Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd

So yes, you can say that in these countries, in the majority of Muslim countries, the rulers do possess the necessary consent to rule. So yes, those hadiths apply today whether we like it or not. Okay. So if the knee jerk reactions have subsided by now, can we try to talk practically about this issue for a minute? In my last video, I mentioned that if you disapprove of the quality or character of the Muslim rulers in Muslim countries, then you would be wiser and it would be much more useful for you to focus your attention on the quality and character of the people who constitute that group in society Islamically referred to as the and that you should consider concentrating your efforts on opposing, pressuring, campaigning against, or even revolting against them, not the rulers.

Now we really have to wrap our heads around this critical insight in Islam about the power dynamics in society. This concept of the because if we don't comprehend this concept and understand this concept, you can forget about being able to improve or change the socioeconomic or political situation in any of the Muslim countries or in any country anywhere because this is about how things actually work. When Rasulullah died and the Muslims were trying to figure out who should lead the Muslims after his death. As we all know, the debate and discussion about who should lead immediately came to an end the moment that Amr ibn al Khattab offered Baya to Abu Bakr. And then everyone else followed suit because such was the status and influence that Umar ibn al Khattab had in Muslim society in Medina.

At that time, it would have been unthinkable for any candidate for leadership to be confirmed without the endorsement or support of the most prominent from among the Sahaba. This was an early practical iteration of the formula for the legitimation of a ruler because there's always going to be inevitably among people, ranks among human beings because Allah has caused some people to exceed others in a variety of qualities whether that's in their intelligence, in their wealth, in their character, in their energy, in their charisma, what have you. Because that is an inevitable reality of human existence, there will also always therefore be a segment of the population who have a level of importance and influence that exceeds everyone else. This is a practical reality that exists in every society whether they acknowledge it or not and regardless of what type of political system prevails in that society. And Islam has always recognized this reality from scholars like Al Muwadi to Ibn Khaldun to Ghazali to Ibn Taymiyyah up to Khairadina Tunisi.

Scholars have always recognized and acknowledged and affirmed the irreducible role played by the in the selection of a ruler and the legitimation of his authority. Because quite simply, there is no way around this reality. The highest status, most influential people in a society must endorse and support a leader in order for him to be able to lead. And the withdrawal of their endorsement or support cannot be survived by any leader even if he's popular with the majority of the population. And again, this is a truism regardless of what type of political system you're talking about.

It is as true of democracies as it is of autocracies. If a ruler has the endorsement and support of the most influential and important segments of the society, then he has the practical ability to rule precisely because those crucial elements of the society will cooperate with him and they will respect his authority. If they do not do that, then the ruler cannot imaginably execute his authority, execute his rule with any degree of success, which will then, of course, render his authority null and void. So the most basic requirement of a ruler is that he can rule no matter how good he may be, no matter how wise, no matter how sincere, no matter how pious, no matter how devout. If he cannot practically functionally rule, then he's not a ruler.

Now a ruler being legitimate does not mean that he's good. It doesn't mean that he's pious. It doesn't mean that he's righteous. It doesn't mean that he's moral. It doesn't even mean that he's competent.

It simply means that he possesses the ability to rule and execute his decisions. And the most crucial factor in determining whether he can do that is whether or not the most powerful and important people in the society have allied with him even if he's hated by the population. Now even in those rare cases when scholars have said that it is permissible to revolt against the ruler, they have stated that this revolt must be carried out by the of the society, not the general public, not a popular uprising. And again, this is a purely practical position, a real politic position, if you will. Because what happens if you rise up against the ruler who has the support and the endorsement of the of the society?

You overthrow that ruler. The those people are still who they are. They're still in their position. They still have their power. They still have their influence.

And all they will do is appoint someone in his place who's exactly the same, the same, or worse than him. You have accomplished nothing. Now historically, the included religious scholars. It included the most esteemed, noble, honored people in the society whose, righteous good deeds made them influential. People like Amr ibn al Khattab and the other prominent Sahaba who legitimated the rule of Abu Bakr.

It also included, of course, the wealthy, tribal leaders, and other people of various types of strength and power. But essentially, I think it's fair to define the as those people who possess enough influence in the society that their support or lack of support would be decisive in determining whether or not a leader or a ruler can succeed. Now who this constituency will be in any given country will depend on which type of people have status in that society. Who is influential? Who is admired?

