A debate between Shaykh Al-Albani and another person on the issue of declaring someone a disbeliever, and whether one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Is it clear to you?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Can you give us, I mean, a brief explanation of its meaning?
The questioner : Yes, you may.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : ... defining the limit of Islam or the condition of faith, on the basis of which a person enters Islam, and on the basis of which we can take a person out of Islam into the religion of disbelief.
The Shaykh : Okay; so what is it?
The questioner : It is submission and surrender; that is the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah," and the testimony that "La ilaha illa Allah" is merely a declaration of this submission and surrender.
The Shaykh : Okay, does anyone disagree with you on this?
I mean, it is supposed that when a person or a woman comes with a claim or calls to a call that has distinguishing features over others, otherwise they and others are equal in that call or claim. So what you mentioned, no one disagrees with it, and it is what is usually said: "Two people do not differ on it, and two rams do not butt heads in it." So what has become clear to you by which you are distinguished from the rest of the Muslims? What you mentioned does not distinguish one group from another.
The questioner : I did not mean theoretical acknowledgment of submission and surrender, but practical acknowledgment.
The Shaykh : Yes, and if you bring this addition, it returns to my previous statement entirely: Does any of the Muslim scholars, past or present, say that it is sufficient for salvation with the Lord of the Worlds by verbal acknowledgment? Does any of them say this?
The questioner : Based on that.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me.
The questioner : No one says so.
The Shaykh : Then we remain where we are; it is not something new.
The questioner : We want to understand based on reality... We do not understand based on the texts; the texts, all their meanings, are for jurisprudence - if Allah wills -; I mean, we do not contradict them, but we want to apply the texts to the reality of people.
The Shaykh : Okay, so what is the way to judge the reality of people? I mean, some of the people - for example - you are meeting with now; did you judge them before you contacted them?
The questioner : No, except for the people we contacted.
The Shaykh : Good, so what did those you contacted say regarding this statement that you made? Did they deny it?
The questioner : They acknowledged it.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : They acknowledged it and said that the people who have Islamic culture; I mean, we are not concerned with the ignorant, but the people who have Islamic culture said: We acknowledge this statement and admit it, but... this is the limit of Islam, but people in the realm of remembrance, I mean, it does not benefit people to adhere to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger... except that they are coerced.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : And we say that regarding coercion, coercion is not an excuse; because coercion means it is defined; I mean, it is not... for people to define it as they wish, but coercion as it came and was established... and other than that, it is not right for a person to... by his own choice, or... he defines the coercion.
The Shaykh : So who defines it?
The questioner : The texts, evidence we use to infer coercion from actual events, interpretations of verses...
The Shaykh : You did not answer me, I said: Who defines it? And who understands on behalf of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)?... And those who said what you quoted from them, you said that they are cultured, I mean, and not from the general public; so are these not scholars?
The questioner : I relied on people who preceded, and people who are currently on the scene...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : I relied on scholars.
The Shaykh : You relied on what?
The questioner : In their interpretations of the verse of coercion - for example:[An-Nahl 16:106], I relied - for example - on interpretations by al-Qurtubi, for example, Ibn al-Qayyim, the important thing is this is their understanding; is this not sufficient?
The Shaykh : No, it is sufficient, but the group who are arguing with the words of al-Qurtubi, they are also supposed to be from the people of knowledge; so what makes your judgment over them the judge and what Allah intended?
The questioner : ... the things that were raised are from what is known of the religion by necessity, I mean, as we see from the people of knowledge of the religion by necessity, it is not hidden from anyone, otherwise if there were speech for the specialists and speech for the general public, I mean, Islam cannot be understood by every person; I mean, it is necessary that Islam, simply, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought it... for all people, and he said that every person should understand it, starting from the common person and ending with the scholar, therefore the basic thing we raised does not need much research; and that is that we want to define the entry point only for this religion, on the basis of which we judge our reality, so he said that it is "La ilaha illa Allah," I mean, whoever testifies to it is done, you cannot declare him a disbeliever... no matter what you know, and even if he resorts to the law of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); he said: and even if he resorts to the law of the Messenger (peace be upon him).
The Shaykh : Okay, do these people not say: I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?
The questioner : They say, but.
The Shaykh : Then?
The questioner : But the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah"; I mean, those who testify to it do not act upon it...
The Shaykh : Is acting upon the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah" such that if a person neglects it, he exits the religion? = -- May Allah have mercy on you -- = Did you understand my question?
The questioner : The testimony, I mean, the basic requirement of it, if he neglects it, he exits the religion.
The Shaykh : Good, now we need to distinguish what is the basic thing in it and what is the non-basic thing? Is this distinguished?
The questioner : It is distinguished.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : If Allah wills.
Through the understanding that the Arabs understood... what he intended by this word.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : I tell them they had a specific thing.
The Shaykh : Yes, let us proceed with examples, perhaps they will clarify.
The questioner : Initially, Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) exists, the Arabs did not deny it; even that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is the Creator, the Provider, the Exalter and the Humiliator, I mean, the oneness of lordship in general, I mean, the religion includes it, all humanity shares in it.
The Shaykh : This is known, what else?
The questioner : Therefore, this is not the limit by which we can judge one who tells you that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) exists.
The Shaykh : Please, do not delve into this; because it is agreed upon and known, take another step.
The questioner : Therefore, the second thing people were called to is the oneness of worship; therefore, the title of tawhid is "La ilaha illa Allah."
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : ... the oneness of worship, which includes the oneness of lordship implicitly.
The Shaykh: Of course.
The questioner : Therefore, when the Arabs were addressed with this word, they understood it... truly, not as the ignorant among them understand it; that their understanding of "La ilaha illa Allah" is that there is no surrender, obedience, or submission except to Allah; therefore, the leader of the Arabs said to him when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked what he calls to? He said to him: To "La ilaha illa Allah"; he did not say to him: This is a simple matter, but he said to him: Then the Arabs and non-Arabs will fight you, another one... meaning they felt that this word is a rejection or a revolution against every situation not permitted by Allah, so they knew that they cannot be Muslims except that they act upon the requirement of what? They testify to it theoretically and act upon its requirement practically.
As for the issue facing us today: Is theoretical testimony sufficient, whatever the reality of people is? These people say: It is sufficient, we do not find a source, nor do we find an interpretation, nor do we find a verse, nor... except that all of it means that Islam is submission and surrender, and the testimony that "La ilaha illa Allah" is merely a declaration of a reality, and this is what I have.
