There are still many questions raised by media in Egypt and other countries worldwide on the ruling of the Egyptian revolution.

In my previous article "It Is Not Sedition 1/3", I have tackled the variant interpretations to the prophetic tradition (When two Muslims draw sword against one another, and one manages to kill the other, both will be put to Hell. The people asked, “O Messenger of Allah! The case is clear as to the killer, but why is the killed treated as such?” The Holy Prophet replied: “He too sought to kill the other party[1]). In this regard, I have demonstrated with evidence that it is not generalized to deem sinful any Muslim draws a sword against another Muslim to fight him. However, the demonstrators in Egypt drew neither sword nor any weapon; however, they marched peacefully.

In this article, I will discuss some of the interpretations to an authentic Hadiht where scholars frequently disagreed on its interpretation and its ruling as well.

Prior to going into this interpretation, I would like to draw the attentions to the significance of this kind of study and examination, even after the success of the Egyptian revolution. This is due to two points;

First: a testimony to the history and to the legal procedures exercised for change that agrees with the Islamic principles. This is in order not to indict the blessed revolution for corruption as already directed to me by a young man in Tahrir square.

Second: very serious, as the Arab states are in need to such study, because they experience the same conditions of Egypt. Accordingly, executing a revolution might be a suitable for more of them, if it is legally approved.

The concerned Hadith in this article is that one narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of `Ubadah ibn As-Samit that he said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) took an oath of allegiance from us on our listening to and obeying the orders of our commander in adversity and prosperity, in pleasure and displeasure (and even) when somebody is given preference over us, on our avoiding to dispute the delegation of powers to a person deemed to be a fit recipient thereof (in the eye of one who delegates it) unless  legal plain proofs are observed[2])

Some scholars concluded a ruling based on this Hadith that it is not permissible for Muslims to revolt against any Muslim ruler, unless he commits a plain act of disbelief. Thereupon, such scholars disapproved the Egyptian revolution and deemed the demonstrators sinful and that those murdered among them are not martyrs.

Is that interpretation for the Hadith is the only one, or that there are other interpretations not raised by those venerable scholars which may change their minds?!

I have some comments on this Hadith that may be helpful to declare this point.

First: why it is stipulated to examine a plain disbelief to deem permissible revolting against the Muslim ruler, namely the prophet (PBUH) has not said: unless the ruler is disbeliever?

In my view, the prophet (PBUH) intended not to embarrass Muslims as to rendering the ruler disbeliever to revolt against him. To illustrate, such ruler may exercise acts of disbelief, however, he himself is not a disbeliever. To consider an act as disbelief is easier than charging the one with disbelief.

The question that we should frankly answer is that are there acts of disbelief under the past governing regime in Egypt? Now, I declare it plainly that I do not charge the figures with disbelief.

The most critical thing that Egypt and many other Arab states had fallen into is that they do not enforce the Islamic law intentionally. They are satisfied with human-constitution derived from different laws, whether revealed, like Islamic, or human-made laws. This was not executed due to ignorance or non-awareness, however, it was done intentionally on the pretext that the English, French, Italian, Belgic or the American laws are more accurate as to a particular article/s than Islam revealed by the lord of the worlds (Exalted and Glorified is He)!

What is the vindication of that?

What is the vindication for those alleging that selling and usury are alike?

What is the vindication of those permitting formal the dissolute female dancers and the licentiousness in mass media; however, he does not believe that it is an evil that should be forbidden? Yet, he, Mubarak, encourages and deems them example to the Egyptian youth, the matter which reflects plain contradiction to the Islamic laws?

What is the vindication of giving allegiance to the Jewish Zionists on against the Muslim Palestinians?

What is the vindication of suspending alms?

What is the vindication of driving away from Islam those detained in prisons and professionally tortured through instruments imported only for this task?!

These acts are deemed disbelief according to many scholars; however, most of them avoid charging the doer with disbelief and I personally agree with them, because this entails certain procedures, namely debate, declaration, and listening to their views justifying performing such acts.

