Al-Hamdulillah, I think it is noteworthy that this event be explained thoroughly because in our view, the issue is “multi-faceted”. We have issues pertaining to the Islamic religious aspect of it, as well as democratic issues pertaining to it, as well as what the scholars of Egypt have noted. We can add to this mix the tactical (military) point of view as we shall comment on slightly. I think it is only fair to provide a deeply encompassing explanation of the issue because things are not as black and white as some people who are ignorant usually deem it is. I have discussed personally with comrades of the Islamic faith as well as with some modernist, and as well some of the kuffar in how they perceive the matter at hand. I’ve seen various viewpoints of it and they range from extremely pitiful to enlightening pov’s. So I believe it is the correct method to outline the basis of the Islamic adaab and philosophy of the issue at hand firstly, and then proceed with the other aspects.
I would assure the readers that I have done my utmost to be as objective as possible and to remain true as possible to how we feel and view the issue here at al-Mustaqeem Publications
- 1. The Islamic Principle On the overthrow of rulers
In general, the Islamic viewpoint on revolutions is twofold. There is an express ruling for the one who is a Muslim and another for the one who is an apostate. As for the one that is a Muslim, then the general Islamic ruling is that it is haraam. This is the case of the one who is a Muslim and he is a tyrant or oppressive. This view was declared as a matter of ijmaa by Imaam an-Nawawee in his Sharh Saheeh Muslim. I am not going to attempt to bring the elucidations of the salaf on this issue as it is too numerous and as well, confusing. The reason why this is so is because there was general disagreement with the pious ancestors of the Ummah of Muhammad and the Ijmaa (consensus) that an-Nawawee and Ibn hajr have highlighted took place after the end of the third generation among the salaf and actually began forming in the time of Imaam Maalik. Rather, as a matter of principle, I will direct the readers to our page for the a more accurate and detailed analysis of the Islamic position on the topic and the declarations of the Imaams of Islam on the topic from a classical orthodox position. I would refer everyone to
for any detailed explanations of the issue. The information therein is the classical orthodox sunni ‘itiqaad (doctrine) on the topic of revolutions with Muslim leaders. I would also refer readers to this particular elaboration produced by the Najdi Imaam Abdul-Lateef bin Abdur-Rahman bin Hasan aali-Shaykh
Regardless of who the authors are, it is essential that the just Muslim analyze the information contained therein and not to disregard information purely on the basis of the nature of those who provided the information. In doing so, this would be the result of injustice.
However, what about with regards to an apostate or kaafir ruler, is revolt then permitted? The general Islamic ruling is that it is permitted, under two conditions. Imaam Bin Baz highlights this position when he was asked.
Is it permissible to rebel against the ruler?
There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and sin, we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion?
Praise be to Allaah.
The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.
In the chapter on شروط جواز الخروج على الحاكمi.e. “Conditions on the allowance of revolting against the leaders” Imaam Bin Baz highlights
سبق أن أخبرتك أنه لا يجوز الخروج على السلطان إلا بشرطين: أحدهما: وجود كفر بواح عندهم من الله فيه برهان. والشرط الثاني: القدرة على إزالة الحاكم إزالة لا يترتب عليها شر أكبر منه، وبدون ذلك لا يجوز
“I already told you that it’s not allowed to revolt against the ruler except with two conditions:
- The first of which is- If the presence of clear cut disbelief (kufr bawah) which they have an evidence from Allah for is present.
- And the second: the ability to remove the ruler without the occurrence of greater harm. without this it’s not allowed “
What I have stressed before in various places is that the conditions for the one who is an apostate ruler, then the requirements needed in order for his removal are the following
1. The ones in the revolution have enough ability to perform the task. They have to have a thoroughly laid out plan and the ability to execute, militarily.
2. That it will not bring about more harm in the process. This is because the ulema took into consideration the asl (principle) that it is haraam to remove an evil by means of a greater evil
The Current Protests
Now, after laying down the Islamic foundations for this topic, now we progress to make sense of the situation on ground in Egypt.
