What is the ruling on one who lays down and legislates laws? And a discussion of the issue of the mocker and the one who deems something permissible.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The legislative authority, from the Council of Deputies and the Senate, and ... the legislative authority; meaning these people, regarding the base, who legislate, deputies, senators ... what is their ruling?
The Shaykh : It is not different ... the answer.
The questioner : Meaning?
The Shaykh : Allow me, you repeat the examples and vary them, and the answer is known to you.
The questioner : No, Professor, I want to know, is this agreed upon between us up to now?
The Shaykh : Oh my Professor, what I am telling you is: this is more dangerous than the first ones that are agreed upon, or these, or the one who is laying down the law and detailing it, and it is against the Shari'ah; which is more dangerous?
The questioner : That one is more dangerous.
The Shaykh : So if we are in agreement on the more dangerous one, and we have discussed the topic and finished with it, now we bring up examples below that level and you ask me: what is your opinion? My opinion is known.
The questioner : Below that level.
The Shaykh : No, you are saying, you are not saying: more dangerous now?
The questioner : Examples below that level, are these examples for the elected one or not? For the elected one.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! You yourself agreed with me now that this is less dangerous than that.
The questioner : I am in agreement with you.
The Shaykh : Fine, if I give you an answer that everyone in the cinema is misguided; is it valid for you to ask me about a specific individual among them? I gave you a general answer, a general principle, and you are agreeing with me that the one who laid down the law from the start is a disbeliever, and we agreed that it is either doctrinal disbelief or practical disbelief, so everything that branches off from it has its ruling; especially if we agreed that ... .
The questioner : ... and clarified its naming, what is its ruling?
The Shaykh : Did you not take its ruling?
The questioner : No ... now I heard a phrase I want to understand ... .
The Shaykh : ... and it is new.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : The one who laid down the law believing, and this all has detail from you ... .
The questioner : No ... and the one who lays down the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : Allow me.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : The recording is available.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: I said.
Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... if we disagree ... we said: disbelief is two types, everyone who does the act of disbelief deeming it permissible in his heart is a disbeliever, and everyone who does the act of disbelief but does not deem it permissible in his heart. Until I remind you of the detail that you yourself mentioned after I mentioned this speech, I said to you: what does he believe, that this is wrong and the Shari'ah believes it is right, or not? It came out with you as an image; you said: he believes it is right but the Shari'ah is more right; do you remember this speech?
The questioner : Yes, yes, I remember it all.
The Shaykh : Allow me, so I said to you: his ruling that it is right is a belief; so as long as he ruled on a ruling contrary to the Shari'ah that it is right, this is a belief, so from here they brought his disbelief, but if now you are asking about a person who laid down legislation contrary to the Shari'ah by one hundred percent, ninety percent, it does not matter to me, contrary to the Shari'ah, and he believes that it is contrary to the Shari'ah and that it is wrong, and that the right is the Shari'ah, I am still saying as I said: this is practical disbelief.
The questioner : ... if I made a mistake, let us hear what you said first.
The Shaykh : ... did you say this?
The questioner : This is from what I said.
The Shaykh : This is what I am asking about.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! Did you say this? You are saying: who did you say; meaning you said it.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, bring what you are saying: you also said; please.
The questioner : You told me when ... for example, and what is the ruling of the one who laid down an economic, political, or social Shari'ah? You told me that this one legislated, so he deems it permissible, so he claimed that ... .
The Shaykh : Did he legislate deeming it permissible or denying it?
The questioner : You told me that this one is not asked, because I am asking you.
The Shaykh : What is the difference now between the image and the image I mentioned now, and you said you admitted that you mentioned it; what is the difference?
The questioner : No, here you ... .
The Shaykh : My brother, suppose ... tell me now what is the difference? ... You now witnessed with yourself that this speech I mentioned now was mentioned there, so the image has something that is not in the image we mentioned now and you are saying ... .
The questioner : ... I did not say it.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Perhaps I did not say it.
The Shaykh : No, it never happens, it never happens.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, excuse me.
Now you are bringing the image, it is the same image, and you are saying that I ruled him a disbeliever, and you know and we have been discussing for hours that I distinguish between doctrinal disbelief and practical disbelief, so what is the meaning now of you attributing to me that, by Allah, an economic or social system, and so on, that merely this placement, I ruled it as disbelief? No, it must be accompanied by the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever, which is deeming it permissible in the heart.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How am I to be, how am I to align, allow me, how am I to align this image ... how am I to align, allow me my brother, how does this image align with the whole discussion?
