The Understanding of the Salaf Regarding Denouncing Rulers

The salaf as saliheen emphasised patience, private advice, and avoiding public confrontation with rulers to preserve unity and prevent chaos. This approach is seen in the sermon of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq رضي الله عنه‎, reported authentically by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah (5/218). Abu Bakr told the people, “If I do right, help me; if I do wrong, correct me.” This established the principle that rulers are advised, not opposed with rebellion.

Ibn Mas‘ud رضي الله عنه‎, in a narration recorded by Ibn Abi al-Dunya in Kitab al-Amr bil-Ma‘ruf wal-Nahy ‘an al-Munkar (p. 111), described how previous nations fell into ruin when they invented false beliefs and turned violent against those who opposed them. He warned that believers may live to see evil that they cannot change except by hating it in their hearts. This set the foundation that when open change causes harm or greater evil, the heart’s rejection suffices.

Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه‎,, as reported by Tawus رحمه الله, was asked whether one should stand against a ruler to command and forbid. He said, “Do not let yourself be a trial for him.” When asked, “What if he commands me to disobey Allah?” he replied, “That is what you want, so be a man then.” This shows that confronting rulers is not the norm, but only justified when one is directly commanded to sin and able to respond firmly without causing harm. (Jami‘ al-‘Ulum wal-Hikam by Ibn Rajab, p. 954.)

Usamah ibn Zayd (d. 54 AH) refused to confront Uthman ibn ‘Affan (d. 35 AH) publicly and said, “I spoke to him privately.”

As al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) explained in Sharh Sahih Muslim (18/118), this demonstrates that the Sunnah is to advise rulers privately and not publicly rebuke them before people, as this leads to division and rebellion like that which occurred during Uthman’s murder.

Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) summarised the views of the salaf they were also mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (23/104–105):

• Some made commanding rulers obligatory in all cases, based on the hadith, “The best jihad is a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.”
• Others restricted it to when no harm is expected.
• Others only allowed inkaar (denouncement) from the heart, based on the hadith of Umm Salamah: “Whoever dislikes (their actions) is free from blame, and whoever rejects is safe.”

At-Tabari concluded that advising rulers is conditional upon the ability to bear harm and that exposing oneself to danger one cannot endure is not allowed, as in the hadith, “It is not befitting for a believer to humiliate himself.”

The Approach of the Imams on Advising and Denouncing Rulers

Imam Malik (d. 179 AH), Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH), and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (d. 238 AH) all held that if advising rulers leads to harm such as imprisonment, beating, or execution. The obligation to command and forbid would vanish.

Ibn Shubruma (d. 144 AH) compared this duty to jihad, saying that standing firm is required only when one can bear the consequences. (Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah by al-Safarini, 2/434; Jami‘ al-‘Ulum wal-Hikam by Ibn Rajab, p. 955.)

Imam Ahmad also said, “Do not expose yourself to the sultan, for his sword is unsheathed.” He distinguished between changing by hand—which means removing a visible evil like breaking instruments of sin—and fighting with the sword, which he prohibited. (Jami‘ al-‘Ulum wal-Hikam, p. 955.)

The Sayings Of The Later Scholars

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) stressed that if forbidding evil leads to division or greater harm, it is prohibited. He advised that rulers be counselled with gentleness and secrecy. If they refuse advice, then respected intermediaries should approach them privately. Only if this fails may public correction occur, and even then, not against rulers, for their case must be raised privately to higher authority. (Personal Letters, in al-Majmu‘ah al-Kamilah, 6/296–297.)

Al-Safarini (d. 1188 AH) collected evidence showing that if forbidding evil leads to loss of life, imprisonment, or harm to family, it is no longer obligatory. However, if one can bear insult without major harm, it remains commendable. He quoted Imam Ahmad: “The best jihad is a word of justice before a tyrant ruler.” (Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah, 2/434.)

Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) explained that rejecting evil with the hand against rulers refers to stopping their specific injustices directly, not fighting them. He cited Imam Ahmad’s clarification that such action does not mean rebellion but individual rectification when possible. If harm extends to others, one must abstain. (Jami‘ al-‘Ulum wal-Hikam, p. 954–955.)

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH) defined four outcomes of forbidding evil:

1. Replacing evil with good (obligatory).
2. Reducing evil (permitted).
3. Replacing it with equal evil (requires ijtihad).
4. Replacing it with worse evil (prohibited).