In this regard, this event is being played and the grass roots causes and desires of the Muslims are being manipulated to pull some strings not in favor of the Muslims. It is necessary to review the views and commentaries of various people
- 2. The view of the Mshaa’ikh (scholars) of Egypt and others
Through my contacts, I have managed to receive some information on the Egyptian sentiment where the protests are occurring.
The View of Shaykh Muhammad Abdul-Maqsood
The following was a translation provided by Ibrahim Hindy posted on Suhaib Webb’s blog.
Is it permissible for us to participate with those who are demonstrating?
Yes, it is permissible to participate with those who are demonstrating. This (action) does not fall under the category of Khurooj against the leader, which I have explained in great detail at a previous juncture, however I will explain it as well for your benefit.
In the Sharh of Sahih Muslim by Imam an-Nawawi, he commented upon the hadith which states:
‘Ubadah ibn al-Saamit narrated in the hadith of allegiance that: “We pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah to listen and obey…and that we would not fight the people of authority, unless we see clear and absolute disbelief, for which you have evidence from Allah.”
Imam an-Nawawi commented upon this by stating:
“This means, do not attempt to fight the people of authority and do not oppose them, unless you see from them clear evil which you know of from the principles of Islam. If you see this, then forbid them from it and speak the truth wherever you may be. As for Khurooj against them and fighting them, that is haram (forbidden) by consensus of the believers, even if they are corrupt and oppressive.”
The statement of Imam an-Nawawi clearly shows that he draws a distinction between forbidding evil with your tongue and speaking for truth, versus khurooj and fighting against the rulers.
So it is then permissible for you do aid those who have opposed this (clear) oppression and have attempted to remove it.
A person may ask “How can we help them when some of them (who are protesting) are not religious?”
The principles of this religion, particularly enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, proves that we should be in the aid of anyone who works towards establishing a good or eradicating an evil, even if they are corrupt themselves. This is because we all, collectively, are included in the statement of Allah: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” (Qur’an, 5:2)
If the people you are cooperating with are corrupt, then their corruption is upon themselves. However, should they work towards establishing good or for the removal of evil then it is imperative upon us to help them even if they are corrupt.
Imam ash-Shawkani states in “Hada’iq al-Azhar:”
“It is compulsory to help (even) a sinful person in establishment of good or the eradication of evil, or in the limiting of a greater evil. Indeed, enjoining the good and forbidding evil has been established as one the most significant Islamic principles, and of the most important religious obligations. So whoever establishes (this principle) has indeed established truth. And whoever is in need of help (in enjoining the good), then it is obligatory to help them as it would be considered aiding (one another) for truth and justice and it would be considered a form of establishing the truth and not a form of establishing the sinful person (or his sins).”
And in this respect, (we should) help establish those of lesser evil and oppression over those of greater evil and oppression, and indeed this (practice) comes underneath the category of “enjoining good and forbidding evil.”
Therefore whenever we see a person working towards establishing good or eradicating evil, then it is imperative for us to work with them due to the statement of Allah: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” (Qur’an, 5:2) As well as what has been established in Sahih Muslim narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that:
“Whoever from amongst you sees an evil should change it by his hand, if he is unable to do so then he should change it by his tongue (by speaking against it), and if he is unable to do so then he should reject it in his heart – and this is the weakest of Iman.”
And I ask a question: Everyone who lived through the reign of (Anwar) Sadat and who has lived through this reign (i.e. that of Mubarak) – who would choose to live under the rule of Mubarak instead of Sadat? Without a doubt, everyone would choose the rule of Sadat.
In this time and reign (of Mubarak), not a single one of us has been ensured of our safety. [End of Quote]
Analysis of the Ahkaam of Shaykh Muhammad Abdul-Maqsood
I believe that the shaykhs analysis is highly beneficial and represents a deep extraction of the sources of Islam, from the Qur’an and sunnah along with the elucidations of the Imaams of the shariah like an-Nawawee rahimahullah.