The questioner : This is what changes ... in our understanding.
The Shaykh : Answer me, my Professor.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : If here in this image you are coming to say: I said that this one is a disbeliever, the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever that we agreed upon is not present; how am I, while I am speaking it, and then how do you approve it? And how are you saying: this contradicts your principle?
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner : ... .
The questioner : This is what... .
The Shaykh : My brother, we ... a discussion relates to ... and a discussion relates to ... .
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So if this is linked to Islam, it is a ruling, and we told you: the ruler may rule with disbelief against a person while he is a believer with Allah, Islamically; therefore we want to take the topic with the same principle, which is faith, faith relates to belief, so if the belief did not change with his change of ruling; so then from where can we deny the belief that we agreed upon now ... ?
The questioner : The one I denied ... I saw it as an example of the mocker, and I said that the mocker is not asked.
The Shaykh : ... there is no disagreement.
The questioner : Yes, is the mocker not also subject to this rule ... ?
The Shaykh : The mocker - my Professor - there is no disagreement.
The questioner : ... and if he is a mocker or not one who deems it permissible?
The Shaykh : The mocker, we discussed with the Professor, and I told him: this one has doctrinal disbelief, because a Muslim who believes in Allah and His Messenger and intentionally mocks, it cannot be that the mocking is not in his heart; so this one is a disbeliever by apostasy, but he is bringing an image in which mocking was not mentioned.
The questioner : Likewise, the one who lays down legislation for people is not asked either, because he knows that the one who lays down legislation and knows[At-Tawbah 9:31] knows that he has appointed a Lord for himself; so this one is not asked whether you deemed it permissible or not.
The Shaykh : We answered this ... we answered this.
The questioner: Yes ... .
The Shaykh : ... bring the tafsir, people.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But now.
Yes?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But now I am saying.
Another questioner : Delaying the 'Isha' prayer.
The Shaykh : I do not make a mistake in this issue; because I am.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me, allow me a little, but what ... am I with? I do not make a mistake in this issue because I have memorized it for twenty or thirty years, I link disbelief to belief.
The questioner : Professor, what I understood ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me a little, I am still affirming and all our discussion now - now in this session, and that session, and the previous session - is proceeding within this point, the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever is belief, this.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me, are we not in agreement on this point?
The questioner : We are in agreement on it ... .
The Shaykh : The Professor is thinking, all our discussion is around this point, are we not in agreement that we divided disbelief into doctrinal disbelief and practical disbelief; so then this cause in the image you are describing about me, if this cause is not realized, how did I take the image and rule it as disbelief and the cause is not present? According to you, you are not imagining.
The questioner : The cause is present, that he deems it permissible.
The Shaykh : Look, look now, like this if he deems it permissible.
...
Another questioner : ... the one who lays down legislation ... meaning there is no ... intentionally or ... the practical reality.
The Shaykh : Here, fine, fine, now if I understood it like this.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, what you understood or didn't understand is... and our speech is... but I want to link this specific point to an agreed-upon principle. Now, you have decided the matter, and the professor started there by deciding the matter, and you are saying: we considered him as a mocker. Well, if you considered him as a mocker, it means you did not deviate from the principle we agreed upon. As for me, if I did not consider him as a mocker, I also did not deviate from the principle.
Another questioner : Exactly.
The Shaykh: So where is the disagreement?
Another questioner : ... as a mocker, so he is a disbeliever ... .
The Shaykh : As soon as I see a person who has enacted a law, I bring up examples for him; he may enact a law because his people, whom he is firmly established over on his throne, would cause him to lose his position, and he... and he persists in the ruling, while his heart tells him: You are wrong, you are contrary to the Shari'ah. I brought up this image with the same... So with this possibility, this and the case, we told you it is not from the aspect of the apparent ruling, but rather how Allah will deal with this person. I say: if the permissibility is in the heart, then he is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. So your consideration that merely enacting the law is like mocking; meaning, we agreed that mocking is evidence of disbelief in the heart. You considered his enactment of the law as evidence of disbelief in the heart; no, I do not concede this to you. I tell you: a person enacts a law while believing that contradicting the divine law is right, and this law is wrong, but he is following the people and maintaining his position on the throne... and this is absolutely not permissible, but the only thing is that this possibility prevents us from ruling with certainty that he has deemed this law permissible. So the discussion now is about an image: does it give this cause or not?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What are we talking about? It is creedal disbelief ... .
