Some people used as evidence what occurred in Islamic history, such as the occurrence (of rebellion and fighting) in the fitnah of Ibn al-Ashʿat (one of the Khārijites), and also the rebellion of many of the Reciters (of the Qurʾān), at the head of them, Saʿīd Ibn Jubayr and whoever was with him. And likewise what happened from Ā’ishah (رضي الله عنها) and Zubayr and Ṭalḥah, between them and ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه). So they say all of this happened and all of this was counted as rebellion and although they did not attain their actual objective, this rebellion is actually from those things that are permissible.

So is this argument by way of those occurrences which happened in the first times correct? And what is the answer? This matter is the cause of inciting many for the purpose of justifying the matter of khurūj (rebellion).

Khurūj (revolt) is not allowed. And these evidences that they have used are actually against the one who uses them. There is a wisdom that is narrated from ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), and its authenticity does not concern us as much as the correctness of its meaning. So it is related that he admonished his Disciples one day and informed them that there would be a Prophet who would be the Seal of the Prophets, and that there will be many false prophets after him. So they said to him “How shall we distinguish between the truthful from the liar?” And he replied by speaking with this wisdom alluded to earlier, which is his saying: “By their fruits you shall know them.”

So this khurūj and that khurūj (i.e. from those previously mentioned), and amongst them is the khurūj of Ā’ishah (رضي الله عنها), we judge this khurūj by its fruits. So were the fruits of the khurooj sweet or bitter? khurūj There is not doubt that Islamic history which has informed us about this or that khurūj makes it clear that it was evil. For the blood of the Muslims was shed, and went to waste, without any benefit being attained. Especially in what relates to the khurūj of Sayyidah ʿĀʾishah (رضي الله عنها), for she was remorseful for having made khurooj, and she used to cry severely such that her khimār would become soaking, and would wish that she had no embarked upon that khurūj.

Hence, seeking evidence by way of these rebellions:

Firstly: It is a proof against them, because there was no benefit in these rebellions

Secondly: Why do we stick to the khurūj of Saʿīd bin Jubayr, but we do not stick to the absence of khurūj of the most major and senior of the Companions who were contemporary to him, such as Ibn ʿUmar and others. Then the Scholars of the Salaf followed after him, and all of them saw the absence of khurūj against the ruler.

Hence, there are two types of rebellion: a) a rebellion in thought and ideology (al- khurūj al-fikri) and this is the most dangerous and b) a physical khurūj, which actually results from the first one (i.e. the ideological one).

Hence, this type of khurooj is not permissible, and the evidences you have used are actually against them, not for them.