The Shaykh : Submission - my brother - when you say: submission; this is very broad speech, so if we assume a person who rules by what Allah has revealed and does not pray; do you say: he submitted to the ruling of Allah?
The questioner : He rules by what Allah has revealed and does not pray?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Prayer does not make one a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Then I ask: Is it sufficient or not sufficient? Is it submission or incomplete submission?
The questioner : Incomplete submission.
The Shaykh : Very good.
Consider this: a man prays but does not judge by what Allah has revealed, following his own desires; is this a complete submission or an incomplete one?
The questioner : This is not correct.
The Shaykh : But I hope you will not rush; understand what I am saying, and then answer me.
The questioner : I understood you: he prays... he establishes all the obligatory acts, but he does not submit to the methodology of Allah.
The Shaykh : No, what?
The questioner : He does not submit to the Shari'ah of Allah.
The Shaykh : I said: he follows his own desires.
The questioner : He follows his own desires.
The Shaykh: Yes.
I did not say that he denies the Shari'ah of Allah. He acknowledges that this is the law of Allah, and he acknowledges that the happiness of people lies in judging by the Shari'ah of Allah, but he follows his own desires. It is like the one who acknowledges that prayer is a pillar of Islam, but does not pray out of laziness and negligence, and so on. So what is the difference between a man who does not judge by what Allah has revealed and does not pray, and is not declared a disbeliever, and a man who prays but does not judge by what Allah has revealed, and is declared a disbeliever? What is the difference between the two cases?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, please go ahead.
The questioner : The difference is that all the rulings that were revealed to the Muslims after their entry into Islam...
The Shaykh : This is an argument against you. You assumed a scenario where a person did everything in Islam except judging by what Allah has revealed; so what made him a disbeliever?
The questioner : ...that a person may fall short... he kills... these rulings...
The Shaykh : No, do not tell me about things that are obvious to me. Tell me about the point of disagreement. Tell me what made this person a disbeliever, whom you described as performing all of Islam except that he does not judge by what Allah has revealed? What made him a disbeliever?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, that he does not judge? And prayer is part of what Allah has ruled; so why do you not declare the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever?
The questioner : I do not declare...
The Shaykh : Do not repeat it to me—may Allah bless you—so that we do not waste time. I am telling you: why do you not declare him a disbeliever? You keep saying: I do not declare him a disbeliever. What do I gain from repeating this negative phrasing? You say: I do not declare him a disbeliever? I understood that you do not declare him a disbeliever. I am asking you why you do not declare him a disbeliever, when he has denied a ruling from what Allah has ruled by?
The questioner : If he denies a ruling, I declare him a disbeliever, but you tell me: perhaps he does not deny it.
The Shaykh : Fine, and regarding the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, I told you: he does not deny it, but he follows his own desires.
The questioner : Only in...
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : The issue is that if a person falls short in the rulings, do you see? he is not considered a disbeliever, but in matters of creed, whose most specific characteristic is submitting to the Shari'ah of Allah, whether in little or much, this is the basis on which he may be declared a disbeliever or...
The Shaykh : So your answer is wrong to my question. I told you: a man does not judge by what Allah has revealed, following his own desires, acknowledging that this is the law of Allah, and that this is what should be implemented on earth so that security and peace prevail, and so on, but he follows his own desires. So you said: this is a disbeliever.
The questioner : ... ؟
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : I mean, how does he follow his desires? I mean, he loves what is forbidden... according to his mood?
The Shaykh : I mean, let me give you an example. It is not according to his mood. Following his desires, my brother. The man I mentioned who steals, knowing that theft is forbidden; did he follow his desires?
The questioner : He followed his desires.
The Shaykh : Okay, so did he become a disbeliever?
The questioner : In the hadith that...
The Shaykh : Did he become a kafir (disbeliever)?
The questioner : ...by the hadith.
The Shaykh : No, my brother, answer me before the hadith—may Allah bless you. Give me your opinion, and then the hadith. I am saying the same thing you said: the man who stole, I did not declare him a disbeliever.
The questioner : But in that case where he steals.
The Shaykh : My brother, we do not need the details; because we do not want to go off the point of discussion. Did you declare the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever? The one who abandons prayer, yes, and did you declare the thief a disbeliever? You did not declare him a disbeliever.
Fine.
The questioner : You do not declare him a disbeliever. I am telling you a word...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, I will build on this, if you allow me. I will build on this.
Is the one who abandons prayer not following his desires?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the one who steals the money of people and consumes it wrongfully, is he not following his desires?
The questioner : He is following his desires.
The Shaykh : So following desires, mere following of desires and acting contrary to what Allah commanded, this alone does not suffice to declare the one who follows his desires a disbeliever, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so I assumed for you a scenario where a ruler judges and knows that he is judging by other than what Allah has revealed, but in that, he is not denying the ruling by what Allah has revealed, but he is following his desires, just as is the case with the one who abandons prayer and the thief. So what made the one who follows his desires in judging by other than what Allah has revealed a disbeliever, and did not make the one who follows his desires in theft and abandoning prayer, and similar sins and obligations that he abandons, a disbeliever? What distinguished this from that?
The questioner : What made him... is that when a person is asked to be a Muslim, he is not asked to be an angel. He makes mistakes and errs, but even in the sin in which he disobeys Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), he submits to the Shari'ah of Allah.
The Shaykh : This is a deviation, Professor. This is a deviation from the question. I am saying: what made the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, following his desires and not denying the ruling of Allah, a disbeliever? I am not asking you to justify to me why this one did not become a disbeliever and that one did not become a disbeliever? The one who abandons prayer and the thief, I am not asking you about that. I am asking you about the point of disagreement: what made the one who abandons judging by what Allah has revealed, not denying what Allah has revealed, but following his desires, a disbeliever? So I hope you will circle around this, and not tell me that a person is not an angel so he does not disobey Allah; because that is a settled matter we agree on. But tell me what made the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, following his desires, a disbeliever?
The questioner : By the indication... that why do people always deviate from Islam except for their desires? ...he deviates from Islam.
The Shaykh : Likewise, what makes the one who abandons prayer deviate from prayer except his desires? So you want to say that every one who abandons anything... of Islam is following his desires, so he is a disbeliever... by this. So I am circling and asking you to clarify the difference. What is the dividing line between an act that if a person abandons it from what Allah has obligated upon him, he becomes a disbeliever, and an act that if he abandons it, he is not a disbeliever? What is the dividing line, I mean?
