Discussion on the ruling of a judge who rules by the legislation of the People's Council - Parliament

The Shaykh: Now, disagreement may arise in cases like the one I described to you first: a man who stepped on the Book of Allah with his foot. We agreed that this act indicates, and indeed points to, the fact that this person who insulted the Book of Allah does not believe in the Book of Allah. We agreed on that. I just gave you an opposite example: the one who prays toward a grave. His action is the action of disbelievers, but we do not rule that he has apostatized until we see other matters. Yes, do you see how the two examples are different? Good. So I am saying now that between these two examples, there are many examples or scenarios. Some may be classified with the first group, and some may be classified with the second group. And there may remain matters of ambiguity, meaning the view fluctuates as to whether to rule that this is from the first group, i.e., apostasy, or the second group, i.e., practical disbelief. What is your opinion of this theoretical classification? Do you agree or not? Fine, so what is the remaining disagreement between you and me?
The student: Give me some time to speak.
Another student : He wants a period, meaning to speak.
The student: Five minutes, I am afraid it will not be enough for you. Take a quarter of an hour. Hey, this clock is ten to ten.
The student : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh: Take ten and five.
The student: Regarding what I said at the end, meaning I support the Shaykh in the matter that the one who committed an act of disbelief, such as stepping on the mushaf, does not believe in Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), that he is a disbeliever, and that he displayed disbelief. And as for the one who prays toward a grave, we do not rule that he is a disbeliever until some matters become clear from him. We agree with the Shaykh in this. And here we raise, from the acts of disbelief that take one out of the religion, such as stepping on the mushaf, that if the judge or the ruler says that every ruling or every law that is not in our constitution is invalid and invalidates the ruling of Allah, or says that legislation is the responsibility of the prince or the People's Council or such, and he makes legislation the domain of humans, or that he has nullified the ruling of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) in general and in detail, or that he has replaced the ruling of Allah with a man-made ruling.

The Shaykh: You are going to lose us with "or, or, or." I have a suggestion, can you hear it? Fine. Let us discuss each example. If it is said that this is creedal disbelief, we are done, and we move on to what is the second example, and so on. But if you gather "or, or, or," you want to leave me and the Shaykh, as you see me, to limit in my mind how many examples you have presented to me, and what am I to do, a comparison between example number one, two, and three? You will burden me, my brother. Be gentle withThe Shaykh : , bring the first example and let us look into it. What is your opinion? Do you agree.
The student: My opinion is that we make it the "wa" of emotion, not the "wa" of separation.

The Shaykh: Do you agree? How is it the "wa" of emotion, meaning?
The student : ... .

The Shaykh: There is nothing, but do not list them for me. Listing is not the discussion now.
The student: Even if it is the "wa" of emotion, the Shaykh cannot, excuse me, answer these examples, example and example.

The Shaykh: The discussion now is not linguistic but social. Meaning, whether you say "or, or, or, or, or, and, and, and" to the end, I do not care about that. But I care that you tell me example number one, then after the discussion of this example number one, you say "and," and if you say "or," I will not discuss it with you. Do you understand what I mean?
The student: Yes, I understood.

The Shaykh: Fine, please, now the first example.
The student: If the judge or the ruler attributed legislation to himself, and that is the action of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), and an example of that is if he came with a council and said, "This is the legislative council that legislates for the people what is lawful and what is forbidden, the law and the ruling," and it is done by voting, and he established himself as a legislator with a group of people from the people who chose them, is this action that he performed an act of practical disbelief that takes one out of the religion, or practical disbelief that does not take one out of the religion?

The Shaykh: It is undoubtedly practical disbelief, certainly. But I do not agree in advance that it is creedal disbelief, given what you know of the severity of ruling on one who testifies that there is no god but Allah, until there is... I have not finished my speech, I have not finished my statement, how?
The student: There is an error in your speech.

The Shaykh: My speech, meaning, if someone says to you , did he hit the mark or miss?
The student: You did not give the Shaykh the opportunity to present his point, meaning.

The Shaykh: How do you want to judge my speech as correct or incorrect when I brought the subject and did not bring the predicate?
The student: No, now you are contradicting yourself.

The Shaykh: My brother, my speech is not complete, how do you want to judge it?
The student: I will record it, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh: Record it, give him a paper.
The student : Please, Shaykh.

