Some scholars hold that Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) said, "Disbelief less than disbelief," specifically referring to the injustices committed by the Umayyads.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He saysThe questioner : Some scholars hold that Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) said, "Disbelief less than disbelief," specifically referring to the injustices committed by the Umayyads. As for discarding all Islamic legislation, as is the case in these societies, does this saying not apply to them?
The Shaykh : I do not know who is meant by "some scholars" in this context, nor what their name is, but it is an error in any case. Ibn 'Abbas said this in his interpretation of the verse; therefore, there is no room for applying this report to the rulers of the Umayyads or anyone else. I mean this report, which is based on a misconception. Ibn 'Abbas mentioned this verse and said, "It is not as they think—or as they say—it is only disbelief less than disbelief." 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. They are the ones who do not rule by what Allah has revealed and do not accept it as a judge. Whoever does what they do is like them. However, their action is not merely an action not accompanied by belief; rather, their action is accompanied by belief. That is, they did not believe in the ruling of Allah. Consequently, their rejection of the ruling of Allah is an action. If these two conditions are present in a Muslim ruler, his status is the same as that of the Jews and Christians. That is, if he denies the Shari'ah of Allah, in its entirety or in part, in the depths of his heart, and then proceeds with this denial in his laws and their application, the verse applies to him, because it was revealed regarding the disbelievers, and he has acted and believed in the action and belief of the disbelievers. However, if this ruler or that one believes in the depths of his heart that ruling by what Allah has revealed is obligatory and is the truth, but he justifies his error in leaving the ruling by what Allah has revealed with justifications for which Allah has sent down no authority.
And like this, your minds should not be confined to the rulers alone. Let us pause for a moment regarding those who are not rulers. What do we say about individuals, who are more numerous than the rulers, who consider *riba* (usury or interest) permissible in practice? What is their ruling? Glory to Allah! Even though their evil is great and their number is large, we do not find anyone among them saying that these are disbelievers. Why? Because they do not think about anything other than the ruler! Even though this ruler did not descend from Mars; he is one of them. As the old common saying goes: "The worm in the vinegar is in it." So what is the difference, do you think, between one who considers *riba* (usury or interest) permissible in eating and feeding, in eating and providing food? What is the difference between this and one who does not rule by what Allah has revealed? There is no difference in the Shari'ah of Allah, ever. And on this 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 that the rule for applying this is not for us, because we cannot reach the hearts of these people. Rather, their judgment is with Allah. It is sufficient for us to say that they are all misguided, because they do not rule 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 people, then it is permissible to fight the majority of the Muslim community. Then we ask after that: Who will fight them?
The inquiry returns to those who live in a secular society. Who will fight this secular society and the disbelieving ruler? The disbeliever in belief, action, and lineage. Who will fight? There must be Muslims who have trained in practicing correct Islam, and time has passed for them, so that they have no work left except *jihad* (struggle in the path of Allah) in the path of Allah. These are the ones who perform this obligatory duty. Therefore, we must not forget that the problem is not confined to the rulers, but the problem is confined to the rulers and the ruled together. As proof, you see today so-and-so is the president, and after a few days or many days, you find another president. Where did this one come from? From us and among us. So he was living with the same mind and thought that he lives with now while he is at the head of governance. We must distinguish so that we do not fall into rebellion. 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 action. Action is apparent. We can see that one does not pray, and we can say he does not pray. But we cannot split open 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 is a disbeliever, and his status is the same as that of the Jews and Christians. And whoever has action-based disbelief, his status is the same as that of the open sinners and the lewd, in any type of open sinfulness or lewdness.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that the impact of ... has actually given us a clarification so that we do not fall into excess or negligence. We do not say that the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, whether he is a ruler or a subject; all the judges now, because people's minds first turn to[Al-Ma'idah 5:44] Who is he? The head of state. Well, and the rulers under their authority, whom they call judges today in many Islamic countries, is it true that in many of their rulings 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 people disbelievers with the goal of rebelling against them. So I would go down with them and say to them: What is your opinion about the Sharia judge who rules by the Sharia, but in a certain issue he ruled 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. He always thought about... where? 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 had not thought about it. After a long or short discussion—the matter varies depending on the people—he would say: No, he is not a disbeliever! I would say to him: Why? He said: Because this is only once. We said to him: Okay, let us imagine that this same judge, in another case, also ruled with another judgment contrary to the Sharia. Did he become a disbeliever? Every time he said: No, no! I said to him: When does this Sharia judge become a disbeliever? You cannot say after a certain number of judgments, but rather you say: Even with one judgment, if he knows that it is contrary to the Sharia and he considers it permissible in his heart. As long as he considers ruling by other than what Allah has revealed permissible in his heart, he is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. And whatever violations he commits in the Shari'ah and dealings contrary to the Shari'ah, we cannot declare him a disbeliever. His status is like that of the one who eats *riba* (usury or interest) and the one who facilitates *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 saying.
