Conditions for Establishing the Argument in Declaring Someone a Disbeliever
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
There is a matter being raised now regarding what is attributed to general legislation in what rulers judge by, and the proponents of this view cite your fatwa, may Allah preserve you, in the precious collection, stating that this is disbelief and that it is clear, because it is a change of Allah's legislation. This is also attributed to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim (may Allah have mercy on him).
So the question here is: Do the impediments to declaring someone a disbeliever, or what the people of the Sunnah and the community have stipulated for establishing the argument against one who judges by other than what Allah revealed as general legislation, apply?
If a person commits an act of disbelief, it is necessary that no impediment to declaring him a disbeliever exists in him. For this reason, it came in the authentic hadith when they asked, "Do we confront the rulers?"He said: (Except if you see clear disbelief, with which you have proof from Allah) It is necessary that it be clear, known disbelief that does not admit of figurative interpretation. If it admits of figurative interpretation, then its doer is not declared a disbeliever, even if we say it is disbelief.
So a distinction is made between the statement and the speaker, and between the act and the doer. An act may be open sinfulness, but the doer is not an open sinner because of the presence of an impediment that prevents his being declared an open sinner. And it may be disbelief, but the doer is not declared a disbeliever because of the presence of something that prevents his being declared a disbeliever. What harmed the Muslim community in the emergence of the Khawarij was nothing but this figurative interpretation. The Khawarij were with Ali ibn Abi Talib against the army of the people of Sham. So when a reconciliation took place between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the people of Sham, the Khawarij who were with him came out against him until he fought them and killed them, and praise be to Allah.But the point is that they said: He judged by other than what Allah revealed; because you judged by the people, so they came out against him.
So the defective figurative interpretation is a calamity for the community. A thing may not be disbelief, but this person believes it is clear disbelief and comes out. Or a thing may be disbelief, but the doer is not a disbeliever because of the presence of an impediment that prevents his being declared a disbeliever, and this one who comes out believes he has no excuse and comes out.
For this reason, it is obligatory for a person to be cautious about hastening to declare people disbelievers or open sinners. Perhaps a person does an act of open sinfulness in which there is no doubt, but he does not know,If you say: My brother! This is forbidden.
He said: May Allah reward you with good.
And he stopped from it.
Therefore: How do I judge a person to be an open sinner without the argument being established against him? These whom you are referring to, from the rulers of the Arabs and Muslims, may be excused because the argument was not clarified to them, or it was clarified to them and someone came to them who confused them and made things ambiguous for them.
So it is necessary to be deliberate in the matter. Then, on the assumption that we saw clear disbelief with which we have proof from Allah, the word (saw) is a condition, and (disbelief) is a condition, and (clear) is a condition, and (with which we have proof from Allah) is a condition; four conditions.
So we say: (That you see) means: you know with certainty, as a precaution against rumors that have no truth.
And the word (disbelief) is a precaution against open sinfulness.Meaning: If the ruler is an open sinner and a transgressor, but he has not reached the level of disbelief, then it is not permissible to come out against him.
The third: (Clear) means: explicit, not admitting of figurative interpretation.And it was said that clear means: The declared.
And the fourth: (With which you have proof from Allah) means: it is not explicit in our own minds only, but we are relying on clear, decisive evidence.
These four conditions are a condition for the permissibility of coming out, but there remains with us a fifth condition for the obligation of coming out, which is: Is it obligatory for us, if it is permissible for us to come out against the ruler? Is it obligatory for us to come out? The public benefit is considered. If we are able to remove him, then at that time we come out. And if we are not able, then we do not come out, because all obligatory acts of the Shari'ah are conditioned by ability and capacity.
Then, if we come out, it may result in a greater and more significant harm than if this man remained as he is, because we came out and then his strength appeared, we became more humiliated, and he persisted more in his tyranny and disbelief. So these matters require reason, and that the Shari'ah be accompanied by reason, and that emotion be kept away in these matters. We need emotion for our enthusiasm, and we need reason and the Shari'ah so that we do not follow the emotion that leads to destruction.
So the question here is: Do the impediments to declaring someone a disbeliever, or what the people of the Sunnah and the community have stipulated for establishing the argument against one who judges by other than what Allah revealed as general legislation, apply?
If a person commits an act of disbelief, it is necessary that no impediment to declaring him a disbeliever exists in him. For this reason, it came in the authentic hadith when they asked, "Do we confront the rulers?"He said: (Except if you see clear disbelief, with which you have proof from Allah) It is necessary that it be clear, known disbelief that does not admit of figurative interpretation. If it admits of figurative interpretation, then its doer is not declared a disbeliever, even if we say it is disbelief.
So a distinction is made between the statement and the speaker, and between the act and the doer. An act may be open sinfulness, but the doer is not an open sinner because of the presence of an impediment that prevents his being declared an open sinner. And it may be disbelief, but the doer is not declared a disbeliever because of the presence of something that prevents his being declared a disbeliever. What harmed the Muslim community in the emergence of the Khawarij was nothing but this figurative interpretation. The Khawarij were with Ali ibn Abi Talib against the army of the people of Sham. So when a reconciliation took place between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the people of Sham, the Khawarij who were with him came out against him until he fought them and killed them, and praise be to Allah.But the point is that they said: He judged by other than what Allah revealed; because you judged by the people, so they came out against him.
So the defective figurative interpretation is a calamity for the community. A thing may not be disbelief, but this person believes it is clear disbelief and comes out. Or a thing may be disbelief, but the doer is not a disbeliever because of the presence of an impediment that prevents his being declared a disbeliever, and this one who comes out believes he has no excuse and comes out.
For this reason, it is obligatory for a person to be cautious about hastening to declare people disbelievers or open sinners. Perhaps a person does an act of open sinfulness in which there is no doubt, but he does not know,If you say: My brother! This is forbidden.
He said: May Allah reward you with good.
And he stopped from it.
Therefore: How do I judge a person to be an open sinner without the argument being established against him? These whom you are referring to, from the rulers of the Arabs and Muslims, may be excused because the argument was not clarified to them, or it was clarified to them and someone came to them who confused them and made things ambiguous for them.
So it is necessary to be deliberate in the matter. Then, on the assumption that we saw clear disbelief with which we have proof from Allah, the word (saw) is a condition, and (disbelief) is a condition, and (clear) is a condition, and (with which we have proof from Allah) is a condition; four conditions.
So we say: (That you see) means: you know with certainty, as a precaution against rumors that have no truth.
And the word (disbelief) is a precaution against open sinfulness.Meaning: If the ruler is an open sinner and a transgressor, but he has not reached the level of disbelief, then it is not permissible to come out against him.
The third: (Clear) means: explicit, not admitting of figurative interpretation.And it was said that clear means: The declared.
And the fourth: (With which you have proof from Allah) means: it is not explicit in our own minds only, but we are relying on clear, decisive evidence.
These four conditions are a condition for the permissibility of coming out, but there remains with us a fifth condition for the obligation of coming out, which is: Is it obligatory for us, if it is permissible for us to come out against the ruler? Is it obligatory for us to come out? The public benefit is considered. If we are able to remove him, then at that time we come out. And if we are not able, then we do not come out, because all obligatory acts of the Shari'ah are conditioned by ability and capacity.
Then, if we come out, it may result in a greater and more significant harm than if this man remained as he is, because we came out and then his strength appeared, we became more humiliated, and he persisted more in his tyranny and disbelief. So these matters require reason, and that the Shari'ah be accompanied by reason, and that emotion be kept away in these matters. We need emotion for our enthusiasm, and we need reason and the Shari'ah so that we do not follow the emotion that leads to destruction.