The Shaykh: I say that this person who adopted this law and attributed the law to the people may possibly be ignorant, and it is possible that he is following his desire, like the judge whose disbelief we ruled was practical and not creedal. So that we may remove this possibility and be certain that he is of the first type, i.e., that his disbelief is creedal disbelief, we need to clarify in one way or another. If it becomes clear that his position is like the position of the first judge whose disbelief we ruled was apostasy, then at that time we do not hold back, just as if he were asked, "And what is your opinion of the Shari'ah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which you have made a waste and established in its place the ruling of the people?" At that time, based on what his tongue indicates, we condemn him for it. But this same action alone is not sufficient because there is a possibility. And perhaps you know the saying of the scholars that if a Muslim commits an act and there are a hundred opinions from the scholars, ninety-nine of which declare him a disbeliever and one opinion does not declare him a disbeliever, then his disbelief is not declared, out of fear of falling into the problem of . So caution in declaring disbelief on one who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, who prays, may fast, and so on, is a very necessary matter. If that sign does not appear from him, which I exemplified by stepping on the Book of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and what is similar to it, then we do not hesitate and say this is practical disbelief and not creedal disbelief. This is our caution in such a case. Please.
The student: There is something, Shaykh, you said, you said we do not rule on him with creedal disbelief, so we said that practical disbelief, and we do not rule on him with creedal disbelief. So which is more severe now? I understood from you at the beginning of the topic that creedal disbelief is inner disbelief and its appearance is Islam, so we do not rule on him with disbelief. Then you said that practical disbelief is divided into two parts: practical disbelief that takes one out of the religion and practical disbelief that does not take one out of the religion. So you said now in the speech that we do not classify it with creedal disbelief, but he is a Muslim. Does creedal disbelief necessitate that we declare him a disbeliever and that Islam has appeared from him?

The Shaykh: My brother, there is nothing... The speech that I said, it appears that you did not record it in your mind, so please record it on paper. We need to finish and repeat the speech.
The student: Which is more severe, creedal disbelief or practical disbelief now? I understood from the beginning of the topic that creedal disbelief has the appearance of Islam and the inner reality of disbelief, so we do not rule on him with disbelief, we cannot, because he did not commit any of the nullifiers of "There is no god but Allah." But practical disbelief, it is possible, if he stepped on the mushaf.

The Shaykh: We are talking about practical disbelief, this one who adopted the law of the people as a law, this is not practical disbelief.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh: Fine, this practical disbelief now, we want to weigh it with the scale of the Shari'ah. Does it display practical disbelief such that we do not declare creedal disbelief on its owner, or does it remain creedal disbelief and the legal rulings follow from that, such as fighting him and rebelling against him, and so on? We are still in the same topic, my brother.
The student: Yes, I understood, I am now.
Another student : My Shaykh, we need to decide this matter. Creedal disbelief is the most severe. This takes one out of the religion, not just the issue that he believes in his heart and his appearance is Islam. It does not mean that his belief is a barren wasteland, as they say. As for practical disbelief, his action is the action of disbelievers. So creedal disbelief, there is no doubt that it is the one that takes one out, of course. As for practical disbelief, his actions are the actions of disbelievers.

The Shaykh: Are you in doubt about this?
The student: He is doubting.

The Shaykh: ... I am telling him he is eternal in the Fire, and so on.
The student: Yes, in his mind it is not clear.
Another student : Now it is clear, fine, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The student: Fine, Shaykh, you said now that this action is disbelief, that it indicates his disbelief.

The Shaykh: I do not say it indicates, my brother. It may indicate and it may not indicate. May Allah guide you.
The student: According to the statement of his tongue.

The Shaykh : I gave you an example earlier that this is practical disbelief, but I do not assert that it indicates what is settled in his heart, and that his disbelief is creedal disbelief, until a practical manifestation comes to us that resembles a practical manifestation mentioned in the Noble Qur'an. I gave you an example: "Where are you from the law of Allah? Why do you not judge by what Allah has revealed?" At that point, we will understand from him, in one way or another, as I mentioned earlier in the example of the two judges: "This ruling is no longer valid; this is it, his disbelief is creedal disbelief, not just practical disbelief." And I am still, my brother, I have been living with these problems for thirty or forty years.
The student : May Allah reward you with good.