Who is respected? Who is listened to? Who holds sway over the hearts and minds of the people and who has some form of power? If religious scholars and righteous people are not highly esteemed and influential in society, then they will not be included in the of that society. If amoral people, immoral people, greedy people, selfish people, irreligious people, evil people, materialistic people, so on.

If they are respected and honored in the society, then they will be members of that influential constituency who can determine who the leader will be. And of course, if the most powerful influences in a society are for example, corporations, bankers, investors, the rich, and no one else, then they will fully comprise the of that society. And if foreigners have the most influence over the hearts and minds and living conditions of a country's population, then yes, even they will be part of the and no leader in that country will be able to survive or function without their endorsement or support. And as long as the ruler does not commit Kufr Boa, does not commit open Kufr, Even if he is bad and corrupt and oppressive and tyrannical in every other conceivable way, his rule will be legitimate because he has the authority of the most powerful segments of society behind him. And if his rule is legitimate, meaning if he has the ability to rule, then yes, the Islamic obligation of obedience to the ruler applies.

It applies first and foremost because said so. But it also applies because you do not get to disregard, dismiss, or disrespect the institutions of authority simply because you don't like who's running them. Even if you have valid grievances. Now anyone who's been in the military will understand the necessity of command structures of order and the inviolability of institutional authority for maintaining unity and stability. If you can reject and revolt against a bad ruler, it sounds good right now at this moment, but you're setting a precedent that could be used to justify a bad revolt against a good ruler.

And I don't think we need to look any further than what happened to Othman bin Afan radiAllahu Anhu. Those rebels felt that they had valid grievances. And on the basis of those so called valid grievances, they committed one of the worst crimes in Islamic history. If you are patient with a ruler who maybe abuses the institution of authority, that institution may yet be inherited by a righteous ruler. So you don't need that office to be fragile.

So the point here is if you want to oppose oppression, then advocating revolution or revolt against the ruler is a nonstarter Islamically, and it doesn't really even make practical sense either. The ruler is ultimately just one element in the power structure of society. And if all of the other elements of power in that society are unified behind the ruler and his policies, then they will simply replace him with a duplicate or worse version of him to pursue those same policies if you have a revolt. So as a Muslim, you basically have three realistic options for pursuing social and political improvement. Either you work to change the composition of the in your society by elevating the status and influence of religious scholars and righteous people, or you focus your efforts on mobilizing to influence the people of influence, the through any assortment of pressure strategies, activism strategies, organizing, protest, demonstration, what have you, directed towards the people of influence.

In other words, you're gonna try to influence the influencers. That's option number two. And option number three, obviously, is that you focus your attention and your efforts to try to attain the status and the influence yourself whereby you will have a place among the yourself. Now apart from these approaches, I don't see any issue that prevents the public Islamically from organizing, from protesting, from demonstrating, from campaigning on particular issues or policies that they would like to see the government implement or abandon or change. This does not constitute an uprising or revolt against the ruler or an attempt to topple and overthrow the ruler.

It amounts to essentially a form of petition towards the ruler or an advice to the ruler or anyway, a method for letting the ruler know the concerns of the population, which is all perfectly fine. Now the obligation of obedience towards the ruler should never be inflated to the point where you basically are almost worshiping the ruler and treating him as infallible. The ruler is not granted complete impunity and that the ruler is always above question and criticism. No. We don't believe in the divinity of kings.

When Abu Bakr became the first Khalifa, he didn't inherit the the position of prophethood. He just became a political leader of the Muslims, and any political leader should be responsive and accountable to those whom he rules. Now there's also no prohibition whatsoever against challenging, opposing, protesting, pressuring, or indeed dismantling any and all non governmental private sector powers who comprise the of a society and who influence policy making and the selection and legitimation of a ruler. In a country like Egypt, for example, as I've been writing about for years, the dominant power structure and the dominant power players are not the government. They're not even Egyptian.

It's multinational corporations, financial institutions, foreign investors, and the private sector. Sisi is not the real problem in Egypt, and his removal is not the real solution. So look. You discredit yourself Islamically when you spout Khawarij style rhetoric about the illegitimacy of the Muslim rulers. It just reveals that you have religious zeal without religious knowledge, which then calls into question what your zeal is really about.

Because if you were actually driven by a fervent commitment to the rules of Islam, you would begin by knowing what they are. And you discredit yourself intellectually when you advocate revolt or rebellion and overthrowing the governments because you reveal that you do not comprehend how the power dynamics actually operate in any given society. And understanding the power dynamics of any given society, again, should be the starting point for anyone who is serious and sincerely interested in improving their society.