Deposition of a Government is Not Permissible Whilst Living Under its Rule — Seal of the Prophets Vol. 2
Introduction
In this discourse from The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 2), Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra) details the historical events and scholarly insights surrounding Deposition of a Government is Not Permissible Whilst Living Under its Rule.
Book Series: The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 2)
Author: Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra)
Section: XII – First Era of Life in Madinah Comes to an End and the Islamic System of Government
Pages: Book pp. 551–554 (PDF pp. 575–578)
Navigation: Book Table of Contents | « Previous: [Islamic Standard of Obedience] | Next: [Is the Right of Leadership Specific to the Quraish?] »
Historical Account
towards dismissing such a ruler. Therefore, the migration of the Holy Prophetsa also took place in accordance with the very same principle. In other words, after the Holy Prophetsa became distressed by the cruelties and religious intolerance of the government in Makkah, he ultimately left the sovereignty lead by the chieftains of the Quraish. After this, God determined to overthrow their tyrannous regime by way of the Holy Prophetsa. The Banū Isrā’īl also employed almost the same method in response to the cruelties of the Pharaoh under divine command. In other words, they joined Ḥaḍrat Mosesas and migrated from the sovereignty of the Pharaoh. Furthermore, a similar course of action was taken by Imām Ḥusainra and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubairra during the leadership of Yazīd bin Mu‘āwiyyah bin Abī Sufyān as well. In other words, on the basis of erroneous advice, in his own lifetime, Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah desired to appoint his son Yazīd as his successor in contradiction to the Islāmic doctrine and practice of the Khulafā’ur-Rāshidīn. At this occasion, the aforementioned Companions clearly stated that such a practice was against the teachings of Islām. However, when Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah did not pay heed to their voice, and appointed Yazīd as his successor with public support, the Companions took to silence with no other alternative. This was because Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah was the head of government at the time, and these Companions had vowed to render him their obedience. For this reason, it was not permissible for them to remain in the sovereignty of Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah and stand up against him, but on the other hand, there was no practical option for them to leave his sovereignty either. However, when Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah passed away, and Yazīd announced his Khilāfat, it was only then that Imām Ḥusainra and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubairra refused to take Bai‘at, and stood up against him. The reason being
[Ṭā Hā (20:78) * Yūnus (10:90)]
553
that until then, obedience to Yazīd had not become obligatory upon them. In this instance, to stand up against Yazīd was equivalent to fighting him from outside his sovereignty. However, this struggle of Imām Ḥusainra and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubairra could not produce any lasting result, and the dictatorship of the Banū Umayyah took root. In any case, Islām has not approved of a person who stands up against an Amīr and strives to depose him whilst living under his rule. Instead, if a person finds the conduct of an Amīr to be in clear contradiction with rules of politics and considers his leadership to be so harmful that it becomes necessary to risk the peace of the country and unity of the community so that it may be overthrown, he should migrate from the sovereignty of such an Amīr, and then, work towards his deposition in an appropriate manner.
At this instance, the natural question which arises is: what should be done if an Amīr forcefully prohibits people from migration? The response to this question is that Allāh the Exalted states in the Holy Qur’ān:
“A person is only liable for as much as he can bear.”1
Furthermore, with reference to the incident of the Banī Isrā’īl, God states that it was unlawful, and equivalent to an act of rebellion against divine law that Pharaoh pursued the Banī Isrā’īl and attempted to forcefully prevent them from migrating.2 In such a case, where an impediment is created by the Amīr himself, it shall be considered lawful to remain in the country and oppose a tyrannous ruler of this nature.
…..continued
-
Al-Kāmilu Fit-Tārīkh (Tārīkhu Ibnil-Athīr), By ‘Izzuddīn Abul-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Muḥammad Ibnul- Athīr, Volume 4, pp. 125-126, Thumma Dakhalat Sanatu Thalāthin Wa Sab‘īna 71, Dhikru Qatli ‘Abdillāhibniz-Zubairi, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon (2006)
-
Al-Kāmilu Fit-Tārīkh (Tārīkhu Ibnil-Athīr), By ‘Izzuddīn Abul-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Muḥammad Ibnul- Athīr, Volume 3, pp. 351-354, Thumma Dakhalat Sanatu Sittin Wa Khamsīna, Dhikrul-Bai‘ati Li-Yazīda Bi-Wilāyatil-‘Ahdi, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon (2006) 1 Al-Baqarah (2:287) 2 Yūnus (10:91)
Book Series: The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 2)
Section: XII – First Era of Life in Madinah Comes to an End and the Islamic System of Government | Navigation: « Previous: [Islamic Standard of Obedience] | Next: [Is the Right of Leadership Specific to the Quraish?] »