Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Obedience to Corrupt Ruler.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salam everyone.

Once I had a discussion with someone on this forum about obedience to rulers whether they be corrupt or Just. From what He told me, It's understood that in traditiona/Orthodox Sunni Islam you have to obey Rulers no matter what they do(They will be punished in the Hereafter for their corruption but on this Earth you cannot disobey them in tongue or action) and also that major sins do not expel one from Islam no matter what the sins are(As long as one professes to the Tawhid and Prophet, they are Muslims no matter what actions). But then I had a run in with another Sunni who gave opposing views to all this so pretty confusing lol. The Brother said that obedience in Sunni Islam is almost like the Christian Divine Rule doctrine and shared with me some hadith:

Whoever sees from his leader something that he dislikes, then let him be patient with him because whosoever separates from the jamā’ah (i.e. the body of Muslims in a country) even by a handspan, and then dies in that condition, he will die the death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jāhiliyyah).” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

There will appear after me rulers, they will not guide by my guidance, and they will not establish my Sunnah; there will be amongst them men whose hearts will be hearts of devils in the bodies of men!” He was asked: “How should I behave, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He replied: “Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!” (Sahih Muslim)

Hear and obey the ruler in that which is difficult for you and in that which is easy for you, in times of invigoration and in times of dislike and weariness and when others are given preferential treatment over you – even if they take and consume your wealth and they beat your back – except that you do not obey them if it involves disobedience to Allāh.” (Sahih Ibn Hibban #4562)

Ibn Abī ‘Āsim reported in As-Sunnah (2/508) from ‘Adiyy Ibn Hātim (may Allah be pleased with him) that we said: “O Messenger of Allah, we do not ask you regarding obedience to the ruler who has taqwā (who is pious and who fears Allah), and is good and rectifies. Rather, we are asking about the ruler who does such-and-such and such-and-such?“ And he mentioned their evil traits. So the Prophet () answered: “Fear Allah! Listen to the ruler and obey him.”

A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basrī seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjāj (a tyrannical and despotic general). So they said, “O Abu Saʿīd! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and has done this and done that?” So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allāh, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allāh, then be patient until Allāh’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.” So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjāj – so al-Hajjāj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, “If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allāh will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allāh! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good.” (Tabaqāt al-Kubrā (7/163-165)

During the rule of Wāthiq, the jurists of Baghdad gathered in front of Ahmad bin Hanbal. They included Abu Bakr bin ʿUbaid, Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī al-Matbakhī and Fadl bin ʿĀsim. So they came to Ahmad bin Hanbal so I gave them permission. They said to him, ‘This affair (i.e. the inquisition) has become aggravated and elevated.’ They were referring to the ruler making manifest the issue of the Qurān being created and other than that. So Ahmad bin Hanbal said to them, ‘So what is it that you want?’ They said: ‘We want you to join us in saying that we are not pleased with his rule and leadership.’ So Ahmad bin Hanbal debated with them for an hour and he said to them: ‘Keep opposing [the false belief itself] with your statements but do not remove your hands from obedience and do not encourage the Muslims to rebel and do not spill your blood and the blood of the Muslims along with you. Look to the results of your actions. And remain patient until you are content with a righteous or sinful rule.’” Mihnatul-Imām Ahmad (p. 70-72); al-Khallāl in as-Sunnah (no. 90)

I also looked up some Sunni fatwas from prominent figures in that religion which say this:

Qadi ‘Ayad says, “All the Sunnis from different fields of specialization such as Islamic jurisprudence, hadith, history and theology believe that the sultan cannot be dismissed from office, even if he is corrupt, perverted, oppressive and tramples the rule of law underfoot.”2

3. Qadi Abu Bakr Baqilani writes, “All the Sunnis believe that an imam cannot be dismissed from office even if he is corrupt, oppressive, or seizes people’s property by force. He cannot be removed from power although he hits or slaps people in their faces and does not respect the honor of others, and even though he tramples the rule of law underfoot. It is not permitted to rise up against him.