In general, the prophet (PBUH) relieved us from this critical point through his declaration that revolting against the Muslim ruler necessitates not deeming him a disbeliever. However, he was satisfied with acts reflect disbelief inside his lands and exerted the least to change them; however, on the contrary, he indulged in it, blessed and encouraged it.

Second: a question may totally change the mind of the explainers, namely what is meant by disbelief in the concerned Hadith?  Is it such kind of disbelief that takes the one out of Islam, or it is another kind of disbelief?

Proceed to read the following surprise;

Imam An-Nawawi (May Allah be merciful with him) on his comments in Sahih Muslim stated: (the disbelief mentioned refers to sins and that the prophetic phrase "unless legal plain proofs are observed" means that such acts are plainly described disbelief according to the Islamic law. The Hadith means that do not revolt against the rulers or oppose them, unless you observe acts deemed evil in Shariah[3]).

Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalani commented on the same Hadith narrated in Al-Bukhari in the same way of An-Nawawi.

Certainly, this is a new vision for those reading the Hadith.

If the

If revolting against the ruler is permissible on condition that sins are exercised publicly, then there are so many sins committed that no two Muslim disagree on its graveness.

Accordingly, plundering the billions of Egypt is sufficient to revolt against its ruler who encourages such plunder which hurts all Egyptian nationals without exception besides other kinds of sins and evils.

Why did scholars referred to "disbelief" as "sin"?

This is because this agrees with the goal and objectives of Shariah. It is not reasonable that the Shariah characterized by guiding people to the right and a source of relief leave irresponsible the corruptor and unjust ruler for exercising all kinds of sins and encourages offenses and spreads his corruption throughout the state depending on his tools.

As well, it is not reasonable that the just Shariah necessitates that all nationals sacrifice for the sake of holding the unjust ruler in his post.

It is not reasonable for the wise Islamic law to legalize, on the plea of deeming impermissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler, for Muslims to keep a state of humiliation and depletion of its resources and wealth and inferior to other states and consequently humbled among other nations for tens of years.

Certainly, this is not the goal and objectives of Shariah, and it is not the goal of creating the whole creation. This is because Allah, the almighty, declared to us the goal of the creation where He (Glorified and exalted) stated: (And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me) Adhariat, 56.

It is impossible that Shariah imposes on people to remain for decades neglectful for the mere worship and live in an environment full of minor and major sins to a void revolt against a ruler exaggerated in exercising crimes, distress, injustice and oppression.

For that has been mentioned above, ibn Hajar and An-Nawawi and other scholars as well referred to "disbelief" as "sins" to enforce the first goal of Shariah, namely to keep the religion of Muslims in operation. Moreover; it is to preserve the souls, wealth, intellect, and offspring of Muslims, things not protected under the current corruptor governing regime.

Not only this; however, the venerate scholars founded their views on other narration for the concerned Hadith which proved that the word "disbelief" referred to "disobedience". Hebban ibn An-Nadr related a narration citing: (unless he commits a plain act of disobedience[4])

As well, Ahmad narrated it on the authority of `Umair ibn Hanie on the authority of Junadah (unless they "the Muslim rulers" commanded you to commit a plain act of sin[5]).

These narrations refer to the word "disbelief" as "disobedience and sin" and this is more appropriate to the goals of Shariah as I declared it before.

Third: agreement among scholars on the two kinds of disbelief, namely Kufr `Amaly (disbelief in actions) and Kufr I`tiqady (doctrinal disbelief). This agrees with what I declared in the first point. Scholars stated that it might happen that some one acts irreligiously; however, he does believe that the Shariah of Allah is the right, but he contradicts it for his whims. This kind of disbelief is `Amaly which is the lesser evil that it does not its doer out of Islam; however, it makes him Fasiq (someone flagrantly violating Islamic law). On the other hand, the one violates the shariah in a certain point/s believing that the laws of humans are more perfect than those of Allah, then he is fallen to the doctrinal disbelief. This kind is serious as it takes its doer out of Islam.