The questioner : The dividing line is that the Shari'ah of Allah is implemented.
The Shaykh : I am asking you about the person, I am not asking you about the Shari'ah of Allah. This person is a disbeliever and that one is not; what is the dividing line?
The questioner : I mean... that a person exists on earth, but there is an Islamic community existing on its own. Why... you come and say that we took the ruler, you took the ruler... the ruler does not judge by what Allah has revealed, he follows his desires; therefore this does not take him out of Islam because he follows his desires.
The Shaykh : I did not say: he does not go out or he goes out. I have not yet given you my opinion. I am asking you: what is the difference between this and that? ...the difference. I mean, you are now contradicting yourself in the strongest contradiction. A person abandons a ruling from what Allah commanded, so he is not a disbeliever, and another person abandons a ruling from what Allah commanded, so he is a disbeliever. What is the dividing line for you between this and that? I have not given you my opinion. If you wish, I will give you my opinion.
The questioner : The dividing line is when he abandons a ruling... upon him, but he is not declared a disbeliever for it.
The Shaykh : Okay, you are declaring him a disbeliever.
The questioner : ... ؟
The Shaykh : You are declaring disbelievers not only the rulers, but those who live under the authority of these rulers. What is the evidence for declaring these people disbelievers?
The questioner : The same point is that when a person means to fall short in any of the rulings, he is held accountable for it.
The Shaykh : Who holds him accountable?
The questioner : The existing Islamic Shari'ah holds him accountable for it.
The Shaykh : Okay, the Shari'ah is not implemented now... it is a vicious circle with no beginning and no end.
The questioner : The Shari'ah...
The Shaykh : You are saying: the Shari'ah. Who applies the Shari'ah?
The questioner : The Shari'ah is not... what is their position regarding establishing a Shari'ah that does not exist? This is what... that people are tested with a Shari'ah that Allah has not permitted, and they want to be Muslims. So the thing that brings them into Islam is that they work to establish the gathering... this existing gathering, and its rulings are based on the system of Islam.
The Shaykh : Yes, and all the Islamic sects and Islamic parties work for this.
The questioner : But they have not separated their people from this truth.
The Shaykh : This separation, this is the decisive evidence in the matter. So, is the fact that he does not separate [himself from them] disbelief? This is an action, and the worst that can be said about it is that it is a sin and forbidden, and so on. So, did you make this disbelief?
The questioner : ... on the truth; so why does he not separate himself from the people?
The Shaykh : Because he follows his desires.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How is there no desire?
The questioner : The matter, the matter is that this is a methodology for the creed. This is the methodology of the creed. When you take the creed, any movement from the Qur'an regarding the method of conveying this creed to the people must... meaning, they have no right to change it; and if they change it, they have committed shirk (associating partners with Allah); because this is a creed, meaning it is not specific rulings for a group, but a creed. Just as you take the creed, you take the methodology of conveying it.
The Shaykh : ... meaning, it moves from one point to another. Okay, do you allow me to tell you something? What is your opinion about it?
What we understood from Islam is that disbelief is divided into two categories:
Disbelief of belief and disbelief of action. Disbelief of belief is that by which its owner is declared a disbeliever, meaning the action here is an action of the heart, not an action of the limbs. And disbelief =
= of action is that by which its owner is not declared a disbeliever, but rather he is declared an open sinner.
So, for example, I distinguish between a person who denies the prayer and says: "This was legislated for Arab Bedouins... and so on. Now, with civilization, science, and hygiene, and so on, there is no need for prayer." This is disbelief of belief, so there is no doubt in his exiting the religion. Similarly, a person who says: "Allah's law was suitable and applied in a past era, but today it is not suitable for application." This person is like that one, a disbeliever without doubt or hesitation.
If we return to the first, let us take a second example: another person who does not pray. Why do you not pray? He tells you: "May Allah accept our repentance. Satan, desire, work, and so on." He gives you purely material excuses. You understand from this that the man acknowledges the legitimacy of the prayer, but he is following his desire. He does not strive in the path of Allah, in the path of striving against his desire, so that he can free himself a little from worldly work, perform wudu' (the ablution for prayer), and pray, even if it is four rak'ahs (units of prayer), or three, or two. We do not declare him a disbeliever or an apostate because he acknowledged Allah's ruling regarding the prayer, and at the same time, he acknowledged that he is wrong in leaving the prayer. And in the depths of his heart, and in his conversation with the people who remind him, he says: "May Allah accept our repentance..." This person is not declared a disbeliever; despite the fact that he is equal to that other one in that neither of them prays, but we distinguished between the first and declared him a disbeliever, and between the second and did not declare him a disbeliever.
The questioner : Because... disbelief.
The Shaykh : Why? What is our basis for the distinction? This is what I was asking you about. It is that this one is a believer in his heart, an open sinner in his action, leaving the prayer. That one is a disbeliever in his heart, denying Allah's law, of which the prayer is a part.
I think the two examples are clear here; is that not so? And you have no doubt or hesitation in this.
Now we return to a person who rules by other than what Allah has revealed. This, also, we envision in him the same two previous images as in the one who leaves the prayer. Either he acknowledges that Allah's law is what should be ruled by, or he denies it. If he denies it, his case is the case of the one who denies the prayer. If he acknowledges it but does not rule by what Allah has revealed, his case is the case of the one who acknowledges the obligation of the prayer but leaves performing it. So, we must always envision in our minds two rulers, both of whom do not rule by what Allah has revealed, but one of them acknowledges that ruling by what Allah has revealed is the obligatory and the required. So, he is a Muslim but an open sinner. Because of what? His leaving the ruling by what Allah has revealed in practice, like the one who leaves the prayer while acknowledging it.
The questioner : And it is not obligatory to rebel against him!!
The Shaykh : That is what we need to investigate now. Let us finish the first point, may Allah reward you. Whether it is permissible to rebel against him or not, that is a second investigation. We may agree or we may disagree. What matters to us now? We need to finish the basic point in the matter.
So, this ruler is of two types. One of them acknowledges that Allah's ruling is what must be ruled by on earth. He actually does not rule by it. Is he a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion? No, how can he be, when he acknowledges that this is Allah's ruling and this is what must rule and prevail? So, we say about him: This is an open sinner and not a disbeliever; because he did not deny anything of the religion at all. As for the other who says that this Islam was suitable in the past, but today it is not suitable; this one has apostatized from his religion.