Another questioner : This is the evidence of permissibility.
Another questioner: No.
The Shaykh : What are we talking about!!
Another questioner : Enacting a Shari'ah is not creedal disbelief.
The Shaykh : My brother, this is the Shari'ah judge we gave you as an example: he judged by other than what Allah revealed; the Shari'ah judge came and ruled for Zayd... 'Amr; is this a ruling of Islam or disbelief?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Disbelief, but if they disbelieved... if he deems it permissible, then he is a disbeliever ... .
The questioner : Meaning, suppose we are aware of ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, this has no... where is the tape?
Another questioner : The tape is there, but of course it needs time to find the ... .
...
The questioner : No, the truth of the matter is that last time when I sat with you on ... .
The Shaykh : And where?
The questioner : The day that had ... .
The Shaykh : Old ones?
The questioner : ... to Hajj.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : I asked you this specific question, so you answered with the current answer, but yesterday you said regarding the one who prostrates to an idol, the mocker, and the one who enacts a Shari'ah, that he disbelieved in heart and tongue; this is the only possibility, and the truth is that we were specifically surprised; we said: either.
The Shaykh : Why didn't you mention the surprise?
The questioner : No, no, we... we objected to a question about this, there is a question about it if we consider ... .
The Shaykh : ... now? Now? I am saying there, why didn't you express surprise?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because this speech... contradicts what we agreed upon.
The questioner : Yes, why did we say: these questions today... the ruling is theoretical... I said: concede the speech that... so I was surprised why? The brother "Awni's" speech when... it is reported that you say the one who judges by other than what Allah revealed, voluntarily and not coerced, is not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Wait, we do not rule on him that he is a disbeliever or that he is not a disbeliever; because I am not aware of the cause.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : The cause is in the heart.
The questioner : Voluntarily, but not deeming it permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, he does not become a disbeliever.
The questioner : Yes, but regarding legislation, this was not mentioned.
The Shaykh : Not mentioned?!
The questioner : Even ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, no problem.
The questioner : This permissibility was not mentioned regarding the legislator.
Another questioner : You did not mention it.
The Shaykh : It was not mentioned in the session?
The questioner : You did not mention it regarding the legislator.
The Shaykh : I did not condition permissibility for the legislator, I did not condition that he deems it permissible in his heart.
The questioner : I told you: ... .
The Shaykh : I am telling you: I have lived on this creed for three hundred years, before you criticize me on a specific point, I will tell you just as we have always walked with you: the one who does not come with you, come with him. I did not say... what is the meaning of that? Does it mean that merely by his action he disbelieves?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I. Allow me a moment, if I am going to pass the speech, Professor, it means I am with you the whole way.
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner : This is what I was surprised by ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me to see, why when you come to me here and from there we found guidance and agreement and so on, if I say this word, it means we did nothing.
The questioner : Professor, I... the one who prostrates to the idol.
The Shaykh : No, no, I mean the distinction between creedal disbelief and practical disbelief was agreed upon, and that every person who has creedal disbelief accompanying his practical disbelief is an apostate, and every person who does not have creedal disbelief accompanying his practical disbelief, it is not permissible to rule on him as an apostate, and the research branched out until we reached this man who prayed next to us, and that we must rule on him that he is a Muslim, and you said the taghut... and so on, all of this is based on a cause; which is creedal disbelief. The image you are attributing to me does not have creedal disbelief; it has practical disbelief, a man enacted a law, enacted one, two, three, five million articles; it is all the same, and I even told you: a Shari'ah judge ruled once.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean this specific point you are going around now, it cannot be done except by entering into the agreed-upon principle there and here.
The questioner : ... the distinction is possible ... .
The Shaykh : ... .
Another questioner : He says that you, it is understood from you that you consider the person who enacts a Shari'ah as inherently deeming it permissible... the one who mocked is inherently deeming it permissible... he also understood that the one who enacts a Shari'ah is deeming it permissible ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, but is the cause present or not?
