Do we rule that a Muslim has apostatized if it becomes clear that his belief is not sound; for example, if he says: The Qur'an is incomplete and contradictory?

The Shaykh: Eleven: Do we rule that a Muslim has apostatized if it becomes clear that his belief is not sound; for example, if he says: The Qur'an is incomplete and contradictory, and that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) married for his own desire; and he is insistent on this belief? Or must the ruling of his apostasy and the declaration of his blood as forfeit necessarily come from a Muslim Imam? And if an individual Muslim rules that he has apostatized and carries out the ruling by killing him; does he sin by doing so or not?
The question contains several questions. The first part of the question is: Is this person considered an apostate, the one who attributes contradiction to the Qur'an or claims that it is incomplete?
There is no doubt that this is an apostate, and there is absolutely no disagreement on this. Likewise, the one who says: The Messenger (peace be upon him) married for his own desire, and he is insistent on this belief. I say likewise, with an addition: If the one who says this says: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) married for his own desire, intending to point out a defect in the Messenger (peace be upon him) in this matter; then this is undoubtedly an apostate from his religion. Because pointing out a defect in the Messenger (peace be upon him) and attributing a shortcoming to him is a violation of his (peace and blessings be upon him) safety from such defects, on which all Muslims have agreed regarding his safety from them.
As for if we assume that this speaker: "The Messenger married for his desire," qualified it as permissible, in which there is no defect in the Messenger (peace be upon him); then we cannot declare him a disbeliever, nor can we declare him misguided. But we know, regarding our present society today, that the talk about the Messenger (peace be upon him) and that he married more than he permitted his ummah of four, this is sourced from those disbelieving Orientalists, then their Westernized followers who were influenced by them. Then this doubt spread and perhaps reached some people, who transmitted it and were influenced by it. So if this person who says this is drawing from that murky source, then there is no doubt that he is a disbeliever.
As for his follow-up question to the previous question: Whether we rule that this person has apostatized, or whether the ruling of his apostasy and the declaration of his blood as forfeit must necessarily come from the Muslim Imam?
Here are two matters that may be confused by some people. Ruling that a person is an apostate, or ruling that a person deserves to be killed, is one thing. And executing what the person subject to this ruling deserves is a second thing. So we can say, every Muslim can say: Whoever claims that there is a deficiency in the Qur'an or that there is contradiction in it is a disbeliever. Every Muslim can say this about every disbeliever. But not every Muslim can execute the ruling that befits this one who has been declared a disbeliever due to his apostasy from his religion. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between ruling on apostasy and executing what is required of this apostate. Executing the ruling, which is killing, is for the ruler. And this is not specific to the apostate, but extends to all those subject to hudud, such as the fornicator; whether he is married or unmarried, and the thief. None of these is permissible for an individual Muslim to take upon himself the establishment of these hudud. If this door were opened, a blind, deaf, and dumb fitnah would arise among the Muslims, and blood would flow in rivers. Because the people of the killed person, even if the killing occurred rightfully, would seek revenge. Because the one who executed the ruling has no protection, no safeguard, no back to support him. And that is the ruling of the ruler only. Therefore, we must distinguish between ruling that a person has apostatized, which every one who knows this ruling can do, and executing the hudud of apostasy on this person. This is not permissible for anyone to do except the Muslim ruler. It is usually said in such a discussion: Fine, there is no Muslim ruler?! Fine, does that mean each of us becomes a Muslim ruler? There is no Muslim ruler, unfortunately. It means that each of us will act as a Muslim ruler. So anticipate the bad and very bad results, as we said.

The questioner: There was a question if one person.

The Shaykh : Be patient.

The questioner: On the same topic.

The Shaykh : No problem.
Or must the ruling of his apostasy and the declaration of his blood as forfeit necessarily come from the Muslim Imam?
We have known the answer to this. Executing the ruling is by the Muslim Imam. As for issuing the ruling, it is issued by a mufti, issued by a student of knowledge with insight into his religion. Then the end of the question, as if the answer to it had already been given: And if an individual Muslim rules that he has apostatized and carries out the ruling by killing him, does he sin by doing so or not?
The answer: Yes, he sins. Because he engaged in a matter for which he was not commanded. Because the one who wants to execute a ruling, the execution of this ruling is entrusted to another person. So he engaged in it without being entrusted with it by the Shari'ah. So that is transgressing the limits of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: , and whoever wrongs himself has sinned.
Please, regarding the question.

The questioner: If one person believes in the unity of existence, do we pray behind him?

The Shaykh: Is this regarding the question?

The questioner: No, I mean.

The Shaykh: Therefore, no... regarding the question.

The questioner: The one who believes in the unity of existence is not a disbeliever?

The Shaykh: This is not the question.