He narrated from Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) that when he saw Tatars drinking wine, he forbade his students from stopping them, since their drunkenness kept them from greater evils like killing and plundering. (I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, 4/339–340.)

Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) outlined two major conditions for forbidding evil:

1. Ability without harm.
2. That no greater evil results.
   He cited verses: “Fear Allah as much as you are able” (Al-Taghabun 64:16) and “Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity” (Al-Baqarah 2:286). If harm or greater corruption results, it becomes impermissible. He explained the verse, “Do not insult those they invoke besides Allah…” (Al-An‘am 6:108), as proof that even a good act becomes forbidden if it leads to worse harm. (Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah, 2/332–334.)

An Nawawi (d. 676 AH) and Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 804 AH) both emphasised that public confrontation of rulers was not from the way of the Companions. They cited Usamah ibn Zayd’s private approach with Uthman, showing that rebuking rulers openly leads to rebellion and division. (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 18/118; Al-Tawdih li Sharh al-Jami‘ al-Sahih, 19/180–181.)

Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak explained that some considered rebelling against rulers a form of forbidding evil, but this is false. The Sharia forbade it because it leads to greater harm and division. The principle is preventing greater evil even if a lesser one remains. (Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, p. 421.)

Conclusion

• Most of the Salaf agreed that rulers are advised privately and patiently. Public denunciation was seen as a cause of division and rebellion.
• Forbidding evil is tied to ability and safety from harm. When it leads to greater corruption, it becomes prohibited.
• Privately advising the ruler is the Sunnah; Public confrontation is allowed only if it prevents greater evil and does not cause disunity.
• The principle across the generations remains: preserve the unity of Muslims, avoid greater harm, and advise rulers wisely and privately.

Full Article

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) said:

The scholars also mention that if enjoining good and forbidding evil leads to division, then it is not allowed to do it. So fear Allah and act upon what I have reminded you of, and understand it deeply. If you do not, your forbidding of evil will bring harm to the religion. A Muslim only seeks the reform of his religion and his worldly life.

The reason for this statement is what happened among the people of Hawtah. The people of religion thought it was their duty to forbid the evil, but when their speech became harsh, disagreement arose among the people of religion, and this caused harm to both religion and worldly life. Though these words are short, their meaning is vast. So you must ponder over them, understand them deeply, and act upon them. If you do, it will be a support for the religion and the situation will become upright, if Allah wills.

The principle that gathers all of this is that when an evil act appears from a ruler or someone else, he should be advised gently and privately, without letting anyone witness it. If he accepts, then that is good. If not, then someone should be brought who is respected by him, who can advise him privately. If this does not work, then open rebuke can be done, except in the case of a ruler. If he has already been advised privately and did not accept, and someone respected was brought to advise him and he still did not accept, then the matter should be raised to those above him secretly.

Personal Letters, printed within the Collected Works of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (6/296–297)

Shams al Din al Safarini al Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) also said:Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) and Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH) both transmitted from Abu Said al Khudri that he said, I heard the Messenger of Allah say, Indeed Allah, Most High, will question the servant on the Day of Resurrection until He says, What stopped you, when you saw the evil, from forbidding it. Then, if Allah gives a servant his proof, he will say, My Lord, I placed my hope in You and I feared the people. And both of them also transmitted from him, raised, None of you should belittle himself. They said, O Messenger of Allah, how does one of us belittle himself. He said, He sees a matter for Allah in which he should speak, then he does not speak in it.

So Allah will say to him on the Day of Resurrection, What prevented you from speaking about such and such for My sake. He will say, Fear of the people. He will say, I was more deserving that you fear Me. This is carried upon the case where the only thing preventing him from rejection is awe and overawing, not the fear that drops the obligation of forbidding. If he fears for himself the sword, or the whip, or imprisonment, or shackling, or banishment, or seizure of wealth, and the like of that harm, or he fears something like that for his family and neighbours, then the obligation to forbid falls away.

The imams have stated this, among them Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (d. 238 AH), and others. Imam Ahmad said, Do not expose yourself to the sultan, for his sword is unsheathed. And Ibn Shubruma (d. 144 AH) said, Enjoining the ma’ruf and forbidding the munkar is like jihad. It is obligatory on one person to stand firm against two, and it is forbidden for him to flee from them, and it is not obligatory on him to stand firm against more than that.

