There is a fundamental difference in the authority given to the state and that given to the individual in the bible; the state has the right to use force to control evil - see Rom 13. By contrast Jesus never teaches his disciples to use force to resist the state, and the overlap of this seen in the mess that the church made during the crusader period is a demonstration of this. So it is wholly legitimate for a state to invade a country to enforce the emancipation of slaves, but it is not appropriate for the slaves to rise in resistance.

One of the reasons for this lies in the fact that it legitimates the persecution of the church. If Christians are perceived as encouraging the oppressed to rise in rebellion then this gives the state a good reason to seek to exterminate Christians. This was (and is) seen in Communist countries, and would give Islamic states yet another reason to harass the church.

But at the heart of this error is a failure to allow God to be God. If He wants to bring about regime change, then it is His responsibility to do so. It is not for the resident Christians to try to do God's work for Him. In the context of democratic countries, the rules are very different, because there is wholly legitimate for people to organise to challenge their governments peacefully. But in the context of an authoritarian state, it is not right for the church to set out to use force to challenge the state - because otherwise the state has the right to shove back...