Hukmdorga itoat qilish majburiyati haqidagi umumiy qoidadan bir holat istisno qilinadi. Bu odamlarni gunohga buyurish holatidir. Xuddi shunday, hukmdorga qarshi isyon ko'tarish va unga qarshi qurol ko'tarishni taqiqlovchi umumiy qoidadan ham bir holat istisno qilinadi, ya'ni u ochiq kufrga yo'l qo'yganda. Bunday holatda unga qarshi kurashish kerak, chunki bu holat bilan bog'liq matnlar mavjud. Ibn Molik al-Ashja'iy, Avf roviy bo'lib, aytdi: "Men Allloh Rasulini ﷺ shunday deyayotganini eshitdim: 'Sizning imomlaringizning eng yaxshisi - siz ularni sevadigan, ular sizni sevadigan, siz ular uchun duo qiladigan va ular siz uchun duo qiladigan imomlardir. Imomlaringizning eng yomoni esa - siz ulardan nafratlanadigan, ular sizdan nafratlanadigan, siz ularni la'natlaydigan va ular sizni la'natlaydigan imomlardir.' Biz so'radik: 'Ey Allloh Rasuli ﷺ, biz ularga qarshi urush e'lon qilmaymizmi?' U zot ﷺ dedilar: 'Yo'q, to ular orangizda namozni o'qiyotgan ekanlar.'" [Muslim rivoyati] Namozni o'qish degani Islom bilan hukm qilish, ya'ni Shariat qoidalarini amalga oshirish demakdir. Bunga sabab shuki, bu yerda uning bir qismini aytish butun Islomni anglatadi. Bu arab tilida keng tarqalgan, masalan, Alloh (SWT) aytadi: "Bo'yinni ozod qilish" [TMQ An-Nisa: 92], bu esa quldan ozod qilishni, ya'ni butun odamni, faqat bo'yinni emas, anglatadi. Ushbu hadisda Rasulullох ﷺ aytdilar: "To ular orangizda namozni o'qiyotgan ekanlar." Bu esa faqat namozni emas, balki barcha qoidalarni o'rnatishni anglatadi va bu qismni aytib butunni nazarda tutadigan majoziy shakldir. Muslim Umm Salamadan rivoyat qiladi: Allloh Rasulи ﷺ dedilar: "Sizning ustingizga amirlar tayinlanadi, ularning ba'zi ishlarini ma'qullaysiz, ba'zilaridan esa voz kechasiz. Kim (yomon ishni) tan olsa, u ayblovdan xoli bo'ladi. Kim (ularning yomon ishlarini) rad etsa, u xavfsiz bo'ladi, lekin kim rozi bo'lib, ularga ergashsa, (u halok bo'ladi)." Ular dedilar: "Biz ular bilan urush qilmaymizmi?" U zot ﷺ javob berdilar: "Yo'q, to ular namoz o'qiyotgan ekanlar." Bu barcha hukmlarning, faqat namozning emas, balki butunning o'rnida qismni zikr qilish orqali nazarda tutilgan majoziy shaklda ekanligini bildiradi. ʿUbada ibn as-Somit rivoyat qildi:

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:

Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bizni chaqirdi va biz Unga bay’at (sadoqat qasamyodi) berdik. Unga bizdan qabul qildirgan ko‘rsatmalar orasida: xohish-istagimizga ko‘ra ham, xohishimizga zid bo‘lsa ham, qiyinchilik ichida ham, farovonlikda ham, o‘zimizdan ustun qo‘yib (boshqalarga) imtiyoz berishda ham amirga itoat etib, uning so‘zini tinglash, hokimiyat masalasida uning ahli bilan bahslashmaslik bor edi. U zot ﷺ shunday degan edi: “Agar Allohdan aniq dalilingiz bo‘lgan ochiq kufrni ko‘rmasangiz (bunday bo‘lmaguncha itoat qiling).” [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]

Ushbu uchta hadisning mavzusi hokimga qarshi isyon ko‘tarishdir. Ular hokimga qarshi isyon ko‘tarishni qat’iyan taqiqlaydi:

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:

“Shouldn’t we then declare war on them?” He ﷺ said: “No.” “Shouldn’t we fight against them?” He ﷺ said: “No.” “And we should not dispute with the people of authority.” They all categorically forbid rebellion against the ruler, thus indicating a prohibition. This is combined with the disgrace attributed to rebellion, and it is indicated in the Hadith where Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said: “He who rebels against the ruler and deserts the Jama’ah, his death will be the death 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 him who disobeys and rebels against the Imam to be a death of Jahiliyyah, indicating that it is a decisive prohibition. The Ahadith thus serve as evidence for the prohibition of rebellion.

“‘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.