As for mere fear of insult or hearing foul words, that does not drop the forbidding. Imam Ahmad stated this. If he can bear the harm and is strong against it, that is better. He stated this and said, The best jihad is a word of justice in front of a tyrant ruler.

Abu Dawud (d. 275 AH), Ibn Majah, and al Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH) reported this from Abu Said, raised, and Ibn Majah reported its meaning in the hadith of Abu Umamah. In the Musnad of al Bazzar (d. 292 AH), from the trustee of the ummah, Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah, he said, I said, O Messenger of Allah, which of the martyrs is the most noble with Allah.

He said, A man who stood up to a tyrant imam, so he commanded him with ma’ruf and forbade him from munkar, then the ruler killed him.

And the hadith, The believer should not humiliate himself, shows that he knows he cannot bear the harm and cannot be patient over it, so he should not expose himself then to commanding and forbidding. This is true.

The discussion is about one who knows from himself patience. Ahmad, Sufyan, al Fudayl ibn Iyad (d. 187 AH), and others said this.

Lawami al Anwar al Bahiyah (2/434)

Muhammad ibn Salih al Uthaymeen (d. 1421 AH) on the conditions for forbidding an evil:

The fourth condition, that he is able to carry out enjoining the ma’ruf and forbidding the munkar without harm reaching him. If harm will reach him, then it is not obligatory on him. If he is patient and carries it out, then that is better.

All obligations are tied to capacity and ability, due to His saying, “So fear Allah as much as you are able” (Al Taghabun 64:16), and His saying, “Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity” (Al Baqarah 2:286). If he fears that if he commands a person with a ma’ruf, that person will kill him, then it is not binding on him to command him, because he is unable.

It may even be forbidden for him then. Some scholars said, rather it is obligatory on him to command and be patient, even if he is harmed by that, as long as it does not reach the level of being killed. But the first view is stronger, because if harm reaches this commander by imprisonment and the like, others may then leave enjoining the ma’ruf and forbidding the munkar out of fear of what happened, even in cases where such harm is not feared. This is as long as the matter has not reached the level where enjoining the ma’ruf is of the type of jihad. For example, he commands a sunnah and forbids a bidah.

If he remains silent, the people of bidah will dominate the people of sunnah. In this case it is obligatory to show the sunnah and clarify the bidah, because this is from jihad in the path of Allah, and the one upon whom it becomes individually obligatory is not excused by fear for himself.

The fifth condition, that no greater corruption results from enjoining the ma’ruf and forbidding the munkar than staying silent. If a greater corruption would result, then it is not binding, rather it is not allowed, to command the ma’ruf or forbid the munkar. For this reason the ulama said, rejecting an evil has four outcomes.

The evil is removed, or it changes to one lesser than it, or to one equal to it, or to one greater than it. He also said, Likewise in the case of an evil, if when you forbid this evil, the doer will turn to doing an evil that is greater, then in this case it is not allowed to forbid this evil, repelling the higher of the two harms by the lower of them.

The saying of the Most High points to this, “Do not insult those whom they call upon other than Allah, for they will insult Allah in enmity without knowledge” (Al Anam 6:108). Insulting the idols of the polytheists is without doubt something sought, but when it led to a prohibited matter more serious than the benefit to be gained by insulting the idols of the polytheists, namely, their insulting Allah in enmity without knowledge, Allah forbade insulting the idols of the polytheists in this situation.

Sharh al Aqidah al Wasitiyyah by Ibn al Uthaymeen (2/332–334)

Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751 AH) said:

Forbidding evil has four levels.

1. The first is that the evil is removed and replaced with its opposite.
2. The second is that it is reduced, even if it is not removed completely.
3. The third is that it is replaced by something equal to it.
4. The fourth is that it is replaced by something worse than it.

The first two levels are legislated. The third is a matter of ijtihad (scholarly judgment). The fourth is forbidden.

So if you see people of sin and immorality playing chess, then your forbidding them from it would be from lack of understanding and insight, unless you move them from it to something more beloved to Allah and His Messenger, such as archery or horse racing and the like.

If you see sinners gathered for amusement, play, or for listening to whistling and clapping, then if you move them from that to obedience to Allah, that is what is sought.

