Ibn Taymiyyah, the Takfiri Kharijites and the Issue of Rebellion
By IslamAgainstExtremism, Editor
The View of Fighting Rulers in Order to Usurp Authority Is Corrupt and Leads to Much Greater Evil
Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his Minhaaj us-Sunnah (4/527-):
For verily Allaah the Exalted sent His Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) for the attainment of the benefits and perfection of them, and for the negation of the harmful things and their reduction. And when one of the khaleefahs took authority, such as Zaid and 'Abdul-Malik and al-Mansoor and others, then either it was said: It is obligatory to prevent him from this authority and to fight him until someone else is given authority - as is held by those who consider it rightful to use the sword.
And this view is corrupt, for the corruption in this is greater than the benefit. And there is hardly anyone who revolted against a leader with authority except that what arose from his action of evil, was actually greater than whatever good came from it, such as those who rebelled against Yazeed in Madeenah, or like Ibn al-Ash'at who revolted against 'Abdul-Malik in 'Iraaq, or like Ibn al-Mihlab also, who revolted against his son in Khurasaan, and like those who revolted against al-Mansoor in Madeenah and Basrah, and the likes of them.
And their destination is that they are (either) victorious or they are defeated, then their rule (dominion) ceases, and so they do not have any end-result. For Abdullaah bin Alee and Abu Muslim, they are the ones who killed a great number of people, and both of them were killed by Abu Ja'far al-Mansoor. And as for the people of [the occurrence of] al-Harrah (in Madinah) and Ibn al-Ash'at and Ibn al-Mihlab, and others, then they were defeated, and their associates were also defeated. So they never established the deen and nor did they allow the dunyaa (worldly life) to remain (as it was) (1).