Deposition of a Government is Not Permissible Whilst Living Under its Rule

However, even in such a case, Islām does not approve that a person should raise the flag of rebellion, whilst living in the sovereignty of an Amīr in a state of subservience. The purpose of this instruction is to prevent civil war from breaking out in the land and so that the dangerous state does not arise that people begin to stand up against an Amīr whilst living under his rule. Therefore, in extreme circumstances of this nature, the Islāmic practice is that those people who consider the government of an Amīr to be unbearably oppressive, they should migrate from that country. After having left the country, if they believe that it is necessary and appropriate, they should work towards dismissing such a ruler. Therefore, the migration of the Holy Prophet(sa) also took place in accordance with the very same principle. In other words, after the Holy Prophet(sa) 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 Prophet(sa). 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 Moses(as) and migrated from the sovereignty of the Pharaoh.1 Furthermore, a similar course of action was taken by Imām Ḥusain(ra) and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubair(ra) 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 Ḥusain(ra) and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubair(ra) refused to take Bai‘at, and stood up against him.2 The reason being 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 Ḥusain(ra) and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubair(ra) 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.”3

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.4 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.