The Muslims can only go so far as to advise and warn him about the negative consequences of his actions. It is of course not binding upon the people to obey him when he invites them to participate in his sinful actions, but they cannot dismiss him from office. There are a number of narrations which assert that it is incumbent to obey an imam and caliph, even though he might be an oppressor or even if he forcibly usurps and seizes people’s property. Because the Prophet (S) has said, ‘Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is a slave with a flat nose or an Ethiopian. Also, pray behind every person, virtuous or perverted.’ He also said, ‘Follow and obey your rulers, even if they loot your property and break your backs’.”3

However, some Sunni scholars have opposed this point of view, and instead believe that a corrupt ruler should not be obeyed. Some of those who have opposed obeying the corrupt ruler are Mawardi in his book “Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah4, ‘Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi in his book “Usul al-Din5, Ibn Hazm Zahiri in his book “Al-Fisal fi al-Millal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal6, and Jurjani in his book “Sharh al-Mawaqif”.7

So my understanding is this that a Sunni Leader can do anything(Blasphemy, Rape, Murder, Illegal seizure of Property/Wealth, Alcoholism/Drug use, Riba, Basically break every Islamic tenant) but you cannot disobey them even if you're the victim. But what you cannot do is disobey Islamic tenants yourself such as a Muslim Sunni leader tells you not to pray, then you cannot obey that command but the rest is all open game to the Ruler himself.

So is this the mainstream belief of Sunni Islam with opposition from only a minority? Now obviously Shia islam rejects all this so no reason to mention that. I just want to know the Mainstream Sunni perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Concerning Muawiya Fighting Ali (عليه السلام), I am sure you have all heard the Hadith “Ali is with the Haq and the Haq is with Ali and they will not separate until they meet me at the pond.” 

Salam brother I see your question is actually for the ahl Sunnah and not Shias. I am a Shia and strictly oppose this.  It is clearly evident that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) stood against a t

I am not offended that you said Muawiya is Better then us, but you saying that is also saying he was a good person. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said about Ali (عليه السلام) that only a Belie

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
21 hours ago, El Cid said:

Salam everyone.

Once I had a discussion with someone on this forum about obedience to rulers whether they be corrupt or Just. From what He told me, It's understood that in traditiona/Orthodox Sunni Islam you have to obey Rulers no matter what they do(They will be punished in the Hereafter for their corruption but on this Earth you cannot disobey them in tongue or action) and also that major sins do not expel one from Islam no matter what the sins are(As long as one professes to the Tawhid and Prophet, they are Muslims no matter what actions). But then I had a run in with another Sunni who gave opposing views to all this so pretty confusing lol. The Brother said that obedience in Sunni Islam is almost like the Christian Divine Rule doctrine and shared with me some hadith:

Whoever sees from his leader something that he dislikes, then let him be patient with him because whosoever separates from the jamā’ah (i.e. the body of Muslims in a country) even by a handspan, and then dies in that condition, he will die the death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jāhiliyyah).” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

There will appear after me rulers, they will not guide by my guidance, and they will not establish my Sunnah; there will be amongst them men whose hearts will be hearts of devils in the bodies of men!” He was asked: “How should I behave, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He replied: “Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!” (Sahih Muslim)

Hear and obey the ruler in that which is difficult for you and in that which is easy for you, in times of invigoration and in times of dislike and weariness and when others are given preferential treatment over you – even if they take and consume your wealth and they beat your back – except that you do not obey them if it involves disobedience to Allāh.” (Sahih Ibn Hibban #4562)

Ibn Abī ‘Āsim reported in As-Sunnah (2/508) from ‘Adiyy Ibn Hātim (may Allah be pleased with him) that we said: “O Messenger of Allah, we do not ask you regarding obedience to the ruler who has taqwā (who is pious and who fears Allah), and is good and rectifies. Rather, we are asking about the ruler who does such-and-such and such-and-such?“ And he mentioned their evil traits. So the Prophet () answered: “Fear Allah! Listen to the ruler and obey him.”

A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basrī seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjāj (a tyrannical and despotic general). So they said, “O Abu Saʿīd! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and has done this and done that?” So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allāh, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allāh, then be patient until Allāh’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.” So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjāj – so al-Hajjāj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, “If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allāh will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allāh! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good.” (Tabaqāt al-Kubrā (7/163-165)

