Rebellion against the Muslim ruler is prohibited in Islam.

The evidence for this is simply overwhelming, so much so that it would take it too much characters to write it all. Thus, all those arguing that khurooj is permissible are simply acting upon emotion, not the texts.

>Muslim reported in his Sahīh (1847) from Wā’il Ibn Hujr that: Salamah Ibn Yazeed Al-Ju’fee asked Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ): “O Prophet of Allah, what do we do if we have rulers over us who demand their rights yet they withhold our rights?” He replied: “Listen to them and obey them [regardless]. Upon them is their burden and on you will be your burden.”

>Bukhāri (7054) and Muslim (1849) reported from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said “Whoever sees from his leader something that he dislikes, then let him be patient with him because whosoever separates from the jamā’ah (i.e. the body of Muslims in a country) even by a handspan, and then dies in that condition, he will die the death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jāhiliyyah).”

>Muslim reported in his Sahīh (1836) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said “You are obligated to listen to the ruler and obey him in times of ease and in times of hardship, whether you are pleased or displeased and even when another person is given preference over you (while you were more deserving).”

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >obey your turkish ruler while he rapes your daughters

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Proof that pisslam is a religion for npcs

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    99% of Muslims are going to hell because they live in a country that rebelled against a Muslim ruler

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Basically all Muslims are fake and going to Hell anyway, according to takfiris. You know you've got something beautiful when the highest principle of the religion is eternal punishment for minor doctrinal differences.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know, Christianity has a similar thing going on with "all worldly powers are ordained by God, so dont resist", but this sort of weird blind obedience, and toleration for corruption is what makes Islamic societies so shit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/mW0Fvcm.jpeg

      The evidence for this is simply overwhelming, so much so that it would take it too much characters to write it all. Thus, all those arguing that khurooj is permissible are simply acting upon emotion, not the texts.

      >Muslim reported in his Sahīh (1847) from Wā’il Ibn Hujr that: Salamah Ibn Yazeed Al-Ju’fee asked Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ): “O Prophet of Allah, what do we do if we have rulers over us who demand their rights yet they withhold our rights?” He replied: “Listen to them and obey them [regardless]. Upon them is their burden and on you will be your burden.”

      >Bukhāri (7054) and Muslim (1849) reported from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said “Whoever sees from his leader something that he dislikes, then let him be patient with him because whosoever separates from the jamā’ah (i.e. the body of Muslims in a country) even by a handspan, and then dies in that condition, he will die the death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jāhiliyyah).”

      >Muslim reported in his Sahīh (1836) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said “You are obligated to listen to the ruler and obey him in times of ease and in times of hardship, whether you are pleased or displeased and even when another person is given preference over you (while you were more deserving).”

      Yet Muslims have rebelled lmao. Why do you keep making shit up?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The claim was about Islam, not about Muslims. How is it that some people cannot distinguish between the two?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You have to understand that the early Muslim dynasties massacred the Prophet's family and faced huge rebellions because of this, and needed to come up with such rules to legitimize themselves

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shut the frick up, you're basically a kaffir.
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/05/18/sadhguru-saudi-arabia/
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2023/03/13/mukaab/
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/11/03/saudi-hosts-halloween-festival/
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/04/14/the-saudi-costume-festival-who-should-muslims-look-up-to/
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2021/12/27/saudi-hosts-huge-satanic-music-festival/

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This "just roll over and die" spiel is a common trope amongst evil regimes that wish to oppress and destroy, like the Soviets, Maoists, Nazis and Islam.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    Lol, the Muslims sure as hell don't think that.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One question. Since you're quoting sunni texts and it is mandatory for sunnis to love muawiya, was his rebellion haram? What about Aisha's rebellion? What about the uprising of Husayn?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rebellion, by definition, is breaking the oath of alliegance. From Aisha and Talha's perspective, Ali usurped power and was raised as caliph by those who killed Uthman, but from the sources, we do know that Aisha and even Ali later were regretful of the bloodshed which basically came from misunderstanding.

      Also, Sunnis don't really love Muawiya, if we did, we would have considered him the 5th rightly guided Caliph

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What I mean is that there is a difference between disputing the khilafa at the beginning of the reign when he is not widely recognized yet, and disputing the khilafa when it is already established. The former should be carefully considered as it can lead to chaos, the latter is fully haram.

