Is it permissible to revolt against the ruler in Syria given the divergence in scholarly opinions between those who support it and those who oppose it? And what is the ruling on revolting against a ruler who prevents the learning of the correct creed and allows polytheism and ignorance?

The foundation of Sharia is to achieve benefits and ward off harms. If benefits and harms conflict, the lesser of two benefits may be sacrificed to obtain the greater, and the lesser of two harms may be committed to avoid the greater. A forbidden thing may contain a benefit, but it is disregarded if its harm outweighs it. Similarly, an obligatory or recommended thing may contain a harm, but it is disregarded if its benefit outweighs it. This is why enjoining good and forbidding evil varies according to its stages: if it removes or reduces evil, it is permissible; but if it leads to something worse, it is forbidden. An example of this is when the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the Battle of Al-Ahzab wanted to make peace with Ghatafan by offering them one-third of Medina's fruits, and similarly in the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. This indicates that the estimation of benefit and harm varies according to circumstances. Sharia has made ability a prerequisite for obligation, and therefore, a believer should not humiliate himself by exposing himself to unbearable trials. However, in non-emergency situations, a Muslim must take pride in his religion and not accept humiliation and disgrace.