During the rule of Wāthiq, the jurists of Baghdad gathered in front of Ahmad bin Hanbal. They included Abu Bakr bin ʿUbaid, Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī al-Matbakhī and Fadl bin ʿĀsim. So they came to Ahmad bin Hanbal so I gave them permission. They said to him, ‘This affair (i.e. the inquisition) has become aggravated and elevated.’ They were referring to the ruler making manifest the issue of the Qurān being created and other than that. So Ahmad bin Hanbal said to them, ‘So what is it that you want?’ They said: ‘We want you to join us in saying that we are not pleased with his rule and leadership.’ So Ahmad bin Hanbal debated with them for an hour and he said to them: ‘Keep opposing [the false belief itself] with your statements but do not remove your hands from obedience and do not encourage the Muslims to rebel and do not spill your blood and the blood of the Muslims along with you. Look to the results of your actions. And remain patient until you are content with a righteous or sinful rule.’” Mihnatul-Imām Ahmad (p. 70-72); al-Khallāl in as-Sunnah (no. 90)

I also looked up some Sunni fatwas from prominent figures in that religion which say this:

Qadi ‘Ayad says, “All the Sunnis from different fields of specialization such as Islamic jurisprudence, hadith, history and theology believe that the sultan cannot be dismissed from office, even if he is corrupt, perverted, oppressive and tramples the rule of law underfoot.”2

3. Qadi Abu Bakr Baqilani writes, “All the Sunnis believe that an imam cannot be dismissed from office even if he is corrupt, oppressive, or seizes people’s property by force. He cannot be removed from power although he hits or slaps people in their faces and does not respect the honor of others, and even though he tramples the rule of law underfoot. It is not permitted to rise up against him.

The Muslims can only go so far as to advise and warn him about the negative consequences of his actions. It is of course not binding upon the people to obey him when he invites them to participate in his sinful actions, but they cannot dismiss him from office. There are a number of narrations which assert that it is incumbent to obey an imam and caliph, even though he might be an oppressor or even if he forcibly usurps and seizes people’s property. Because the Prophet (S) has said, ‘Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is a slave with a flat nose or an Ethiopian. Also, pray behind every person, virtuous or perverted.’ He also said, ‘Follow and obey your rulers, even if they loot your property and break your backs’.”3

However, some Sunni scholars have opposed this point of view, and instead believe that a corrupt ruler should not be obeyed. Some of those who have opposed obeying the corrupt ruler are Mawardi in his book “Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah4, ‘Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi in his book “Usul al-Din5, Ibn Hazm Zahiri in his book “Al-Fisal fi al-Millal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal6, and Jurjani in his book “Sharh al-Mawaqif”.7

So my understanding is this that a Sunni Leader can do anything(Blasphemy, Rape, Murder, Illegal seizure of Property/Wealth, Alcoholism/Drug use, Riba, Basically break every Islamic tenant) but you cannot disobey them even if you're the victim. But what you cannot do is disobey Islamic tenants yourself such as a Muslim Sunni leader tells you not to pray, then you cannot obey that command but the rest is all open game to the Ruler himself.

So is this the mainstream belief of Sunni Islam with opposition from only a minority? Now obviously Shia islam rejects all this so no reason to mention that. I just want to know the Mainstream Sunni perspective.

Salam brother

I see your question is actually for the ahl Sunnah and not Shias. I am a Shia and strictly oppose this. 

It is clearly evident that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) stood against a tyrant muslim ruler. 

Same goes with Hazrat Zaid Shaheed (رضي الله عنه) and his son Yahya bin Zaid shaheed (رضي الله عنه). Though they were advised against that by Imam al Baqir (عليه السلام) not because it was wrong to oppose a king but Imam Al Baqir (عليه السلام) knew that people will betray him shich happened. 

Further, Hazrat Aisha rebelled against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) on the basis of a false accusation. If she knew that rebelling against a Caliph is wrong, while she did that anyways? 

Then, Muawiya rebelled against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) till the point that he got the throne. 

So, what about this condition when a muslim rebels against a ruler, removes him and becomes a ruler. Is his leadership acceptable? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

@Nightclaw, may be you can post in this topic as it is a direct question for mainstream Sunnis.

I already responded to him via private message, but the kid just wants to be bothersome and argue. If you want a full explanation, then go watch Shaykh Uthman al-Khamees' explanation on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

I already responded to him via private message, but the kid just wants to be bothersome and argue. If you want a full explanation, then go watch Shaykh Uthman al-Khamees' explanation on it.

