Regarding the issue of declaring rulers disbelievers, how is the proof established?

The questioner : Your Eminence, regarding the issue of declaring someone a disbeliever, and particularly what concerns declaring rulers disbelievers, our position on this matter is the position of the people of the Sunnah and the community regarding the prohibition of declaring a specific individual a disbeliever. However, we ask you to shed light on a branch of this issue. We know that we cannot declare a specific person, such as a ruler who does not judge by what Allah has revealed, claims to be a Muslim, and claims that the religion of the state is Islam, while corruption is rampant in his land in the form of unlawful sexual intercourse, intoxicants, open sins, and the like, unless the proof is established against him. Therefore, the questions raised are: How is the proof established? Who establishes it? When is it valid to say that we have established the proof? What is the nature of this proof? And is it a condition for establishing it that a meeting be held with him? These are questions and difficulties that confront students of knowledge, and they do not find a satisfactory answer for them. We hope that our Shaykh will cool our hearts and satisfy our longing with a decisive answer on this topic. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that the proof is the word of Allah and the word of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And if we know that this proof—and this is very self-evident—we know the other thing, which is the answer to a portion of the questions that came grouped together, namely: Who establishes this proof? The answer, naturally, is that the one who establishes it is a scholar who is knowledgeable about the meanings of the Book and the Sunnah. It is a common error in this time that many people, who perhaps should not even be included in the ranks of students of knowledge, let alone be called people of knowledge, are imagined to be so. We often hear many of these people say, for example, "I established the proof against such-and-such a Sufi," while he is a beginner in knowledge and thinks that he has established the proof. That Sufi might be a scholar, like many scholars in the present era who graduated from some universities, such as al-Azhar University and others. They are usually strong in what they call the auxiliary sciences. Then a quasi-student of knowledge comes and argues with him and discusses with him, and then concludes by saying that he has established the proof against him.
No one establishes the proof except one who is proficient in the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and the sayings of the righteous Salaf (may Allah be pleased with them), as indicated by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah in what is written about him and is well-known:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said *** The Companions said; it is not deception
"What knowledge has placed you in the foolishness of disagreement *** Between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist" to the end of the speech.
So the point is that the one who establishes the proof is the one who is knowledgeable and proficient in the Book and the Sunnah and the sayings of the righteous Salaf.
Then, within the context of this question, it was asked: Must the establishment of the proof be direct, or not? The answer, without doubt, is that the strongest, clearest, and best proof is to confront the deviant and misguided person face to face with the proof. But if that is not always feasible for some people or for some callers from among the people of knowledge, then at the very least, a letter should be sent to him. Now, the means of sending, hearing, and conveying are completely facilitated through ways that were not previously available. By this second method as well, it can be said that the proof has been established against such-and-such a person. Then, in the end, this precision in these questions only benefits us if the ruling is in our hands, if we were rulers, because establishing the proof leads to distinguishing the disbeliever from the Muslim, especially if this Muslim was a Muslim by inheritance and then did something that takes him out of his religion, making him an apostate. The apostate, in the ruling of Islam, must be killed, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .
So establishing the proof has this implication if the one establishing the proof has authority in his hand. But if they are individuals from among the people, even if they are from the people of knowledge, and they establish the proof, for example, against a certain ruler, and then this ruler continues in his tyranny, it does not benefit us that we established the proof against him, except before Allah (Mighty and Majestic) on the Day of Resurrection, such that he has no excuse to say that the people of knowledge did not teach me and did not benefit me. But it is not among the effects of establishing the proof what some extremists among the Muslims today imagine, namely that since we have established the proof, there is nothing before us but rebellion. This rebellion is not justified by such an establishment of the proof. Establishing the proof only benefits here in the sense that the one against whom the proof was established does not seize us on the Day of Judgment to say to us before our Lord, "Why did you not guide me to the truth when you saw me deviating from it?" But it does not mean that it is permissible for us to rebel against these people, because this rebellion, unfortunately, as history in the present era confirms, leads to great and very great harms, including the loss of lives and the killing of innocent people, women, and children, and the like. Therefore, what the Khalaf inherited from the Salaf in their beliefs is that it is not permissible to rebel against the rulers. This does not mean that rebellion in principle is not permissible, but rather that this rebellion leads to harm without any benefit.
If we assume a scenario where a nation or a group of Muslims prepared themselves with the two preparations we mentioned earlier in answering the word of Allah the Exalted: , preparing completely to the extent that it became predominant in their minds that they could overthrow the system of governance. At that point, a stage comes where one cannot but speak of it, and let no one think that I will say that this stage is achieving a revolution or a coup. No, there is nothing in Islam called a military coup or a bloody revolution or the like, as I have stated in some of my comments and writings. All that these people who prepared with their two branches, spiritual and material preparation, can do to remove from power the ruler who does not judge by what Allah has revealed is not by revolution or coup, but as Allah the Exalted said: .
Islam, without a doubt, came so that the word of Allah would be the supreme one, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the established hadith: , and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: . At the time when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to call people to worship Allah alone, having no partner with Him, and he was also sent with the sword, it is to be understood that he was not sent with the sword except as a means to achieve the call. In other words, the fighting of the Muslims against the disbelievers is not the goal; the only goal is calling the disbelievers to faith in Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So, if one responds, then as stated in the hadiths, he has what we have and he is bound by what binds us. And if he refuses, he has the right to refuse, as evidenced by the well-known verse: . If he refuses, he is given the choice between two things: either he pays the jizyah (the tax on protected non-Muslims) from his hand while in a state of humiliation, or the sword. The sword comes in the third stage. We must understand this point well, because the enemies of Islam, whether Westerners or those who imitate the West, take this hadith as a pretext and claim that Islam spread by the force of the sword. As you see, the sword comes in the final stage. If someone stands in the way of the call and we confront him with the sword, but if he leaves the path of the call open and walks to its furthest extent, he is left to his own affairs, on the condition that we establish Islamic rule, meaning he is subject to its rulings. The evidence for this is that he pays the jizyah from his hand while in a state of humiliation, which is a known ruling in Islam. Now, we return to what we were discussing. If Muslims are afflicted with a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, and they have the spiritual and material readiness that enables them to establish the state of Islam, it is not permissible for them to carry out a revolution or a coup. Rather, they must call the ruler to the rule of Islam and give him the choice: either rule by what Allah has revealed, or open the way for those who want to rule by what Allah has revealed. If he responds, that is good and excellent, because we treat disbelievers in this manner. Otherwise, if Islam is manifest, as mentioned in the question, and he refuses and stands in the way of these callers, then at that time, the sword must be used. But we say: when? When these people are prepared and ready to confront those who stand in the way of the Muslim call. As for carrying out a revolution or a military coup, this is not permissible; nothing else is allowed.