Yes.
The Shaykh : I do not know who is meant by "some scholars" in this context, nor what their name is, but it is an error in any case. Ibn 'Abbas said this in his interpretation of the verse; therefore, there is no room for applying this report to the rulers of the Umayyads or anyone else. I mean this report, which is based on a misconception. Ibn 'Abbas mentioned this verse and said, "It is not as they think—or as they say—it is only disbelief less than disbelief." 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. They are the ones who do not rule by what Allah has revealed and do not accept it as a judge. Whoever does what they do is like them. However, their action is not merely an action not accompanied by belief; rather, their action is accompanied by belief. That is, they did not believe in the ruling of Allah. Consequently, their rejection of the ruling of Allah is an action. If these two conditions are present in a Muslim ruler, his status is the same as that of the Jews and Christians. That is, if he denies the Shari'ah of Allah, in its entirety or in part, in the depths of his heart, and then proceeds with this denial in his laws and their application, the verse applies to him, because it was revealed regarding the disbelievers, and he has acted and believed in the action and belief of the disbelievers. However, if this ruler or that one believes in the depths of his heart that ruling by what Allah has revealed is obligatory and is the truth, but he justifies his error in leaving the ruling by what Allah has revealed with justifications for which Allah has sent down no authority.
And like this, your minds should not be confined to the rulers alone. Let us pause for a moment regarding those who are not rulers. What do we say about individuals, who are more numerous than the rulers, who consider *riba* (usury or interest) permissible in practice? What is their ruling? Glory to Allah! Even though their evil is great and their number is large, we do not find anyone among them saying that these are disbelievers. Why? Because they do not think about anything other than the ruler! Even though this ruler did not descend from Mars; he is one of them. As the old common saying goes: "The worm in the vinegar is in it." So what is the difference, do you think, between one who considers *riba* (usury or interest) permissible in eating and feeding, in eating and providing food? What is the difference between this and one who does not rule by what Allah has revealed? There is no difference in the Shari'ah of Allah, ever. And on this 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 that the rule for applying this is not for us, because we cannot reach the hearts of these people. Rather, their judgment is with Allah. It is sufficient for us to say that they are all misguided, because they do not rule 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 people, then it is permissible to fight the majority of the Muslim community. Then we ask after that: Who will fight them?
The inquiry returns to those who live in a secular society. Who will fight this secular society and the disbelieving ruler? The disbeliever in belief, action, and lineage. Who will fight? There must be Muslims who have trained in practicing correct Islam, and time has passed for them, so that they have no work left except *jihad* (struggle in the path of Allah) in the path of Allah. These are the ones who perform this obligatory duty. Therefore, we must not forget that the problem is not confined to the rulers, but the problem is confined to the rulers and the ruled together. As proof, you see today so-and-so is the president, and after a few days or many days, you find another president. Where did this one come from? From us and among us. So he was living with the same mind and thought that he lives with now while he is at the head of governance. We must distinguish so that we do not fall into rebellion. 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 action. Action is apparent. We can see that one does not pray, and we can say he does not pray. But we cannot split open 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 is a disbeliever, and his status is the same as that of the Jews and Christians. And whoever has action-based disbelief, his status is the same as that of the open sinners and the lewd, in any type of open sinfulness or lewdness.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that the impact of ... has actually given us a clarification so that we do not fall into excess or negligence. We do not say that the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, whether he is a ruler or a subject; all the judges now, because people's minds first turn to
whoever does not judge
من لم يحكمThe questioner : Takfir and Hijrah.
The Shaykh : Takfir and Hijrah. They were declaring people disbelievers, declaring people disbelievers with the goal of rebelling against them. So I would go down with them and say to them: What is your opinion about the Sharia judge who rules by the Sharia, but in a certain issue he ruled 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. He always thought about... where? 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 had not thought about it. After a long or short discussion—the matter varies depending on the people—he would say: No, he is not a disbeliever! I would say to him: Why? He said: Because this is only once. We said to him: Okay, let us imagine that this same judge, in another case, also ruled with another judgment contrary to the Sharia. Did he become a disbeliever? Every time he said: No, no! I said to him: When does this Sharia judge become a disbeliever? You cannot say after a certain number of judgments, but rather you say: Even with one judgment, if he knows that it is contrary to the Sharia and he considers it permissible in his heart. As long as he considers ruling by other than what Allah has revealed permissible in his heart, he is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. And whatever violations he commits in the Shari'ah and dealings contrary to the Shari'ah, we cannot declare him a disbeliever. His status is like that of the one who eats *riba* (usury or interest) and the one who facilitates *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 saying.
Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.