really a 'huge' debate? I think you are in a bit of a minority here.

However if you agree that obedience to a tyrant promoting Allah is not your duty then we're on the same page.

[/QUOTE]

sunni mainstream belief NOW is this , but what i was saying that the salaf of ahle sunnah many sahaba and tabeen did not have any such beliefs and this is cleared demostrated by their lives.But over centuries this concept was lost and replaced by blind obedience to rulers.

It is a huge debate even now but you wouldnt see that on internet forums.As those who support these views are incorrectly labelled shiite or khariji by most sunnis....now one should ask these pseudo-intellectual mullahs were salaf who u claim to follow also khariji or shiite ?

[QUOTE]
obedience to a tyrant promoting Allah is not your duty then we're on the same page.
[/QUOTE]

my aswer is a tyrant cannot promote God

[QUOTE]

How do you know that this is not a result of the same historical processes you were talking about earlier? Why not apply the same deconstruction to communitarian society. Most societies in medieval ages tended to be communitarian, this is the source for things like human sacrifices, where the needs of the group outweighed individual priorities like 'i dont want to be killed please'.

[/QUOTE]

now your talking, yes islam is also based on a communitarian principal and here again individual rights take second place to the interests of the community

[QUOTE]
Not really. I see nothing in my understanding of Islam, including the specific verses dealing with the issue in the Quran to suggest that this is necessarily a)coercion and force or b) through state machinery.
[/QUOTE]

is there really a example from Quran alone to run an islamic state ? Not much ...
most of it comes from Sunnah of Prophet and for sunnis the caliphs.And there you would find examples of force and coercion

[QUOTE]
Perhaps. Depending on which historian you read, it seems like Muslim societies historically were perhaps more diverse intellectually than they are today, nor do you uniformly get a feeling that as you go further back in time the Muslim world looks more and more like a Taleban/Saudi Arabian ideal state (ignoring their various foibles, focusing on what they want to achieve).
[/QUOTE]

how do u assume that KSA and talibs are "ideal states" for me ?
yes u r right that muslims were more intellectually diverse back then, and they were not like the saudis either.Saudi is a Kingship which is just as secular as turkey at its core they superficially follow some islamic rulings to fool their population and impress outsiders.

[QUOTE]
And is there any criterion on which 'fiqahs' are included in this more inclusive Muslim government?
[/QUOTE]

i think its widely recognized that except for ismailis and qadiyanis bahais all others are valid fiqahs

[Das_Reich]

What type of Islamization? If one is to use the Shi'a route, it will not eliminate the support but in fact strengthen their numbers since the Shi'a Islamization will be opposite of what they believe.

why shud we use shia fiqh in a country or area dominated by sunnis ?

[psyah]

Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

Peace Das Reich

I know the reason why you have asked this question. Apologies I have not come often over the past few weeks and hence have missed this thread.

Brother USResident has been a breath of fresh air I must say ...

Yes the reason for the statement is based on Sunni matters of fiqh ... and the justification of it is quite simple ...

1) We do not accept tyrranical rule per se - i.e. impositions which breach our freedom to choose good or bad in private

2) However, we must be foremost unified and that cannot happen if we are attacking our leaders. (Remember all the wars of the past and why nations crumble ... divide and conquer)

3) We must change society gradually so we can influence the type of representative we have on top.

4) If our leader tells us to fight and makes it a law to do so, then we should do this, or else the consequences become far worse, e.g. those who don't fight will be killed and factions will develop and the outside influences will try to pick out weaknesses.

It is true that in a leaders zeal to enforce a dictate of Islam he may end up compromising another aspect of Islam. However, sometimes Islam may not be compromised but the people are not ready for the heavy handed intolerance of the ruling elite in which case it become tyrranical on them.

Let's say that a Muslim leader is appointed in a nation who wants to ban drug use and puts up a law where those associated with drugs are killed for it. This may seem to be tyrranical in some societies but in others it is not. To enforce the most stringent ruling over a people who say need rehabilitation then the dictate becomes tyrranical although for Islam to be upheld in a puritanical way it is not technically wrong to do this.

Anyway, the condition is clear we should not be rebellious to authority as Muslims we should submit our desires to their duties and disobedience to a ruler, parents or Allah (SWT) is a crime. It is better to make your ruler understand your needs and leave the country if he doesn't want it.

[AllahkaBanda]

Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

as-salamu alaykum

Allhamdulillah, I am glad that we don't learn our deen from everyday layperson who claims to be an Islamic expert while he distorts the shari'ah left and right. It saddens me that we like to discuss big topics while we ignore our positions and our actions. Just a general statement and not directed to anyone specifically.

We know that the basic rule is that anyone who doesn't rule by the Shari'ah is a kafir. So how many Muslims rulers do we have today?

[Prince_Abbas]

Das:

[quote]
again "good" religious tyrants wud be an oxymoron. You are not defining oppression
[/quote]

You said earlier: in islam if a ruler promotes God i.e enforces shariah then he is NOT a tyrant.