To clarify this reality that appears in the matter of the one who leaves ruling by what Allah has revealed, so we made it into two categories, and in the matter of the one who leaves the prayer, so we made it into two categories; this is what we benefited from the interpreter of the Qur'an, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), when he interpreted the saying of Allah - Blessed and Exalted is He - :[Al-Ma'idah 5:44] He said: "Disbelief less than disbelief." His example: What we presented to you. A person rules by other than what Allah has revealed and tells you: "No Allah and no Messenger." This is the disbelief after which there is no disbelief. Another person rules by other than what Allah has revealed but says: "I wish that this religion would be ruled by and be the prevailing system... but may Allah curse the desire, the self, and Satan, and so on." This is disbelief less than disbelief. This is the statement of Ibn 'Abbas.
So, any Muslim who does not follow this detail, whether he knows it or not, is included with the Khawarij (an early sect that declared sinners disbelievers) who declare a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and does everything Allah commanded, but neglected something, a disbeliever. And you yourself felt what is his status until we envision perfection in everything in him. Okay, if the matter is so, and this is Allah's ruling on earth, that a person is not declared a disbeliever except by his denial of what he entered into, he is not declared a disbeliever by his leaving of what he adopted and believed. If you know this detail and return to some of the examples that you mentioned in the context of your speech, you say, for example, he believes that Allah's law must be the ruling one, but what? He supports the rulers who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. This is an action. The worst of its cases, you say, is that it is open sinfulness. As for it being disbelief, apostasy from the religion; this person did not deny anything in his heart for you to rule that he is a disbeliever. And if a person does not believe in this clarification and this detail, then he himself is a disbeliever in his own view, because he does not bring a proof against another person that he is a disbeliever, and the proof is that he does not act upon Islam, or rather, upon some of Islam. So, the one who declares disbelief will fall into the same thing he attributes to others. Indeed, perhaps the case is as it was said in the old Arabic proverb: "She threw her illness at me and slipped away." That one does not declare others disbelievers, but you - may Allah forbid - are declaring him a disbeliever. Why are you declaring him a disbeliever? Because he leaves acting upon some of Islam. Okay, so am I, or you, or is any of us better than the one who knows all of Islam? You said it before; no, I do not envision that; because he is not the owner of it.
So, my brother, we need a criterion, we need a rule by which we know what makes one a disbeliever and what does not. The criterion and the rule is: The faith that settled in the heart, or its opposite. If the denial of something settled and became established in the heart, as you said in the context of your speech on another occasion, of what is known from the religion by necessity, this is a disbeliever; because it is a matter of the heart. But if he acknowledges in his heart what Allah has legislated, but in practice he follows his desire, then it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever. And if this one is declared a disbeliever, then there is no Muslim on the face of the earth at all.
And to clarify the first matter, which is the one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, we give a simple example. A judge rules by Islamic law. Two litigants came to him, and he understood the dispute between them and knew that the truth is with number one, and the falsehood is with number two. Number two bribed him with a bribe, so he gave the right that belongs to number one to number two. Did this rule by other than what Allah has revealed or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is a deviation, this is a deviation, and how often one deviates, and I do not know why one deviates. Did this rule by other than what Allah has revealed or by what Allah has revealed?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did they declare al-Hajjaj a disbeliever?
The questioner : Al-Hajjaj... ruled by what Allah has revealed.
The Shaykh : Answer my question...
Another questioner : Did he rule by what Allah has revealed or did he not rule?
The questioner : Each one of them, on this basis, declares every single one of them a disbeliever...
Another questioner : ... He tells you: Is the ruling one made without what Allah revealed, or is it not?
The questioner : What is the ruling on...
Another questioner : This is what he wants...
The Shaykh : I am asking you a question: Is it a ruling made without what Allah revealed, or a ruling made in accordance with what Allah revealed? You tell me: It is wrong.
My brother, please give the answer; is it a ruling made in accordance with what Allah revealed, or without what Allah revealed?
The questioner : What is the ruling on...
The Shaykh : Fine, that is the answer.
The questioner : But this statement...
The Shaykh : But, my brother, but, may Allah bless you, it is a ruling made without what Allah revealed; is that not so?
The questioner: All right.
The Shaykh : Okay, what did our Lord say?
The questioner :[Al-Ma'idah 5:44] .
The Shaykh, is this a disbeliever?
Another questioner : Of course not.
The questioner : I do not consider this a disbeliever; because Islam is not being applied, meaning, the apparent deed of his is the secret that I want to convey to you.
The Shaykh : This secret that you have not yet told us, tell me: Is this disbelief?
The questioner : No, it is not disbelief.
The Shaykh : Even though he ruled without what Allah revealed!
The questioner : It is not disbelief.
The Shaykh : Even though he ruled without what Allah revealed!
The questioner : No, but he...
The Shaykh : How is it not?
The questioner : The applied Shari'ah...
The Shaykh : How is it not, my brother? Your words are being recorded, you are contradicting yourself now, I am telling you: Even though he ruled without what Allah revealed; you tell me: No. The negation of a negation is an affirmation in the understanding of the scholars, if someone tells you: So-and-so does not lie; and you say to him: No; what does that mean?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The negation of a negation is an affirmation, this is a ruling made without what Allah revealed; is that not so? How did you know?
The questioner : How did you know? It is a matter of the heart.
The Shaykh : We saw that he gave the right to the one who is in the wrong, glory be to Allah! He gave us a clear example, meaning, a man usurped a piece of land from a person, and the one whose land was usurped went to complain to the Shari'ah judge, so the Shari'ah judge, knowing that the land belongs to the usurper, ruled in favor of the usurper, for a bribe, for status, for fear, for... for any reason from the causes of this world, he ruled that the land belongs to the wrongdoer, the usurper, we agreed that this is a ruling made without what Allah revealed; is that not so?
The questioner : But the apparent...
The Shaykh : He does not answer!!
The questioner : I want to ask you so that I can answer you.
The Shaykh : There is no need to ask me if the light is on or not, asking about the basics - Professor - is a waste of time.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is the problem for you? A person whose land I usurped, and we came to the judge, Shaykh Ahmad, to rule in accordance with what Allah revealed, so he feared me or took a bribe from me or any other reason; so he ruled that the land is mine, while in reality it is yours and he knows that, so is this a ruling made without what Allah revealed or not? ...
The questioner : Why do I not rule with it?
The Shaykh : Do not rule with it, what?
