The Criterion for Describing a State as Disbelieving: Is It the State of the Ruler or the State of the People?

The questioner : Shaykh, you spoke about the issue of a rebellious state entering a secure state, and you described both states as Muslim. Is the criterion for this description the state of the ruler or the state of the people? Usually, and may Allah reward you with good?

The Shaykh : And may He reward you as well. The answer is: We judge a country to be Islamic or non-Islamic not by looking at its rulers, but by looking at its people. So any region where the majority are Muslims is a Muslim state, even if this majority has been afflicted with some rulers to whom the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, applies, that they do not judge by what Allah has revealed. But this type of ruling, as we all know from the reality of Islamic history and the current reality, varies from state to state. For example, this state is represented by a communist system, and this state is represented by a socialist system... If they were given someone to rule them by this Islam, then I would say what I said, that the aggression was from a Muslim state against a Muslim state. But even so, I want to add something else on the occasion of this question and its answer. It is not upon us whether it is said, as I believe, that a Muslim Arab state aggressed against a Muslim Arab state, because these rulers, first, have not disavowed Islam, even though they contradicted Islam in many of their actions. And second, which is what I want to say now, whether we say these two states are Muslim or we say they are disbelieving—and I do not say this—this aggression does not agree with Islam, nor with the system by which the disbelievers themselves rule. In either case, there is aggression and rebellion. As for the ruling of Islam, it is as you heard in the Qur'an: This is my answer to what you asked.