But if not, leaving them upon that is better than freeing them for something greater than it, for what they are engaged in keeps them occupied from something worse. (al-mukaʾ means whistling with the mouth or interlocking the fingers and blowing into them, and al-tasdiyah means clapping with the hands. See al-Raghib al-Asfahani, al-Mufradat, pages 481 and 777.)

And just as if a man is busy with books of immorality and you fear that if you take him away from them, he will move to books of innovation, misguidance, or sorcery, then leave him and his first books. This is a vast matter.

I heard Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah sanctify his spirit and illuminate his grave, say: I once passed with some of my companions during the time of the Tatars by a group of them who were drinking wine.

One of those with me began to forbid them, but I forbade him from doing so.

I said to him, Allah only prohibited wine because it distracts from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer, while these people are being distracted by it from killing lives, taking captives, and seizing wealth, so leave them. (See Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-Amr bil-Maʿruf pages 17–18, Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 28/57–61, and al-Istiqamah 2/165–168.)

I’lam al Muwaqqiin (4/339-340)

Shaykh Abd al Rahman al Barrak said: Commanding good and forbidding evil includes, according to some, revolting against oppressive rulers under the pretext of forbidding evil. (See al-Ashʿari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, pages 155 and 278; al-Malati, al-Tanbih wal-Radd, page 49; Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 13/386.)

However, the Sharia has forbidden this because of the widespread corruption it leads to. Commanding good and forbidding evil is based on the principle of committing the lesser harm to prevent the greater one, and giving up the lesser benefit to achieve the greater one.

So if forbidding an evil leads to an increase in evil, or to an even greater evil, then such forbidding becomes itself an evil.

Sharh al Aqidah al Tahawiyyah by al Barrak, Page 421

Al Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said: His words, Do you think that I do not speak to him except that you hear it. In some copies, except that you hear. In others, I make you hear.

All of it means, Do you think that I do not speak to him except while you are hearing. His words, Shall I open a practice that I would not like to be the first to open.

He means, publicly rejecting the rulers in front of the people, as happened with the killers of Uthman. In this is the adab with the rulers, and gentleness with them, and admonishing them in private, and conveying to them what the people say about them, so they refrain. All of this is when that is possible. If private admonition and rejection are not possible, then let him do it openly, so the core of the truth is not lost.

Sharh al Nawawi ala Sahih Muslim (18/118)

Ibn al Mulaqqin (d. 804 AH) said: At the beginning of it, it was said to Usamah, If only you went to so and so and spoke to him.

He is Uthman ibn Affan, as al Muhallab pointed out. What was wanted was that he speak to him about his half brother through his mother, al Walid ibn Uqbah, because of what was testified about him.

They said that to Usamah because he was among those close to Uthman. In one copy, I do not speak to him except that you hear. In another, except that you hear. In al Dimyati’s hand, except that I make you hear. All of it means, Do you think that I do not speak to him except while you are hearing. He said, I have spoken to him between me and him.

His words, Should I speak to him openly. He means, Shall I publicly rebuke the rulers in front of the people, and that would open a door of rising up against the imams of the Muslims, so the unity is broken and the community is split, as later occurred when Uthman was publicly confronted with rejection. In this is the adab with the rulers, and gentleness with them, and admonishing them in private, and conveying to them what the people say, so they refrain.

All of this is when it is possible. If private admonition is not possible, then let him do it openly, so the truth is not lost, as Tariq ibn Shihab narrated that the Messenger of Allah said, The best jihad is a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler.

Al Tirmidhi reported it from Abu Said with a good isnad. Al Tabari (d. 310 AH) said, Its meaning is, if he is safe for himself from being killed and the like, or that a trial reaches him which he cannot bear. This is narrated from Ibn Masud and Hudhayfah, and it is the madhhab of Usamah. It was narrated from Mutarrif that he said, By Allah, I would have no religion if I stood up to a man with a thousand swords and threw at him a word which would lead to my being killed. My religion would then be narrow.

Others said, It is obligatory on the one who sees an evil from one in authority to reject it in public in any way he is able. This was narrated from Umar and Ubayy ibn Kab. They held to his saying, Whoever among you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand. And his saying, When my ummah becomes too timid to say to the oppressor, O oppressor, then bid them farewell. Al Bazzar mentioned it by a disconnected chain.

Others said, The obligation is to reject with the heart, by the hadith of Umm Salamah, raised, Leaders will be put in authority over you after me, you will recognise and you will reject. Whoever dislikes has been absolved, and whoever rejects has been safe, but whoever is pleased and follows.