Another questioner : It exists.
The questioner : The cause now.
The Shaykh : Not now, in your concept of the matter; is the cause present or not?
The questioner : The cause is present ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me, my brother, I am asking the professor; is the cause present so that you ruled on the one you mentioned with the distinction?
The questioner: But...
The Shaykh : He does not answer!
The questioner : You are the one who ruled.
The Shaykh : My brother, what is your ruling on him? That he is an apostate or not?
The questioner : My ruling is that he is an apostate.
The Shaykh : And the cause of apostasy we agreed upon, is it present in him or not?
The questioner : ... in the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me!!
Another questioner : No, if possible.
The Shaykh : No, not possible.
The questioner : Another student: ... on a gold jewelry shop.
The Shaykh : Is the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever present in this image for you?
The questioner : The cause of declaring someone a disbeliever is present; the permissibility latent in the conscience and in the heart ... .
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! For what are these additions now? Are we in a language of speech now?! This, this, this, we have no concern with it in this context. Is the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever we agreed upon present in this image or not?
The questioner : It exists.
The Shaykh : Present; may Allah suffice the believers in fighting, we did not deviate from our research, but where is the disagreement? That you understand in this image that the cause is present, and I do not understand that the cause is present; did we disbelieve in the whole research?
The questioner : No, it is not...
The Shaykh : Allow me... I walked with you... I walked with you now, I told you that hour and the covenant with you is not far, I am accustomed to discussing the research on the principle of the Levantines: "the one who does not come with you, come with him"; I told you: suppose it was like that, I am asking you now: is the cause present? You tell me: present, I... if the cause is present, but in what am I disagreeing with you? That I do not understand the presence of the cause merely by the action, and may Allah suffice the believers in fighting.
The questioner: All right.
The Shaykh : So you will demolish for us what we built... a second research for the specific point of the apparent, there is no... clarification from me or good understanding from another, so there is nothing as long as you yourself admit the cause is present? Of course, all issues proceed by regularity; and therefore I am going around... the idea is you want to convince me that you did not insert the cause in it?! You may not have inserted it verbally, but you... understood it conceptually as present, and I tell you: as long as it is present, the problem is gone.
As for the original point of the discussion—and no blame if we repeat it—the first time you brought up the image of the one who steals. And if you do not remember, I suppose I should ask you now: Do you not imagine, Professor, that a person would preserve his throne and his seat while he is a believer between himself and his Lord, as we have been saying about what? About... Do you not imagine... And there is absolutely no difference, and this is a point I want to dwell on to clarify the matter. You have no difference between a person who enacted a single law from his own authority in contradiction to the Islamic Shari'ah, and whether you say: this is a disbeliever, this is an open sinner, or a disbeliever... Is that correct or not?
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh: All right... A law of this type, plus another law, plus ten, plus a hundred, plus... Does the result differ, people?
Another questioner: No, it does not differ.
The Shaykh: The result does not differ; so if we say that the first law was not accompanied by a heart that deemed it permissible, then disbelief is associated with it in terms of belief, but... as long as it was not accompanied by a belief in disbelief, is it disbelief? According to what we agreed, it is not disbelief. We come to a second law like it, plus one, plus one, plus ten, plus a hundred, plus a million; the result is the same. Now we come to the opposite: one person enacted a single law...?
The questioner: He did not enact it and did not deem it permissible.
The Shaykh: ... And I told you to remember this well: he deemed it permissible and enacted it, and I told you: now... the act is not a condition... So your statement, which you are dwelling on these days, and you made me think that you had broken the agreement that... but... the operative cause is present. You made me think, you told me: not everyone who enacts laws is like the judge who rules on a single issue. The truth is that this... is exactly right; because the issue is not an issue of... error; because if the error was one act of disbelief, plus ten, plus a million; it equals one, or one, plus one; it equals a million; the result is the same if it is disbelief. But if it is what? One act of practical disbelief, plus one, plus ten, plus a million; it never equals belief-based disbelief. Therefore, the multiplicity is in fact only an illusion, like the word "taghut" or... it does not change the issue at all. The one who enacts the law... so our Lord knows if he enacted this law as legislation and in contradiction to the Shari'ah... and if he enacted it while believing that its enactment contradicts the Shari'ah and that the Shari'ah is the correct one...
