Dr. Fahad al-‘Ajlan, in his book al-Hurriyaat as-Siyaasiyyaah al-Mu’aasirrah fi Daw’ Fiqh as-Sahaabah, pages 480-486, critiques the notion that any criticism of the ruler must be made solely in his presence. He provides examples from the Salaf, where criticism was voiced in the ruler’s absence. Some of these examples include:
Br Bassam, I really like your content and how it gets into detail, and I have been one of the readers/watchers of your content since your debating times. Unfortunately, I am disappointed with this article, as it does not share the opposite view. Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah stressed upon not speaking against the ruler in the public for various reasons,
First, the hadith from the prophet himself,
'Iyad ibn Ghanam reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "Whoever has advice for the ruler, let him take his hand and give it privately. If he accepts it, then he accepts it. If he rejects it, the duty upon him has been fulfilled."
Source: al-Sunnah li-Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim 1098. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Abu Bakrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, "He who insults the rulers, Allah will insult him."
Source: At-Tirmidhi, who classified it as Hadith Hasan
Secondly, the understanding of the companions, especially the senior among them,
Anas ibn Malik reported: The eminent among the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited us, saying, "Do not curse your leaders, do not deceive them, and do not hate them. Fear Allah and be patient, for the matter is close at hand."
Source: al-Sunnah li-Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim 1015. Grade: Jayyid (very good), according to Al-Albani
Abu Wa'il reported: It was said to Usamah ibn Yazid, may Allah be pleased with him, "Have you not spoken to Uthman?" Usamah said, "You think I have not spoken to him unless you heard it? I have certainly spoken to him about the matter without bringing it up. I do not like to be the first to bring it up."
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21784. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Arna'ut
And now analyzing the narrations you presented, here is a brief reply to all the points.
1) We do not know when Imran radhiAllahuAnhu said those words, during the period of Umar radhiAllahuAnhu or after his death.
2) It's a general criticism of the people of Iraq, not specific to the ruler. Ulema usually says there is no problem when it's a general criticism, like saying our Muslim rulers should do more, etc.
3) This was clearly done in the ruler's presence, and we know that it is permissible to criticize him in his presence.
4) Same as above
5) Done privately between two people.
6) Ibn Abbas (who was amongst the Ahl al-Hall wa'l-Aqd and was not a common person) didn't give Bayah to Ibn Zubair
7) In presence
8) I need to find out the authenticity of this narration.
Assalamu Alaykum akhi. I appreciate your kind remarks and hope you continue to read me inshallah.
The first narration you provide is not to be understood absolutely even according to your position since your position also allows for a public rebuke of the ruler in his presence.
Your other narrations have to do with insulting and hating, which is not what this article is about.
I am not satisfied with your responses to the narrations I presented. For example, even though the criticism in some of the narrations happened in the vicinity of the ruler, they clearly from the dhahir were not addressed to him. One wouldn’t call the ruler a wretched person to his face and get away with it like that. Your response to the other narrations also have shortcomings. Dr. Fahad is a qualified Shaykh, and you should ensure you have scholars to back up your responses to these narrations he’s used and elaborated on in his book, which I encourage you to read.
The narrations show that there is room to criticize the ruler without him knowing. This is done if there’s a Maslaha (like refuting misconceptions that the ruler is ruling properly according to Shariah, which is spread falsely by sycophants) and if the Mafsada is minimal (like the criticism wouldn’t spur a bloody rebellion). This doesn’t contradict narrations by those who thought the Maslaha in their situation suggested not to criticize the ruler. It’s an ijtihadi issue.
What I would politely challenge you or anyone to do is provide evidence from the Quran or Sunnah showing that criticizing the ruler in his absence is ALWAYS and UNCONDITIONALLY haram. I don’t think you can, but I will hear you out.
I encourage you to consider that committed non-Kharijite Salafis from Ahlus Sunnah do take this nuanced position while being wary of the fitnah of anarchy.
Many of our brothers from Ahlus Sunnah are also falling into the opposite extreme by inadvertently becoming spokespeople for tyrants and their policies out of an exaggerated fear of anarchy. Both extremes are to be condemned and warned against.
I think another contention worth addressing is the issue of whether this is regarded as backbiting. Since a wrong is done publicly does it mean we can criticize a ruler behind his back publicly?