He didn't respond to anything. He gave his personal opinions which contradicted his school's major hadith given above as if he was some Mujtahid. Linking some random video by a Shaykh Uthman Khamees also does not invalidate all the hadith and fatwas mentioned above such as by people like Hasan Al Basri and Baqilliani who is called the "Guardian of Islam" by your creed. Then he threw a fit and disappeared. I didn't make this topic for you, I made this topic to get the opinions of some educated Sunnis who do not let personal feelings get in the way of their own reason.

Also, didn't you learn any Akhlaq? Especially when addressing people in public. How shameful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/26/2020 at 9:58 AM, Zainuu said:

Salam brother

I see your question is actually for the ahl Sunnah and not Shias. I am a Shia and strictly oppose this. 

It is clearly evident that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) stood against a tyrant muslim ruler. 

Same goes with Hazrat Zaid Shaheed (رضي الله عنه) and his son Yahya bin Zaid shaheed (رضي الله عنه). Though they were advised against that by Imam al Baqir (عليه السلام) not because it was wrong to oppose a king but Imam Al Baqir (عليه السلام) knew that people will betray him shich happened. 

Further, Hazrat Aisha rebelled against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) on the basis of a false accusation. If she knew that rebelling against a Caliph is wrong, while she did that anyways? 

Then, Muawiya rebelled against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) till the point that he got the throne. 

So, what about this condition when a muslim rebels against a ruler, removes him and becomes a ruler. Is his leadership acceptable? 

All these issues have justifications and operate on the principle "Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has those days."

Sunni view on these issues:

Karbala = Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) didn't intend to rebel. He miscalculated and this got Him(عليه السلام) killed. Yazid's rule was not established yet. So they get to have their cake and eat it too.

Jamal = Aisha did not intend to rebel against Imam Ali(عليه السلام). She made a mistake and it was Talha/Zubayr who were the real instigators. She's the mother of believers at the end of the day and the Prophet's(SW) favourite wife.

Siffin = Muwaiya simply wanted justice for Uthman's murder. That makes the battles with Imam Ali(عليه السلام) perfectly okay. Muwaiya was also a senior companion and most beloved of the Prophet(SW) even though he met the Prophet(SW) once or twice in his entire lifetime before running away to Syria after the conquest of Makkah(Depending on the resources). Muwaiya was also guarenteed paradise by Prophet(SW) because he participated in some battle. So it was a dispute between two senior Sahabas which unfortunately led to war.

There you go, that's the simple breakdown of the lengthy posts on SC by Sunnis over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

Whoever sees from his leader something that he dislikes, then let him be patient with him because whosoever separates from the jamā’ah (i.e. the body of Muslims in a country) even by a handspan, and then dies in that condition, he will die the death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jāhiliyyah).” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

I don't understand those who are majority and have same beliefs than the corrupt leader can not just remove the bad leader such that it does not seperate the Ummah and that they would insert better one. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

Jamal = Aisha did not intend to rebel against Imam Ali(عليه السلام). She made a mistake and it was Talha/Zubayr who were the real instigators. She's the mother of believers at the end of the day and the Prophet's(SW) favourite wife.

She was a test from God, who obeys Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) instead of her, which represent obeying shaytan. Part of the test is exactly the title of mother of the believers that even if she is one, would you obey her or God when it comes right and wrong. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I don't understand those who are majority and have same beliefs than the corrupt leader can not just remove the bad leader such that it does not seperate the Ummah and that they would insert better one. 

What would happen if you tried rebelling against a leader? Tell me all of the possible outcomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

She was a test from God, who obeys Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) instead of her, which represent obeying shaytan. Part of the test is exactly the title of mother of the believers that even if she is one, would you obey her or God when it comes right and wrong. 

She did not want to fight 'Ali. Nobody wanted to fight. They wanted to avenge the death of 'Uthman. Reread our story in depth. No Shi'a I have met can tell me in detail what happened in the battle from authentic evidences and would rather blindly hate. I guarantee you if I asked you, you could not tell me what happened other than what has been fed to you or what you have skimmed over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Abu Nur said:

I said very clearly majority. The problem is because this same majority tend to submit to this leader instead to go ageinst him. 

I ask again - what would happen if the majority went against the leaders in power? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
26 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

She did not want to fight 'Ali. Nobody wanted to fight. They wanted to avenge the death of 'Uthman. Reread our story in depth. No Shi'a I have met can tell me in detail what happened in the battle from authentic evidences and would rather blindly hate. I guarantee you if I asked you, you could not tell me what happened other than what has been fed to you or what you have skimmed over.