The questioner : The apparent is that he ruled with Islam, but if he deviated from Islam for one of the reasons, I do not declare him a disbeliever, but when I came and sought his judgment, I know that he rules with Islam...
Another questioner : You thought that he did not rule with Islam!
The Shaykh : What do you think about letting him hear his own words?
Another questioner : You thought that he did not rule with Islam!
The Shaykh : Let him feel that...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Can you give us, I mean, a brief explanation of its meaning?
The questioner : Yes, you may.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : ... defining the limit of Islam or the condition of faith, on the basis of which a person enters Islam, and on the basis of which we can take a person out of Islam into the religion of disbelief.
The Shaykh : Okay; so what is it?
The questioner : It is submission and surrender; that is the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah," and the testimony that "La ilaha illa Allah" is merely a declaration of this submission and surrender.
The Shaykh : Okay, does anyone disagree with you on this?
I mean, it is supposed that when a person or a woman comes with a claim or calls to a call that has distinguishing features over others, otherwise they and others are equal in that call or claim. So what you mentioned, no one disagrees with it, and it is what is usually said: "Two people do not differ on it, and two rams do not butt heads in it." So what has become clear to you by which you are distinguished from the rest of the Muslims? What you mentioned does not distinguish one group from another.
The questioner : I did not mean theoretical acknowledgment of submission and surrender, but practical acknowledgment.
The Shaykh : Yes, and if you bring this addition, it returns to my previous statement entirely: Does any of the Muslim scholars, past or present, say that it is sufficient for salvation with the Lord of the Worlds by verbal acknowledgment? Does any of them say this?
The questioner : Based on that.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me.
The questioner : No one says so.
The Shaykh : Then we remain where we are; it is not something new.
The questioner : We want to understand based on reality... We do not understand based on the texts; the texts, all their meanings, are for jurisprudence - if Allah wills -; I mean, we do not contradict them, but we want to apply the texts to the reality of people.
The Shaykh : Okay, so what is the way to judge the reality of people? I mean, some of the people - for example - you are meeting with now; did you judge them before you contacted them?
The questioner : No, except for the people we contacted.
The Shaykh : Good, so what did those you contacted say regarding this statement that you made? Did they deny it?
The questioner : They acknowledged it.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : They acknowledged it and said that the people who have Islamic culture; I mean, we are not concerned with the ignorant, but the people who have Islamic culture said: We acknowledge this statement and admit it, but... this is the limit of Islam, but people in the realm of remembrance, I mean, it does not benefit people to adhere to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger... except that they are coerced.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : And we say that regarding coercion, coercion is not an excuse; because coercion means it is defined; I mean, it is not... for people to define it as they wish, but coercion as it came and was established... and other than that, it is not right for a person to... by his own choice, or... he defines the coercion.
The Shaykh : So who defines it?
The questioner : The texts, evidence we use to infer coercion from actual events, interpretations of verses...
The Shaykh : You did not answer me, I said: Who defines it? And who understands on behalf of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)?... And those who said what you quoted from them, you said that they are cultured, I mean, and not from the general public; so are these not scholars?
The questioner : I relied on people who preceded, and people who are currently on the scene...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : I relied on scholars.
The Shaykh : You relied on what?
The questioner : In their interpretations of the verse of coercion - for example:
except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith
إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِThe Shaykh : No, it is sufficient, but the group who are arguing with the words of al-Qurtubi, they are also supposed to be from the people of knowledge; so what makes your judgment over them the judge and what Allah intended?
The questioner : ... the things that were raised are from what is known of the religion by necessity, I mean, as we see from the people of knowledge of the religion by necessity, it is not hidden from anyone, otherwise if there were speech for the specialists and speech for the general public, I mean, Islam cannot be understood by every person; I mean, it is necessary that Islam, simply, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought it... for all people, and he said that every person should understand it, starting from the common person and ending with the scholar, therefore the basic thing we raised does not need much research; and that is that we want to define the entry point only for this religion, on the basis of which we judge our reality, so he said that it is "La ilaha illa Allah," I mean, whoever testifies to it is done, you cannot declare him a disbeliever... no matter what you know, and even if he resorts to the law of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); he said: and even if he resorts to the law of the Messenger (peace be upon him).
The Shaykh : Okay, do these people not say: I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?
The questioner : They say, but.
The Shaykh : Then?
The questioner : But the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah"; I mean, those who testify to it do not act upon it...
The Shaykh : Is acting upon the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah" such that if a person neglects it, he exits the religion? = -- May Allah have mercy on you -- = Did you understand my question?
The questioner : The testimony, I mean, the basic requirement of it, if he neglects it, he exits the religion.
The Shaykh : Good, now we need to distinguish what is the basic thing in it and what is the non-basic thing? Is this distinguished?
The questioner : It is distinguished.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : If Allah wills.
Through the understanding that the Arabs understood... what he intended by this word.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : I tell them they had a specific thing.
The Shaykh : Yes, let us proceed with examples, perhaps they will clarify.
The questioner : Initially, Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) exists, the Arabs did not deny it; even that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is the Creator, the Provider, the Exalter and the Humiliator, I mean, the oneness of lordship in general, I mean, the religion includes it, all humanity shares in it.
The Shaykh : This is known, what else?
The questioner : Therefore, this is not the limit by which we can judge one who tells you that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) exists.
The Shaykh : Please, do not delve into this; because it is agreed upon and known, take another step.
The questioner : Therefore, the second thing people were called to is the oneness of worship; therefore, the title of tawhid is "La ilaha illa Allah."
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : ... the oneness of worship, which includes the oneness of lordship implicitly.
The Shaykh: Of course.
The questioner : Therefore, when the Arabs were addressed with this word, they understood it... truly, not as the ignorant among them understand it; that their understanding of "La ilaha illa Allah" is that there is no surrender, obedience, or submission except to Allah; therefore, the leader of the Arabs said to him when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked what he calls to? He said to him: To "La ilaha illa Allah"; he did not say to him: This is a simple matter, but he said to him: Then the Arabs and non-Arabs will fight you, another one... meaning they felt that this word is a rejection or a revolution against every situation not permitted by Allah, so they knew that they cannot be Muslims except that they act upon the requirement of what? They testify to it theoretically and act upon its requirement practically.
As for the issue facing us today: Is theoretical testimony sufficient, whatever the reality of people is? These people say: It is sufficient, we do not find a source, nor do we find an interpretation, nor do we find a verse, nor... except that all of it means that Islam is submission and surrender, and the testimony that "La ilaha illa Allah" is merely a declaration of a reality, and this is what I have.