One would look at the purpose and method of the criticism. If it's done simply to insult and be vile to rile up people to rebel, that's one thing. If the intent however is to remind people how un-Islamic the ruler's behaviour and policy is to clarify doubts sycophants are spreading, then that's another thing. Giving absolute answers is difficult.
Afiq, I think that the following few narrations from the salaf should help on whether critiquing the ruler (tyrant) is backbiting or not? Please note, that even if there happens to be any weakness found in the asānīd of the first three narrations (quoted below) from ‘Kitab as-Sunnah" culled from the "Masāil" of Imam Harb ibn Ismā’īl ibn Khalaf al-Al-Handhalī al-Karmānī, it is clear that Imam Harb al-Karmānī held to the opinion that "it is not backbiting" thus brought these narrations in his "Masāil".
117 / 656 – ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb narrated to us and said: Ziyād ibn Ar-Rabī’ narrated to us, from ‘Abdur-Rahmān ibn Udhaynah who said: Our ashyākh (pl. shaykh) said: “Three (types of people) have no backbiting: The unjust oppressing ruler, the sinner who exposes his sins and an innovator.” [1]
121 / 660 – I asked Ishāq: about the backbiting of the oppressive ruler?
He said: "It is not (backbiting when) regarding them. Except that it is disliked that a person makes his tongue used to (speaking bad about people)." [2]
122 / 661 – Al-Akhdar narrated to us and said: ‘Ārim narrated to us and said: Wuhayb ibn Khālid narrated to us and said: I heard ‘Ubayd-Allāh saying regarding the backbiting of the Khawārij and the ruler who has publicly shown (his mistakes): that he did not see any backbiting of them. But as for them one about whom it is known that he is a sinner and he likes to screen himself, then he considered that (i.e. speaking about him) backbiting from them. [3]
Interestingly, the hadith (no. 3) which the article (above) cites wherein Ka’b bin ‘Ujrah (رضي الله عنه) insults Abdur-Rahmān bin Umm Hakam in his sharh of 'Sahih Muslim', Imām an-Nawawi (رحمه الله) does not mention anything about it being mandatory to critique 'umara (rulers) in front of them. This is the relevant part of his sharh where an-Nawawi says that the words of Ka’b bin ‘Ujrah were meant to denounce what is wrong,
"His words are meant to denounce what is wrong and to correct the behaviour of rulers and governors if they do what is at variance with the Prophet's sunnah." [4]
As per certain narrations sahabah like Hasan and Hussayn (رضي الله عنهما) used to curse Marwān - much worse than critiquing -, and I'm sure that Marwān would not always be in front of them to get cursed:
"Al-Hasan and al-Hussayn رضي الله عنهما used to curse Marwān, then the prayer would be established and they would hasten to pray behind him."[5]
They prayed behind Marwān because they did not consider him a kāfir. Lastly, a renowned Salafi 'alim whose stance/position on the issue of "public critique of 'umara" is not often stated by Salafi du'at and 'ulama, should be quoted here. Shaykh Abū 'Abd ar-Raḥman Muqbil ibn Hādī al-Wādi'ī (رحمه الله) says:
[Arabic text]
لسنا مستعدين أن نعبد الحُكام ، لسنا مستعدين أن ندافع عن الحُكام بالباطل "ولا تجادل عن الذين يختانون أنفسهم إن الله لا يحب من كان خواناً أثيماً " ، بل الواجب أن ننكر عليهم إذا دعوا إلى ديمقراطية أو دعوا إلى شيء يخالف الدين مع إشعار المسلمين أننا لا نجيز الخروج عليهم ولا نحببه ، فيا سبحان الله يا أيها المفتري أما تعلم أنك ستفتضح اليوم أو غداً أو بعد غدٍ ، كتبنا مملوءٌ من فضل الله في التحذير من الخروج على الحُكام. [End of Arabic text]
"We are not ready to worship the rulers (Hukkām), neither are we prepared to defend the rulers falsely, “Do not advocate for those who wrong themselves. Surely Allāh does not like those who are deceitful, sinful.” [6] Rather, it is mandatory (al-Wājib) that we denounce them if they call for Democracy (Dimuqrātiyah) or call for something that contradicts (yukhalif) the Dīn, while informing the Muslims that we do not permit rebellion against them (i.e, rulers), nor do we like it. SubhanAllāh, O Muftarī (slanderer)! Do you not know that you will be exposed today, tomorrow, or the day after? With the fadl of Allāh our books are full of warnings against rebellion (khurūj) against the rulers." [7]
Unfortunately, many Salafi 'ulama today try to propagandise that public-critique of 'umara is absolutely haram whereas this is clearly not the case if you read athar and ahadith. Then, there are those Salafi 'ulama who would bring in the useless condition of critique being in "front" of the 'umara else it being haram to critique the 'umara! So, you cannot condemn or critique a wali al-amr (ruler) until and unless you do it to him face to face! Shaykh Abū 'Abd ar-Raḥman Muqbil ibn Hādī al-Wādi'ī says about this,