How many times i hear the same lame excuse. The reality is that she intended to fight, got to battle, fought ageinst her khalifa and God tested the believers who they will choose Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
34 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

She did not want to fight 'Ali. Nobody wanted to fight. They wanted to avenge the death of 'Uthman. Reread our story in depth. No Shi'a I have met can tell me in detail what happened in the battle from authentic evidences and would rather blindly hate. I guarantee you if I asked you, you could not tell me what happened other than what has been fed to you or what you have skimmed over.

What is authentic evidences, you mean your sunni hadiths that you keep present them here where they are not even hujjah to us? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Abu Nur said:

How many times i hear the same lame excuse. The reality is that she intended to fight, got to battle, fought ageinst her khalifa and God tested the believers who they will choose Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or not.

This does not make any sense. You call it a lame excuse, but it shows you do not read. This is the problem. The first command was "Read!", yet you fail to do this. Regardless, she did not assemble to meet 'Ali. 'Ali came to her because he heard of her travelling with an army to confront the killers of 'Uthman. Second, she stated that she came to him because she wanted to reconcile. You cherry-pick which shows lack of sincerity, and quite frankly, intellect. Spotlight fallacies are for those who have little to no intellectual honesty and would rather find any reason to hate and bark at how things are not. 

How about this - in a day or two, when I get home, we can call and discuss how much you know about this topic. That way, we can see if it is blind hatred and intellectually dishonesty or valid points that have no contention. If you know so much about this battle to come to a conclusive ending, then you can teach me if you want to call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

If majority were clever and form an army ageinst this leader then they surely will install for them the leader that they think is better. 

That is not what I asked. What will happen if the majority rebelled against the leader? What sequence of events?

2 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

What is authentic evidences, you mean your sunni hadiths that you keep present them here where they are not even hujjah to us? 

If nothing is hujjah to you from our side, do not use them as evidence against me. Stop mentioning my books entirely. Wallahi, you have no real basis of sincerity because you are not only cherry-picking what suits your narrative, but you also reject the evidences that you "accept" that go against what you believe in, saying that these are not real nor hujjah upon you. Stop bringing them up. It is irritating because it is childish. "No, I win because I say so even if you prove me wrong because your word is wrong!". Please, let us not act like children. We are grown men. Accept the entire explanation or leave it entirely. If you want to cherry-pick, go ahead. That just highlights your character; a dishonest man who lacks the valor of a tick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, Nightclaw said:

This does not make any sense. You call it a lame excuse, but it shows you do not read. This is the problem. The first command was "Read!", yet you fail to do this. Regardless, she did not assemble to meet 'Ali. 'Ali came to her because he heard of her travelling with an army to confront the killers of 'Uthman. Second, she stated that she came to him because she wanted to reconcile. You cherry-pick which shows lack of sincerity, and quite frankly, intellect. Spotlight fallacies are for those who have little to no intellectual honesty and would rather find any reason to hate and bark at how things are not. 

How about this - in a day or two, when I get home, we can call and discuss how much you know about this topic. That way, we can see if it is blind hatred and intellectually dishonesty or valid points that have no contention. If you know so much about this battle to come to a conclusive ending, then you can teach me if you want to ca

What is so hard for you to understand that whatever reason aisha thought, she was wrong of what did she do. What is so hard for you to understand that God tested the believers trough her. 

All rest of your personal emotional rant toward me is pointless and you can keep it to yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Abu Nur said:

What is so hard for you to understand that whatever reason aisha thought, she was wrong of what did she do. What is so hard for you to understand that God tested the believers trough her. 

Prove to me she was wrong from your sources. Explain this battle from your books alone with authentic, sound traditions.

Quote

All rest of your personal emotional rant toward me is pointless and you can keep it to yourself. 

Call it what you will, but you are a person who lacks sincerity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

Prove to me she was wrong from your sources. Explain this battle from your books alone with authentic, sound traditions.

Call it what you will, but you are a person who lacks sincerity. 

No, i will no do such a thing. It would be a stupid move because you already demonstrated what you really are. Have a good day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

No, i will no do such a thing. It would be a stupid move because you already demonstrated what you really are. Have a good day. 

