Verbal rebellion against rulers is the cause of the ACTUAL revolt!

Verbal rebellion against rulers is the cause of the ACTUAL revolt!

Doubt 1: There are some people who accept that revolting against the rulers is prohibited but claim openly reviling and criticising the rulers is a practise of the sahabah and early salaf.

Reply: Some sahabah and early salaf also took part in revolts and there is plenty evidence of this. So can we use this evidence to justify revolting against rulers today? Of course not.

Publicly criticising and reviling rulers leads to stirring of the emotions and this leads to revolts. There is a ruling in usool al fiqh called ‘taabih': 'that which follows’ an action carries the same ruling. For e.g. Praying in the masjid carries great reward so walking to & from the masjid carries reward too. Reciting the quran carries a great reward so learning how to recite it, is a great reward too. Similarly swearing to a muslim is sin and fighting him is an even bigger sin. Therefore how could openly reviling and disparaging a ruler be permissible and that which it leads to (rebellions) be impermissible?

Therefore, every text regarding the prohibition of rebellion (against the rulers) and the censuring of those who do so is an evidence for the prohibition of reviling and abusing the rulers and also (an evidence) for the reprimand of the one who does so.

Doubt 2: some people claim that only the physical revolts are prohibited whereas criticising rulers publicly and glorifying their mistakes to the masses is enjoying the good and forbidding the evil.

Reply: Shaykh Ahmed ibn Yahya an Najmi said:

And revolting against the rulers is split up into two categories:

>The actual revolt with the sword and whatever that entails

>The verbal rebellion when the person speaks against the rulers, defames them and maligns them calling to revolt against them.

All of this is not permissible because the verbal rebellion is the cause for the actual revolt.

So it is not permissible for the servant to do anything from that. If he objects to something then let him write a secret letter about that advising the rulers and relieve his conscience with that. (End of his words)

Abu Ma'bad 'Abdullah ibn 'Akim al-Johani, a great Tabi'i said in a sermon of his:

'I will never aid in the killing of another Khalif after 'Uthman.' A man surprised by this statement said, 'O Abu Ma'bad, did you take part in his killing?!' He said, '(No,) but I consider the mentioning of a man's faults to be aiding in his killing (so I will not do that).’

Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad

Please note:

there are allowances for someone to criticise rulers in their presence as Ibn Umar did to Al Hajjaj but this cannot be used to defend deviant groups like Ikhwaan al Muslimeen and the Qutbiyyah who have infused Leninist revolutionary ideology with Islam and claim to enjoin the good & forbid the evil. Indeed this deception was the way of the Abdullah ibn Saba the yemeni jew who founded shia’ism.

The Jew Abdullaah ibn Saba used to say:

‘Begin by criticizing and attacking your leaders. And appear to enjoin the good and forbid evil so the people incline towards you.’

[Tareekh At-Tabari’ (4/341)]