The Shaykh : Submission - my brother - when you say: submission; this is very broad speech, so if we assume a person who rules by what Allah has revealed and does not pray; do you say: he submitted to the ruling of Allah?
The questioner : He rules by what Allah has revealed and does not pray?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Prayer does not make one a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Then I ask: Is it sufficient or not sufficient? Is it submission or incomplete submission?
The questioner : Incomplete submission.
The Shaykh : Very good.
Consider this: a man prays but does not judge by what Allah has revealed, following his own desires; is this a complete submission or an incomplete one?
The questioner : This is not correct.
The Shaykh : But I hope you will not rush; understand what I am saying, and then answer me.
The questioner : I understood you: he prays... he establishes all the obligatory acts, but he does not submit to the methodology of Allah.
The Shaykh : No, what?
The questioner : He does not submit to the Shari'ah of Allah.
The Shaykh : I said: he follows his own desires.
The questioner : He follows his own desires.
The Shaykh: Yes.
I did not say that he denies the Shari'ah of Allah. He acknowledges that this is the law of Allah, and he acknowledges that the happiness of people lies in judging by the Shari'ah of Allah, but he follows his own desires. It is like the one who acknowledges that prayer is a pillar of Islam, but does not pray out of laziness and negligence, and so on. So what is the difference between a man who does not judge by what Allah has revealed and does not pray, and is not declared a disbeliever, and a man who prays but does not judge by what Allah has revealed, and is declared a disbeliever? What is the difference between the two cases?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, please go ahead.
The questioner : The difference is that all the rulings that were revealed to the Muslims after their entry into Islam...
The Shaykh : This is an argument against you. You assumed a scenario where a person did everything in Islam except judging by what Allah has revealed; so what made him a disbeliever?
The questioner : ...that a person may fall short... he kills... these rulings...
The Shaykh : No, do not tell me about things that are obvious to me. Tell me about the point of disagreement. Tell me what made this person a disbeliever, whom you described as performing all of Islam except that he does not judge by what Allah has revealed? What made him a disbeliever?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, that he does not judge? And prayer is part of what Allah has ruled; so why do you not declare the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever?
The questioner : I do not declare...
The Shaykh : Do not repeat it to me—may Allah bless you—so that we do not waste time. I am telling you: why do you not declare him a disbeliever? You keep saying: I do not declare him a disbeliever. What do I gain from repeating this negative phrasing? You say: I do not declare him a disbeliever? I understood that you do not declare him a disbeliever. I am asking you why you do not declare him a disbeliever, when he has denied a ruling from what Allah has ruled by?
The questioner : If he denies a ruling, I declare him a disbeliever, but you tell me: perhaps he does not deny it.
The Shaykh : Fine, and regarding the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, I told you: he does not deny it, but he follows his own desires.
The questioner : Only in...
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : The issue is that if a person falls short in the rulings, do you see? he is not considered a disbeliever, but in matters of creed, whose most specific characteristic is submitting to the Shari'ah of Allah, whether in little or much, this is the basis on which he may be declared a disbeliever or...
The Shaykh : So your answer is wrong to my question. I told you: a man does not judge by what Allah has revealed, following his own desires, acknowledging that this is the law of Allah, and that this is what should be implemented on earth so that security and peace prevail, and so on, but he follows his own desires. So you said: this is a disbeliever.
The questioner : ... ؟
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : I mean, how does he follow his desires? I mean, he loves what is forbidden... according to his mood?
The Shaykh : I mean, let me give you an example. It is not according to his mood. Following his desires, my brother. The man I mentioned who steals, knowing that theft is forbidden; did he follow his desires?
The questioner : He followed his desires.
The Shaykh : Okay, so did he become a disbeliever?
The questioner : In the hadith that...
The Shaykh : Did he become a kafir (disbeliever)?
The questioner : ...by the hadith.
The Shaykh : No, my brother, answer me before the hadith—may Allah bless you. Give me your opinion, and then the hadith. I am saying the same thing you said: the man who stole, I did not declare him a disbeliever.
The questioner : But in that case where he steals.
The Shaykh : My brother, we do not need the details; because we do not want to go off the point of discussion. Did you declare the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever? The one who abandons prayer, yes, and did you declare the thief a disbeliever? You did not declare him a disbeliever.
Fine.
The questioner : You do not declare him a disbeliever. I am telling you a word...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, I will build on this, if you allow me. I will build on this.
Is the one who abandons prayer not following his desires?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the one who steals the money of people and consumes it wrongfully, is he not following his desires?
The questioner : He is following his desires.
The Shaykh : So following desires, mere following of desires and acting contrary to what Allah commanded, this alone does not suffice to declare the one who follows his desires a disbeliever, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so I assumed for you a scenario where a ruler judges and knows that he is judging by other than what Allah has revealed, but in that, he is not denying the ruling by what Allah has revealed, but he is following his desires, just as is the case with the one who abandons prayer and the thief. So what made the one who follows his desires in judging by other than what Allah has revealed a disbeliever, and did not make the one who follows his desires in theft and abandoning prayer, and similar sins and obligations that he abandons, a disbeliever? What distinguished this from that?
The questioner : What made him... is that when a person is asked to be a Muslim, he is not asked to be an angel. He makes mistakes and errs, but even in the sin in which he disobeys Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), he submits to the Shari'ah of Allah.
The Shaykh : This is a deviation, Professor. This is a deviation from the question. I am saying: what made the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, following his desires and not denying the ruling of Allah, a disbeliever? I am not asking you to justify to me why this one did not become a disbeliever and that one did not become a disbeliever? The one who abandons prayer and the thief, I am not asking you about that. I am asking you about the point of disagreement: what made the one who abandons judging by what Allah has revealed, not denying what Allah has revealed, but following his desires, a disbeliever? So I hope you will circle around this, and not tell me that a person is not an angel so he does not disobey Allah; because that is a settled matter we agree on. But tell me what made the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, following his desires, a disbeliever?
The questioner : By the indication... that why do people always deviate from Islam except for their desires? ...he deviates from Islam.
The Shaykh : Likewise, what makes the one who abandons prayer deviate from prayer except his desires? So you want to say that every one who abandons anything... of Islam is following his desires, so he is a disbeliever... by this. So I am circling and asking you to clarify the difference. What is the dividing line between an act that if a person abandons it from what Allah has obligated upon him, he becomes a disbeliever, and an act that if he abandons it, he is not a disbeliever? What is the dividing line, I mean?
