Is it true that some scholars say that the statement of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and her)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says:The questioner : Some scholars say that the statement of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and her): "Disbelief less than disbelief" was only said regarding the injustices committed by the Umayyads, whereas the abandonment of all Islamic legislation, as is the case in these societies, does not fall under this statement?
The Shaykh : I do not know who is meant by this "some," and it does not concern me to know, but it is wrong in any case, because Ibn 'Abbas said this in the interpretation of the verse, so there is no room for attributing this report to the rulers of the Umayyads or others. I mean this report, which is a mawquf (stopping at a Companion). Ibn 'Abbas mentioned this verse and said: "It is not as they think or as they say; rather, it is disbelief less than disbelief". And the Imam of the Mufassirun, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, mentioned in his great "Tafsir" that this verse refers to the disbelievers among the Jews and Christians, who are those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed and do not accept it as a judge. So whoever does what they do is like them. But their action is not merely an action not accompanied by belief; rather, their action is accompanied by belief, meaning: they did not believe in the ruling of Allah. Consequently, their rejection of the ruling of Allah is an action. So if these two conditions are present in a Muslim ruler, his case is like that of the Jews and Christians, meaning: whoever denies the Shari'ah of Allah, in whole or in part, in the depths of his heart, and then proceeds with this denial in his law and its application, the verse applies to him, because it was revealed regarding the disbelievers, and he acted and believed in the action and belief of the disbelievers. But if this ruler or that one believes in the depths of his heart that judging by what Allah has revealed is obligatory and the truth, but he justifies his error in leaving the judgment by what Allah has revealed with justifications for which Allah has not sent down any authority.
And like this, you should not limit your minds to the rulers only. Let us pause for a moment with those other than the rulers. What do we say to individuals, who are more numerous than the rulers, who consider riba (usury or interest) permissible in practice? What is the ruling on these people? Glory to Allah! Even though their evil is great and their number is large, we do not find anyone among them saying these are disbelievers. Why? Because they do not think except about the ruler! Even though this ruler did not descend from Mars; he is one of us. And as is said in the old common example: "The worm in the vinegar is in it". So what is the difference, do you think, between one who considers riba permissible in eating and feeding, in eating and giving to eat? What is the difference between this and one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed? There is no difference in the Shari'ah of Allah at all. And on that basis, consider those who gamble and those who sell to women what helps them in open sinfulness and lewdness, and so on. Do you think they are all disbelievers? We do not say they are disbelievers, nor do we say they are not disbelievers, but we say a rule whose application is not upon us, because we cannot reach the hearts of these people. Rather, their ruling is with Allah. It is sufficient for us to say that they are all misguided, because they do not judge by the Shari'ah of Allah. But are they apostates? Is it permissible to fight them? If they say yes, it is permissible to fight these, then it is permissible to fight the majority of the Islamic Ummah. Then we say after that: Who will fight them?
The research returns to who lives in the secular society: who will fight these? The secular society and the disbelieving ruler? The disbeliever in belief and action and lineage. Who will fight? There must be Muslims who have trained in working with the correct Islam, and time has passed for them so that they have no work left except jihad in the path of Allah. These are the ones who perform this obligatory duty. So, we must not forget that the problem is not limited to the rulers, but the problem is limited to the rulers and the ruled together. And as proof, you see today so-and-so is the president, and after a few days or many, you find another president. Where did this one come from? From us and among us. So if he was living with the same mind and thought that he lives with now while he is at the head of the government, we must distinguish so that we do not fall into rebellion. And I mean by rebellion: that we be like the Khawarij. We must distinguish between belief-based disbelief and action-based disbelief. Belief-based disbelief is related to the heart, and action-based disbelief is related to the action. The action is apparent; the one we see who does not pray, we can say he does not pray, but we cannot cut into his heart and say this is a denier of prayer and does not believe in prayer, unless we hear it from him. Then, at that time, it becomes an apparent action, and we condemn him for what he said. So whoever has belief-based disbelief, he is a disbeliever, and his case is like that of the Jews and Christians. And whoever has action-based disbelief, his case is like that of the open sinners and the lewd, in any type of open sinfulness or lewdness.
