Kuna hali moja iliyotengwa na kanuni ya jumla kuhusu wajibu wa kutii mtawala. Hii ni hali ya kuamrisha watu kufanya dhambi. Vivyo hivyo, kuna hali moja iliyotengwa na kanuni ya jumla kuhusu katazo la kuasi dhidi ya mtawala na kuchukua silaha dhidi yake, nayo ni pale anapofanya kitendo cha wazi cha kukufuru. Katika hali hii anapaswa kupigwa vita, kwa kuwa kuna matini zinazohusu hali hii. 'Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja'i alisema: "Nilimsikia Mtume wa Allah ﷺ akisema: 'Viongozi bora wenu ni wale mnaowapenda nao wanakupendeni, mnaowaombea dua nao wanawaombea dua, na viongozi waovu wenu ni wale mnaowachukia nao wanakuchukieni, mnaowalaani nao wanawalaani.' Tukasema: 'Ee Mtume wa Allah, je, tusiwapige vita?' Akasema: 'Hapana, mradi wanasimamisha Swala miongoni mwenu.'" [Imepokewa na Muslim] Kusimamisha Swala maana yake ni kutawala kwa Uislamu, yaani kutekeleza kanuni za Shari'ah. Hii ni kwa sababu kutaja sehemu moja ya Uislamu hapa kunaashiria Uislamu wote. Hii ni desturi ya kawaida katika lugha ya Kiarabu; kwa mfano, Allah (SWT) anasema: "Kumkomboa mtumwa" [TMQ An-Nisa': 92], yaani kumkomboa mtumwa mzima na si shingo yake tu. Katika Hadith hii, Mtume ﷺ alisema: "Mradi wanasimamisha Swala miongoni mwenu." Hii inamaanisha kusimamisha kanuni zote, si Swala peke yake, na ni namna ya kitamathali ambapo sehemu hutajwa kuashiria zima. Muslim amepokea kwa mapokezi ya Umm Salama kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Watawaliwa watateuliwa juu yenu; mtakubali baadhi ya wanayoyafanya na mtawakataa baadhi. Atakayeyakubali ameondokewa na lawama. Atakayechukia (matendo yao maovu) yuko salama, lakini atakayeridhia na kuwafuata (ataangamia)." Wakasema: "Je, tusiwapige vita?" Akajibu ﷺ: "Hapana, mradi wanaswali." Hii inamaanisha kuanzishwa kwa kanuni zote, si sala tu, na ni namna ya kitamathali ambapo sehemu hutajwa ili kuashiria zima. ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit ameripoti:

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:

Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alituita, nasi tukampa Bay'ah (kiapo cha utii). Miongoni mwa amri alizotufanyia kuwa za lazima ni kusikiliza na kutii kwa Amiri katika furaha yetu na chuki yetu, katika dhiki yetu na wepesi wetu, na kumpa upendeleo juu yetu wenyewe, na kutogombana na mamlaka dhidi ya watu wake. Alisema: “Isipokuwa mnapoona kufuru dhahiri ambayo mnayo dalili wazi kutoka kwa Allah.” [Narrated by Muslim]

“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]

Mada ya Hadithi hizi tatu, Hadithi ya ‘Awf Ibnu Malik, ile ya Umm Salama, na ile ya ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit, ni uasi dhidi ya mtawala. Zinakataza kabisa kumwasi.

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:

"'Je, hatupaswi basi kuwatangazia vita?' Yeye (pbuh) akasema: 'Hapana.' 'Je, hatupaswi kupigana nao?' Yeye (pbuh) akasema: 'Hapana.' 'Na hatupaswi kubishana na watu wenye mamlaka.'" Wote hawa wanakataza kwa uthabiti uasi dhidi ya mtawala, hivyo wakionyesha katazo. Hili linaungana na aibu inayohusishwa na uasi, na linaonyeshwa katika Hadithi ambapo Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Yeyote anayeasi dhidi ya mtawala na kuacha Jama'ah, kifo chake kitakuwa kile cha siku za Jahiliyyah." [Imesimuliwa na An-Nasa'i kutoka kwa Abu Hurairah] Kwa hiyo ni katazo lisilo na shaka, kwa kuwa linaona kifo cha yule anayeasi na kuasi dhidi ya Imam kuwa ni kifo cha Jahiliyyah, likionyesha kwamba ni katazo lisilo na shaka. Hadithi hizi basi ni ushahidi wa katazo la uasi.

“‘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.

Hata hivyo, kuna kisa kimoja kilichotengwa, ambacho kimeelezwa katika Hadithi ya kwanza na ya pili, yaani kutosimamisha swala, na kutoswali. Pia kimeelezwa katika Hadithi ya tatu kwa kukufuru waziwazi. Kutosimamisha swala na kutoiswali, yaani kuhukumu kwa kisicho alichoteremsha Allah (SWT), kwa maneno mengine kuhukumu kwa sheria za kufuru, ni jambo ambalo bila shaka lingemaanisha kudhihiri kwa kufuru ya wazi. Neno "kufuru ya wazi" lililokuja katika Hadithi ni maelezo yanayotumika kwa kila kitu kinachochukuliwa kuwa kufuru ya wazi. Kwa hiyo, kufuru ya wazi ambayo tuna dalili kutoka kwa Allah (SWT) ikidhihiri, inatupasa kuasi dhidi yake. Iwe ni kuhukumu kwa sheria za kikafiri, yaani kwa kisicho alichoteremsha Allah, au yeye hakuwa anahukumu kwa sheria za kikafiri, lakini alinyamaza kuhusu kuritadi dhidi ya Uislamu na kuwaruhusu waritadi kudhihirisha waziwazi ukafiri wao, au chochote kinachofanana na hayo, yote haya yatakuwa kufuru ya wazi. Hii ni ya jumla na inajumuisha aina yoyote ya kufuru ya wazi. Hii ndiyo tofauti (iliyotajwa katika Hadithi): kudhihiri kwa ukafiri wa wazi, kwa hiyo likitokea hili basi kuasi kunakuwa wajibu.