The questioner : The dividing line is that the Shari'ah of Allah is implemented.
The Shaykh : I am asking you about the person, I am not asking you about the Shari'ah of Allah. This person is a disbeliever and that one is not; what is the dividing line?
The questioner : I mean... that a person exists on earth, but there is an Islamic community existing on its own. Why... you come and say that we took the ruler, you took the ruler... the ruler does not judge by what Allah has revealed, he follows his desires; therefore this does not take him out of Islam because he follows his desires.
The Shaykh : I did not say: he does not go out or he goes out. I have not yet given you my opinion. I am asking you: what is the difference between this and that? ...the difference. I mean, you are now contradicting yourself in the strongest contradiction. A person abandons a ruling from what Allah commanded, so he is not a disbeliever, and another person abandons a ruling from what Allah commanded, so he is a disbeliever. What is the dividing line for you between this and that? I have not given you my opinion. If you wish, I will give you my opinion.
The questioner : The dividing line is when he abandons a ruling... upon him, but he is not declared a disbeliever for it.
The Shaykh : Okay, you are declaring him a disbeliever.
The questioner : ... ؟
The Shaykh : You are declaring disbelievers not only the rulers, but those who live under the authority of these rulers. What is the evidence for declaring these people disbelievers?
The questioner : The same point is that when a person means to fall short in any of the rulings, he is held accountable for it.
The Shaykh : Who holds him accountable?
The questioner : The existing Islamic Shari'ah holds him accountable for it.
The Shaykh : Okay, the Shari'ah is not implemented now... it is a vicious circle with no beginning and no end.
The questioner : The Shari'ah...
The Shaykh : You are saying: the Shari'ah. Who applies the Shari'ah?
The questioner : The Shari'ah is not... what is their position regarding establishing a Shari'ah that does not exist? This is what... that people are tested with a Shari'ah that Allah has not permitted, and they want to be Muslims. So the thing that brings them into Islam is that they work to establish the gathering... this existing gathering, and its rulings are based on the system of Islam.
The Shaykh : Yes, and all the Islamic sects and Islamic parties work for this.
The questioner : But they have not separated their people from this truth.
The Shaykh : This separation, this is the decisive evidence in the matter. So, is the fact that he does not separate [himself from them] disbelief? This is an action, and the worst that can be said about it is that it is a sin and forbidden, and so on. So, did you make this disbelief?
The questioner : ... on the truth; so why does he not separate himself from the people?
The Shaykh : Because he follows his desires.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How is there no desire?
The questioner : The matter, the matter is that this is a methodology for the creed. This is the methodology of the creed. When you take the creed, any movement from the Qur'an regarding the method of conveying this creed to the people must... meaning, they have no right to change it; and if they change it, they have committed shirk (associating partners with Allah); because this is a creed, meaning it is not specific rulings for a group, but a creed. Just as you take the creed, you take the methodology of conveying it.
The Shaykh : ... meaning, it moves from one point to another. Okay, do you allow me to tell you something? What is your opinion about it?
What we understood from Islam is that disbelief is divided into two categories:
Disbelief of belief and disbelief of action. Disbelief of belief is that by which its owner is declared a disbeliever, meaning the action here is an action of the heart, not an action of the limbs. And disbelief =
= of action is that by which its owner is not declared a disbeliever, but rather he is declared an open sinner.
So, for example, I distinguish between a person who denies the prayer and says: "This was legislated for Arab Bedouins... and so on. Now, with civilization, science, and hygiene, and so on, there is no need for prayer." This is disbelief of belief, so there is no doubt in his exiting the religion. Similarly, a person who says: "Allah's law was suitable and applied in a past era, but today it is not suitable for application." This person is like that one, a disbeliever without doubt or hesitation.
If we return to the first, let us take a second example: another person who does not pray. Why do you not pray? He tells you: "May Allah accept our repentance. Satan, desire, work, and so on." He gives you purely material excuses. You understand from this that the man acknowledges the legitimacy of the prayer, but he is following his desire. He does not strive in the path of Allah, in the path of striving against his desire, so that he can free himself a little from worldly work, perform wudu' (the ablution for prayer), and pray, even if it is four rak'ahs (units of prayer), or three, or two. We do not declare him a disbeliever or an apostate because he acknowledged Allah's ruling regarding the prayer, and at the same time, he acknowledged that he is wrong in leaving the prayer. And in the depths of his heart, and in his conversation with the people who remind him, he says: "May Allah accept our repentance..." This person is not declared a disbeliever; despite the fact that he is equal to that other one in that neither of them prays, but we distinguished between the first and declared him a disbeliever, and between the second and did not declare him a disbeliever.
The questioner : Because... disbelief.
The Shaykh : Why? What is our basis for the distinction? This is what I was asking you about. It is that this one is a believer in his heart, an open sinner in his action, leaving the prayer. That one is a disbeliever in his heart, denying Allah's law, of which the prayer is a part.
I think the two examples are clear here; is that not so? And you have no doubt or hesitation in this.
Now we return to a person who rules by other than what Allah has revealed. This, also, we envision in him the same two previous images as in the one who leaves the prayer. Either he acknowledges that Allah's law is what should be ruled by, or he denies it. If he denies it, his case is the case of the one who denies the prayer. If he acknowledges it but does not rule by what Allah has revealed, his case is the case of the one who acknowledges the obligation of the prayer but leaves performing it. So, we must always envision in our minds two rulers, both of whom do not rule by what Allah has revealed, but one of them acknowledges that ruling by what Allah has revealed is the obligatory and the required. So, he is a Muslim but an open sinner. Because of what? His leaving the ruling by what Allah has revealed in practice, like the one who leaves the prayer while acknowledging it.
The questioner : And it is not obligatory to rebel against him!!
The Shaykh : That is what we need to investigate now. Let us finish the first point, may Allah reward you. Whether it is permissible to rebel against him or not, that is a second investigation. We may agree or we may disagree. What matters to us now? We need to finish the basic point in the matter.
So, this ruler is of two types. One of them acknowledges that Allah's ruling is what must be ruled by on earth. He actually does not rule by it. Is he a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion? No, how can he be, when he acknowledges that this is Allah's ruling and this is what must rule and prevail? So, we say about him: This is an open sinner and not a disbeliever; because he did not deny anything of the religion at all. As for the other who says that this Islam was suitable in the past, but today it is not suitable; this one has apostatized from his religion.
