If I see a ruler openly contradicting or denying something known from the religion by necessity, do I start by establishing the proof against him or by declaring him a disbeliever?

The Shaykh : Is there anything else?

The questioner : Yes, in the same question: which do I start with, Shaykh? If I see one of the rulers openly contradicting or denying something known from the religion by necessity, do I establish the proof against him or declare him a disbeliever? Which do I start with?

The Shaykh : This varies depending on what appears to you. Does it seem to you that he denies out of ignorance or out of denial? If it is out of ignorance, we establish the proof against him and teach him Islam. If he then persists, that means it is not out of ignorance. If, in the original case, he denied out of denial, then the matter ends; there is no need to establish the proof. Excuse me, if he denied out of denial, there is no room left for establishing the proof as long as it is out of denial, persistence, and determination. So, based on what appears, if we see from any ruler open disbelief and explicit denial of what is known from the religion by necessity, and it seems to us that it is denial not out of ignorance, then we declare him a disbeliever, because that is what he deserves by his persistence in denial. If it appears to us that it is out of ignorance, we establish the proof against him. In reality, this distinction has no practical effect, because it is assumed that in such cases, this benefits the individuals who are ruled and the individuals whom the ruler will rule. The ruler who has authority over any person from whom disbelief appears will bring him in, try him, and question him: "Are you denying out of denial or out of laziness? Do you say this out of knowledge or out of ignorance?" This benefits the individual and his relationship with the ruler. But the issue is the opposite: if we, the ruled, judge that a certain ruler has disbelieved out of denial, what do we do? It is obligatory to establish the proof against him. So, establish the proof against him if you can. Or the other scenario, which is clearer: he disbelieved out of denial, what do you do when you are the ruled? The issue is purely formal and theoretical, with no practical effects, because we know here that it will be said: "If it is established with us that he disbelieved out of denial, then this deserves rebellion." If it is established with us that he disbelieved out of denial, what is the benefit of that? So, rebellion against him is obligatory. Who rebels against him? We are ruled from all sides by states, some of which have been disbelievers for a long time, some of which have shown disbelief, some of which have occupied our lands, and they are known disbelievers, known for their disbelief and hostility toward Islam since ancient times. So what did we do? Nothing. So why do we look into purely theoretical matters and say: "If this ruler disbelieved out of denial, then he deserves rebellion"? Well, what do we do? We rebel? We cannot rebel, because there are lands occupied by disbelievers, and we were unable to do anything. So, in reality, this is narrow-mindedness when we point to such issues and waste our time discussing them day and night, and the outcome of the matter is that we say: "My brother, this is disbelief out of denial, and he deserves rebellion, indeed and killing for disbelief, but no one can do anything about them. Even these enthusiasts, and reality is the greatest proof of that."