They said, O Messenger of Allah, should we not fight them. He said, No, as long as they establish the prayer.

Al Tawdhih li Sharh al Jami al Sahih (19/180–181)

Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (d. 852 AH) transmitted the words of al Tabari (d. 310 AH) saying: The Salaf differed regarding the obligation of commanding good. One group said it is obligatory in all cases.

They used as evidence the hadith of Tariq ibn Shihab, raised to the Prophet: “The best jihad is a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.” (Reported by Ahmad 18830, al-Nasa’i 4209, and its narrators are trustworthy.) They also used the general wording of his saying: “Whoever among you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand…” (Reported by Muslim 49 and others from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri.)

Others said that forbidding evil is obligatory, but with the condition that the person does not bring upon himself a harm he cannot bear, such as being killed or the like.

Others said he should only reject it in his heart, citing the hadith of Umm Salamah, raised to the Prophet: “Rulers will be appointed over you after me. Whoever dislikes their actions will be free from blame, and whoever disapproves of them will be safe. But whoever is pleased and follows them…” (Reported by Muslim 1854.)

He said, and the correct view is to consider the mentioned condition, and the evidence for it is the hadith: “It is not befitting for a believer to humiliate himself,” and he explained that as meaning exposing himself to harm that he cannot bear.

Others said that commanding good is obligatory upon whoever is able to do it, even if he himself commits sins, because in general he will be rewarded for commanding good, especially if he is obeyed by others.

As for his own sin, Allah may forgive him for it or punish him for it. As for the one who says that no one should command good except one who is free from sin, if he means that such a person is more deserving, that is fine, but if he means it as a condition, that would lead to the door of commanding good being closed when no one else is available.

Then al-Tabari said: If it is asked, how can those who were commanded with good in the hadith of Usamah be among the people of the Fire?

The answer is that they were punished for not doing what they commanded others to do, and their leader was punished because he used to commit what he forbade them from.

The hadith also teaches the need to respect rulers, to have proper manners with them, and to convey to them what people say about them so that they refrain and take caution with gentleness and good manner of expression, achieving the goal without causing harm to others. (Reported by Ahmad 23444, Ibn Majah 4016, and al-Tirmidhi 2254 from Hudhayfah, and al-Tirmidhi graded it as hasan.)

Fath al Bari (23/104-105)

Ismail ibn Abdullah ibn Zararah al-Raqqi narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us, he said: al-A‘mash narrated to us from ‘Imarah ibn ‘Umayr from al-Rabi‘ ibn ‘Umaylah from Ibn Mas‘ud who said: When the time grew long for the Children of Israel, their hearts became hardened.

They invented a book from their own selves, and their hearts became attached to it, and their tongues found it pleasing.

They said, “Come, let us call the people to our book. Whoever follows us we will leave alone, and whoever opposes us we will kill.” They said, “Look at so-and-so; if he follows you, no one will stay behind, but if he opposes you, then kill him.”

So they sent for him. He entered his house, took a book from the books of Allah, placed it in a sheath, and hung it beneath his clothes. Then he went to them. They read their book to him and said, “Do you believe in what is in this book?”

He said, “Why should I not believe in this book?” while pointing to his chest. Then he returned to his home and did not remain long before he died.

His brothers came and exhumed him, and they found that book in that sheath. They said, “His faith was in this book.”

Ibn Mas‘ud said: The Christians then split into seventy sects, and the most rightly guided among them were the followers of the man with the sheath.

Ibn Mas‘ud said: It is close that whoever among you lives long will see evil that he will not be able to change except that Allah knows from his heart that he hates it.

Fotenote: Its chain is sound except for the fact that al-A‘mash narrated it with ‘an‘anah. It was reported by al-Bayhaqi in Shu‘ab al-Iman (13/271–272, no. 7182) through the route of Abu Mu‘awiyah al-Darir, Muhammad ibn Khazim, from al-A‘mash with similar wording.

Kitab al-Amr bil-Ma’ruf wa al-Nahy ‘an al-Munkar by Ibn Abi al-Dunya Page 111

Ibn Rajab al Hanbali (d. 795 AH) said: Rejecting with the heart is obligatory on every Muslim in every situation. As for rejecting with the hand and the tongue, it is according to ability, as in the hadith of Abu Bakr al Siddiq from the Prophet, There is no people among whom sins are done, then they are able to change but they do not change, except that Allah is close to enveloping them all with a punishment.

