Is drafting a constitution and state laws that contradict the Shari'ah considered a denial of what is known of the religion by necessity?

The questioner : Is it known of the religion by necessity, as has been circulated among us in Kuwait for a while, that drafting a constitution for ruling among people...

The Shaykh : The book of the doctor...

The questioner : Drafting the constitution...

The Shaykh : The constitution...

The questioner : For ruling among people, without all the laws of this constitution being taken from the pure Islamic religion, by analogy with the Yasaq, is this considered a denial of something known of the religion by necessity, by analogy with the Yasaq in which some legislative rulings are placed...

The Shaykh : The question is not clear; before the analogy, I did not understand the question.

The questioner : In other words...

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : If a ruler comes and writes a constitution for ruling, detailing matters, and legislating among people...

The Shaykh : You mean a constitution and law, then.

The questioner : Law.

The Shaykh : Since there is detail, it is a constitution and law.

The questioner : And law.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : And he took some Islamic legislation in the least amount, then added many European positive laws.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So is this constitution the same as the establishment of the Yasaq constitution established by Genghis Khan?

The Shaykh : It is the same as the constitution of what?

The questioner : Is it said of this constitution what was said, or what the scholars of Islam said in the time of Ibn Taymiyyah, about the Yasaq?

The Shaykh: What is it?

The questioner : The Yasaq.

The Shaykh : The Yasaq, yes.

The questioner : And is this step, or the drafting of this constitution and these laws, considered a denial of something known of the religion by necessity?

The Shaykh : My brother, denial, as I told you, is a matter that returns first to the heart, and second to explicit expression by the tongue. This is an action, this is an action, and this action undoubtedly indicates that the one who established this constitution and explained this constitution by law, and it is predominant that the law is contrary to the Shari'ah of Islam in much or most of what is in it, this is undoubtedly practically contrary to Islam. If there is something in the constitution indicating that he resorted to this law taken from the earthly laws of the disbelievers because the Islamic law is no longer suitable, we rule that he is a disbeliever. But merely resorting to contradicting the Shari'ah, whether much or little, or more of this law, brings up the previous inquiry: does he deny the Shari'ah of Allah that contradicts this law, or does he affirm it but say, "There is no power and no strength except in Allah, and today we are not able to do anything but this"? He may actually be able to, but his love for the throne and his concern for authority and rule lead him to not care about the legal rulings and to make them a fixed rule in the state. This is undoubtedly a deviation from the Shari'ah. But if you are asking whether this is considered creedal disbelief, has there been found something indicating that it is creedal disbelief? If it is found, it is creedal disbelief. If it is not found, it is practical disbelief. It returns to the same previous inquiry. Merely adopting a constitution or law that contradicts Islam, this adoption alone, without there being something witnessing that he adopted it because it is better than Islam, is practical disbelief. And if there is something indicating that he chose it over Islam and preferred it to Islam in belief, whereas in practice, undoubtedly, he placed it before Islam, if he chose it in belief, then at that time he is a disbeliever by creedal disbelief, not just practical disbelief.

The questioner : And is this practical disbelief considered open disbelief?

The Shaykh : No, open disbelief is the creedal disbelief that is explicit in his action, because the distinction between creedal disbelief and practical disbelief is for the purpose of clarifying the basis of the ruling of takfir. The basis of the ruling of takfir is belief, not action.
For example, you hear the hadith of Ibn Abbas: When the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was delivering a sermon, a man from the Companions stood up and said to him: "What Allah wills and what you will, O Messenger of Allah." He said: .
So this man has fallen into disbelief because the Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him: , but is this practical disbelief or creedal disbelief? This is practical disbelief, and in such a case, it has another expression called verbal disbelief. Verbal disbelief, because this man did not intend with his words to make his Prophet a partner to his Lord. If he had intended that in his heart, his disbelief would have been creedal disbelief. But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew, by virtue of the fact that the speaker was one of his Companions, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) knew that none of his Companions was anything but fleeing from the shirk in which he had lived for a period of time. Therefore, he did not impose the rulings of apostasy on him. He said to him: But with that, he did not say to him: "You now renew your faith and renew your marriage contract with your wife and the like," because these rulings are only established upon creedal disbelief, not upon practical or verbal disbelief as is the case here. So he (peace be upon him) alerted him that it was verbal disbelief, then did not establish upon it that he order him to renew his faith and renew his marriage contract because he did not disbelieve by creedal disbelief. And so, draw the analogy.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. We return to...

The Shaykh : And beware of that.