It is clear here that from the view of ijtihaad, the current protests are not considered as “revolting against the leaders” precisely because in the shariah of Islam, the shariah categorized “revolt” as “the raising of the sword”, or in modern times any conventional weapon. Clearly what has happened in Egypt does not include any of the people taking up arms against the authority. Of course, the only issue of concern for some will be the legitimacy of “rallies and protests” in the context of Islam, something that has never happened in history of Islam, and the most authoritative modern thinkers have censored it based on the results it brings, and thus pertains to ijtihadaat.
So if for arguments sake these current protests actually result in much benefit, then this would alter the nature of the ijtihadaat of Imaams like al-Albanee, Ibn Uthaymeen, and Bin Baz, and many others on the topic due to their reasoning of “what actually results” from these demonstrations and rallies. If however these protests bring about what was initially foreseen by such authorities which in effect caused them to issue these fatwas in the first place, then it will further solidify their ijtihaad and will result in a “I told you so” scenario.
We personally here hope that their ijtihaad on this issue is wrong NOT for the sake of proving them wrong, but because since these protests have already taken place, then the only thing left to do now is to “hope for the best outcome”. We would rather have this intention rather than hoping that protesters fail in their attempt to bring about change only for the basis of proving the scholars right. I believe this is the most fair and balanced outlook on the issue.
What I also add into the mix of scholastic ijtihaad (not that Im qualified to make it) is that the ijtihaad of our scholars was based on the result of what happened. As further information continues to be brought to the surface in people’s knowledge, we have now learned that the practice of provocateuring by governments is a natural methodology of corrupt government to perform in order to legitimize their “crackdown” on the populace. In other words, if we consider the fact that most of those who take violence as a means of protests are actually employed by the governments in order to take physical actions against the people, then we can understand that this is a deception of reality, and as such, we believe that the ijtihaad of an alim should take this aspect into consideration in the forming of their ijtihaad.
The Speech of Shaykh Muhammad Hassan
The video can be found here
The speech of Muhammad Hassan is indeed noteworthy and acceptable. I personally agreed with it wholeheartedly. However, there is one point that I found to be mistaken. That is the praise for the Egyptian military in their stepping down from taking action against the protesters. The political chess playing maneuver on this point will be explained as to why I found this to be not so accurate which inshallah, I will highlight later on below
The Speech of Yasir Qadhi
While indeed his analysis of the topic is understandable and accurate, the correctness of what he says is overshadowed by this following remark
Secondly, we should truly appreciate and thank Allah for our own situation here in the West, where, despite all the negatives of foreign policy and the beginnings of Islamophobia, the two greatest blessings that man needs are still available to us, and we thank Allah ‘…who has given us food to save us from hunger, and protected us from feeling scared’ [Quraysh; 4]. Not everything about ‘the West’ is evil, and we thank Allah for the good even as we strive with every legitimate means to change the bad.
The reason for taking objection to this stems from the format of how this reality comes about. In order for the assurance of our “security from hunger” entails that the current American hegemony embarks on societal economic rape of entire national societies. On this single point, I urge and emphatically stress that everyone read the book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins in order to fully actualize how this status quo is maintained. In order for the U.S. to enjoy what it has that enjoyment rest upon the plunder and pillage of the entire economic resources of most societies that the corporatocracy lust for in those respective countries.
Another aspect is the “security” apparatus he highlights. There is no security because we see the continual march of domestic policies to be evolving into an authoritarian police state that many Americans feel en masse.
The Analysis of Yvonne Ridley
Our sister, Yvonne, has given her take with RT news which can be accessed here.