Bununla birga, bir holat istisno qilinadi, u birinchi va ikkinchi hadislarda ifodalangan: namozni o'rnatmaslik va namoz o'qimaslik, va uchinchi hadisda ochiq kufr bilan ifodalangan. Namozni o'rnatmaslik va namoz o'qimaslik, ya'ni Alloh (SWT) nozil qilgan narsadan boshqasi bilan hukm qilish, boshqacha aytganda kufr qonunlari bilan hukm qilish, bu shubhasiz ochiq kufrning paydo bo'lishini anglatadi. Hadisda kelgan "ochiq kufr" tavsifi kufr deb hisoblanadigan har qanday ochiq kufrga taalluqlidir. Shunday ekan, agar Allah (SWT) tomonidan dalili bo'lgan ochiq kufr paydo bo'lsa, unga qarshi isyon ko'tarishimiz lozim. Bu kufr qonunlari, ya'ni Alloh nozil qilganidan boshqasi bilan hukm qilish bo'ladimi yoki u kufr qonunlari bilan hukm qilmasdan, lekin Islomdan murtadlikka sukut saqlab, murtadlarga o'z kufrlarini ochiq namoyish etishga ruxsat bersa yoki shunga o'xshash boshqa narsa bo'ladimi, bularning barchasi ochiq kufr bo'ladi. Bu umumiy bo'lib, ochiq kufrning har qanday turini o'z ichiga oladi. Hadislarda zikr qilingan istisno ana shudir: ochiq kufrning ko'rinishi. Agar shunday bo'lsa, u holda isyon ko'tarish vojib bo'ladi.

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.

Ushbu hadislardagi ko‘rsatma, bu holatda hokimlarga qarshi isyon ko‘tarish vojibligini bildiradi, chunki Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bizni ularga qarshi urush e’lon qilishdan, ular bilan jang qilishdan va ularning hokimiyati yuzasidan ularga qarshi tortishuvdan qaytarganlar va bu holatni istisno qilganlar. Bu esa uning taqiq qoidasidan chiqarilganini, ya’ni u bajarilishi lozim bo‘lgan buyruq ekanini anglatadi. Hadislarning ishora ma’nosi (mafhum) agar shunday holat yuz bersa, hokimga qarshi urush e’lon qilish, unga qarshi jang qilish va uning hokimiyati yuzasidan u bilan tortishish buyrug‘ini anglatadi. Ishora ma’nosi hukm ustidagi dalil jihatidan so‘zma-so‘z ma’noga tengdir. Shu sababli bu qonun chiqaruvchi musulmonlarga, agar hokimlarning boshqaruvida ochiq kufr paydo bo‘lsa, ularga qarshi urush e’lon qilish, ular bilan jang qilish va ularning hokimiyati yuzasidan tortishish buyurganini ko‘rsatuvchi dalildir. Ushbu buyruqning qat’iy ekanligiga kelsak, bu qarina (ishora) buyruq mavzusi Shariat tomonidan ta’kidlanganligidadir. Shar’iy qonun chiqaruvchi Islom bilan hukm qilishni vojib qilgan, mandub qilmagan. Ochiq kufrning paydo bo‘lishi Shar’da man etilgan va shunchaki makruh emas. Demak, buyruq mavzusi buyruqning qat’iy ekanligiga qarina bo‘ladi. Shunday istisno holatda hokimga qarshi isyon nafaqat ruxsat etilgan, balki musulmonlar zimmasida vojibdir.

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.

Shuni ta'kidlash kerakki, ochiq kufrning yuzaga kelishidan nazarda tutilgan narsa shunday kufrki, unga kufr ekanligini isbotlovchi qat'iy dalil bor. Rasululloh ﷺ faqat "ochiq kufr" deb qo'yib qo'ymay, balki "bu borada sizlarda Allohdan kelgan burhon (dalil) bor" deb davom etdilar. "Burhon" so'zi faqat qat'iy dalilga nisbatan ishlatiladi. Ochiq kufrni isbotlovchi aniq-ravshan dalilning mavjudligi isyon ko'tarishning shartlaridan biridir. Agar bu kufr emasligi haqida shubha bo'lsa yoki kufr ekanligiga zanniy (ehtimoliy) dalil bo'lsa, hatto dalil to'g'ri bo'lsa ham, isyon ko'tarish harom bo'ladi, chunki isyon faqat kufr ekanligiga aniq-ravshan dalil bo'lgandagina ruxsat etiladi.

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.

Shunday qilib, ochiq kufr deganda hech qanday shubha bo‘lmagan, aniq dalil bilan kufr ekani isbotlangan kufr turi nazarda tutiladi. Agar hukmdorlar shubha tug‘diradigan amr yoki xatti-harakatni buyursa, bu kufr amali hisoblanmaydi va ochiq kufr bahonasida Unga qarshi isyon ko‘tarish harom bo‘ladi. Buning sababi shubhaning mavjudligidadir. Masalan, agar hukmdor universitetlarda dialektik materializm nazariyasini yoki boshqa kufr ta’limotlarini o‘qitishni buyursa va kimdir kufr ta’limotlarini o‘qitish kufrga olib keladi, deb hisoblasa, bu holda u hukmdorga itoat etishi va bunday ta’limotlarni o‘rganishi kerak. Ochiq kufr sodir etildi, degan bahona bilan hukmdorga qarshi isyon ko‘tarish harom bo‘ladi. Hukmdorda kufr ta’limotlari haqida ma’lumot olish joiz ekanligiga dalil bor, chunki Qur’oni karimda ular zikr qilingan, Alloh taolo ularga murojaat qilgan va ularni rad etgan.

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.

Shuni ko'rish mumkinki, kufr emasligiga dalil yoki ehtimoliy dalil bo'lgan, hamda Islomdan ekanligiga dalil yoki ehtimoliy dalil bo'lgan va hokim buni buyurgan yoki amalga oshirgan har qanday ish kufr hukmlariga kiritilmaydi, ochiq kufrning yuzaga chiqishi deb hisoblanmaydi. U istisnoga kirmaydi va bunday holatda hokimga isyon qilish harom bo'ladi, aksincha, unga itoat qilish vojib bo'ladi.

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.