Because we can not know the hidden content of the rulers' hearts, it becomes agreeable that acting in accordance to the human-laws reflects disbelief in actions at the very least. It might be doctrinal disbelief; however, we dare not advocate it without thorough examination.

The first to tackle this point was ibn `Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) where he commented on the verse: (And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers), Al-Maedah, 44. He stated: it is not the known disbelief, namely it does not take out of Islam[6]. `Ataa (May Allah be merciful with him) held the same. He commented on the words "disbelievers", "wrongdoers" and "defiantly disobedient" as saying: minor disbelief, minor wrongdoing and minor disobedience[7].

The distinction between the two kinds refers mainly to one's intention and inner belief. To illustrate, if he does not judge by what Allah has revealed while he is convinced that the judgment of Allah is the right, he would be then disbeliever in actions that which does not takes him out of Islam as it is minor disbelief. On the other hand; if he judges by what Allah has not revealed while he is deeming the corruption lawful and is content of it, then this is doctrinal disbelief and takes him out of Islam according to the wording of the Quranic verse.

Based on that, scholars applied this norm to many verses and Hadiths. To exemplify, the prophet (PBUH) said: (the distinguishing feature of the Muslims from the non-Muslims is performing the daily obligatory prayers; consequently, whoever a Muslim abandons it, he would be disbeliever[8]).

Is it generalized to deem disbeliever any Muslims abandons the prayers?

Imam Ashafi`, Abu-Hanifa and Malik stated that it is minor disbelief so long as he is not deeming it lawful; however, if he deems it lawful to abandon the prayers, he would then be fallen into doctrinal disbelief.

Imam Ahmad stated that he is fallen into the doctrinal disbelief whether he is deeming it lawful or not for the generality of the wording of the concerned Hadith. Majority of jurists hold a dissent view to that of Imam Ahmad.

Why then we accept to refer to the disbelief in the previous Hadith as minor one, namely disbelief in actions as a means to protect Muslims who do not perform prayers, yet they are the only harmed part due to non-performance to prayers. While on the contrary, we do not accept to the disbelief in the Hadith concerned with the ruler as disbelief in actions, namely it is deemed a disobedience takes not him out of Islam, though the unjust ruler harms the whole nations not only himself?!

It might be more appropriate here, in the Hadith concerned with the ruler, to take advantage to the opportunity to deem lawful revolting against him if he propagates evils in order to ensure peoples' religion and observe the goals of Shariah.

The same of the Hadith concerned with prayers is also applied to many other Hadiths, where majority of scholars stated that it is a minor disbelief that does not take out of Islam.

The same is applied to the Hadith (Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, fighting him is blasphemy[9]). It goes without saying that if I fought my neighbor or companion, this would not render me disbeliever, that is it is minor disbelief and major disobedience. Also, the same is applied to the Hadith: (whenever a slave escapes from his master, he would be disbeliever until he returns back to them[10]). Does it entail taking out of Islam the slave who flees from his master, or that is minor disbelief?

Also, the same is applied to the Hadith (the one who swears with other than Allah would be disbeliever or polytheist). This Hadith is narrated in Sunan of At-Tirmithi and ranked it as Hasan (Good) one. Imam At-Tirmithi commented on this Hadith as saying: some scholars interpreted "disbeliever or polytheist" as alarming, namely, in point of fact, the one swearing with other than Allah is not disbeliever; however, he committed an act deserves attribution of disbelief, but he would not be disbeliever henceforth.

In the same manner, Allah, the Almighty, declared those who deal in usury to be dwelled in hellfire forever in the chapter of Al-Baqarah. 275 (But whoever returns to [dealing in interest or usury] - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein) and then He (Glorified and Exalted) followed it up with the verse: (Allah destroys interest and gives increase for charities. And Allah does not like every sinning disbeliever), Al-Baqarah. 275.

The sinning disbeliever is the one delving into disbelief.

Is the one dealing in usury a disbeliever or it is a kind of alarming and it is a minor disbelief?

Too many Hadiths concern the same, the matter which makes us regard the Hadith concerning revolting against the rulers newly. This is to avoid propagating the corruption of the rulers, especially is granted that whoever feels safe from being punished would indeed become evil. If the unjust ruler felt irresponsible and that he will not be deposed, he would then increase his injustice and corruption and therefore lead others rulers to the same. On the contrary, if his nationals deposed him due to his injustice and corruption, this would deter other rulers the matter that goes in harmony with the objectives of Shariah which enacted the ordained punishments that some people may regard cruel, but in fact, it is deterrent for others to commit the same evil.

Fourth: scholars' disapproval on marching in demonstrations demanding the ruler to refrain from corruption.

They may adopt that opinion on the pretext that it is a kind of revolting against the ruler. This would in turn make them contradict a set of Hadiths which urges Muslims to settle an account with the rulers; however, to deter them if they committed corruption. If such Hadiths were to be interpreted otherwise in a way not consistent with Shariah, injustice and corruption would be settled more and more and Muslims will be accustomed to ignominy and humiliation and surrendering to the accomplished facts and exerting no endeavors to change them.

Lets

The prophet (PBUH) said: (If Muslims have not deter the unjust rulers, it might happen that Allah, the Almighty, open His punishments to the public at large[11])

The question is that how can nationals deter the unjust ruler?

Is it sufficient to send a gentle message to him secretly?

Surely, this message will not reach the unjust ruler. It has no longer been as the past when it was possible to the subjects to arrive at the door of the ruler and advise him personally.

Is it sufficient to submit a message on the internet that he may personally survey the internet and read it thereof or one of his intimate companions?

I my self submitted a message to him on my website titled "A statement to the Arab and Muslim rulers, I am to you a trustworthy adviser" on 14/5/2009, but no way.

Is it sufficient to deliver the advice in Friday oration?

Already I did that on 2003 following to the incidents of occupying Iraq where I advised the president Husni Mubarak not to fail to assist Iraqi people while supporting the Americans against Muslims. Accordingly, I was detained and prevented from delivering orations from that time on throughout Egypt until the blessed revolution of January 25th 2011 where I decided to resume oration in the wake of deposing the unjust corruptor governing system.

What should we do to apply the Hadith and deter the unjust ruler?

In the course of the past tens of years, we kept languid the matter which made us subject to the threatening of the Hadith. Certainly, Allah, the Almighty, inflicted us with His punishment as reflected in the economic troubles, the inferiority to the westerners, occupation for our lands, violation for our sanctuaries and mocking at our laws of Shariah. These are all a kind of Allah's punishment. Till when, O venerable scholars, we keep languid?

It was necessary to march in a demonstration gather a large number to draw the attention of the unjust ruler who resides there in his presidential palace protected, without exaggeration, by hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

This demonstration is not the only the protest march for those desiring to deter the unjust ruler. We actually organized too many protests, whether at clubs of teaching staff, syndicates, streets and fields, or at university campuses.

Tens and hundreds of times we demanded to stop corruption and injustice, but no way.

What is the solution?

For long periods of time, we do our best to deter the unjust ruler from injustice but it was vainly.

The noble nationals have been suffering from detentions, court-martial, freezing wealth, violating homes, closing the companies and organizations, discharging the employees, fabricating lawsuits of money laundering, terrorism and others.

O jurists of the Muslim nation, is it forbidden, though the case is as mentioned, to Muslims to march in a peaceful demonstration demanding the unjust ruler to stop injustice and leave them alone?

In fact, we are in dire need to review the objectives of our Shariah. It is not logic to accept all these types of corruption, ignominy and humiliation to avoid shedding the bloods of the pure Muslims who marched trying to deter the unjust ruler, or that of the bullies defending the corruption.

It is not suitable to be content with a humble position to the Muslim nation among the other nations; hence Muslims will be inferior to them to avoid death for a group of us.

O venerable scholars, what is the significance of the Quranic verse: (And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame]. The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannize upon the earth without right. Those will have a painful punishment) Ashura 41.42.

Is not it that those who marched themselves demanding their rights after being wronged for tens of years are not blamed or punished by Allah?

Are not it that Allah's punishment will be to the unjust ruler Mubarak and his followers who withstand him in wronging people and corruption?

How can I interpret the verse (And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves), Ashura 39, where Allah praised the faithful for not surrendering to the injustice and oppression?

What is meant by the verse: (Allah does not like the public mention of evil except by one who has been wronged), An-Nisaa 148?

How can be interpreted the Hadith stating: (The example of the person abiding by Allah's order and restrictions in comparison to those who violate them is like the example of those persons who drew lots for their seats in a boat. Some of them got seats in the upper part, and the others in the lower. When the latter needed water, they had to go up to bring water (and that troubled the others), so they said, 'Let us make a hole in our share of the ship (and get water) saving those who are above us from troubling them. So, if the people in the upper part left the others do what they had suggested, all the people of the ship would be destroyed, but if they prevented them, both parties would be safe)?

The prophet (PBUH) permitted deterring those desiring to make a hole, though their intentions and goals are noble, because they will unintentionally cause the ship to sink. Accordingly, what can we do with the evil figures that harmed Egypt very much to the extent that the debts of Egypt amount to about one trillion Egyptian pounds, the decline of the social, economic, military and political condition of Egypt the matter which caused more than 40 million Egyptian nationals at least to live on two dollars daily?

Is it appropriate to keep languid until the debts and injustice be doubled in Egypt?

Do my venerable scholars review the Hadith stating: (The best kind of Jihad (struggling in the way of God) is to speak a word of truth to a cruel king[12])?

It is apparent from the wording of the Hadith that the matter is not sufficient to submit a kind secret message to the ruler or intimation from a scholar to the ruler; however, it is a plain advice from a scholar to the ruler where confronted by opposed on the part of the ruler; yet, the scholar insists to proceed which in turn cause the ruler to get angry with him and subsequently threatens the scholar who keeps self-possession. This is merely what may be understood from the word "Jihad".  This is not a traditional kind of jihad; however it is the best as stated by the prophet (PBUH). The issue may be ended up in killing the scholar; yet, insistence of those demanding their legitimate rights should not be discontinued if bloods may be shed, rather they should continue if it most probably would lead to positive results.

This view is supported by the authentic Hadith narrated by ibn Al-Haithami (The best of martyrs is Hamza ibn `Abdul-Mutalib and a man enjoined unjust ruler to do the good and abstain from the evil; hence, he, the ruler killed him[13]).

If keeping souls and bloods secured are more appropriate than to deter the unjust ruler, Allah, the Almighty, would not praise such man to the extent to be admitted with Hamza ibn `Abdul-Muttalib.

By the way, the phrase "the best of martyrs" in the narration of Al-Haithami is more authentic than the phrase "the master of martyrs" which cited in the narration of Az-Zahabi.

Fifth: what are the goals of Shariah?

Scholars agreed that the goals of the Shariah are five listed in descending order as follow; guarding religion, soul, mind, offspring and property. In fact, I disagree with the venerable scholars on restricting the goals f Shaiah to five things only, as I believe that Shariah sought guarding things not covered by these five totalities which is discussed in my recent book titled: (The Humane Commons), but there is no space to detail it here.

I do agree with the venerable scholars that guarding religion is prior to any other thing, even soul and property. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to apply the goals of Shariah properly and disregard the numerous evils spread in Egypt and which offend the religion from many aspects in order to guard the souls and properties of people. Consequently, it becomes obligatory to sacrifice souls and property to guard religion. If this goal is achieved only though revolting against such unjust ruler who judges with what Allah has not revealed, wrongs people, oppress them, humiliate nationals, support the enemies of Muslims and defend the scholars, it would be obligatory to depose him, especially if it was more likely to have this happened.

This is the same cited by ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalani on commenting on the Hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari where he cited: ibn At-Tin related from Ad-Dawudi his words: scholars agreed that if it came to depose the unjust ruler without falling into disturbance or injustice, it becomes incumbent to do that otherwise patience should be observed[14].

This is actually what the demonstrators believed during their revolt. Remarkably, the rebels, in the beginning of the revolt, has not sought to depose the president; however, they only demanded applying reforms in Egypt, because they believed at this stage that they can not depose him, but when matters changed by the grace of Allah, the Almighty, and it became more probable to depose him, they actually demanded that and kept steadiness. Allah, the Almighty, made their hopes to come true and with His grace they managed to depose the corrupt president and large number of his close followers as well.

Is it now a better condition to the religion or to leave such tyrant at his post?

A question will plainly demonstrate the issue?

Sixth: - who is the ruler that the subjects should not revolt against him?

Does such unjust corruptor ruler have the characteristics which force us to surrender to him, even he is unjust and arrogant, or primarily he is not eligible to be ruler?

There is a strange question reveals the issue plainly; how many Egyptian nationals chose Mubarak as president?

It is well-known for the whole that Egypt has never witnessed fair elections and that Mubarak was not recognized as ruler. For the only time where election were held between Mubarak and tow of his rivals, elections were too absurd as it firstly fabricated and were held with non-notable figures who were not approved by nationals even in case elections held impartially and thirdly they ended at prison to warn any other national aspiring to propose himself!! Also, the constitution was changed through the fabricated People's Assembly to ensure setting aside any eligible figure from presidency elections.

Is it appropriate after what has been mentioned to claim that it is not permissible to revolt against him, and we accept his presidency to avoid sedition?

Mubarak led Egypt to infinite troubles and the wise Shariah does not approve going on these troubles.

This is a significant point as to the ruler, namely Mubarak has stolen the rule but not elected by the Egyptians, the matter which contradicts the laws of Islam, constitution and customs as well.

Also, did Mubarak act in pursuance to the Islamic laws to be left unchanged by Egyptians in spite of his injustice?

Shariah enjoins on the Muslim rulers to observe its principles, to resist heresies, rule by justice, withstand the oppressed, protect their lands, fortify the army, observe the ordained punishments of Allah, collect Zakat and spend it in its categories of recipients, invest with the offices the competent only and other things declared by Shariah, does Mubarak observe these things?

 Why do scholars regard the chapter concerned with forbiddance of revolting against rulers and disregard those concerned with the tasks of the ruler?

Certainly, both things are to the point of the Islamic principles.

In this regard, we should pay attention to the prophetic wording as he (PBUH) said: (….on our avoiding disputing the delegation of powers to a person deemed to be a fit recipient thereof (in the eye of one who delegates it). it is very plain that the prophet (PBUH) restricted it to the person deemed to be a fit recipient and did not left it infinite.

In fact, this plainly reflects that it is impermissible to dispute the delegation of power to the competent ruler only.

By then, who is the competent ruler?

He is the one delegated by nationals and meeting the conditions of rule and observing his tasks, otherwise he is not competent. This well-advocated by the Quranic verse: (And [mention, O Muúammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [Allah] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."), Al-Baaqarah, 124. The one desiring the rule on Muslims should observe the course of the prophet Ibrahim (PBUH). However, the ruler who alters that course and wrongs his people does not deserve the rule, even if he is of the offspring of the prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) that is even if he is a Muslim. This completely accords with the objectives of Shariah to ensure the justice, compassion, faithfulness and bravery as to the right which express the principles of Shariah.

Seventh: why did the prophet (PBUH) stated the phrase: "unless legal plain proofs are observed", whether disbelief or disobedience was in actions or doctrinal?

This reflects that it is which scholars are agreed on its forbiddance unanimously. This is a profound, accurate and sound specification. Yet, I want to add other significant point that disbelief or disobedience should be declared plainly namely we should not follow the sins of the ruler so long as he disguises them and it is not permissible for his people to spy on him. For the sins of the ruler to the view of his nationals, it is a serious matter, because the ruler acts as an ideal to his people.

How should be the case for the ruler encouraging the evils and not confined to himself!

To exemplify, he awards a prize for a literalist violates the principles of Islam, a prize for an artist woman undresses herself before the audience, encourages usury, closes the banks observing Shariah, convicts the veil of Muslim women, offenses the bearded, rewards and promotes those torturing the political detainees and honors editors who dissimulate him.

This is indeed the plain disbelief or disobedience.

I declare this view bravely fearing nothing.

Forbiddance concerned not revolting against the Muslim rulers does not include those characterized by the previous things; however, the sincere Muslims should depose them to save the Muslim nation and themselves alike from their rule, even if this entailed to exert the physical and intellectual effort, money and souls.

Indeed, we are not created for such vain life?

Eighth: concerning this point, who is the violator of the constitution, the rebels or the tyrant ruler?

People became familiar with drafting a law forms the relationship between the ruler from one hand and the subjects from he other one. This is to have the rights recognized for both parties and to avoid any party to violate the rights of the other. It was supposed for Mubarak to observe the Shariah of Allah only; however, he chose a human-made constitution and observed it which was drawn from both the Quran and Sunna and other sources as well. Despite all of this, Mubarak violated the constitution, whereas the rebels observed his constitution without contradiction.

If we review the constitution which he was content with it in the course of ruling Egypt, hence he should not be angry if his nationals observed it, we would find that the article 54 of the Egyptian constitution provide the following: "Nationals are permitted to march peacefully without a prior notification.  Police has no right to witness their special gatherings. The public gatherings and the processions are permitted within the law". This article demonstrates the right of Egyptians to peacefully demonstrate without causing destruction and that police or State Security is none of this business.

Allah is the greatest!!

Is not that what the demonstrators acted in pursuance to it on January 25th and days following?! Why security men witnessed their gatherings while the constitution does not permit this? So long as the gatherings and the processions are permitted, why then water and the rubber and live bullets and the cocktail Molotov are directed to the Egyptians who marched peacefully taking up no arms?

Accordingly, who is the violator to the constitution?

The demonstration marched itself after an approval was given to them, why then they are disapproved?

If it is claimed that such protest demanded the ruler to step down his rule which reflects renouncing his allegiance and which accords not the legitimacy of the ruler and contradicts observing obedience to him as well,  by then, we may response in two points;

The first point: we have earlier mentioned that this ruler, namely Mubarak is primarily illegitimate as he was invested to the post through falsification.

The second point: it is a very significant one that the constitution itself makes the legitimacy of the nationals more superior to that of the ruler; however, more superior to the constitution itself.

O Egyptian nationals, you should review the constitution articles in order not to be deceived by the tyrant ruler and their close companions. The third article of the Egyptian constitution provides the following: (superiority is to nationals only. Nationals are the source of the powers. Nationals are conceded the right to observe such superiority and they should guard it and the National Union as well in the manner declared by the constitution).

The high legitimacy and superiority is to the Egyptian nationals.

If it happened that millions of the Egyptians over the different governments marched daily demanding the president to step down; spontaneously, he should be stepped down; however, the constitution should be inactivated to guard the nationals. This is well-demonstrated in the Egyptian revolt where millions marched peacefully calling on the governing regime wholly to step down; whereas a few hundred or thousand persons at most marched assisting the president. The majority of the latter were bullies, State Security followers and the National Party Rabbles. They seemed humble where they withstanding the president. Most of them were ignorant, dissolute and mercenaries. Indeed, it was a mean state for the president.

The citation is that the collective marching has toppled the legitimacy of the president based on the constitution which venerated by the president, why then the rebels are disapproved for that?!

