(As mentioned): In the first century of Islam it was truly unheard of for someone to violate their oath of protection and to harm someone they were bound to protect – compare this with the wanton, casual killing of civilians (mostly Muslim civilians!) by nominally Muslim groups today, and one can see this is due to an infatuation with modernity and the modern rules of warfare, not a love for strict following of Islamic norms and rules.
One can see that there are certain tests (both with worldly and other-worldly consequences) where one simply cannot remain neutral, having no opinion or view whatsoever, and where remaining skeptical will have negative consequences, not merely inert effects. This can be seen also with respect to Islamic beliefs, one cannot remain neutral, and say they are a mere spectator but will not accept belief or not accept it – the stakes (especially for the Hereafter) are extremely high.
There is no middle ground in terms of our relation with the goodness given to others: either we are happy for their situation or jealousy will settle into our hearts.
Take a lesson from how Allah relates the work of the magicians in the time of Musa (Alayhi as-Salaam) – it was very strong magic, they actually bedeviled people’s eyes. Analogous then today with matters like secularism, human rights theory, etc., Muslim preachers should not dismiss and belittle the effect of such endeavors, but tackle them while knowing their true worth.
776. We should be careful not to make Takfeer of Muslims for sins they commit (even major sins) since this is the person’s right as an apparent outwardly Muslim (i.e., it is his right not to be anathematized solely due to sins), and also this practice is not part of Sunni ‘Aqeedah. This does not prevent us from speaking out against the very evil deeds some Muslims commit, even to the point of fighting them if necessary; even if they are killed, they would still be counted, treated, and buried as Muslims after death.Continue reading
(As mentioned): It may be that the Muslim civilians killed today [killed by all sides, but specifically by those claiming to do it for the sake of Allah] will be like the buried-alive girl who is asked why she was killed, so what will await the killers?
Is it not interesting, that we have people clamoring for social justice and human rights, while also calling for the end of ‘Oppressive Islam’? This is very weird, since both calls are in fact proceeding from one source, whether the clamorers realize it or not. (So it is suspicious that “justice” and “human rights” are often tied so closely with a call to end “oppressive Islam” or “very outwardly visible Islam” – this is true for all sides of the modern political spectrum, it is definitely not exclusive to the far-right).
People ask that why do Sunnis prefer tyranny rather than trying to quickly change the top of the polity to a religiously better situation, even if some violence is involved?
Considering this is not always the true Sunni position and the rulings may change from case to case, yet one general partial answer is: We see that in the first case [of tyranny] some people lose rights and there is erosion of laws, true.
But in the second case, everyone loses rights and all laws are thrown out and this may happen on a gross unimaginably terrible scale, people cannot even cross the street to work, pray, buy food, etc., for fear of dying. This is not mere rhetoric, this has been seen throughout history in the lands of the Muslims.
This is because the tyrant will (obviously) usually not give up on his power easily, or through persuasion, or negotiations, etc. Unless the force to make the situation change for the better is so overwhelming and so quick that a greater loss is averted, one can foresee a catastrophic situation descending on the land and for the Muslims, not only in their persons, but even for their Iman (belief).
Also of note is that many attempts to change tyranny are not Islamically-based to begin with but may be due to egoistic reasons, or based on competing yet non-Islamic principles, or narrow sectarian visions of what “Islam” ought to be, so the end result of the “end of tyranny” even if it comes to pass may perhaps be worse for normative, orthodox Muslims. All told then, it is difficult for the Sunni ‘Ulama to make a blanket statement to the effect that violent revolutions/overthrows are the proper way to improve the physical (and crucially) the belief of the Muslim Ummah whenever a tyrannical situation presents itself.
(Of course, there might be counter-arguments against this, but this is one opinion, and it is being shown as it was presented with some additional commentary).
(In connection to core Islamic disciplines, but also applicable beyond) We have to pay attention on whether the subject or class we are taking is fulfilling our needs, and if not, why not. Perhaps the hidden lessons were not communicated properly, or perhaps the science has a goal and a limit other than what one seeks or needs.
The point of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) life just before the Isra’ wal Miraj was at its outwardly ‘lowest’ in that he was rejected in Taif and had to ask for protection from one of the inhabitants of Makkah to re-enter his own city, in spite of the loftiness he (ﷺ) held in the eyes of all Makkans. Yet a gross materialist person’s perspective of the Prophet (ﷺ) at this stage would be totally at odds with the rank he (ﷺ) had with Allah, and how Allah was about to honor him (ﷺ) even more.