        The transition towards an Islamic state must come about peacefully

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Sunnis don't really love Muawiya
        The official position of sunni scholars is that he is one of the greatest sahabis. In order to glorify him further, Hanbalis gave him the title "Uncle of the Believers". The fact that he isn't considered one of the rightly guided is simply because he did so many things against Islam that it is difficult to put him in that category. The umayya sponsored scholars would certainly have put him in that category if only it weren't so unbelievable.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The sunni position is to not take sides among the sahaba, because their disputes were among themselves. We can assess that Ali was a greater caliph than Muawiya or that the Prophet's grandson was more deserving, but it is ultimately Allah who decided.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were not mere disputes but civil wars. If the Prophet did not want us to take sides between them he would not have prophesized that Muawiya would rebel, nor would he have called him an aggressor, nor would he have said that he and his army are calling people to hell. These are not soft words, the Prophet used harsh language against muawiya for a reason

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Kharijites have their own hadith collections, no? It's like the Shia in that regard - a movement from very early in Islamic history that came to have irreconcilable differences with the caliphs, and to (re?)interpret Muhammad accordingly.
    Everything's been so politicized, and the hadith collections are so late, that it's impossible to tell at this distance what if anything Muhammad really thought should follow him.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      narrators in Sunni hadith are known, their biographical knowledge was vast. Shia hadith scholars don't even know who exactly Al-Kulayni, the Shia analogue to Al-Bukhari, is. There is really no comparison between Sunni and Shia hadith.

      >Everything's been so politicized
      Sunni hadith scholars knew this and actively sought to objectively find fabricated hadith, which is why in Sunni hadith collections, we have both hadith which can be interpreted as pro Sunni and pro Shi'i

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What about the fact that people who are known to have lied to the Prophet (these stories are recorded in sunni hadith and referred to in the Quran itself) are some of the most prolific narrators in sunni hadith collections and considered trustworthy by them? Should someone who was rebuked by the Prophet for lying to him be considered a reliable narrator after his death?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >people who are known to have lied to the Prophet
          >someone who was rebuked by the Prophet for lying to him
          who?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pic related is one instance, in which Aisha lied to the Prophet and a verse was revealed in which the deception was exposed. There are other instances, I am happy to post them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            quran verse 66.3 is about muhammad getting caught raping his Coptic servant Mariya.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is this lying or deception? This is just women's jealousy

            They were not mere disputes but civil wars. If the Prophet did not want us to take sides between them he would not have prophesized that Muawiya would rebel, nor would he have called him an aggressor, nor would he have said that he and his army are calling people to hell. These are not soft words, the Prophet used harsh language against muawiya for a reason

            The sahaba weren't perfect, everybody knows. But discriminating between the sahaba makes us like the Christians, who would take sides, prefering John over Peter, Mary over Peter, completely removing James from history.

            Islam should be about Allah and His Messenger, not his friends.

            Many Shi'is would imagine that they would take the side of Ali during the Fitna, as would many Sunnis, but the time was more complicated than whatever narrative we moderns create in our heads.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I would recommend this video for an unbiased look at the civil war: https://youtu.be/bbpf_VANFAI?si=zRPUCfsYWWisyQd8

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is that not deception? They told the Prophet that his breath smelled bad when it wasn't the case? That is called a lie, no matter if it was motivated by jealousy or whatever else.
            >discriminating between the sahaba makes us like the Christians, who would take sides
            So what about the Tabi'een who took sides? They discriminated between Ali and muawiya, probably because they heard the narration from the Prophet that Muawiya is an aggressor. Were they wrong to discriminate between Sahaba? If they were, then why didn't Ali turn to them and say, "The Sahaba's disagreements are between ourselves." This rule that we have to turn off our brain when we evaluate muawiya was put in place by Umayya sponsored scholars simply to protect his legacy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If that disqualifies a woman from narrating hadith, then all women must never narrate hadith then

            >So what about the Tabi'een who took sides?
            Of course they took sides, they were alive back then. I'm making the case for leaving the disputes of that time to the people of that time. Even those who survived Al-Jamal tried to forget the whole thing.

            >we evaluate muawiya was put in place by Umayya sponsored scholars simply to protect his legacy
            I do not see how Muawiya and his legacy was "protected" in any way. It is like revisionists thinking the Umayyads made up all of islamic history, why in the world would they make up a history where Muawiya disputed the khilafa of the Prophet's son in law and the Prophet's grandson being killed by Yazid's men?

            These things are widely known, but the scholars did not revolt against the Umayyads, because it was haram

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If that disqualifies a woman from narrating hadith
            The other wives of the Prophet did not lie to his face, and then have God reveal an ayat about them. Fatima did not lie to the Prophet's face in such a manner. Many women the Prophet met never did such things.
            >I do not see how Muawiya and his legacy was "protected" in any way.
            Perhaps an example will illustrate the point. Shia's, who don't have a rule against criticizing Muawiya dislike him, for rebelling against the caliphate. His legacy is tarnished in this camp.
            Sunnis agree that Muawiya's rebellion was wrong, but make it impermissible to talk about this event in a critical manner. Sunnis generously say it was just a dispute, and it's haram to say anything more. In the Sunni camp, muawiya's reputation is far from tarnished, rather he was given the title "uncle of the believers" by the hanbalis, a testament to his lofty position in Sunni Islam. Do you see now how this rule against criticizing muawiya protects his legacy? Those who follow that rule love him, and those who don't, dislike him.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *