Continuation of the Debate: Investigating the Cause of Declaring a Ruler a Disbeliever for Ruling by Other Than What Allah Has Sent Down
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The reality is that in this field, given the many expectations, the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever is the main and sensitive topic. I see that investigating anything other than this does not renew anything now. Let us begin, with praise to Allah.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : But I want to ask you: the judge who is committed to the Islamic Shari'ah, but ruled in a case according to his own desire, so we said he is not declared a disbeliever. This one is not declared a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because he did not consider it permissible.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Because he did not consider it permissible, knowing that this ruling, even though practically he did not rule, we said he is not a disbeliever because he did not consider it permissible. So the ruler...
The Shaykh : This is a point of agreement.
The questioner : Agreement.
The Shaykh : There is no disagreement.
The questioner : There is no disagreement.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : We said, the ruler, simply by... when my brother Muhammad asked me about the ruler who establishes a law from himself, I said this is disbelief. I said this is disbelief. Why? Because it means that he has done it with his heart and his outward appearance, meaning that if he did not consider it permissible, he would not have established it.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Here I said you explained that establishing a law is with the heart and outward appearance, whereas you did not explain the judge's action in this way. Why did you not say that he ruled outwardly? You did not explain that he considered the action permissible.
The Shaykh : You are not going back to hold onto the cause, Professor. I will show you a Shari'ah judge who ruled with a government contrary to the Shari'ah and considered it permissible. Glory be to Allah, these examples multiply and vary. Notice the cause, Professor. Notice the cause. I told the professor to notice it in its presence and absence, in its application and reversal. The professor noticed. I said just now, and I wanted to answer him, so I said, "I did not understand, there is no objection." You have not brought anything new, and you have not... you are clarifying something from me that was hidden. I will repeat what I said, but with a development of the previous example that we agreed with the professor on, which is that this Shari'ah judge ruled with a ruling that contradicts his Shari'ah, and he is not a disbeliever because he believes that the Shari'ah he contradicted is the correct one. He said this is one case. But what do you say about this judge who established a law? I will say now, this Shari'ah judge, the Shari'ah judge whom we did not declare a disbeliever by the agreement of everyone, ruled with a second government similar to the first in terms of the cause. What was the cause? That he believes in the Shari'ah of Allah but contradicts it practically. He ruled with a second government that changes our previous ruling on him. I am asking you now: has our previous ruling changed regarding him, or is it the same?
The questioner : I see the ruling changes, and my evidence for that is...
The Shaykh : I am not asking you for your evidence, I am asking you: does it change?
The questioner : It changes.
The Shaykh : Do I have the right to ask you the question?
The questioner : Ask. I told you it changes. That is the answer.
The Shaykh : Does the ruling change?
The questioner : The ruling.
The Shaykh : Meaning the first one is not a disbeliever and the second one is a disbeliever?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : You have contradicted what you agreed with me on, my brother. The second one is like the first; he believes that what he ruled with is contrary to the Shari'ah and that his Shari'ah is the correct one. How did you declare him a disbeliever?
The questioner : Here, in the second case, a Shari'ah... the Shari'ah is established. He is the one who established it.
The Shaykh : Whose Shari'ah?
The questioner : In the second state.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. I am talking about the Shari'ah judge. I am talking about the Shari'ah judge, the Muslim who believes in Allah and His Messenger and disbelieves in all laws other than this Shari'ah. We did not say, my brother, first, that a Shari'ah judge ruled for a group of people with what they do not have, and we said this is not a disbeliever because he believes, despite his ruling, that his ruling is wrong. Why? Because his Shari'ah is the correct one. We did not declare him a disbeliever. Is that not what we said? I am telling you, this same judge ruled with a second ruling like this ruling in that it contradicted the Shari'ah, but he still believes in the Shari'ah. Did you declare this one a disbeliever, or do we still say this one is not a disbeliever but an open sinner, or call him whatever other term you wish, a sinner? Is there a difference between the two?
The questioner : There is a difference. I find a difference.
The Shaykh : What is the difference? As long as the cause is one.
The questioner : Because...