So, in conclusion, I say that the report of Ibn 'Abbas has actually given us a clarification so that we do not fall into excess or deficiency. We do not say that the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, whether he is a ruler or one who is ruled, is [in a certain state]. Take the judges now, because the first thing that comes to people's minds is[Al-Ma'idah 5:44] who is it? The head of state. Well, and the rulers who are under their authority, whom they call judges today in many Islamic countries, does it apply to them in many of their rulings that they judge by other than what Allah has revealed? And I have discussed this with many of those who were previously known as the group of the what? The what?
The questioner : Takfir and Hijrah.
The Shaykh : Takfir and Hijrah. They were declaring people disbelievers, declaring disbelievers those whose goal was to rebel against them. So I would go down with them and say to them: What is your opinion of the Sharia judge who judges by the Sharia but in a certain issue judged by other than what Allah has revealed? Do you say he is a disbeliever? At first, he would stand thinking, because he had not thought about this detail. His thought is always where? With the president above. While we are concerned with ourselves first of all. Perhaps this Sharia judge is his father or his brother, or so on! He did not think about it. After a long or short discussion, the matter differs according to the people, he would say: No, he is not a disbeliever! I say to him: Why? He said: Because this is only once. We said to him: Well, let us imagine that this same judge in another case also judged another judgment contrary to the Sharia. Did he become a disbeliever? He kept saying: No, no. I said to him: When then does this Sharia judge become a disbeliever? You cannot say after a certain number of judgments, but rather you say: Even with one judgment, he knows it is contrary to the Sharia and considers it permissible in his heart. As long as he considers judging by other than what Allah has revealed permissible in his heart, he is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. And whatever violations of the Shari'ah and dealings contrary to the Shari'ah he commits, we cannot declare him a disbeliever. His case is like that of the consumers and providers of riba (usury or interest), and how many of them there are today in the Islamic world! We cannot declare any of them a disbeliever unless the disbelief has settled in his heart, and not just in his action.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : I said earlier, if we hear it from him, then at that time we condemn him for his statement. We said, yes.
The questioner : Shaykh, do you pray here or do you pray in the Haram?
The Shaykh : What is there? Do we reach the Haram? Let's make an excuse, and Glory is to You, O Allah, and Praise, I bear witness that there is no god but You, we seek Your forgiveness and turn to You in repentance.
The Shaykh : I do not know who is meant by this "some," and it does not concern me to know, but it is wrong in any case, because Ibn 'Abbas said this in the interpretation of the verse, so there is no room for attributing this report to the rulers of the Umayyads or others. I mean this report, which is a mawquf (stopping at a Companion). Ibn 'Abbas mentioned this verse and said: "It is not as they think or as they say; rather, it is disbelief less than disbelief". And the Imam of the Mufassirun, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, mentioned in his great "Tafsir" that this verse refers to the disbelievers among the Jews and Christians, who are those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed and do not accept it as a judge. So whoever does what they do is like them. But their action is not merely an action not accompanied by belief; rather, their action is accompanied by belief, meaning: they did not believe in the ruling of Allah. Consequently, their rejection of the ruling of Allah is an action. So if these two conditions are present in a Muslim ruler, his case is like that of the Jews and Christians, meaning: whoever denies the Shari'ah of Allah, in whole or in part, in the depths of his heart, and then proceeds with this denial in his law and its application, the verse applies to him, because it was revealed regarding the disbelievers, and he acted and believed in the action and belief of the disbelievers. But if this ruler or that one believes in the depths of his heart that judging by what Allah has revealed is obligatory and the truth, but he justifies his error in leaving the judgment by what Allah has revealed with justifications for which Allah has not sent down any authority.