Abu Dawud reported it with this wording. Tawus said, A man came to Ibn Abbas, and said, Shall I stand up to this ruler and command him and forbid him.

He said, Do not let yourself be a trial for him. He said, What if he commands me to disobey Allah. He said, That is what you want, so be a man then. We have already mentioned the hadith of Ibn Masud in which he said, There will come successors after them.

So whoever strives against them with his hand is a believer. This indicates jihad against rulers with the hand. Imam Ahmad rejected this hadith in the narration of Abu Dawud and said, It goes against the hadiths in which the Messenger of Allah commanded patience over the injustice of the rulers. It may be answered that changing with the hand does not necessitate fighting.

Ahmad also stated this in the narration of Salih and said, Changing with the hand is not with the sword and the weapons.

In that case, jihad against rulers with the hand is that he removes, with his hand, what they have done of evils, such as pouring out their drinks, or breaking their instruments of amusement, and the like, or that he invalidates with his hand what they have commanded of injustice, if he has the ability to do so.

All of that is permissible, and it is not of the type of fighting them or rising up against them that is forbidden. The most that is feared in this is that the commander alone is killed. As for rising up against them with the sword, it is feared that tribulations will result, which lead to the shedding of the blood of Muslims.

Yes, if he fears that when taking on the rejection against kings he will harm his family or his neighbours, then he should not expose himself to them then, because that would extend the harm to others.

Al Fudayl ibn Iyad and others said this. Along with this, whenever he fears from them for himself the sword, or the whip, or imprisonment, or shackling, or banishment, or seizure of wealth, or the like of that harm, then commanding them and forbidding them drops away.

The imams have stated this, among them Malik, Ahmad, Ishaq, and others.

Ahmad said, Do not expose yourself to the sultan, for his sword is unsheathed. Ibn Shubruma said, Enjoining the ma’ruf and forbidding the munkar is like jihad.

It is obligatory on one person to stand firm against two, and forbidden for him to flee from them, and it is not obligatory on him to stand firm against more than that. If he fears insults or hearing bad words, that does not make the rejection drop.

Imam Ahmad stated this. If he bears the harm and is strong against it, that is better. Ahmad also stated that.

Jami al Ulum wal Hikam Page 954-955

“And when they see some merchandise or amusement, they scatter to it and leave you standing”:
Al Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said: His words, Look at this wicked one, giving a sermon while sitting, and Allah the Most High said, “and leave you standing.” This speech includes rejecting the evil, and rejecting the rulers when they oppose the sunnah.

Sharh al Nawawi ala Sahih Muslim (6/152)

The sermon of Abu Bakr:

Anas ibn Malik said: When Abu Bakr was pledged allegiance to at the Saqifah, the next day he sat upon the pulpit, and Umar stood and spoke before Abu Bakr. He praised Allah and extolled Him as He deserves, then said:

“O people, yesterday I said words that were not based on anything from the Book of Allah, nor were they a covenant that the Messenger of Allah had made with me.

But I thought that the Messenger of Allah would take charge of our affairs himself, meaning he would live to be the last among us. Allah, however, has left among you His Book by which He guided His Messenger. If you hold fast to it, Allah will guide you as He guided him.

Allah has now united your affairs upon the best among you, the Companion of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, the second of the two when they were in the cave. So stand and pledge allegiance to him.”

The people then gave their general pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr after the pledge of Saqifah.

Then Abu Bakr spoke. He praised Allah and extolled Him as He deserves, then said:

“To proceed, O people, I have been placed in authority over you though I am not the best among you. If I do well, then help me. If I do wrong, then correct me. Truth is a trust, and falsehood is betrayal. The weak among you is strong with me until I restore to him his right, if Allah wills.

The strong among you is weak with me until I take from him the right of others, if Allah wills. No people abandon jihad in the path of Allah except that Allah afflicts them with humiliation.

And no people ever spread indecency among themselves except that Allah afflicts them all with tribulation. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. But if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience. Stand for your prayer, may Allah have mercy on you.”

Authenticity: Its chain is authentic.
Narrator: Anas ibn Malik.
Graded by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah (5/218).
Reported by Muhammad ibn Ishaq as in al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham (6/82) and by al-Tabari in al-Tarikh (3/210), both with this wording.