I thought so. Smart move. You have chosen to follow the route of Ammar Nakshwani - good job! I can see him in you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
48 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

She did not want to fight 'Ali. Nobody wanted to fight. They wanted to avenge the death of 'Uthman.

Typical cancerous reply to a clear, colossal transgression. Swords don't slip off people's hands onto other's heads. I want to avenge someone, I don't kill the president and those with him with the excuse that I am looking for the one(s) responsible. A woman doesn't accidentally slip on the saddle of the horse and march to battle. The Prophet (pbuhf) warned her, Umm Salama reminded her, and the dogs implored her. There is no excuse. You simply don't walk around kill everyone in your path when your mad and vengeful; this is one of two things; insanity or terrorism.

On 11/25/2020 at 1:11 PM, El Cid said:

There will appear after me rulers, they will not guide by my guidance, and they will not establish my Sunnah; there will be amongst them men whose hearts will be hearts of devils in the bodies of men!” He was asked: “How should I behave, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He replied: “Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!”

It is clear as day the rulers at the time paid some filthy traitors to fabricate sayings like these from the Prophet of God, in order to subject the people to their rule easily, exactly like what Saudi gov't and their mufti's have done for so many years; give us fatwas to impose on the citizens, and we will give you wealth, woman, children. Disgusting. 

By the logic of this hadith, it is permissible to obey the Shaytan, literally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, dragonxx said:

Typical cancerous reply to a clear, colossal transgression. Swords don't slip off people's hands onto other's heads. I want to avenge someone, I don't kill the president and those with him with the excuse that I am looking for the one(s) responsible. A woman doesn't accidentally slip on the saddle of the horse and march to battle. The Prophet (pbuhf) warned her, Umm Salama reminded her, and the dogs implored her. There is no excuse. You simply don't walk around kill everyone in your path when your mad and vengeful; this is one of two things; insanity or terrorism.

On 11/25/2020 at 9:11 PM, El Cid said:

Alright, then show me how the battle went down from your own sources with authentic traditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

By the logic of this hadith, it is permissible to obey the Shaytan, literally.

This clears up any and everything you will ask concerning this. 

You saying it is permissible to obey Shaytaan shows you do not know the ruling, so please watch the video to stop yourself from speaking in ignorance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

Alright, then show me how the battle went down from your own sources with authentic traditions.

I don't know why the details are relevant. It's like a person having COVID and you are asking what does the patient's fingernails look like in order to support the suspicion of covid.

Fact: a woman was told by the Prophet don't step out the house, she steps out the house. Don't get on the saddle of a horse or whatever, does it anyway. Other woman reminds her to stay in her house, ignores. Dogs barking reminding the forewarning, ignores.

Fact: a woman marched in the middle of a bunch of men

Fact: vigilante ran wild with the excuse they are looking for the killer(s) of Uthman (apparently), and proceeded to kill police officers and tried killing the president. 

Know what that reminds me of? 

 

Created for an apparently noble reason, yet everything done has nothing to do with that noble reason. 

At least in the case of Homer the initial intention/reason was actually pure.

 

Stop trying to brush killing under the rug as if it was just a teenager going through puberty. People's lives were taken that day. You do not get away with that as per the Book of Allah, for killing one innocent human is like killing the entirety of humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

You saying it is permissible to obey Shaytaan shows you do not know the ruling, so please watch the video to stop yourself from speaking in ignorance.

"Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!”

The only thing ignorant is not admitting that this entails pure cowardice.

What is the difference between obeying someone who beats and steals from you, and the shaytan who encourages the same? Nothing is different. If your life is at stake, sure, for Allah says that one can even eat swine if they are starving, likewise if a "ruler" beats and steals from you and you fear from your life, it is forgiven to keep quiet. But if you have the ability to fight back, and don't, (EDITED) you have allowed a transgressor to touch up your women and children while you "hear and obey".

Edited by Mahdavist
Personal attacks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

I don't know why the details are relevant. It's like a person having COVID and you are asking what does the patient's fingernails look like in order to support the suspicion of covid.

Fact: a woman was told by the Prophet don't step out the house, she steps out the house. Don't get on the saddle of a horse or whatever, does it anyway. Other woman reminds her to stay in her house, ignores. Dogs barking reminding the forewarning, ignores.

Fact: a woman marched in the middle of a bunch of men

Fact: vigilante ran wild with the excuse they are looking for the killer(s) of Uthman (apparently), and proceeded to kill police officers and tried killing the president. 

