Is Public Criticism of Rulers Permissible in Islam

From the Sunnah:

• (Reported by Ahmad and authenticated by al-Albani).including the Prophet’s ﷺ saying:

  “Whoever wants to advise a ruler should not do so publicly. Rather, let him take him by the hand in private. If he accepts it, then that is good. Otherwise, he has fulfilled his duty.”

  Thus, the method of the Salaf in dealing with rulers was based on two principles: Advising them privately, without inciting the people publicly, to avoid causing tribulation and division. Patience with their injustice and oppression, unless they commit clear disbelief for which we have proof from Allah. The Case of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri with Marwan It is reported that Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) opposed Marwan when he placed the sermon before the Eid prayer. This was not a rebellion nor public agitation. Rather, it was a clarification of the religious ruling regarding a public act of worship. His objection occurred at the exact moment of the violation, not as a call to rebellion or incitement. Some of the Salaf also objected to rulers in matters of public worship, but this was done directly as clarification, not as a means of dividing the community or stirring fitnah. Thus, the act of Abu Sa‘id cannot be used as evidence for unrestricted public criticism of rulers. It was a specific case regarding worship, while the general rule remained patience and obedience in all matters except sin. The Case of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr and His Revolt Against al-Hajjaj Sa‘id ibn Jubayr (may Allah have mercy on him), one of the great Tabi‘in, joined Ibn al-Ash‘ath in fighting al-Hajjaj. However, armed rebellion against rulers is contrary to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah, even if done by righteous scholars and worshippers. Ahl al-Sunnah hold that his action was an ijtihad (independent reasoning) that was incorrect, as the majority of the Salaf condemned rebellion due to the severe bloodshed and tribulations it caused. Major Imams, such as Imam Ahmad, stated that patience with rulers’ oppression is better than rebelling, as rebellion brings greater corruption. Thus, the action of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr is not evidence for rebellion, but rather an ijtihad that was mistaken. He is prayed for and excused, but his action is not followed. Refuting the Two Misconceptions Using Abu Sa‘id’s objection as evidence: His objection was limited to a matter of public worship and was not rebellion nor incitement. It cannot be taken as proof for general public criticism of rulers. Using Sa‘id ibn Jubayr’s revolt as evidence: His revolt was not in line with the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah. It was an incorrect ijtihad, and the consensus of the Salaf after him was to condemn rebellion due to its harms. Proof lies in the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Salaf, not in every action of a scholar.