Can it be said that a ruler who does not implement the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) has fallen into open disbelief (kufr) that permits Muslims to rise against him?

The questioner : Our brother asks: Can it be said that a ruler who does not implement the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) has fallen into open disbelief (kufr) that permits Muslims to rise against him?

The Shaykh : We have answered this question many times and repeatedly, and there are many tapes available. Therefore, we will not lengthen the discussion, but rather summarize it briefly: There are two matters here. The first matter: It is not permissible to declare a Muslim ruler a disbeliever (takfir) because he is afflicted with not ruling by what Allah has revealed, and we do not consider his action to be open disbelief (kufr). It is only considered open disbelief if he utters a statement or performs an action for which there is no way to interpret it other than as open disbelief. This is the answer regarding the first part of the question. As for the second part: Is it permissible to rise against him? We say: Rising against a ruler is mentioned in the authentic hadith as not being permissible unless we see open disbelief (kufr). However, many people do not understand this rising, because they do not look at the Shari'ah ruling from its specific angle, nor do they look from other angles that are considered in the Shari'ah. For example, we know that among the legal principles is the saying of the Exalted: From this principle, hundreds, indeed thousands, of legal issues branch out. Let us give a general example: A man who is ill or unable to pray standing, and it is known to all worshippers that standing in the obligatory prayer is a pillar of the prayer. If he prays the obligatory prayer sitting while he is able to stand, his prayer is invalid. But if he is unable to stand, his prayer is valid. Therefore, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: All rulings follow this course. So, the question was: Is it permissible to rise against him? We said: It is permissible to rise against one whose disbelief is explicit; this is the original rule. But is every tribe able to rise against a ruler from whom open disbelief (kufr) has become apparent? The answer is: No. Thus, the very issue of rising against a ruler, which is permissible by Shari'ah and text, is contingent upon and tied to the ability to do so. The greatest example is what occurred in many recent and distant times. Our brothers in Algeria who rose against the rulers—I cannot say whether they were of the category from whom open disbelief (kufr) became apparent or not—this verification is not what concerns me, because I say: Today, it is not permissible for any people to rise against their government, even if they see open disbelief (kufr) from them. Why? Because they are unable to rise, as the rising would return to them with harm. Take the example of the rising of the group of Juhayman in the Sacred Mosque, and the rising of some Egyptians from the group of Hijrah and Takfir in Egypt. Until now, and every day, as mentioned in some authentic hadiths, which are naturally restricted hadiths in "Sahih al-Bukhari," from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik: " I heard it from your Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)." This is how Anas said it. Therefore, these experiences are sufficient as a lesson for the Muslim who does not believe in materialism but does not believe in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). The jurist tells you: It is not permissible unless you see open disbelief (kufr), and unless you are able to overcome this disbeliever who has committed open disbelief (kufr). This is the answer to the two-part question.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.