Regarding the issue of declaring rulers disbelievers, how is the presentation of the proof established?

The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh : Regarding the issue of takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever), and particularly the takfir of rulers, our position on this matter is the position of the people of the Sunnah and the community regarding the prohibition of declaring a specific individual a disbeliever. However, we ask you to shed light on a branch of this issue. We know that we cannot declare a specific person, such as a ruler who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, claims to be a Muslim, and asserts that the religion of the state is Islam, despite the prevalence of corruption in his lands—such as zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), intoxicants, and the open commission of sins and the like—as a disbeliever except after the proof has been established against him. The questions raised are: How is the proof established? Who establishes it? When is it valid to say that we have established the proof against him? What is the nature of this proof? And is it a condition for its establishment that a meeting be held with him? These are questions and difficulties that confront students of knowledge, and they do not find a satisfactory answer for them. We hope that our Shaykh will cool our hearts and satisfy our longing with a decisive answer on this topic. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that the proof is "Allah said" and "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said." And if we know that this is the proof, it is self-evident that we know the other thing, which is the answer to part of the questions that were grouped together: Who establishes this proof? The answer, naturally, is that the one who establishes it is the knowledgeable man who is aware of the meanings of the Book and the Sunnah. It is a common error in this time that many people, who perhaps should not be included in the ranks of students of knowledge, let alone be called people of knowledge, are heard saying, for example, "I established the proof against such-and-such a Sufi," while he is a beginner student of knowledge! He thinks that he has established the proof, yet that Sufi might be a scholar, like many of the scholars of the present day who graduated from some universities, such as Al-Azhar University and others. They are usually strong in what they call the instrumental sciences. So a quasi-student of knowledge comes to debate and discuss with him, and then concludes by saying that he has established the proof against him. No one establishes the proof except one who is firmly established in the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and the sayings of the righteous Salaf (may Allah be pleased with them), as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah says, or as he points to in what is published and famous about him:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said, *** The Companions said, not by deception
"What knowledge is it that you have set up for the foolishness of disagreement between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist?"
To the end of the speech.
The point is: The one who establishes the proof is the one who is firmly established in the Book and the Sunnah and the sayings of the righteous Salaf.
Then, within the folds of this question, it was asked: Must the establishment of the proof be direct, or not?
The answer: Without a doubt, the strongest, clearest, and most explicit proof is confronting the deviant and the misguided face to face with the proof. But if that is not always feasible for some people, or for some callers from among the people of knowledge, then at the very least, a letter should be sent to him. Nowadays, the means of sending, hearing, and conveying are fully facilitated through ways that were not previously available. By this second method as well, it can be said that the proof has been established against such-and-such a person. Ultimately, this precision in these questions benefits us only if the ruling were in our hands, if we were rulers; because the establishment of the proof leads to distinguishing the disbeliever from the Muslim, especially if this Muslim was a Muslim by heritage, and then he did something that takes him out of his religion, making him an apostate. The apostate, in the ruling of Islam, must be killed, as he (peace be upon him) said: .
The establishment of the proof has this significance only if the one establishing the proof holds authority. But if individuals from among the people—even if they are from the people of knowledge—establish the proof against, for example, a certain ruler, and then this ruler continues in his tyranny, it does not benefit us that we established the proof against him, except before Allah (Mighty and Majestic) on the Day of Resurrection; such that he has no excuse left to say, "The people of knowledge did not teach me and did not benefit me." But it is not among the effects of establishing the proof what some extremists among the Muslims today imagine, that since we have established the proof, there is nothing before us but rebellion. This rebellion is not justified by such an establishment of the proof. The establishment of the proof benefits here only in the sense that the one against whom the proof was established does not seize us on the Day of Judgment to say, "Before our Lord, why did you not point me to the truth when you saw me deviating from it?" But it does not mean that it is permissible for us to rebel against these people; because this rebellion, as history in the present age confirms, unfortunately, leads to many and very many harms, including the shedding of souls and the killing of innocents, women, and children, and the like. Therefore, what the Khalaf (the later generations) inherited from the Salaf (the earliest generations) in their beliefs is that it is not permissible to rebel against the rulers. This does not mean that rebellion in principle is not permissible, but rather that this rebellion leads to harm without any benefit.
Now, suppose a scenario where a nation or a group of Muslims prepared the two preparations we mentioned earlier in answering His (Glorified and Exalted is He) saying: ; they prepared completely to the extent that it became their strong opinion that they could overthrow the system of governance. At that point, a stage comes where one can only speak of it, and let no one think that I will say this stage is achieving a revolution or a coup. No, as I have stated in some of my comments and writings, there is nothing in Islam called a military coup or a bloody revolution or the like. But all that these people who prepared this preparation with its two branches—spiritual and material—can do is remove from power the ruler who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, not by revolution or coup, but as He (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: .
Islam, without a doubt, came so that the word of Allah would be the highest, as he (peace be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: , and he (peace be upon him) said in the sound hadith: . At the time when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was sent to call people to worship Allah alone, having no partner, and was sent with the sword as well, it was not sent with the sword except as a means to achieve the call; meaning that the fighting of the Muslims against the disbelievers is not the goal. The only goal is calling the disbelievers to faith in Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So whoever responds—as it came in the hadiths—has what we have and bears what we bear. And whoever refuses—and he has the right to refuse—by the evidence of the well-known verse: ; if he refuses, he is given the choice between two things: either to pay the jizyah (the tax on protected non-Muslims) from the hand while in a state of humiliation, or the sword. So the sword came in the third stage.
We must understand this point well, because the enemies of Islam, whether Westerners or those who imitate the West, take this hadith as a pretext and claim that Islam spread by the force of the sword. As you have seen, the sword comes in the final stage: whoever stands in the way of the call, we stand against him with the sword, and whoever leaves the path of the call open to go as far as he can is left to his own devices, on the condition that we establish for the Islamic ruler that he is subject to its rulings. The evidence for this is that he pays the jizyah (the tax on protected non-Muslims) from the hand while in a state of humiliation. This is a known ruling in Islam. So we return to what we were discussing: if Muslims are afflicted with a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, and they have the spiritual and material readiness to establish the state of Islam, it is not permissible for them to carry out a revolution or a coup. Rather, they must call the ruler to rule by Islam and give him the choice: either rule by what Allah has revealed, or open the way for those who want to rule by what Allah has revealed. If he responds, that is good and excellent, because we treat disbelievers with this treatment, so it is even more so if he displays Islam, as mentioned in the question. If he refuses and stands in the way of these callers, then at that time it is necessary to use the sword. But we say: when? When these people are prepared and ready to confront whoever stands in the way of the Muslim call. As for carrying out a revolution or a military coup, this is not permissible.
Other than that?