Know what that reminds me of? 

Provide evidence from your books with authentic traditions and narrations.

3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Created for an apparently noble reason, yet everything done has nothing to do with that noble reason. 

At least in the case of Homer the initial intention/reason was actually pure.

 

Stop trying to brush killing under the rug as if it was just a teenager going through puberty. People's lives were taken that day. You do not get away with that as per the Book of Allah, for killing one innocent human is like killing the entirety of humanity.

You got that quote from our books just as you have gained a new belief from our books. No surprise. 

Nonetheless, provide evidence.  This is, in essence, an ad hoc until further notice.

Edited by Mahdavist
Personal attacks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

"Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!”

The only thing ignorant is not admitting that this entails pure cowardice.

What is the difference between obeying someone who beats and steals from you, and the shaytan who encourages the same? Nothing is different. If your life is at stake, sure, for Allah says that one can even eat swine if they are starving, likewise if a "ruler" beats and steals from you and you fear from your life, it is forgiven to keep quiet. But if you have the ability to fight back, and don't, you have allowed a transgressor to touch up your women and children while you "hear and obey".

As for the shia perspective, this is a good article: 

https://www.iqraonline.net/the-shia-community-and-the-sultan-during-imam-ridas-imamate/

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

You got that quote from our books just as you have gained a new belief from our books. No surprise. 

 

"our books". didn't know you had claim over the quran 

 

Bottom line is, you openly admitted to every single person out here that if a ruler back in the day took your wife and kid and you would "hear and obey". Embarrassing.

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

We are allowed to disobey if they command us to do something prohibited or if they attack our family and a handful of other things.

"even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!”

Love the contradictions

Edited by Mahdavist
Personal attacks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

how cowardly we are

last thing i gotta say.

don't say we. This is an a-b conversation. Don't try to make it look like I'm hating on all sunni brothers out there. 

My responses were to your specific comments, or "Foaming" as you like to call it lil man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

 

 

3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

"even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!”

Love the contradictions, keep the IQ drops coming.

Does this apply to everything? If he commits disbelief and invites others to do so, do we obey then? No. 

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:
Quote

It is for this reason that we repeatedly see in the words of Imam Riḍā that accepting the position of crown prince was due to force. On some occasions, the Imam compares his position to that of Prophet Yusuf (a) who was pressured into taking the position of a crown prince for the minister of Egypt12, and at times he compares it to the participation of Imam ‘Alī in the committee of six people that was made to elect the third caliph after the murder of the second caliph.13

think this was an excellent quote from the article that i wanted to emphasize

 
3 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Does this apply to everything? If he commits disbelief and invites others to do so, do we obey then? No. 

Glad you have come to some reason. Some.

Doesn't explain how a bunch of people plus a woman killed the police officers and opposed the police chief of the time. Vengefulness is even worse because they attacked people they knew were innocent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

last thing i gotta say.

don't say we. This is an a-b conversation. Don't try to make it look like I'm hating on all sunni brothers out there. 

My responses were to your specific comments, or "Foaming" as you like to call it lil man.

This does not make any sense. You are responding to things I never claimed. If a ruler is trying to take my family, I will respond to him in the famous words of Leonidas: "Molon labe". We all have to go someday - and this is permitted. Nobody states that we are not allowed to defend ourselves, rather the opposite. You take a narration without any explanation, put your own twist on it and say that this is correct... based on what? You have given your own explanation with no evidences whatsoever other than this. If this is the case, anything anyone interprets from anything they read is correct.

You have misrepresented our side because of how you misconstrued a narration that you have no authority in the world to do. Go look at explanations for the rules and regulations regarding this narration. Also, you still have not explained or provided any evidence from your side concerning the Battle of the Camel with authentic traditions. I guess that goes to show that you are not here to discuss, rather bash and hate because you lack the intellect and integrity to hold an actual conversation without throwing low blows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, dragonxx said:

Glad you have come to some reason. Some.

What are you talking about? This has been the ruling since way back when. 

1 minute ago, dragonxx said:

Doesn't explain how a bunch of people plus a woman killed the police officers and opposed the police chief of the time. Vengefulness is even worse because they attacked people they knew were innocent.

Prove it. Provide evidence. You keep saying she did all these things, so prove it to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...