Salaams,
You know how you hear people talk about revolution etc and how it needs blood (I remember bringing this up in another topic and I did want to expand in it there, but cannot find it, so new topic), A question - Islamically are people allowed to overthrow leadership for any reason?
I am certain that I read a hadith once which said that in the4 face of an unjust ruler, pray for steadfastness, patience, but I cannot seem to find it.
There is a similar question on Islam Online which says as part of the answer:
However, if the ruler remains a Muslim (and he did not show or display any act of disbelief) but he is oppressive and transgresses against people's rights, then Muslim scholars have two opinions in this regard:
1. That it is permissible to rebel against him;
2. It is not permissible to rebel against him and Muslims should bear the oppression patiently. And this is the opinion of the majority of Muslims in general. Each of these two groups has provided proofs in support of its viewpoint. However, the proponents of the second opinion gave weight to their opinion by considering the objectives of Shari`ah and by applying the juristic maxim that resort should be to the lesser of the two evils. This is because bearing the injustice of the ruler patiently will protect against the greater evil resulting from rebelling against him represented in mass bloodshed, loss of wealth, and different violations, not to mention giving the enemies of Islam an opportunity to attain their goals in Muslim lands.
anyone know more?
From what I know (which is pretty much same as described above):
In regards to another leader trying to take over, for example through revolution, Islam orders that he is killed because there should only be 1 leader for Muslims and anyone inciting a rebellion against him is destroying the Unity that has been established under one leader-
"Whoso comes to you while your affair has been united under one man, intending to divide your staff or dissolve your unity, kill him" (Muslim)
"Whoso pledged allegiance to an imam (leader) giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man." (Muslim.)
Generally scholars would be against revolution as it threatens the stability of the nation.
As for an unjust ruler, as long as he remains Muslim and he establishes his salah five times daily, anything else he does should be patiently endured.
But then again these rules are in direct relation to an Imam- an Islamic ruler, the Sultan of the Ummah, I don't know how it would apply to current Monarchies or Democratic or Non-Islamic derived governing systems. Or how it works in terms of Non-muslim leaders... :? Maybe someone else might know.
But at the same time we have to challenge injustices, regardless of who is doing it, I don't think Allah (swt) will be very happy if we said that we didn't question the leader because we originally supported him.
I think it comes down to which is the lesser of the two evils, if letting his oppression continue is the greater evil then maybe (Allah ho allim) there is a chance that it will be allowed.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
At the same time you cannot call for revolution, but use patience. The hadith you quoted about the greatest good being speaking truth in the court of a tyrant did not say "striking down a tyrant", but just speaking the truth.
Ad for using the principle of "lesser of two evils", the people who act will have their own reasons and chances are they will become more extreme to enforce their will.
You challenge tyrants by speaking the truth.
From what I can see, revolution by force is not allowed.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But if speaking the truth doesn't work then? If the only way to protect innocent people is to use some arms to escape or call for military aid then?
Don't get me wrong, if there's no need or another way, then the revolution is not allowed.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
Then you pray to God for patience.
Then how do you know that solving the short term need will lead to a better long term? You don't, and those with the power to react generally have vested interests.
I think I read that Ibn Taymiyyah held the position that it is better for Muslims/people to live under tyranny for 60 years than without leadership for one night - and he was not talking about just leadership.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Obviously that's one of the disadvantages but, if it is genocide we are dealing with, and the only way to change that is via rebellion (always the peaceful type first), at least then we have a slight CHANCE of a better leadership.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi