It is commonly held in Islamic legal circles that rebellion against the state, or baghi, to use the Islamic term, is a hudood offense that carries a mandatory death punishment. Needless to say, rebellion against the state, or more appropriately, against an incumbent government, is considered in contemporary legal systems to be a very serious crime. It is often treated at length, with detailed provisions, in legal codes dealing with criminal law.
The Egyptian code of punishment, for example, gives such offenses the heading of "internal offenses against the security of the state". It devotes a long chapter to them in the written Penal Code, specifying punishments that include death in many situations. The law covering such offenses has been repeatedly amended so as to add to the severity of the prescribed punishments and to widen the scope of such offenses. Thus it often includes under their headings actions that were not previously considered to constitute an offense.
That such actions stated in the relevant provisions have been considered, in the laws of Egypt and many other countries, offenses carrying severe punishments aims at protecting the existing political regime in any such country. Protection is thus provided regardless of whether the political regime is just or dictatorial, serving the interests of the people or not, acceptable to the majority of the population or not. The aim is to provide political stability, paying no heed to any other consideration.
On this particular issue the gulf is very wide between the Islamic approach to criminal law and the man-made approaches. What is done by those to overthrow a government by force is not classified as baghi, unless it involves a rebellion "against a legitimate ruler to remove him from office, based on a particular understanding, even though such understanding may be unreasonable". Hanafi scholars define baghi as "unjustifiable rebellion against a true imam". The terms "true imam" and "legitimate ruler" denote a government or a political system established under the provisions of Islamic law, aiming to serve and achieve the higher interests entrusted to the government in an Islamic state.
Crimes against internal state security are normally defined by the law governing a particular society according to what exclusively suits that society. The aim is to ensure, through the punishments determined for such offenses, a suitable level of legal protection for the measures and policies adopted by the government in the political, economic and social fields. It is right that each state should promulgate laws to protect its system and policies, and to ensure stability and prevent strife and civil disorder that could be highly detrimental to its people.
From the Islamic point of view, the systems that deserve legal protection are those based on Islamic principles and law. Hence, those who rebel against a legitimate ruler or a true imam are the ones guilty of baghi who must be repelled to ensure that their rebellion is stopped or prevented. Their action is called baghi, a term which signifies injustice and infringement.
Scholars consider them to be wrong to rebel, and they consider it a necessary duty to fight them so as to stop their rebellion and repel their aggression against the legitimate ruler and his supporters. Scholars, however, do not judge such rebels to be unbelievers or transgressors for their rebellion, because their rebellion is "based on a particular understanding, even though it may be a wrong one," while they believe it to be right. Furthermore, scholars do not consider the term baghi to be a negative one.
They feel that the Hadiths which criticize people guilty of baghi to be applicable to those whose rebellion is based on a clearly wrong understanding or no understanding of any kind.
Hence, a clearly weighty opinion in Islamic law considers that those who rebel against an Islamic government because of an injustice they have suffered must not be included among those guilty of baghi. Indeed, "the imam must abandon injustice and redress their grievances. People may not support the imam against such rebels because they would be supporting injustice. Nor may they support the rebels against the imam because that would support rebellion."
This view is close to that of Imam Malik who answered a question on whether it was a duty to resist a baghi rebellion. His answer was: "If the imam is one like Omar ibn Abd Al-Aziz, then people should support him and fight alongside him. Otherwise, no. It is better to leave him to whatever may be his fate. God punishes one unjust ruler by another and then punishes both."
The legal basis from which the provisions concerning baghi are derived in Islamic law is stated in Surah 49 in the Qur’an: Al-Hujurat, or The Private Apartments: "If two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them; but then, if one of the two groups goes on acting wrongfully toward the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to God’s commandment; and if they revert, make peace between them with justice, and deal equitably with them. Surely, God loves those who act equitably. All believers are brethren. Hence, make peace between your two brethren, and fear God, so that you might be graced with His mercy." (49: 9-10)
These Qur’anic verses make it absolutely clear that the aim of such fighting is to ensure that the wrongful action and aggression by one of the two groups against the other are stopped. The Qur’an describes the two fighting groups as "brethren" and orders that peace between them should be brought about while ensuring justice which pleases God and His messenger.
Such was the Prophet’s companions understanding of these verses. The reign of the fourth Caliph, Ali ibn Abu Talib, witnessed a great strife when the Khawarij deserted his camp and rebelled against him, leading to a fight between them. He stated the rule governing his dealing with them. Addressing them when they interrupted him in his mosque, he said: "We give you our pledge to honor three conditions: 1. That we will not stop you coming into mosques for worship; 2. That we will not withhold your share of the spoils of any war against unbelievers as long as you join us; and, 3. That we will not launch a fight against you unless you start it."
When Ali was asked about them and whether he considered them as unbelievers, he said: "It is from unbelief that they have fled." His questioners then asked: "Do you consider them to be hypocrites?" He said: "Hypocrites remember God but little." (It is well-known that the Khawarij were fine worshipers, despite their erroneous views). His questioners then said: "What are they, then?" His answer was: "They are our brothers but they have acted wrongfully toward us."
It is not known that anyone of the Prophet’s companions disagreed with Ali on this point. Indeed, it forms a principle on which are based many rules and provisions that have been universally accepted by all schools of Islamic law. Hence, we say that baghi, or rebellion against a ruler comes under aggression that must be prevented and repelled. Thus, to fight the rebels is permissible in order to prevent aggression, or to use modern terminology, it is an act of legitimate defense of the community.
We will conclude this discussion of baghi next week, God willing.
