Having read through one of your previous responses I came across the following part of one of them
Muslims all over the world should abide by the decisions of the representatives of their respective collectivities.
Do you think this applies under circumstances even when the rulers are unelected, despotic or may themselves be in violation of the Qur’an and Sunnah? If yes, then do you think Osama is wrong in his struggle to liberate Saudi Arabia from USA forces?
My dear brother, according to the directives of the Shari`ah, a Muslim must remain practically obedient to his rulers, even though he has a right to differ with their opinion as well as to express his difference in a manner allowed by the law and acknowledged as within the limits of decency. The Shari`ah allows – please note that it does not make it obligatory but only ‘allows’ – refusing obedience to their rulers if the following three conditions are fulfilled:
The rule is dictatorial and it is not based on the Qur’anic principle of “mutual consultation”, due to which it is not possible to change the rulers through plebiscite and majority vote;
The ruler is guilty of “clear and unequivocal rejection”. It should be noted that ‘clear and unequivocal rejection’ is quite different from a difference of interpretation and application of any laws of the Shari`ah. “Clear and unequivocal rejection” would only apply in the case where the ruler ‘clearly’ and ‘unequivocally’ refuses to accept any of the directives of the Shari`ah.
The movement against the ruler clearly enjoys the support of the majority of the citizens of that state, as is clearly required by the principle of “mutual consultation”. If this is not the case, then the movement would in effect be targeting the destabilization of an existing despotic rule, only for the establishment of another despotic rule.
It is only in case where each of the foregoing conditions is met that the Shari`ah ‘allows’ Muslims to refuse obedience to their rulers. However, in case an armed struggle is to be planned against an established rule, then an additional condition shall have to be satisfied: The Shari`ah does not allow armed aggression for any group, except one which has already established a rule in a piece of land. An armed struggle can only be undertaken by an existing state or under the declared backing and support of an existing state.
Keeping the foregoing explanation, you should decide for yourself, whether a given movement sponsored by the Muslims is in keeping with the directives of the Shari`ah or not.
Finally, I would only like to point out that the use of the phrase ‘liberating Saudi Arabia from USA forces’, gives the impression as if the USA has occupied Saudi Arabia. This is neither the legal nor the internationally recognized position of the presence of the US forces in Saudi Arabia. However, let us assume for a while, that the US forces were, actually, occupying Saudi Arabia, even then an armed struggle against them could only have been undertaken by fulfilling all the necessary conditions for undertaking an armed struggle.
I hope this helps.
October 4, 2001