"Those who say that advising [rulers] should only be done in secret, they do not have any evidence, and the hadith (about advising privately) is weak. Advising should be done secretly when one knows that it will be accepted, or when it is known that public advice from the pulpits may stir up discord. However, if it is known that the wrongdoing can be removed, because governments have informants in large societies, and the information might reach them (about their public criticism being done), and they fear people criticising them and so this will lead to them removing this wrongdoing. When we read the biographies of our scholars, we find among them those who openly criticised the rulers, and among them, those who refrained from doing so to avoid causing discord. As for abandoning clarification (of these sins), then when will these rulers reform?!"[8]
I hope these might be of some help to you.
________________________
[1] Narrated by Harb in his "Masāil" (1410). Taken from the "Kitāb As-Sunnah" of the "Masāil" of Harb ibn Ismā’īl Al-Karmānī", trans. Abū Hājar (Dar Al-Hady Al-Auwal, 2021).
[2] Narrated by Harb in his "Masāil" (1415).
[3] Narrated by Harb in his “Masāil” (1416).
[4] Sahih Muslim: With the Full Commentary by Imām al-Nawawi, trans. and ed. Adil Salahi (Leicestershire: The Islamic Foundation, 2021), vol. 5, pp. 413-415.
Br Bassam, I really like your content and how it gets into detail, and I have been one of the readers/watchers of your content since your debating times. Unfortunately, I am disappointed with this article, as it does not share the opposite view. Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah stressed upon not speaking against the ruler in the public for various reasons,
First, the hadith from the prophet himself,
'Iyad ibn Ghanam reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "Whoever has advice for the ruler, let him take his hand and give it privately. If he accepts it, then he accepts it. If he rejects it, the duty upon him has been fulfilled."
Source: al-Sunnah li-Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim 1098. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Abu Bakrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, "He who insults the rulers, Allah will insult him."
Source: At-Tirmidhi, who classified it as Hadith Hasan
Secondly, the understanding of the companions, especially the senior among them,
Anas ibn Malik reported: The eminent among the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited us, saying, "Do not curse your leaders, do not deceive them, and do not hate them. Fear Allah and be patient, for the matter is close at hand."
Source: al-Sunnah li-Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim 1015. Grade: Jayyid (very good), according to Al-Albani
Abu Wa'il reported: It was said to Usamah ibn Yazid, may Allah be pleased with him, "Have you not spoken to Uthman?" Usamah said, "You think I have not spoken to him unless you heard it? I have certainly spoken to him about the matter without bringing it up. I do not like to be the first to bring it up."
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21784. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Arna'ut
And now analyzing the narrations you presented, here is a brief reply to all the points.
1) We do not know when Imran radhiAllahuAnhu said those words, during the period of Umar radhiAllahuAnhu or after his death.
2) It's a general criticism of the people of Iraq, not specific to the ruler. Ulema usually says there is no problem when it's a general criticism, like saying our Muslim rulers should do more, etc.
3) This was clearly done in the ruler's presence, and we know that it is permissible to criticize him in his presence.
4) Same as above
5) Done privately between two people.
6) Ibn Abbas (who was amongst the Ahl al-Hall wa'l-Aqd and was not a common person) didn't give Bayah to Ibn Zubair
7) In presence
8) I need to find out the authenticity of this narration.
Assalamu Alaykum akhi. I appreciate your kind remarks and hope you continue to read me inshallah.
The first narration you provide is not to be understood absolutely even according to your position since your position also allows for a public rebuke of the ruler in his presence.
