The one who rejoices at what is happening in the West, such as the departure of one president and the arrival of another; is it possible for him to be a disbeliever?

The questioner : Shaykh, does this matter have a connection to creed? I mean, is it possible to declare, I mean, some of our brothers declare that one who displays joy... is a disbeliever?

The Shaykh : No, no, this is all an error and a sin. If it has a connection to disbelief, then practical disbelief—my brother—we work by the rule and we are at ease. Disbelief that expels one from the religion pertains to the heart, not to the tongue. And now, your question reminds me of another fair division of disbelief; there is verbal disbelief and heart disbelief. The previous division was creedal disbelief and practical disbelief. Now, another fair division: verbal disbelief and heart disbelief. So, heart disbelief is equivalent to creedal disbelief, and verbal disbelief is equivalent to practical disbelief. A person who displays joy at the fall of "Bush" and the success of... this joy, without a doubt, should not come from a Muslim. So, we can call this verbal disbelief, but this does not expel him from the religion; because it occurred in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as I believe it is not hidden from any of you that something of that sort happened; such as the hadith of Ibn Abbas when he said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave a sermon to his Companions one day, so a man stood up to say to him: "What Allah wills and what you will, O Messenger of Allah." He said: , so this is verbal disbelief. He said to him: "Have you made me equal to Allah?" But he did not impose on him any of the implications of creedal disbelief. So, we must always and forever place this correct division before our eyes: creedal or heart disbelief, and practical or verbal disbelief; because the verbal is from the practical. So, if we see something like this, we do not rush to say that it is disbelief. Even if he speaks the word of disbelief, we do not rush to declare him a disbeliever and expel him from the religion until we clarify what he intends by this word.
Abu Malik: Then—Shaykh—if you allow me, before the brother "Salim" speaks, I will say: there, in the politics of the Western countries or the disbelievers in general, there are principles and branches. The principles do not change over the years at all. And there are fixed principles of politics, and these fixed principles are the ones from which they launch and which govern the course of the small and large politicians in those countries. The branches are actually derived from these principles. And when we follow the course of the international global policies that have surrounded us, especially, and placed us in the calamities they placed us in, we find that the change that occurred happened only in... which were formulated by these branches derived from these principles.
And therefore, we give an example of that; for instance, the issue of Palestine. The issue of Palestine, in reality, for nearly forty-five years, we have been following this issue in a way that takes us out, every five or ten years, into a time period that the issue was divided into dimensions of time, taking us from one state to another. And when we look at the state that preceded, we find it better than the state that follows. And international policy is what forces us to prefer the next stage and not prefer the stage that preceded it. And therefore, we have now reached, with these policies that the disbelieving states have formulated for us, the conviction that the best thing we can do now regarding the Palestinian issue is to accept everything that happens without asking: why or how. And this end that it has reached gives us an idea. Do you think, for example, if "Bush" had come or remained; is it possible to imagine that the end that the Palestinian issue reached and was placed on the table of the negotiations currently taking place in "Washington," for example; was it possible for "Bush" to hasten the end before his position changed, and that the new president had not come? Of course, the answer is: no. Is this man who is coming; will he hasten to solve the issue and say that I saw what was before the policy that "Bush" drew up for this issue, will I return to the previous stage to stand there and solve the issue, or make the issue solved by the theories that governed this issue in the previous time period? The answer is: no. And therefore, the same policy does not differ. So, if we rejoice at the arrival of "Clinton," we weep for "Bush."

The Shaykh: Allah is the Greatest!
...