So how do you define "oppression and "tyrant"? Is it that it is not oppression if it is in the name of God?

Since you say that if a ruler promotes God then he is not a tyrant, therefore I asked examples of some of the people you referred to. Some examples would explain a lot of what you have in mind. So I hope to get some examples now.

Again quoting the same sentence from you: "in islam if a ruler promotes God..."
Since you say this is an Islamic rule, I would like to know when was this rule established and by whom.

[quote]
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
[/quote]

Let's only talk about Ahle Sunnah. So asking the same question: who defines God's rule and shariat?

[Prince_Abbas]

@AllahkaBanda

We know that the basic rule is that anyone who doesn't rule by the Shari'ah is a kafir.

Who gave this rule and when?
Who defines what is shariah?

[Das_Reich]

Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

thanks good replies i will reply over the weekend sorry for the delay

[AllahkaBanda]

Who gave this rule and when?

Allah gave this rule when He revealed the ayaat:
And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun...And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun [Surah Al-Ma'idah (5): 44-45]

Who defines what is shariah?

Allah and His Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa salam) define what is Shari'ah and our understanding of it is based upon the understanding of the companions (radiAllahu anhuma) of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) unless people, who appeared after them, believe that they understand Islam more than the sahabas (radiAllahu anhuma).

[khoji]

...

[Prince_Abbas]

@AllahkaBanda

Allah gave this rule when He revealed the ayaat:
[INDENT]And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun…And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun [Surah Al-Ma’idah (5): 44-45]

You are making extreme judgment based on aayah which could be interpreted other ways.
Quran Surah (Sura) Maida (Maidah) English Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Recitation By Said Al Ghamdi MP3, Free Download
“If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers”.

Secondly, you need to read the full aayah to understand the context. Read tafsir of ayaah 44 here. Surah Al-Ma'idah - 1-120 - Quran.com.
In this aayah, Allah is saying that those Jews who change Torah to hide Prophet of Islam’s signs are the ones who are the unbelievers.

Allah and His Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa salam) define what is Shari’ah and our understanding of it is based upon the understanding of the companions (radiAllahu anhuma) of Allah’s Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) unless people, who appeared after them, believe that they understand Islam more than the sahabas (radiAllahu anhuma).

You won’t find the solutions of present problems directly addressed in Quran, sunnat, hadith, etc. You need interpretations.
But who decides which interpretation is correct, and which is wrong? For example, is picture-taking haraam? You ask three different maulanas, and you will get three different answers.
So now when that religious tyrant imposes complete ban on picture-taking and you disagree then would you still consider that tyrant to be following shariat according to your interpretation?

[AllahkaBanda]

Bismillah

You are making extreme judgment based on aayah

I am making extreme judgments or you are making extreme judgments and trying to act like an expert and giving out your tafsir?

"If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers".

the theme of the ayah is the same: whoever judges by other than the laws of Allah is a kafir. This is what Allah is saying and this is how it has been understood for 14 centuries.

In this aayah, Allah is saying that those Jews who change Torah to hide Prophet of Islam's signs are the ones who are the unbelievers.

you are not an expert so bringing tafsir from an expert, someone who is hujjah to everyone. For example, the companions of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam). The ayyah is specific and general as this is the case for many ayaat in the Qur'an. Allah is telling about jews and warning them that He gave them the Torah so that they rule by Allah's laws but they didn't. Read what whole ayaat are saying: Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
Which context are you reading? Did Allah say if Jews rule by other than Allah or did He say whoever? By guidance and laws of Allah, is Allah only talking about hiding signs about the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) or is He covering both: ruling people by laws of Allah and hiding signs of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa salam)? The 2nd ayah make it very clear that it is covering both point that's why Allah said: "therein a life for life..".

Even from the link you quoted this ayah, we read in tafsir of Imam Sayuti (rahimahullah): Surely We revealed the Torah, wherein is guidance, from error, and light, that is, an exposition of the rulings, by which the prophets, from the Children of Israel, who had submitted, [who] had been compliant before God, judged for those of Jewry, as did the rabbis, the scholars among them, and the priests, the jurists, according to, because of, that which they were bidden to observe, [that which] was entrusted to them, that is to say, [that which] God bid them to observe, of God’s Scripture, lest they change it, and were witnesses to, its truth. So do not fear men, O Jews, in disclosing what you have pertaining to the descriptions of Muhammad (s), ** the ‘stoning’ verse and otherwise*; but fear Me, when you conceal it; and do not sell, do not exchange, My signs for a small price, of this world, which you take in return for concealing them. **Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed — such are the disbelievers, in it.*

And therein, in the Torah, We prescribed, We made obligatory, for them that a life, be slain in return, for a life, if it has slain one; and an eye, should be gouged out, for an eye, and a nose, is to be cut off, for a nose, and an ear, is to be amputated, for an ear, and a tooth, should be pulled out, for a tooth (a variant reading has the last four [nouns] in the nominative); and for wounds (read wa’l-jurūhu or wa’l-jurūha) retaliation, that is, the person is entitled to retaliate if this is feasible, as in the case of a hand or a leg; but in cases where one is not able to [retaliate], this is left to arbitration. Although this stipulation was prescribed for them, it is established in our Law; but whoever forgoes it, that is, retaliation, out of charity, able to restrain himself, then that shall be an expiation for him, of what he has done [of other sins]. Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed, in the matter of retaliation and otherwise, those are the evildoers.
So hiding also includes other laws which they hide from people and didn't judge people by those laws, i.e., stoning an adulterer. And if you read tafsir by ibn kathir, ibn Jarir (rahimahumullah) and others you will find the same thing.