And like this, you should not limit your minds to the rulers only. Let us pause for a moment with those other than the rulers. What do we say to individuals, who are more numerous than the rulers, who consider riba (usury or interest) permissible in practice? What is the ruling on these people? Glory to Allah! Even though their evil is great and their number is large, we do not find anyone among them saying these are disbelievers. Why? Because they do not think except about the ruler! Even though this ruler did not descend from Mars; he is one of us. And as is said in the old common example: "The worm in the vinegar is in it". So what is the difference, do you think, between one who considers riba permissible in eating and feeding, in eating and giving to eat? What is the difference between this and one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed? There is no difference in the Shari'ah of Allah at all. And on that basis, consider those who gamble and those who sell to women what helps them in open sinfulness and lewdness, and so on. Do you think they are all disbelievers? We do not say they are disbelievers, nor do we say they are not disbelievers, but we say a rule whose application is not upon us, because we cannot reach the hearts of these people. Rather, their ruling is with Allah. It is sufficient for us to say that they are all misguided, because they do not judge by the Shari'ah of Allah. But are they apostates? Is it permissible to fight them? If they say yes, it is permissible to fight these, then it is permissible to fight the majority of the Islamic Ummah. Then we say after that: Who will fight them?
The research returns to who lives in the secular society: who will fight these? The secular society and the disbelieving ruler? The disbeliever in belief and action and lineage. Who will fight? There must be Muslims who have trained in working with the correct Islam, and time has passed for them so that they have no work left except jihad in the path of Allah. These are the ones who perform this obligatory duty. So, we must not forget that the problem is not limited to the rulers, but the problem is limited to the rulers and the ruled together. And as proof, you see today so-and-so is the president, and after a few days or many, you find another president. Where did this one come from? From us and among us. So if he was living with the same mind and thought that he lives with now while he is at the head of the government, we must distinguish so that we do not fall into rebellion. And I mean by rebellion: that we be like the Khawarij. We must distinguish between belief-based disbelief and action-based disbelief. Belief-based disbelief is related to the heart, and action-based disbelief is related to the action. The action is apparent; the one we see who does not pray, we can say he does not pray, but we cannot cut into his heart and say this is a denier of prayer and does not believe in prayer, unless we hear it from him. Then, at that time, it becomes an apparent action, and we condemn him for what he said. So whoever has belief-based disbelief, he is a disbeliever, and his case is like that of the Jews and Christians. And whoever has action-based disbelief, his case is like that of the open sinners and the lewd, in any type of open sinfulness or lewdness.
So, in conclusion, I say that the report of Ibn 'Abbas has actually given us a clarification so that we do not fall into excess or deficiency. We do not say that the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, whether he is a ruler or one who is ruled, is [in a certain state]. Take the judges now, because the first thing that comes to people's minds is
whoever does not judge
من لم يحكمThe questioner : Takfir and Hijrah.
The Shaykh : Takfir and Hijrah. They were declaring people disbelievers, declaring disbelievers those whose goal was to rebel against them. So I would go down with them and say to them: What is your opinion of the Sharia judge who judges by the Sharia but in a certain issue judged by other than what Allah has revealed? Do you say he is a disbeliever? At first, he would stand thinking, because he had not thought about this detail. His thought is always where? With the president above. While we are concerned with ourselves first of all. Perhaps this Sharia judge is his father or his brother, or so on! He did not think about it. After a long or short discussion, the matter differs according to the people, he would say: No, he is not a disbeliever! I say to him: Why? He said: Because this is only once. We said to him: Well, let us imagine that this same judge in another case also judged another judgment contrary to the Sharia. Did he become a disbeliever? He kept saying: No, no. I said to him: When then does this Sharia judge become a disbeliever? You cannot say after a certain number of judgments, but rather you say: Even with one judgment, he knows it is contrary to the Sharia and considers it permissible in his heart. As long as he considers judging by other than what Allah has revealed permissible in his heart, he is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. And whatever violations of the Shari'ah and dealings contrary to the Shari'ah he commits, we cannot declare him a disbeliever. His case is like that of the consumers and providers of riba (usury or interest), and how many of them there are today in the Islamic world! We cannot declare any of them a disbeliever unless the disbelief has settled in his heart, and not just in his action.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : I said earlier, if we hear it from him, then at that time we condemn him for his statement. We said, yes.
The questioner : Shaykh, do you pray here or do you pray in the Haram?
The Shaykh : What is there? Do we reach the Haram? Let's make an excuse, and Glory is to You, O Allah, and Praise, I bear witness that there is no god but You, we seek Your forgiveness and turn to You in repentance.