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.

Dalili katika Hadithi hizi kuhusu wajibu wa kuasi dhidi ya watawala katika hali hii inadhihirika kwa kuwa Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ ametukataza kutangaza vita dhidi yao, kupigana nao na kugombana nao kuhusu mamlaka yao, na amelitoa tukio hili kwenye kanuni ya katazo, jambo linalomaanisha kwamba ni tukio lililotengwa na kanuni ya katazo. Hivyo linakuwa amri ambayo tunapaswa kuitekeleza. Mafhoom (maana ya kudokezwa) ya Hadithi hizi ni amri ya kutangaza vita dhidi ya mtawala, kupigana nao na kugombana nao kuhusu mamlaka yake, endapo tukio kama hilo litatokea. Mafhoom ni sawa na maana ya moja kwa moja katika kuthibitisha hukumu. Kwa hiyo ni ushahidi unaoonyesha kwamba Mwenye kutunga sheria (Ash-Shaari') ameamuru Waislamu watangaze vita dhidi ya watawala, wapigane nao na wagombane nao kuhusu mamlaka yao iwapo Kufr dhahiri itadhihiri katika utawala wao. Kuhusu Qareenah (dalili ya ziada) inayoonyesha kwamba amri hii ni ya lazima, ni kwamba jambo ambalo amri hii inahusu limesisitizwa na Shari'ah. Mwenye kutunga sheria amefanya kuhukumu kwa Uislamu kuwa Wajib (lazima) na si Mandub (inayopendekezwa). Kutokea kwa ukafiri dhahiri kumekatazwa na Shari'a, na si tu kuwa Makruh (isiyopendeza). Hivyo jambo la amri hii linatumika kama Qareenah kwamba amri hiyo ni ya lazima. Kuasi dhidi ya mtawala katika hali hii ya kipekee si tu kwamba ni jambo linaloruhusiwa, bali ni wajibu kwa Waislamu.

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.

Hata hivyo, ni lazima kusisitizwa kwamba kinachokusudiwa kwa kutokea kwa ukafiri wa wazi ni ukafiri ambao tuna ushahidi madhubuti unaothibitisha kwamba ni kitendo cha ukafiri. Mtume wa Allah ﷺ hakuishia kusema "ukafiri wa wazi", bali aliendelea kusema "ambao mnao Burhani (ushahidi) kutoka kwa Allah." Neno Burhani linarejelea tu ushahidi madhubuti. Kuwepo kwa ushahidi wa wazi unaothibitisha ukafiri wa wazi ni mojawapo ya masharti ya uasi. Kama kungekuwa na shaka juu ya kutokuwa kitendo cha ukafiri, au kama kungekuwa na ushahidi wa Zanni (wa dhana) kwamba ni kitendo cha ukafiri hata kama ushahidi huo ni sahihi, basi uasi ungekuwa haramu, kwani uasi unaruhusiwa tu pale ambapo kuna ushahidi wa wazi kwamba ni kitendo cha ukafiri.

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.

Hivyo basi, kile kinachomaanishwa kwa kufuru dhahiri ni aina ya kufuru ambayo hakuna shaka juu yake, na ambayo ushahidi wa wazi umethibitisha kuwa ni kufuru. Ikiwa watawala waliamuru kitendo au mwenendo ambao una shaka ndani yake, basi hiyo si kitendo cha kufuru, na itakuwa haramu kumwasi Yeye kwa kisingizio kwamba kuna kufuru dhahiri. Hii ni kwa sababu ya kuwepo kwa shaka. Kwa mfano, ikiwa mtawala aliamuru kufundishwa nadharia ya uyakinifu wa kidiyalektiki (dialectical materialism) katika vyuo vikuu, au kufundishwa mafundisho mengine ya kufuru, na mtu akaona kwamba kufundishwa kwa mafundisho ya kufuru kutapelekea kufuru, basi katika hali hii lazima amtii mtawala na asome mafundisho hayo. Itakuwa haramu kumwasi mtawala kwa kisingizio kwamba kufuru dhahiri imetendeka. Mtawala atakuwa na ushahidi kwamba inaruhusiwa kupata maarifa kuhusu mafundisho ya kufuru, kwa kuwa Qur'an imeyataja, ambapo Allah (swt) amewaelekezea hayo na kuyakanusha.

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.

Inaweza kuonekana kwamba kila jambo ambalo lina ushahidi au ushahidi wenye uwezekano kwamba si kufuru, na pia kuna ushahidi au ushahidi wenye uwezekano kwamba linatokana na Uislamu, na mtawala ameliamuru au ameliutekeleza, basi halitachukuliwa kuwa ni hukumu za kufuru, wala kuwa ni kudhihiri kwa kufuru dhahiri. Halitajumuishwa katika kile kinachotolewa kama ubaguzi, na kuasi dhidi ya mtawala katika hali kama hiyo ni haramu; bali kumtii ni wajibu.

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.