There is one situation excluded from the general rule concerning the obligation of obedience to the ruler. This is the case of commanding people to perform a sin. Similarly there is one situation excluded from the general rule concerning the prohibition of rebellion against the ruler and taking up arms against him, which is when He commits an act of flagrant disbelief. In this case He should be fought against, for there are texts related to this situation. ‘Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja’i said; “I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say; ‘The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.’We asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they establish the prayer among you.’” [Narrated by Muslim] Establishing the prayer means to rule by Islam, that is to implement the rules of Shari’ah. This is because naming part of it denotes the whole of Islam here. This is common in Arabic, for instance Allah (swt) says; “To free a neck” [TMQ An-Nisa’: 92] which means to free the slave i.e. all of Him and not just his neck. In this Hadith He (pbuh) said; “As long as they establish the prayer among you.” This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole. Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; “Ameers will be appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and you disown some. Whoever recognised He is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) He is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)’ They said; ‘Should we not fight against them?’ He (pbuh) replied: ‘No, as long as they prayed.’” This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole. ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit reported:

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) called us and we gave Him the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance). Among the injunctions He made binding upon us was to listen and obey to the Ameer in our pleasure and displeasure, in our adversity and prosperity, and giving (others) preference over ourselves, and not to dispute the authority with its people, He said; ‘Unless you see a flagrant disbelief on which you have clear proof from Allah.’” [Narrated by Muslim]

The subject of these three Ahadith, the Hadith of ‘Awf Ibnu Malik, that of Umm Salama, and that of ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit is the rebellion against the ruler. They categorically forbid the rebellion against him:

“‘Should we not then declare war on them?’ He (pbuh) said; ‘No.’ ‘Should not we fight against them?’ He (pbuh) said; ‘No.’ ‘And we should not dispute with the people of authority.’” They all forbid the rebellion against the ruler categorically, thus indicating a prohibition. This is combined with the disgrace attributed to the rebellion and is indicated in the Hadith where Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said; “He who rebels against the ruler and deserts the Jama’ah, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Narrated by An-Nasa’i from Abu Hurairah] It is therefore, a decisive prohibition, for it considers the death of He who disobeys and rebels against the Imam as a death of Jahiliyyah, indicating that it is a decisive prohibition. The Ahadith thus serve as evidence for the prohibition of rebellion.

However, one case is excluded which is expressed in the first and second Hadith, not establishing the prayer, and not praying. It is also expressed in the third Hadith by the flagrant disbelief. The nonestablishment of prayer and the non-performing of prayer, that is, ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, in other words to rule by the rules of Kufr, a matter which would undoubtedly mean the appearance of flagrant disbelief. The “flagrant disbelief “, that came in the Hadith is a description that applies on everything that is considered as flagrant Kufr. So, if flagrant Kufr of which we have proof from Allah (swt) has appeared, we should rebel against it. Whether this was ruling by the laws of disbelief, that is by other than what Allah has revealed, or He was not ruling by the laws of disbelief, but remained silent about apostasy against Islam and allowed the apostates to display openly their disbelief or anything similar. All this would be flagrant disbelief. This is general and includes any type of flagrant disbelief. This is the exception (mentioned in the Ahadith): appearance of the clear disbelief, so if this occurs then rebellion becomes obligatory.

The indication in these Ahadith regarding the obligation of rebellion against the rulers in this case is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has forbidden us from declaring war on them, fighting against them and disputing with them over their authority, and He excluded this case, which means it is excluded from the rule of prohibition. This means that it becomes an order that we need to fulfil. The indicative meaning (Mafhoom) of the Ahadith means the order to declare war on the ruler, fighting against Him and disputing with Him over his authority, if such case occured. The indicative meaning (Mafhoom) is equal to the literal meaning in terms of its proof on the rule. It therefore serves as evidence indicating that the legislator has ordered the Muslims to declare war on the rulers, to fight against them and dispute with them over their authority if the open Kufr emerged in their ruling. As for the Qareenah (indication) that this order is decisive, this is because the subject matter of this order was emphasised by Shari’ah. The Legislator has made ruling by Islam Wajib (obligatory) and not Mandub (recommended). The emergence of flagrant disbelief has been forbidden by Shar’a, and is not merely Makruh (undesirable). The subject matter of the order thus serves as a Qareenah that the order is decisive. The rebellion against the ruler in this exceptional case is thus not only permitted but actually an obligation upon the Muslims.

However, it has to be stressed that what is intended by the emergence of the flagrant disbelief, is the disbelief on which we have decisive evidence proving that it is an act of disbelief. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not stop at saying “flagrant disbelief “, but He went on to say “ on which you have a Burhan (proof) from Allah.” The word Burhan is only referred to the decisive evidence. The presence of clear-cut evidence proving flagrant disbelief is one of the conditions of rebellion. If there were doubts about it not being an act of disbelief, or if there was a Zanni (probable) evidence about it being an act of disbelief even if the evidence was correct, then the rebellion would be unlawful, as the rebellion is only allowed if there were a clear cut evidence that it is an act of disbelief.

What is thus meant by flagrant disbelief is the type of disbelief over which there is no doubt and over which conclusive evidence has proved that it is disbelief. If the rulers ordered an action or conduct that carried a doubt, this is not an act of disbelief and it would be unlawful to rebel against Him under the pretext that there was flagrant disbelief. This is due to the presence of doubt. For instance, if the ruler ordered the teaching of the theory of dialectical materialism at universities, or the teaching of other doctrines of disbelief, and one thought that the teaching of doctrines of disbelief would lead to disbelief He must in this case obey the ruler and study such doctrines. It would be forbidden to rebel against the ruler under the pretext that flagrant disbelief has been perpetrated. The ruler would have evidence that it is permitted to acquire information about the doctrines of disbelief, for the Qur'an has mentioned them, where Allah (swt) has addressed them and refuted them.

It can be seen that everything that has evidence or a probable evidence that it is not disbelief and there is an evidence or a probable evidence that it is from Islam and the ruler ordered it or performed it, then it would not be considered as the rules of disbelief, nor emergence of flagrant disbelief. It would not be included in the exception and it would be unlawful to rebel against the ruler in such a case, rather to obey Him would be obligatory.