Again, like much of the various commentaries given by others, much of it is accurate and understandable. There is on slight comment that does need some correction. She comments that the Egyptian people will choose their own leader and if America does not like it, then tough. That, in my view is applicable to a world where there is a “balance of power”. That does not work in the current world we have now. When the American empire plays politics, it plays hardball and does not “accept” the situation; rather it takes on missions that are multi-faceted in order to topple this phenomenon. Further commentary about this very topic will be elucidated below inshallah.
- 3. The Manipulation of the Kuffaar
I really wanted to touch on this because Muslims have been employing a rather “naïve” aspect to this phenomenon. Allow me to explain. In my personal view, if one is to revolt, they should do so thoroughly. They need to completely wipe out the existing system or what we call in English “clean house”. A complete regime change so to speak! That is because people are still currently misled to believe that a single person is the cause of their suffering and kufr. That is incorrect; it is the military, the intelligence agencies, the legislators, and all others in the existing government. If you do not perform an entire regime change, then what will happen, as the kuffar are secretly planning, is that they will merely change the face of the “prime minister” while continuing the existing policies of kufr. That is nothing but poor planning on the part of the Muslims. I remember the kuffar have a principle that actually works and is rather quite Islamic. It’s called “the 6 P’s”
“Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Production”
While I am happy to see this fir’awn sagheer out of there, I am prevented from enjoying this in light of the fact that the revolution was only against him, and not everyone else involved in the formation of the prevailing secular state of kufr that is the system of control as it stands as of now.
So what are the kuffaar among the power players performing? There are several aspects to this. The first aspect is misinformation. Currently, they are flooding the coverage of this event as “an uprising of those aspiring for democracy”. This was visible when the pimpster Elliot Spitzer debates with the jahl and khariji Anjem Chaudry here
The point is not about what Chaudry spews forth, but what Spitzer argues. This has been the same calculated rhetoric in much of the western media.
The purpose is to shape the debate on the topic to insinuate that the people of Egypt are in protest to purely economic disgruntlement and secular state policies and has nothing to do with any “religious” overtone.
From a source I have in Egypt, there is a different depiction based on the atmosphere there. A close friend of mine in Egypt has highlighted in general the elements of the protests. He states
Most people in Egypt are doing it for shariah and the minority is doing it because they are abused for long time. People who have been overseas are doing it for democracy.
Opposing people are thugs from secret police.
What he stated is very interesting. The claims are that the basic sentiment of the people are doing so for reasons pertaining to the shariah whether it be from implementing the shariah or simply calling out to the cessation of tyrannical policies against Islam. Others are in the protests for basically the oppression of the government and thus are among the legitimate grievances of people. Then he highlights that only the western inculcated factions of the society are doing so for “democracy”. And the last and most interesting comment is what can be classified as “provocateuring” which is the practice of the police of a society where they infiltrate dissenting groups of the government, invoke and cause violence in order to depict the dissenters in question in such a light so as to convince the people throughout the media of a certain perception about the dissenters which thus allows the government to react in a violent “crackdown” manner. It’s more of a “propaganda move” to legitimize their tyranny. This similar practice is the exact same practice of the western powers and Canada is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
However, there is more to the manipulation of the kuffaar in this event. Something much more sinister is brewing up that is not well known among people. A new face to the seat of power has some international ramifications, particularly for the illegal state of what they call “Isra’el” and as well for U.S. interests. An interesting perspective on this was given by Adnan Khan here http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/analysis/middle-east/11182-egypt-what-next
I personally saved this specific webpage into pdf in the event that the U.S. media picks up on it and somehow is able to eradicate this information from the web.
The popular uprising in Egypt has now attracted the attention of the whole world. Media outlets around the globe are not just reporting the facts but attempting to shape global perceptions on the possible outcome. As an example the BBC has described ElBaradei as: “Leading Egyptian opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei has joined thousands of protesters in Cairo….” The BBC has already given him the honour of leading the opposition, when he has only been in the country since 27th January 2010.