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Is it possible now?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Brother, I am asking you, I am telling you... We are talking about faith, and still... between faith and Islam.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Listen to him.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: You listen to him and do not judge him to be a disbeliever, one does not judge against...
...
The Shaykh : It is not different ... the answer.
The questioner : Meaning?
The Shaykh : Allow me, you repeat the examples and vary them, and the answer is known to you.
The questioner : No, Professor, I want to know, is this agreed upon between us up to now?
The Shaykh : Oh my Professor, what I am telling you is: this is more dangerous than the first ones that are agreed upon, or these, or the one who is laying down the law and detailing it, and it is against the Shari'ah; which is more dangerous?
The questioner : That one is more dangerous.
The Shaykh : So if we are in agreement on the more dangerous one, and we have discussed the topic and finished with it, now we bring up examples below that level and you ask me: what is your opinion? My opinion is known.
The questioner : Below that level.
The Shaykh : No, you are saying, you are not saying: more dangerous now?
The questioner : Examples below that level, are these examples for the elected one or not? For the elected one.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! You yourself agreed with me now that this is less dangerous than that.
The questioner : I am in agreement with you.
The Shaykh : Fine, if I give you an answer that everyone in the cinema is misguided; is it valid for you to ask me about a specific individual among them? I gave you a general answer, a general principle, and you are agreeing with me that the one who laid down the law from the start is a disbeliever, and we agreed that it is either doctrinal disbelief or practical disbelief, so everything that branches off from it has its ruling; especially if we agreed that ... .
The questioner : ... and clarified its naming, what is its ruling?
The Shaykh : Did you not take its ruling?
The questioner : No ... now I heard a phrase I want to understand ... .
The Shaykh : ... and it is new.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : The one who laid down the law believing, and this all has detail from you ... .
The questioner : No ... and the one who lays down the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : Allow me.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : The recording is available.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: I said.
Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... if we disagree ... we said: disbelief is two types, everyone who does the act of disbelief deeming it permissible in his heart is a disbeliever, and everyone who does the act of disbelief but does not deem it permissible in his heart. Until I remind you of the detail that you yourself mentioned after I mentioned this speech, I said to you: what does he believe, that this is wrong and the Shari'ah believes it is right, or not? It came out with you as an image; you said: he believes it is right but the Shari'ah is more right; do you remember this speech?
The questioner : Yes, yes, I remember it all.
The Shaykh : Allow me, so I said to you: his ruling that it is right is a belief; so as long as he ruled on a ruling contrary to the Shari'ah that it is right, this is a belief, so from here they brought his disbelief, but if now you are asking about a person who laid down legislation contrary to the Shari'ah by one hundred percent, ninety percent, it does not matter to me, contrary to the Shari'ah, and he believes that it is contrary to the Shari'ah and that it is wrong, and that the right is the Shari'ah, I am still saying as I said: this is practical disbelief.
The questioner : ... if I made a mistake, let us hear what you said first.
The Shaykh : ... did you say this?
The questioner : This is from what I said.
The Shaykh : This is what I am asking about.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! Did you say this? You are saying: who did you say; meaning you said it.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, bring what you are saying: you also said; please.
The questioner : You told me when ... for example, and what is the ruling of the one who laid down an economic, political, or social Shari'ah? You told me that this one legislated, so he deems it permissible, so he claimed that ... .
The Shaykh : Did he legislate deeming it permissible or denying it?
The questioner : You told me that this one is not asked, because I am asking you.
The Shaykh : What is the difference now between the image and the image I mentioned now, and you said you admitted that you mentioned it; what is the difference?
The questioner : No, here you ... .
The Shaykh : My brother, suppose ... tell me now what is the difference? ... You now witnessed with yourself that this speech I mentioned now was mentioned there, so the image has something that is not in the image we mentioned now and you are saying ... .
The questioner : ... I did not say it.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Perhaps I did not say it.
The Shaykh : No, it never happens, it never happens.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, excuse me.
Now you are bringing the image, it is the same image, and you are saying that I ruled him a disbeliever, and you know and we have been discussing for hours that I distinguish between doctrinal disbelief and practical disbelief, so what is the meaning now of you attributing to me that, by Allah, an economic or social system, and so on, that merely this placement, I ruled it as disbelief? No, it must be accompanied by the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever, which is deeming it permissible in the heart.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How am I to be, how am I to align, allow me, how am I to align this image ... how am I to align, allow me my brother, how does this image align with the whole discussion?
