If Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu embrace Islam?

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Asslamoalaikum,

I wonder if Trump and Natanyahu embrace Islam, will their obedience be obligatory? As per Sunni school of thought obedience of rulers is obligatory. If happens so, may be we see after one hundred years Sunni world saying "Trump and Natanyahu committed Khata-e-Ijtihadi by killing tens of thousands of Muslims in Palestine."

[ServantOfMahdi]

And calling them those Ulu l-Amr who have been mentioned with Allah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as the third supreme authority of Islam in 4:59.

[Aabiss_Shakari]

12 hours ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

And calling them those Ulu l-Amr who have been mentioned with Allah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as the third supreme authority of Islam in 4:59.

The Sunni interpretation of Quran 4:59, which often equates "those in authority" (uli al-amr) with temporal Muslim rulers, has historically been challenged from within Islamic tradition, particularly on the grounds that it contradicts the Quran's own emphasis on justice and the explicit commands to oppose oppression.

The Sunni Interpretive Framework

The dominant Sunni exegetical tradition does indeed interpret "those in authority" as referring to Muslim rulers and commanders. This interpretation is often supported by hadith literature. For instance, the companion `Ubadah bin As-Samit reported pledging to the Prophet to hear and obey leaders in hardship and ease, even if deprived of their rights, "Except when you witness clear Kufr (disbelief) about which you have clear proof from Allah" . This hadith, found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, creates a framework where obedience is the default position, with rebellion only permissible in cases of clear, undeniable disbelief .

The Quranic Challenge: Obedience Conditioned on Justice

The core of the counter-argument lies in the Quran itself. The command to obey those in authority cannot be absolute when weighed against other clear and overarching Quranic principles:

1. The Command for Justice: The Quran makes justice a non-negotiable divine imperative. The command in Surah An-Nisa is not isolated: "Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice" (Quran 4:58). This verse immediately precedes 4:59, establishing justice as the foundational qualification for those in authority. An unjust ruler breaches this fundamental condition.

2. The Universal Obligation to Enjoin Good and Forbid Evil: The Quran assigns a collective responsibility to the Muslim community: "You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah" (Quran 3:110). This duty is also linked to the authority of true believers in Quran 22:41. Critics argue that if "enjoining right and forbidding wrong" is a religious duty for all believers, it logically must apply to the behavior of rulers. Obedience to a tyrant who commands wrong would be a direct violation of this duty.

The Theological Counter-Arguments

For critics of the Sunni view, the core problem is theological: the command to obey someone as part of a divine chain of obedience (Allah → Prophet → Authority) requires that the authority figure possesses a level of infallibility or divine appointment.

• The Problem of Obeying Sinners: A prominent Shia argument points out that Allah would not command unconditional obedience to a sinner, as this would be contradictory to His nature . Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, a renowned Sunni theologian, is cited as acknowledging this issue, stating that the "uli al-amr" must possess perfect integrity; otherwise, Allah would not have linked obedience to them with obedience to Himself and the Prophet .

• The Necessity of Infallibility: This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that for the command to be logical and meaningful, the "authority" must be divinely appointed and infallible, free from error and sin—a position held by Shia theology regarding their Imams . This makes the idea of obeying a fallible, and potentially tyrannical, human ruler theologically untenable.

• The Issue of Ijma (Consensus): The idea that "those in authority" are elected by community consensus is also challenged on practical grounds, as it would require a unanimous consensus that has never been achieved in Islamic history, especially in a divided Muslim world .

Conclusion

The Sunni interpretation of Quran 4:59, when taken in isolation, can create a political theology that prioritizes social order and obedience over rebellion. However, this view is effectively controverted by a holistic reading of the Quran that places justice, the duty to forbid wrong, and the nature of divine command at the forefront. The objections demonstrate that an unconditional command to obey rulers is incompatible with the Quran’s overarching imperative for justice and its prohibition of obeying sinners, thereby creating a strong theological and textual basis to challenge tyranny rather than submit to it.

---

References

• The Holy Quran: 4:58, 4:59 (command to obey Allah, the Prophet, and those in authority, preceded by a command for justice); 3:110 (enjoining right and forbidding wrong); 22:41 (condition of authority).

• Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: The hadith of `Ubadah bin As-Samit, establishing the Sunni principle of obedience to rulers unless they exhibit clear disbelief .

• Tafsir al-Kabir (Fakhr al-Din al-Razi): Cited for its argument that uli al-amr must be people of perfect integrity .

• Sunni Historical Precedent: The address of Abu Bakr upon assuming the Caliphate, where he explicitly asks the people to correct him if he errs, illustrating that even the earliest leader did not demand unconditional, unquestioning obedience .