Is armed struggle permissible against Muslim rulers to remove their governments because of their non-Islamic policies, or for the acceptance of demands, to bring them to the right path, or get them to give up their impious activities?

Published on: March 1, 2018

A. Is armed struggle permissible against Muslim rulers to remove their governments because of their non-Islamic policies, or for the acceptance of demands, to bring them to the right path, or get them to give up their impious activities?

B. is rebellion permissible against the constitutional government, its writ and governance?

C. What should be the legitimate way to change the rulers or make them change their ways?

The Answer;

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All citizens of a Muslim state have been places under obligation to abide by state laws, rules and regulations. One of these principles is that a Muslim state and society should be a paragon of peace and mutual co-existence. This is the reason why Islam strictly prohibits the taking up of arms against Muslim state, to challenge its authority and writ and declare war against it. Islamic law deems such an act as clear rebellion.

If rebellion, God forbid, does surge, then it becomes the duty of the concerned Muslim state to take urgent measures to eliminate rebellion with an iron fist and exterminate (by sounded means) terrorism so that no group or individual destroy the social harmony and shed innocent blood. Islam holds peace and tranquillity of society in general and Muslim state in particular very dear, that it will now allow people to raise the banner of revolt; in the name of tackling injustice. Oppression and other vices of the ruling elite

In light if the prophetic traditions, the banner of rebellion against a Muslim state cannot be raised unless the rulers commit explicit, declared and absolute infidelity and prevent the performance of religious rituals like prayers through the use of force.

The clear premise and ruling for the forbiddance of rebellion in the light of the Quranic verses, Prophetic traditions and expositions of the jurists are evident, referring to the holy Companions, their successors. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal and other leading jurists have maintained an absolute consensus on the forbiddance of rebellion against the Muslim state, there is no difference of opinion between any school of thought.

A rebellion that challenges the writ of the state and has been launched without the collective approval of and sanction of society is indeed a civil war, blatant terrorism and can never be called jihadists it even use of legal term of jihad the media and academics should be very careful when using such words and claims as they will be seen to solicit, and abet social strife.

However is should be borne in mind that struggle to reform impious Muslim ruler or state, it is not prohibited or disallowed. Forbiddance of rebellion and armed struggle does not mean that evil should not be called evil and no effort is made to stop it’s spread or the duty to promote good and forbid evil to be abandoned. Commending of the truth and rejection of falsity is binding upon the Muslims. Seeking to  reform society and fight off forces is one if the religious obligations.

Adopting all constitutional, legal, political and democratic ways to reform the rulers and the system of governance and method and falls under the freedom of expression against the violation of human rights is considered a lawful method and falls under the freedom of expression against the violation of human rights this is in fact binding on all Muslim citizens.
Making every effort to individually and collectively and the reign of terror and oppression and to work to restore justice through appropriate means firm part of the obligation of faith.

And Allah(swt) alone knows best.