To clarify this reality that appears in the matter of the one who leaves ruling by what Allah has revealed, so we made it into two categories, and in the matter of the one who leaves the prayer, so we made it into two categories; this is what we benefited from the interpreter of the Qur'an, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), when he interpreted the saying of Allah - Blessed and Exalted is He - :
And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَSo, any Muslim who does not follow this detail, whether he knows it or not, is included with the Khawarij (an early sect that declared sinners disbelievers) who declare a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and does everything Allah commanded, but neglected something, a disbeliever. And you yourself felt what is his status until we envision perfection in everything in him. Okay, if the matter is so, and this is Allah's ruling on earth, that a person is not declared a disbeliever except by his denial of what he entered into, he is not declared a disbeliever by his leaving of what he adopted and believed. If you know this detail and return to some of the examples that you mentioned in the context of your speech, you say, for example, he believes that Allah's law must be the ruling one, but what? He supports the rulers who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. This is an action. The worst of its cases, you say, is that it is open sinfulness. As for it being disbelief, apostasy from the religion; this person did not deny anything in his heart for you to rule that he is a disbeliever. And if a person does not believe in this clarification and this detail, then he himself is a disbeliever in his own view, because he does not bring a proof against another person that he is a disbeliever, and the proof is that he does not act upon Islam, or rather, upon some of Islam. So, the one who declares disbelief will fall into the same thing he attributes to others. Indeed, perhaps the case is as it was said in the old Arabic proverb: "She threw her illness at me and slipped away." That one does not declare others disbelievers, but you - may Allah forbid - are declaring him a disbeliever. Why are you declaring him a disbeliever? Because he leaves acting upon some of Islam. Okay, so am I, or you, or is any of us better than the one who knows all of Islam? You said it before; no, I do not envision that; because he is not the owner of it.
So, my brother, we need a criterion, we need a rule by which we know what makes one a disbeliever and what does not. The criterion and the rule is: The faith that settled in the heart, or its opposite. If the denial of something settled and became established in the heart, as you said in the context of your speech on another occasion, of what is known from the religion by necessity, this is a disbeliever; because it is a matter of the heart. But if he acknowledges in his heart what Allah has legislated, but in practice he follows his desire, then it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever. And if this one is declared a disbeliever, then there is no Muslim on the face of the earth at all.
And to clarify the first matter, which is the one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, we give a simple example. A judge rules by Islamic law. Two litigants came to him, and he understood the dispute between them and knew that the truth is with number one, and the falsehood is with number two. Number two bribed him with a bribe, so he gave the right that belongs to number one to number two. Did this rule by other than what Allah has revealed or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is a deviation, this is a deviation, and how often one deviates, and I do not know why one deviates. Did this rule by other than what Allah has revealed or by what Allah has revealed?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did they declare al-Hajjaj a disbeliever?
The questioner : Al-Hajjaj... ruled by what Allah has revealed.
The Shaykh : Answer my question...
Another questioner : Did he rule by what Allah has revealed or did he not rule?
The questioner : Each one of them, on this basis, declares every single one of them a disbeliever...
Another questioner : ... He tells you: Is the ruling one made without what Allah revealed, or is it not?
The questioner : What is the ruling on...
Another questioner : This is what he wants...
The Shaykh : I am asking you a question: Is it a ruling made without what Allah revealed, or a ruling made in accordance with what Allah revealed? You tell me: It is wrong.
My brother, please give the answer; is it a ruling made in accordance with what Allah revealed, or without what Allah revealed?
The questioner : What is the ruling on...
The Shaykh : Fine, that is the answer.
The questioner : But this statement...
The Shaykh : But, my brother, but, may Allah bless you, it is a ruling made without what Allah revealed; is that not so?
The questioner: All right.
The Shaykh : Okay, what did our Lord say?
The questioner :
And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُThe Shaykh
Then those are the disbelievers
فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَAnother questioner : Of course not.
The questioner : I do not consider this a disbeliever; because Islam is not being applied, meaning, the apparent deed of his is the secret that I want to convey to you.
The Shaykh : This secret that you have not yet told us, tell me: Is this disbelief?
The questioner : No, it is not disbelief.
The Shaykh : Even though he ruled without what Allah revealed!
The questioner : It is not disbelief.
The Shaykh : Even though he ruled without what Allah revealed!
The questioner : No, but he...
The Shaykh : How is it not?
The questioner : The applied Shari'ah...
The Shaykh : How is it not, my brother? Your words are being recorded, you are contradicting yourself now, I am telling you: Even though he ruled without what Allah revealed; you tell me: No. The negation of a negation is an affirmation in the understanding of the scholars, if someone tells you: So-and-so does not lie; and you say to him: No; what does that mean?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The negation of a negation is an affirmation, this is a ruling made without what Allah revealed; is that not so? How did you know?
The questioner : How did you know? It is a matter of the heart.
The Shaykh : We saw that he gave the right to the one who is in the wrong, glory be to Allah! He gave us a clear example, meaning, a man usurped a piece of land from a person, and the one whose land was usurped went to complain to the Shari'ah judge, so the Shari'ah judge, knowing that the land belongs to the usurper, ruled in favor of the usurper, for a bribe, for status, for fear, for... for any reason from the causes of this world, he ruled that the land belongs to the wrongdoer, the usurper, we agreed that this is a ruling made without what Allah revealed; is that not so?
The questioner : But the apparent...
The Shaykh : He does not answer!!
The questioner : I want to ask you so that I can answer you.
The Shaykh : There is no need to ask me if the light is on or not, asking about the basics - Professor - is a waste of time.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is the problem for you? A person whose land I usurped, and we came to the judge, Shaykh Ahmad, to rule in accordance with what Allah revealed, so he feared me or took a bribe from me or any other reason; so he ruled that the land is mine, while in reality it is yours and he knows that, so is this a ruling made without what Allah revealed or not? ...
The questioner : Why do I not rule with it?
The Shaykh : Do not rule with it, what?
The questioner : The apparent is that he ruled with Islam, but if he deviated from Islam for one of the reasons, I do not declare him a disbeliever, but when I came and sought his judgment, I know that he rules with Islam...
Another questioner : You thought that he did not rule with Islam!
The Shaykh : What do you think about letting him hear his own words?
Another questioner : You thought that he did not rule with Islam!
The Shaykh : Let him feel that...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.