The Shaykh : You agreed with us. As long as the cause is present or absent, the ruling differs. If the cause is in Zayd and it is in 'Amr, it is not permissible to declare this one a disbeliever and let this one go, if I may express it that way. The cause is one.
The Shaykh : Please, Professor.
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner : If my helper is a follower, or am I speaking to him...
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : He says a judge ruled once, then the same judge ruled a second time, not considering his ruling that contradicts the Shari'ah permissible. This is a definition... Do we declare him a disbeliever?
The questioner : No, if he is not considering it permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, what am I saying?
The student : So there is no difference...
The questioner : I did not understand this from you.
The Shaykh : Why not... I return and say now I understood. We do not want to blame each other.
The questioner : I understood. I think there was a state.
The Shaykh : There was what?
The questioner : He ruled with Islam in a certain region, ruling with Islam but not adhering to the Shari'ah of Islam, but what I understood is that he found a second state with a Shari'ah...
The Shaykh : My brother, we did not mention a second state. You say you understood... Where are you getting the second state from?
The questioner : I agree with his new understanding.
The Shaykh : There is no new understanding, my brother. I am far from your speech. May Allah be pleased with you. Why did I not want to enter into this with you? Because now we will enter into discussions, as they say, Byzantine. He repeats my words and says new words. There is nothing new. Now, did you understand, Professor?
The questioner : I understood.
The Shaykh : Okay, the second judge, the second ruling of the first judge. Is there a difference between it and the first ruling?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: There is no difference.
The Shaykh : Okay, he ruled twenty times in this manner and at this pace. Is he a Muslim or a disbeliever?
The questioner : He is a Muslim.
The Shaykh : Okay, what is the secret? His faith. What is the secret? We declared that one a disbeliever because of his lack of faith. So what makes a person a disbeliever is denying what he used to believe in. As for contradicting what he believes in practically, this is not disbelief in the sense of shirk and leaving the religion. This is what we profess to Allah, and this is what the scholars of the Muslims, all of them, profess, despite the existing disagreement between the people of Hadith and the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah in the principles, and the well-known disagreement between the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis in the branches. Despite this disagreement, or that they differed in this disagreement, they all agree that a Muslim is not declared a disbeliever unless he denies what he believed in. But if he believes in it and then contradicts it practically, he is an open sinner and not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : But I want to ask you: the judge who is committed to the Islamic Shari'ah, but ruled in a case according to his own desire, so we said he is not declared a disbeliever. This one is not declared a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because he did not consider it permissible.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Because he did not consider it permissible, knowing that this ruling, even though practically he did not rule, we said he is not a disbeliever because he did not consider it permissible. So the ruler...
The Shaykh : This is a point of agreement.
The questioner : Agreement.
The Shaykh : There is no disagreement.
The questioner : There is no disagreement.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : We said, the ruler, simply by... when my brother Muhammad asked me about the ruler who establishes a law from himself, I said this is disbelief. I said this is disbelief. Why? Because it means that he has done it with his heart and his outward appearance, meaning that if he did not consider it permissible, he would not have established it.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Here I said you explained that establishing a law is with the heart and outward appearance, whereas you did not explain the judge's action in this way. Why did you not say that he ruled outwardly? You did not explain that he considered the action permissible.
The Shaykh : You are not going back to hold onto the cause, Professor. I will show you a Shari'ah judge who ruled with a government contrary to the Shari'ah and considered it permissible. Glory be to Allah, these examples multiply and vary. Notice the cause, Professor. Notice the cause. I told the professor to notice it in its presence and absence, in its application and reversal. The professor noticed. I said just now, and I wanted to answer him, so I said, "I did not understand, there is no objection." You have not brought anything new, and you have not... you are clarifying something from me that was hidden. I will repeat what I said, but with a development of the previous example that we agreed with the professor on, which is that this Shari'ah judge ruled with a ruling that contradicts his Shari'ah, and he is not a disbeliever because he believes that the Shari'ah he contradicted is the correct one. He said this is one case. But what do you say about this judge who established a law? I will say now, this Shari'ah judge, the Shari'ah judge whom we did not declare a disbeliever by the agreement of everyone, ruled with a second government similar to the first in terms of the cause. What was the cause? That he believes in the Shari'ah of Allah but contradicts it practically. He ruled with a second government that changes our previous ruling on him. I am asking you now: has our previous ruling changed regarding him, or is it the same?
The questioner : I see the ruling changes, and my evidence for that is...
The Shaykh : I am not asking you for your evidence, I am asking you: does it change?
The questioner : It changes.
The Shaykh : Do I have the right to ask you the question?
The questioner : Ask. I told you it changes. That is the answer.
The Shaykh : Does the ruling change?
The questioner : The ruling.
The Shaykh : Meaning the first one is not a disbeliever and the second one is a disbeliever?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : You have contradicted what you agreed with me on, my brother. The second one is like the first; he believes that what he ruled with is contrary to the Shari'ah and that his Shari'ah is the correct one. How did you declare him a disbeliever?
The questioner : Here, in the second case, a Shari'ah... the Shari'ah is established. He is the one who established it.
The Shaykh : Whose Shari'ah?
The questioner : In the second state.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. I am talking about the Shari'ah judge. I am talking about the Shari'ah judge, the Muslim who believes in Allah and His Messenger and disbelieves in all laws other than this Shari'ah. We did not say, my brother, first, that a Shari'ah judge ruled for a group of people with what they do not have, and we said this is not a disbeliever because he believes, despite his ruling, that his ruling is wrong. Why? Because his Shari'ah is the correct one. We did not declare him a disbeliever. Is that not what we said? I am telling you, this same judge ruled with a second ruling like this ruling in that it contradicted the Shari'ah, but he still believes in the Shari'ah. Did you declare this one a disbeliever, or do we still say this one is not a disbeliever but an open sinner, or call him whatever other term you wish, a sinner? Is there a difference between the two?
The questioner : There is a difference. I find a difference.
The Shaykh : What is the difference? As long as the cause is one.
The questioner : Because...
The Shaykh : You agreed with us. As long as the cause is present or absent, the ruling differs. If the cause is in Zayd and it is in 'Amr, it is not permissible to declare this one a disbeliever and let this one go, if I may express it that way. The cause is one.
The Shaykh : Please, Professor.
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner : If my helper is a follower, or am I speaking to him...
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : He says a judge ruled once, then the same judge ruled a second time, not considering his ruling that contradicts the Shari'ah permissible. This is a definition... Do we declare him a disbeliever?
The questioner : No, if he is not considering it permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, what am I saying?
The student : So there is no difference...
The questioner : I did not understand this from you.
The Shaykh : Why not... I return and say now I understood. We do not want to blame each other.
The questioner : I understood. I think there was a state.
The Shaykh : There was what?
The questioner : He ruled with Islam in a certain region, ruling with Islam but not adhering to the Shari'ah of Islam, but what I understood is that he found a second state with a Shari'ah...
The Shaykh : My brother, we did not mention a second state. You say you understood... Where are you getting the second state from?
The questioner : I agree with his new understanding.
The Shaykh : There is no new understanding, my brother. I am far from your speech. May Allah be pleased with you. Why did I not want to enter into this with you? Because now we will enter into discussions, as they say, Byzantine. He repeats my words and says new words. There is nothing new. Now, did you understand, Professor?
The questioner : I understood.
The Shaykh : Okay, the second judge, the second ruling of the first judge. Is there a difference between it and the first ruling?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: There is no difference.
The Shaykh : Okay, he ruled twenty times in this manner and at this pace. Is he a Muslim or a disbeliever?
The questioner : He is a Muslim.
The Shaykh : Okay, what is the secret? His faith. What is the secret? We declared that one a disbeliever because of his lack of faith. So what makes a person a disbeliever is denying what he used to believe in. As for contradicting what he believes in practically, this is not disbelief in the sense of shirk and leaving the religion. This is what we profess to Allah, and this is what the scholars of the Muslims, all of them, profess, despite the existing disagreement between the people of Hadith and the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah in the principles, and the well-known disagreement between the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis in the branches. Despite this disagreement, or that they differed in this disagreement, they all agree that a Muslim is not declared a disbeliever unless he denies what he believed in. But if he believes in it and then contradicts it practically, he is an open sinner and not a disbeliever.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.