The questioner : This is what changes ... in our understanding.
The Shaykh : Answer me, my Professor.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : If here in this image you are coming to say: I said that this one is a disbeliever, the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever that we agreed upon is not present; how am I, while I am speaking it, and then how do you approve it? And how are you saying: this contradicts your principle?
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner : ... .
The questioner : This is what... .
The Shaykh : My brother, we ... a discussion relates to ... and a discussion relates to ... .
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So if this is linked to Islam, it is a ruling, and we told you: the ruler may rule with disbelief against a person while he is a believer with Allah, Islamically; therefore we want to take the topic with the same principle, which is faith, faith relates to belief, so if the belief did not change with his change of ruling; so then from where can we deny the belief that we agreed upon now ... ?
The questioner : The one I denied ... I saw it as an example of the mocker, and I said that the mocker is not asked.
The Shaykh : ... there is no disagreement.
The questioner : Yes, is the mocker not also subject to this rule ... ?
The Shaykh : The mocker - my Professor - there is no disagreement.
The questioner : ... and if he is a mocker or not one who deems it permissible?
The Shaykh : The mocker, we discussed with the Professor, and I told him: this one has doctrinal disbelief, because a Muslim who believes in Allah and His Messenger and intentionally mocks, it cannot be that the mocking is not in his heart; so this one is a disbeliever by apostasy, but he is bringing an image in which mocking was not mentioned.
The questioner : Likewise, the one who lays down legislation for people is not asked either, because he knows that the one who lays down legislation and knows
They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah
اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِThe Shaykh : We answered this ... we answered this.
The questioner: Yes ... .
The Shaykh : ... bring the tafsir, people.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But now.
Yes?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But now I am saying.
Another questioner : Delaying the 'Isha' prayer.
The Shaykh : I do not make a mistake in this issue; because I am.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me, allow me a little, but what ... am I with? I do not make a mistake in this issue because I have memorized it for twenty or thirty years, I link disbelief to belief.
The questioner : Professor, what I understood ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me a little, I am still affirming and all our discussion now - now in this session, and that session, and the previous session - is proceeding within this point, the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever is belief, this.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me, are we not in agreement on this point?
The questioner : We are in agreement on it ... .
The Shaykh : The Professor is thinking, all our discussion is around this point, are we not in agreement that we divided disbelief into doctrinal disbelief and practical disbelief; so then this cause in the image you are describing about me, if this cause is not realized, how did I take the image and rule it as disbelief and the cause is not present? According to you, you are not imagining.
The questioner : The cause is present, that he deems it permissible.
The Shaykh : Look, look now, like this if he deems it permissible.
...
Another questioner : ... the one who lays down legislation ... meaning there is no ... intentionally or ... the practical reality.
The Shaykh : Here, fine, fine, now if I understood it like this.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, what you understood or didn't understand is... and our speech is... but I want to link this specific point to an agreed-upon principle. Now, you have decided the matter, and the professor started there by deciding the matter, and you are saying: we considered him as a mocker. Well, if you considered him as a mocker, it means you did not deviate from the principle we agreed upon. As for me, if I did not consider him as a mocker, I also did not deviate from the principle.
Another questioner : Exactly.
The Shaykh: So where is the disagreement?
Another questioner : ... as a mocker, so he is a disbeliever ... .
The Shaykh : As soon as I see a person who has enacted a law, I bring up examples for him; he may enact a law because his people, whom he is firmly established over on his throne, would cause him to lose his position, and he... and he persists in the ruling, while his heart tells him: You are wrong, you are contrary to the Shari'ah. I brought up this image with the same... So with this possibility, this and the case, we told you it is not from the aspect of the apparent ruling, but rather how Allah will deal with this person. I say: if the permissibility is in the heart, then he is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. So your consideration that merely enacting the law is like mocking; meaning, we agreed that mocking is evidence of disbelief in the heart. You considered his enactment of the law as evidence of disbelief in the heart; no, I do not concede this to you. I tell you: a person enacts a law while believing that contradicting the divine law is right, and this law is wrong, but he is following the people and maintaining his position on the throne... and this is absolutely not permissible, but the only thing is that this possibility prevents us from ruling with certainty that he has deemed this law permissible. So the discussion now is about an image: does it give this cause or not?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What are we talking about? It is creedal disbelief ... .
