Who's really in charge?

TFTD: If real power lies with the army, what real authority does the Chief Judge have to remove the ruler (particularly if it was the army that brought the ruler to power)?

Where does that leave "as-sultan lil-ummah"?
(Rummani)

And who said anyone has the rite to remove him? (from Dragon Slayer)

That (line from Dragon Slayer) says it all! (from Emerald)

Its only ahlil-hal-wal-aqd who can remove him, and that's only when the Usool of the Deen are violated.
(from Dragon Slayer)

The main reason for the tyranny we suffer is the narrow-mindedness and dogmatic approach of those living in their books.
(from Nredom)

This is only practical in books and on paper and in some Taqwan-utopia. Armies take over when

1. Their structure allows personalities to have political ambitions and take over government when in some political disagreement.

2. The government is so bad that it forces the army to take over.

One could say that these are prevented in the west due to the structure, history and make up of the army and that if the government screws up there are means to remove it (re-election) and account it. Power to the people!
(from Spartacus)

Comments

[chancellor]

If you mean by force then only when he has as stated violated the deen but he can be removed if teh system permits it and he accepts that condition. This is because conditional appointement and removal is valid as stated by Ibn taymia in muntaqa al akhbar. Shawkani commented in nayl ul-awtar thus - that thisis permitted as the prophet according to teh narration in bukhari allowed for people to be appointed upon the death of a ruler and then following their death i.e. if they died then such and such should be appointed - hence it is permitted to appoint rulers with a conditional apointment as to when they rule and therefore when they are removed see the chapter intitled taliq ul-wilayah bi-shuroot. This is the view of many contemporary scholars so, i can't see a problem with adopting it and setting up a system wherein teh expresssion of the peoples consent is required. In fact I know that in Ghiyath ul-umam it states that when the people no longer have confidence in him and no longer obey him he in reality is not tehir ruler or capable of ruling them (qadir) hence he should be removed by them the ahlul halliwal aqd.

So shouldn't we just have regular elections to facilitate both. I mean history proves that the rulers just become tyrranical and authoritarian and the nation therefore loses its authority.

problem doesn't lie in teh theoretical authority i elections though does it? I mean theoretically all are lands are democracies where the people have authority! but in real terms they don't have authority, so really we need to empower the people to establish institutions they believe in, not allow the rulers or anyone to be able to manipultae it, that is the best way, rely on the system not on the "taqwa"combined with the absense of self delusion and islaic justification for totalitarian rule - that would just be a means to tyrrany and that is not the aim of Allah's shariah, it is to bring justice.

We need the people to belive they have the right establish mechanisms of control separate the government from teh law-makers and separate all of these from the police force who execte the decisions of the system and shouldn't be a political tool by separating to what extent possible, the judicial and political decisions and the law and the ruler, and prevent tyrrany...

[Toppled Pyramid]

Orwell's "Animal Farm" demonstrates what relying on 'Taqwa' as a check on a system leads to. In that case it was 'Communist "taqwa" ie: Ideological sincerity, in this case it is 'Islamist "Taqwa". "Taqwa" lead to Mu'awiyyah (ra) being able to rouse the Egyptians in their love for Uthamn (ra) against Ali (ra) by parading his blooded shirt."Taqwa" lead to the Khawarij doing Takfir on Imam Ali (ra). "Taqwa" lead to the Algerian Takfirite Jihadists massacering thousands and raping our sisters all in the name of 'al-Wala wa al-bara'(and yes, the Government isn't free from it's own massacres either). "Taqwa" lead to the second late leader of a global Islamist party promising to kill (and I quote) "millions upon millions" in his quest to unify the lands, and kill another (and I quote again) "millions upon millions" to remove "Kufr" from the laws, and (I quote again again) kill even more "millions upon millions" to punish the apostate! "Taqwa", or fear of God, I guess can leave no one left on this Earth to actually fear God, and that way there will be no sins. O, and by the way...killing isn't even "Kufr Buwaha" according to the global Islamist party, it's either simply a sin, or as the above quotes show...a good deed (Hasan)!
And so we wouldn't even be able to rebel as there would be no Kufr in the legislation.
My point....we need systemic checks that don't rely upon the indivduals' sincertity but on mechanisms, that keep people in check regardless of their intentions, and it is clear that such checks are permitted to institute, firstly because they are just necessary, secondly, because the bay'ah is a contract, and thus can have conditions attached to it, just as marriage can eg: a promise not to marry a second wife is is binding by the majority. Therfore, a promise to step down after 5 years or whatever, can also be binding.