As we can see here and what will continue, inshallah, is that the U.S. is trying its utmost in ensuring a continued enactment of the policies maintained by Hosni Mubarak by placing puppet figures to take the lead “in the opposition” and thus smashing the basic intent of the protesters.
Now, what really gets interesting is the shaykh Muhammad Hasan’s comment that he made in his declaration which was provided for in the link above on Muhammad Hassan’s speech.
The shaykh says
“And allow me to salute the army on their heroic, noble stand and position, with our youth and sons, and fathers in the street”
I believe that we are all glad, as an ummah, that this is the case as Muhammad Hassan has pointed out. However, my personal gladness is overshadowed by the fact that the action of the army has nothing to do with the “heroic” act as the shaykh outlines, but has actually to do more with political maneuvering in the platform of the grand chessboard. Let us further bring added information in order to see what we are dealing with.
Adnan Khan continues remarking
The last remaining player and probably the most important is the Egyptian military. Hosni Mubarak has only remained in power as he gained the loyalty of the army, however with an inevitable stand-off with the people just a matter of time, the side the army takes will in all likelihood determine the future of Egypt. As some from the army have joined the protests, the army has since the discussion of Hosni Mubarak’s succession grown in clout. The Egyptian Chief of Staff Lt.Gen. Sami Annan was in Washington on January 24th 2011 heading a high ranking military delegation as the demonstrations gathered momentum. Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who was named deputy prime minister while remaining chief of the defense ministry and overseeing the president’s first line of defense as head of the Republican Guard with Lt.Gen. Sami Annan appears to be managing this transition from behind the scenes.
The Egyptian regime appears to be constructing a transition that appeases the US. Omar Suleiman was appointed vice-president by Mubarak. Since 1993 Suleiman has headed the feared Egyptian general intelligence service. In that capacity, he was the CIA’s point man in Egypt for renditions-the covert program in which the CIA snatched terror suspects from around the world and returned them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation under brutal circumstances.
However, from other sources from which I have learned is that Mubarak was attempting to appoint someone from the intelligence community in Egypt to take the seat of power. This was considered an act of betrayal on the part of the military considering the military background of Mubarak himself. In the political reply to Mubarak from the military, the military response is basically the sentiment that “okay, if you wish to play it like this, we got connections to Washington too.” Thus their backing down from partaking in the defense of the Mubarak regime has nothing to do with any courageous intent, but has much more to do with political maneuvering against political rivals. Had Mubarak conceded to the desires of the military, the situation in Egypt would be far different than as it has been playing out and Allah knows best.
- 4. The Democratic Process
Yet, another tangent on the fore is let’s say for the sake of discussion that a “democracy” is constituted and the people elect a person that is directly taking the consideration of the populace seriously. This, in effect, is called a “Populist” democracy. Populist democracies fail miserably NOT because of the failure of its people, its governance, or its policies. It fails miserably because a truly democratically elected government that actually forms policies reflective of the sentiment of the populace is antithetical to U.S. interest, and those things that are antithetical to U.S. interests are diabolically removed from power. In order for the readers to fully digest this reality, I urge the readers to review the following short clips in order to vividly understand the framework that I am referring to.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRKZqdgBXg part 1
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux-M2k5xRBo part 2
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llIJjPefDik part 3
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuw4RVzh8Q0 part 4
In a nutshell, if the for sake of argument the people concede to the ambitions of the population in western countries and perform what is known as the “democratic process”, then under such an atmosphere, the Arab world, heck rather most of the world as a whole, have an idea of democracy that it is a rule by the people and for the people which means those elected will rule with policies and regulations that is in favor of the interest of its citizenry.