Another questioner : This is the evidence of permissibility.
Another questioner: No.
The Shaykh : What are we talking about!!
Another questioner : Enacting a Shari'ah is not creedal disbelief.
The Shaykh : My brother, this is the Shari'ah judge we gave you as an example: he judged by other than what Allah revealed; the Shari'ah judge came and ruled for Zayd... 'Amr; is this a ruling of Islam or disbelief?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Disbelief, but if they disbelieved... if he deems it permissible, then he is a disbeliever ... .
The questioner : Meaning, suppose we are aware of ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, this has no... where is the tape?
Another questioner : The tape is there, but of course it needs time to find the ... .
...
The questioner : No, the truth of the matter is that last time when I sat with you on ... .
The Shaykh : And where?
The questioner : The day that had ... .
The Shaykh : Old ones?
The questioner : ... to Hajj.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : I asked you this specific question, so you answered with the current answer, but yesterday you said regarding the one who prostrates to an idol, the mocker, and the one who enacts a Shari'ah, that he disbelieved in heart and tongue; this is the only possibility, and the truth is that we were specifically surprised; we said: either.
The Shaykh : Why didn't you mention the surprise?
The questioner : No, no, we... we objected to a question about this, there is a question about it if we consider ... .
The Shaykh : ... now? Now? I am saying there, why didn't you express surprise?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because this speech... contradicts what we agreed upon.
The questioner : Yes, why did we say: these questions today... the ruling is theoretical... I said: concede the speech that... so I was surprised why? The brother "Awni's" speech when... it is reported that you say the one who judges by other than what Allah revealed, voluntarily and not coerced, is not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Wait, we do not rule on him that he is a disbeliever or that he is not a disbeliever; because I am not aware of the cause.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : The cause is in the heart.
The questioner : Voluntarily, but not deeming it permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, he does not become a disbeliever.
The questioner : Yes, but regarding legislation, this was not mentioned.
The Shaykh : Not mentioned?!
The questioner : Even ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, no problem.
The questioner : This permissibility was not mentioned regarding the legislator.
Another questioner : You did not mention it.
The Shaykh : It was not mentioned in the session?
The questioner : You did not mention it regarding the legislator.
The Shaykh : I did not condition permissibility for the legislator, I did not condition that he deems it permissible in his heart.
The questioner : I told you: ... .
The Shaykh : I am telling you: I have lived on this creed for three hundred years, before you criticize me on a specific point, I will tell you just as we have always walked with you: the one who does not come with you, come with him. I did not say... what is the meaning of that? Does it mean that merely by his action he disbelieves?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I. Allow me a moment, if I am going to pass the speech, Professor, it means I am with you the whole way.
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner : This is what I was surprised by ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me to see, why when you come to me here and from there we found guidance and agreement and so on, if I say this word, it means we did nothing.
The questioner : Professor, I... the one who prostrates to the idol.
The Shaykh : No, no, I mean the distinction between creedal disbelief and practical disbelief was agreed upon, and that every person who has creedal disbelief accompanying his practical disbelief is an apostate, and every person who does not have creedal disbelief accompanying his practical disbelief, it is not permissible to rule on him as an apostate, and the research branched out until we reached this man who prayed next to us, and that we must rule on him that he is a Muslim, and you said the taghut... and so on, all of this is based on a cause; which is creedal disbelief. The image you are attributing to me does not have creedal disbelief; it has practical disbelief, a man enacted a law, enacted one, two, three, five million articles; it is all the same, and I even told you: a Shari'ah judge ruled once.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean this specific point you are going around now, it cannot be done except by entering into the agreed-upon principle there and here.
The questioner : ... the distinction is possible ... .
The Shaykh : ... .
Another questioner : He says that you, it is understood from you that you consider the person who enacts a Shari'ah as inherently deeming it permissible... the one who mocked is inherently deeming it permissible... he also understood that the one who enacts a Shari'ah is deeming it permissible ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, but is the cause present or not?
Another questioner : It exists.
The questioner : The cause now.
The Shaykh : Not now, in your concept of the matter; is the cause present or not?