You won't find the solutions of present problems directly addressed in Quran, sunnat, hadith, etc. You need interpretations.

Let me remind you that your first sentence is form of heresy and I would advise you to rectify yourself from this statement. Islam is for all times; how can you then say that we cannot find solution for current problems in Islamic texts!? Everything is already found in the text explicitly or implicitly. As far interpretation, not every problem we face today requires any sort of ijtihad. If there is a need for ijtihadi interpretation then it is done by those who are qualified to do so.

But who decides which interpretation is correct, and which is wrong?

brother, I have already told you that we understand the Shari'ah how the companions (radiAllahu anhuma) of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) understood it. As Imam Malik (rahimahullah) said that whatever was not part of deen at their time will never part of deen at our time. As far new ijtihad then it is decided by those who are experts in the field and known for their knowledge, taqwa and trustworthiness.

For example, is picture-taking haraam? You ask three different maulanas, and you will get three different answers.

picture-taking issue is pretty clear but we only get confused when we want to seek an answer which we want and not answer which will take us to truth.

So now when that religious tyrant imposes complete ban on picture-taking and you disagree then would you still consider that tyrant to be following shariat according to your interpretation?

In prophetic world, likeness or disagreement of human beings with laws of Allah has no relevancy. Some part of the Shari'ah being implemented is better than nothing. So if tyrant ruler imposes this shari law or any other shari law then I don't see why I would have a problem with it as long as correct understanding is implemented and imposed.

and Allah knows best

[Das_Reich]

[QUOTE]

1) We do not accept tyrranical rule per se - i.e. impositions which breach our freedom to choose good or bad in private

2) However, we must be foremost unified and that cannot happen if we are attacking our leaders. (Remember all the wars of the past and why nations crumble ... divide and conquer)

[/QUOTE]

not always muslims fought civil wars since the first generation yet they were the dominant power for a long time.

[QUOTE]

3) We must change society gradually so we can influence the type of representative we have on top.

4) If our leader tells us to fight and makes it a law to do so, then we should do this, or else the consequences become far worse, e.g. those who don't fight will be killed and factions will develop and the outside influences will try to pick out weaknesses.

[/QUOTE]

true these measures shud be started first but if they dont work then what shud we do suffer in tyranny ?

[QUOTE]
Let's say that a Muslim leader is appointed in a nation who wants to ban drug use and puts up a law where those associated with drugs are killed for it. This may seem to be tyrranical in some societies but in others it is not. To enforce the most stringent ruling over a people who say need rehabilitation then the dictate becomes tyrranical although for Islam to be upheld in a puritanical way it is not technically wrong to do this.
[/QUOTE]

i dont see how a dictate consistent with shariah becomes tyrannical regardless of what people might think

[QUOTE]
Anyway, the condition is clear we should not be rebellious to authority as Muslims we should submit our desires to their duties and disobedience to a ruler, parents or Allah (SWT) is a crime.
[/QUOTE]

what about the ruler ? is there any accountability for a ruler ? is he under any checks and balances
and what are we to do if he trangresses them ?

[Das_Reich]

[QUOTE]

So how do you define "oppression and "tyrant"? Is it that it is not oppression if it is in the name of God?

Since you say that if a ruler promotes God then he is not a tyrant, therefore I asked examples of some of the people you referred to. Some examples would explain a lot of what you have in mind. So I hope to get some examples now.

Again quoting the same sentence from you: "in islam if a ruler promotes God..."
Since you say this is an Islamic rule, I would like to know when was this rule established and by whom.

[/QUOTE]

Keep it simple

Tyrant = who follows rules other than the accepted shariah by the consensus of the majority of the muslim in that land

that wud include a 12er enforcing fiqah jafaria on sunnis and vice versa

e.g safavi imposition of their version of islam in iran in the 16th century

and example of sunni bigotry is 12er prsecution under aurangzaib ( although it was not as widespread)

oppression = following manmade laws inconsistent with shariah

[Das_Reich]

Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

[QUOTE]

So if tyrant ruler imposes this shari law or any other shari law then I don't see why I would have a problem with it as long as correct understanding is implemented and imposed.

[/QUOTE]

bro but the problem is this

tyrants are very shrewd they SELCTIVELY enforce certain shariah laws to appease the religious minded people
e.g monitering woman's hemlines but no monitering of bayt ul mal

much like in USA aborition and gay marriages are used to gain votes of conservative americans