Your other narrations have to do with insulting and hating, which is not what this article is about.
I am not satisfied with your responses to the narrations I presented. For example, even though the criticism in some of the narrations happened in the vicinity of the ruler, they clearly from the dhahir were not addressed to him. One wouldn’t call the ruler a wretched person to his face and get away with it like that. Your response to the other narrations also have shortcomings. Dr. Fahad is a qualified Shaykh, and you should ensure you have scholars to back up your responses to these narrations he’s used and elaborated on in his book, which I encourage you to read.
The narrations show that there is room to criticize the ruler without him knowing. This is done if there’s a Maslaha (like refuting misconceptions that the ruler is ruling properly according to Shariah, which is spread falsely by sycophants) and if the Mafsada is minimal (like the criticism wouldn’t spur a bloody rebellion). This doesn’t contradict narrations by those who thought the Maslaha in their situation suggested not to criticize the ruler. It’s an ijtihadi issue.
What I would politely challenge you or anyone to do is provide evidence from the Quran or Sunnah showing that criticizing the ruler in his absence is ALWAYS and UNCONDITIONALLY haram. I don’t think you can, but I will hear you out.
I encourage you to consider that committed non-Kharijite Salafis from Ahlus Sunnah do take this nuanced position while being wary of the fitnah of anarchy.
Many of our brothers from Ahlus Sunnah are also falling into the opposite extreme by inadvertently becoming spokespeople for tyrants and their policies out of an exaggerated fear of anarchy. Both extremes are to be condemned and warned against.
Inshallah we don’t upset you any further brother.
Baarak Allahu feekum.
I think another contention worth addressing is the issue of whether this is regarded as backbiting. Since a wrong is done publicly does it mean we can criticize a ruler behind his back publicly?
One would look at the purpose and method of the criticism. If it's done simply to insult and be vile to rile up people to rebel, that's one thing. If the intent however is to remind people how un-Islamic the ruler's behaviour and policy is to clarify doubts sycophants are spreading, then that's another thing. Giving absolute answers is difficult.
Afiq, I think that the following few narrations from the salaf should help on whether critiquing the ruler (tyrant) is backbiting or not? Please note, that even if there happens to be any weakness found in the asānīd of the first three narrations (quoted below) from ‘Kitab as-Sunnah" culled from the "Masāil" of Imam Harb ibn Ismā’īl ibn Khalaf al-Al-Handhalī al-Karmānī, it is clear that Imam Harb al-Karmānī held to the opinion that "it is not backbiting" thus brought these narrations in his "Masāil".
117 / 656 – ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb narrated to us and said: Ziyād ibn Ar-Rabī’ narrated to us, from ‘Abdur-Rahmān ibn Udhaynah who said: Our ashyākh (pl. shaykh) said: “Three (types of people) have no backbiting: The unjust oppressing ruler, the sinner who exposes his sins and an innovator.” [1]
121 / 660 – I asked Ishāq: about the backbiting of the oppressive ruler?