The problem! Well if the people desire the shariah or some type of Islamic governance or decide to re-shape the relations between Egypt and the Jewish state, then that presents a direct problem for the United States. Why? Because it will not be a democratic rule that the U.S. approves, and every single country on the planet that the U.S. has not approved, then its leaders have been either assassinated, or it collaborated with factions that are in opposition and were able to perform the classic coup d’état. Of course this is after they send in “economic hitman” to corrupt the leader to concede to U.S. interests and abandon the policies that the leader initially ran on which got him democratically elected by the people in the first place. In other words what the U.S. does is that it sends in economic hitman belonging to corporate entities so that if they are caught, there are no “governmental ramifications”. And in the event the economic hitmen fail, then as John Perkins describes, they send in the “jackals” to do exactly as I have described above.
So a populist democracy, a democracy truly for the people, does not work for the United States. That is why U.S. foreign policy is extremely schizophrenic when it comes to the implementation of democracies around the world simply because a democracy is only an acceptable democracy if the nation itself takes the U.S. in it’s best interest over their own respective populace.
Let us review a statement posted by an extremist in a news website. By the name of Alex, he says
wow…and i thought MSNBC was a nuthouse..this is much worse. this is just a perfect collection of socialist degenerates. yeah..you’ll see democracy very soon in egypt. Taliban-style
Let us take notice to the quote highlighted in bold. The sentiment behind such a statement is that a democracy that emerges in Egypt, or any Muslim country, will be one that resembles “fundamentalism” like the Taliban. In essence, such a democracy is “unapproved” by such people and in the view of such people; it is because the populace does not have the “intellectual capacity” to vote “correctly”. This same sentiment was also stated by another extremist some years ago by Bridget Gabriel, one of the west’s most intellectually inept Islamaphobes to appear in the realm of punditry.
A professional look at the situation in terms of the political chessboard
The best analysis I’ve come across in the western media was produced by RT news which can be accessed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krDNCfFrj8s
After reviewing the above, one can realize the international ramifications of what happens next. The extremely informative outline by Andrew Gavin Marshall highlights the reason I noted above about the nature of “populist” democracy and how such a democracy is antithetical to U.S. ambitions precisely because the populace of entire countries want what is best for their own people, not what is best for people who do not live there whereas the U.S. foreign policy is that it is to ensure that puppet regimes are put in place in order to ensure U.S. interest at the expense of its people.
Another superbly researched study was produced by Globalresearch.ca which can be accessed here
Essentially, it highlights everything I spoke above, particularly with regard to the nature of regime change and what needs to be protested. Specifically, I wish to quote what our ummah needs to be reminded of, and that is the following
Our message to the protest movement:
Actual decisions are taken in Washington DC, at the US State Department, at the Pentagon, at Langley, headquarters of the CIA. at H Street NW, the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF.
The relationship of “the dictator” to foreign interests must be addressed. Unseat the political puppets but do not forget to target the “real dictators”.
The protest movement should focus on the real seat of political authority; it should target (in a peaceful, orderly and nonviolent fashion) the US embassy, the delegation of the European Union, the national missions of the IMF and the World Bank.
Meaningful political change can only be ensured if the neoliberal economic policy agenda is thrown out.
If the protest movement fails to address the role of foreign powers including pressures exerted by “investors”, external creditors and international financial institutions, the objective of national sovereignty will not be achieved. In which case, what will occur is a narrow process of “regime replacement”, which ensures political continuity.
“Dictators” are seated and unseated. When they are politically discredited and no longer serve the interests of their US sponsors, they are replaced by a new leader, often recruited from within the ranks of the political opposition.
So in essence, as our take on the situation in Egypt is based on all that we have gathered above, I would say that the focus of our brothers in Egypt should be about “regime change” rather than “puppet change” because focusing on the puppet is a delusion that is calculated by design to deter attention of the masses away from the back door deals that take place beyond the persona of the puppet and delve more into the administration and policy boards behind the puppet.
May Allah strengthen the brothers and sisters of Egypt, the families and the people there from tyranny and that justice be instituted and that the shariah of Allah be victorious, Ameen
Download in PDF: Analysis of Egypt
 Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 8, p. 202