Sincerely, we need in the next stage to know our rights and to remove the legal illiteracy we suffer from, because they acted fraudulently where they claimed that resignation of the president would cause unavoidable constitutional trouble. On the contrary, the fact is that the constitution enjoins on the president to step down if his people agreed unanimously on that. Moreover, the president himself and his government never cared to the constitution. Indeed, Egyptians experienced a life without law.

Ninth: the dispute stated in the concerned Hadith is between two characters with advocators for each.

Accordingly, disturbance and continuance of fighting was likely to happen, but this Hadith is not applied to this demonstration. To illustrate, let every one questions himself: who is that man that people marched themselves demanding him a substitute to president Mubarak?

It might happen that if you question fifty persons of the demonstrators, they may give fifty names as elected for presidency! Certainly, demonstrators have not marched demanding a certain president siding with him; however, up till now and to the moment I write this article and after the success of the revolt, we do not agree on one or even ten persons for presidency!

There was no dispute between two leaders that we fear the loss of their powers in the course of the conflict, however, the conflict was deducted between the whole Egyptian nationals on one part and the president as a tyrant together with his evil close companions professionally criminal on the hand. In this regard, how can it be claimed that sedition may occur?

If it happened that many hundred or thousands of the bribers, criminals, thieves, crooks and hypocrites exploited the wealth of eighty five million nationals, by then, is it  incumbent upon such millions to surrender ti them to avoid sedition?!

By Allah, I do not exaggerate!

Every ministry or certain organization are controlled and exploited through many individuals not more than twenty or thirty, whereas tens or hundreds of thousands inside this ministry or organization live with their families in extreme poverty!

Is it unlawful to such oppressed nationals who marched in a demonstration to demand the few numbers who plundered the wealth of Egypt foolishly and refused to stop doing that?

O venerable scholars, in fact, I do not believe that the dispute stated in the concerned Hadith applies to the circumstances we live. There is no need to exaggerate in interpreting this Hadith, because it is equally to render the lawful as unlawful and vice versa.

Tenth:- why do the recent scholars rely on the Ijtihad (juristic effort to infer expert legal rulings) of the predecessors scholars and do not make their own due to the new conditions of our era?

I do acknowledge and venerate the scholars of the predecessors; however, I do deliver to people their high esteem. May Allah reward them the good, they exerted their ijtihad according to the conditions they experienced which may be changed to a great degree. Both texts from Quran and Sunnah are miraculous that they fit every place and time, namely the same text Quran/Sunnah that a certain scholar used it to infer a certain ruling at a certain time may create a different ruling by different scholar at other era. This is well-demonstrated through the disagreement of the Four-Imams as to many rulings? And why many other scholars at times followed the Four-Imam inferred different rulings, like Imam At-Tabari, Al-Ghazali and An-Nawawi? And why came to follow them imam Az-Zahabi, ibn Hajar and ibn Taymya?

The new conditions of our time make it incumbent on our jurists to a serious attitude, namely to reconsider the texts in order to properly comprehend the revelation of Allah and Sunnah of the prophet due to the new condition the Muslim nation experience. We live at a time where people became too numerous and transportations became no more like those in the past and new conditions and circumstances occurred. I do believe that our predecessors of the scholars never imagined that a Muslim ruler in the future will set aside the book of Allah and the Sunnah of the prophet and enact for them new constitutions derived from the crusade laws, hence they earnestly warned against renouncing the allegiance of the Muslim ruler to the extent that if they are contemporary to these rulers, they may be at the front of the demonstrators!

This was the tenth contemplation over the Hadith of the prophet (PBUH)

They are a complete ten contemplations.

Yet, discussing the sedition that some scholars referred to describing the Egyptian revolt has not concluded. There are still many questions ponder occur to the minds of readers that I have not responded to them. Also, there are related important Hadiths and many historical examples I have not quoted which to a greater extent, God willing, will clarify the issue. However, this will be tackled in the third and last part of this article, God willing.

I beseech to Allah to grant glory to Islam and Muslims.

http://300035.dotdothktrade.tech/en/artical/3407535