He said: "It is not (backbiting when) regarding them. Except that it is disliked that a person makes his tongue used to (speaking bad about people)." [2]
122 / 661 – Al-Akhdar narrated to us and said: ‘Ārim narrated to us and said: Wuhayb ibn Khālid narrated to us and said: I heard ‘Ubayd-Allāh saying regarding the backbiting of the Khawārij and the ruler who has publicly shown (his mistakes): that he did not see any backbiting of them. But as for them one about whom it is known that he is a sinner and he likes to screen himself, then he considered that (i.e. speaking about him) backbiting from them. [3]
Interestingly, the hadith (no. 3) which the article (above) cites wherein Ka’b bin ‘Ujrah (رضي الله عنه) insults Abdur-Rahmān bin Umm Hakam in his sharh of 'Sahih Muslim', Imām an-Nawawi (رحمه الله) does not mention anything about it being mandatory to critique 'umara (rulers) in front of them. This is the relevant part of his sharh where an-Nawawi says that the words of Ka’b bin ‘Ujrah were meant to denounce what is wrong,
"His words are meant to denounce what is wrong and to correct the behaviour of rulers and governors if they do what is at variance with the Prophet's sunnah." [4]
As per certain narrations sahabah like Hasan and Hussayn (رضي الله عنهما) used to curse Marwān - much worse than critiquing -, and I'm sure that Marwān would not always be in front of them to get cursed:
"Al-Hasan and al-Hussayn رضي الله عنهما used to curse Marwān, then the prayer would be established and they would hasten to pray behind him."[5]
They prayed behind Marwān because they did not consider him a kāfir. Lastly, a renowned Salafi 'alim whose stance/position on the issue of "public critique of 'umara" is not often stated by Salafi du'at and 'ulama, should be quoted here. Shaykh Abū 'Abd ar-Raḥman Muqbil ibn Hādī al-Wādi'ī (رحمه الله) says:
[Arabic text]
لسنا مستعدين أن نعبد الحُكام ، لسنا مستعدين أن ندافع عن الحُكام بالباطل "ولا تجادل عن الذين يختانون أنفسهم إن الله لا يحب من كان خواناً أثيماً " ، بل الواجب أن ننكر عليهم إذا دعوا إلى ديمقراطية أو دعوا إلى شيء يخالف الدين مع إشعار المسلمين أننا لا نجيز الخروج عليهم ولا نحببه ، فيا سبحان الله يا أيها المفتري أما تعلم أنك ستفتضح اليوم أو غداً أو بعد غدٍ ، كتبنا مملوءٌ من فضل الله في التحذير من الخروج على الحُكام. [End of Arabic text]
"We are not ready to worship the rulers (Hukkām), neither are we prepared to defend the rulers falsely, “Do not advocate for those who wrong themselves. Surely Allāh does not like those who are deceitful, sinful.” [6] Rather, it is mandatory (al-Wājib) that we denounce them if they call for Democracy (Dimuqrātiyah) or call for something that contradicts (yukhalif) the Dīn, while informing the Muslims that we do not permit rebellion against them (i.e, rulers), nor do we like it. SubhanAllāh, O Muftarī (slanderer)! Do you not know that you will be exposed today, tomorrow, or the day after? With the fadl of Allāh our books are full of warnings against rebellion (khurūj) against the rulers." [7]
Unfortunately, many Salafi 'ulama today try to propagandise that public-critique of 'umara is absolutely haram whereas this is clearly not the case if you read athar and ahadith. Then, there are those Salafi 'ulama who would bring in the useless condition of critique being in "front" of the 'umara else it being haram to critique the 'umara! So, you cannot condemn or critique a wali al-amr (ruler) until and unless you do it to him face to face! Shaykh Abū 'Abd ar-Raḥman Muqbil ibn Hādī al-Wādi'ī says about this,
"Those who say that advising [rulers] should only be done in secret, they do not have any evidence, and the hadith (about advising privately) is weak. Advising should be done secretly when one knows that it will be accepted, or when it is known that public advice from the pulpits may stir up discord. However, if it is known that the wrongdoing can be removed, because governments have informants in large societies, and the information might reach them (about their public criticism being done), and they fear people criticising them and so this will lead to them removing this wrongdoing. When we read the biographies of our scholars, we find among them those who openly criticised the rulers, and among them, those who refrained from doing so to avoid causing discord. As for abandoning clarification (of these sins), then when will these rulers reform?!"[8]
I hope these might be of some help to you.
________________________
[1] Narrated by Harb in his "Masāil" (1410). Taken from the "Kitāb As-Sunnah" of the "Masāil" of Harb ibn Ismā’īl Al-Karmānī", trans. Abū Hājar (Dar Al-Hady Al-Auwal, 2021).
[2] Narrated by Harb in his "Masāil" (1415).
[3] Narrated by Harb in his “Masāil” (1416).
[4] Sahih Muslim: With the Full Commentary by Imām al-Nawawi, trans. and ed. Adil Salahi (Leicestershire: The Islamic Foundation, 2021), vol. 5, pp. 413-415.
[5] "Masā'il" of Harb al-Kirmāni, no. 271.
[6] Surah an-Nisāʾ (4), āyah no. 107.
[7] From the Tape: 'As’iylat Ahl al-Madīnah' / 'Questions of Ahl al-Madīnah'. Online source: https://www.muqbel.net/fatwa.php?fatwa_id=1635
[8] See "Fiqh of Imam Al-Wadi’i" (3/403.)
amazing read! barakallah feekum