The questioner : The cause is present ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me, my brother, I am asking the professor; is the cause present so that you ruled on the one you mentioned with the distinction?
The questioner: But...
The Shaykh : He does not answer!
The questioner : You are the one who ruled.
The Shaykh : My brother, what is your ruling on him? That he is an apostate or not?
The questioner : My ruling is that he is an apostate.
The Shaykh : And the cause of apostasy we agreed upon, is it present in him or not?
The questioner : ... in the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me!!
Another questioner : No, if possible.
The Shaykh : No, not possible.
The questioner : Another student: ... on a gold jewelry shop.
The Shaykh : Is the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever present in this image for you?
The questioner : The cause of declaring someone a disbeliever is present; the permissibility latent in the conscience and in the heart ... .
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! For what are these additions now? Are we in a language of speech now?! This, this, this, we have no concern with it in this context. Is the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever we agreed upon present in this image or not?
The questioner : It exists.
The Shaykh : Present; may Allah suffice the believers in fighting, we did not deviate from our research, but where is the disagreement? That you understand in this image that the cause is present, and I do not understand that the cause is present; did we disbelieve in the whole research?
The questioner : No, it is not...
The Shaykh : Allow me... I walked with you... I walked with you now, I told you that hour and the covenant with you is not far, I am accustomed to discussing the research on the principle of the Levantines: "the one who does not come with you, come with him"; I told you: suppose it was like that, I am asking you now: is the cause present? You tell me: present, I... if the cause is present, but in what am I disagreeing with you? That I do not understand the presence of the cause merely by the action, and may Allah suffice the believers in fighting.
The questioner: All right.
The Shaykh : So you will demolish for us what we built... a second research for the specific point of the apparent, there is no... clarification from me or good understanding from another, so there is nothing as long as you yourself admit the cause is present? Of course, all issues proceed by regularity; and therefore I am going around... the idea is you want to convince me that you did not insert the cause in it?! You may not have inserted it verbally, but you... understood it conceptually as present, and I tell you: as long as it is present, the problem is gone.
As for the original point of the discussion—and no blame if we repeat it—the first time you brought up the image of the one who steals. And if you do not remember, I suppose I should ask you now: Do you not imagine, Professor, that a person would preserve his throne and his seat while he is a believer between himself and his Lord, as we have been saying about what? About... Do you not imagine... And there is absolutely no difference, and this is a point I want to dwell on to clarify the matter. You have no difference between a person who enacted a single law from his own authority in contradiction to the Islamic Shari'ah, and whether you say: this is a disbeliever, this is an open sinner, or a disbeliever... Is that correct or not?
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh: All right... A law of this type, plus another law, plus ten, plus a hundred, plus... Does the result differ, people?
Another questioner: No, it does not differ.
The Shaykh: The result does not differ; so if we say that the first law was not accompanied by a heart that deemed it permissible, then disbelief is associated with it in terms of belief, but... as long as it was not accompanied by a belief in disbelief, is it disbelief? According to what we agreed, it is not disbelief. We come to a second law like it, plus one, plus one, plus ten, plus a hundred, plus a million; the result is the same. Now we come to the opposite: one person enacted a single law...?
The questioner: He did not enact it and did not deem it permissible.
The Shaykh: ... And I told you to remember this well: he deemed it permissible and enacted it, and I told you: now... the act is not a condition... So your statement, which you are dwelling on these days, and you made me think that you had broken the agreement that... but... the operative cause is present. You made me think, you told me: not everyone who enacts laws is like the judge who rules on a single issue. The truth is that this... is exactly right; because the issue is not an issue of... error; because if the error was one act of disbelief, plus ten, plus a million; it equals one, or one, plus one; it equals a million; the result is the same if it is disbelief. But if it is what? One act of practical disbelief, plus one, plus ten, plus a million; it never equals belief-based disbelief. Therefore, the multiplicity is in fact only an illusion, like the word "taghut" or... it does not change the issue at all. The one who enacts the law... so our Lord knows if he enacted this law as legislation and in contradiction to the Shari'ah... and if he enacted it while believing that its enactment contradicts the Shari'ah and that the Shari'ah is the correct one...
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Is it possible now?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Brother, I am asking you, I am telling you... We are talking about faith, and still... between faith and Islam.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Listen to him.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: You listen to him and do not judge him to be a disbeliever, one does not judge against...
...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.