One who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, without deeming it permissible, and considers his ruling deficient while the truth lies in Allah's ruling: is he a disbeliever whose disbelief expels him from the religion, or is it a disbelief less than disbelief?

The questioner : Indeed, Allah is the Judge. Some of the evidence confuses us. Praise be to Allah, I have memorized the issue, and to the best of my ability, I see that many young people, especially the new ones, pick up these booklets. But I want to ask you this question, and I hope it is recorded so that, if Allah wills, I will understand these matters. The question is: Is one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, without deeming it permissible, and considers his ruling deficient while the truth lies in Allah's ruling, but he established his ruling and the constitution and references to which one returns—is he a disbeliever whose disbelief expels him from the religion, or is it a disbelief less than disbelief?

The Shaykh : You say that you are aware of this question. We have several tapes on it.

The questioner : Shaykh, it is related, Shaykh, perhaps.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : Does this point correspond to this generality? Does this act correspond to what Genghis Khan did in his Yasa code, which is a compilation of various laws? We just want to distinguish between them at this stage.

The Shaykh : My brother, the causes are many, but death is one. The forms vary, and it is not wise to answer for every form: a French law, a Swiss law, a British law, an American law, and so on. Some Arab countries adopt a French law, others a British law, and so on. So the answer is one, whether negative or positive. One who adopts a single ruling that contradicts the Shari'ah is like one who adopts many rulings that contradict the Shari'ah. His disbelief is either doctrinal disbelief or practical disbelief. There is no difference between one ruling or many rulings, whether the ruling is by doctrinal disbelief or by practical disbelief. There is no difference between this and that. Yes, yes, yes.

The questioner: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh: And upon you peace.

The questioner : How are you, our Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Welcome, Hussein. How is Abu Malik?

The questioner : May Allah keep us with you.

The Shaykh : My brother, this powder, after you leave, will work until Maghrib. You can easily put your hand on the radiator.

The questioner : I know, I know that it is easy.

The Shaykh : How did you know, and what did you teach me?

The questioner : There is something I forgot.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : Is Sami with you?

The Shaykh : Who?

The questioner : Sami.

The Shaykh : Sami.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : No, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), as is known in the authentic Sunnah in "Sunan Abu Dawud" and others, said: . These two judges here are from the people of the Fire. It is not necessary that they be disbelievers; rather, they are Muslims. One judged out of ignorance, so he deserved the Fire because of his judgment in ignorance. The other contradicted the truth while knowing it, so he is also in the Fire. So, as I told you earlier: there is no difference between a judge who judges by one law in one case or in many cases. There is no difference, whether we say his disbelief is doctrinal or we say it is practical. So now, we cannot absolve a Muslim who is not infallible—a Muslim who is not infallible—from judging once in his life by other than the truth. We cannot say this person is not infallible. So the one who judged, whether for himself or for his wife or his son, by a ruling that contradicted the Shari'ah in it—there is no Muslim who knows what comes out of his mouth to say about him that he has committed apostasy because he judged by other than what Allah legislated. This is the ruling.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes, if this ruling is repeated, it takes the same result, or rather, this case in which he judged is the same as the first ruling. A person named Zayd judged by other than what Allah revealed in one case. If he deemed it permissible while knowing that Allah's ruling is contrary to it, it is apostasy. If he did not deem it permissible in his heart and belief, then his disbelief, as I said, is less than disbelief, meaning practical disbelief, not doctrinal disbelief. So the first type, no matter how often it is repeated, is doctrinal disbelief. The second type, no matter how often it is repeated, is practical disbelief. Why? Because the case is related to what is settled in the heart. If it is settled in the heart in the first case that this Shari'ah ruling is not suitable in this time, then it is apostasy itself, and whatever other cases come after it are attached to the first. And if he says: I acknowledge that this ruling or this case is contrary to the Shari'ah by which I worship Allah, but the soul that commands evil, desire, weakness, inability, following people, and the enticing reasons for judging by other than what Allah revealed are many, very many. So no matter how often this type is repeated, it takes the first ruling, which is practical disbelief, not doctrinal disbelief. But here are matters after this detail that relate to the appearance of the judge or ruler. If his appearance leads the observer to lean toward the idea that he does not believe in the Shari'ah, then he is judged to be an apostate from his religion. If his appearance does not make him feel that, then it is said that his ruling is contrary to the Shari'ah but is not an exit from the religion. Therefore, no matter how often the questions are repeated, he is on the military system. Stay in your place. The first ruling, the first case, is apostasy, so what is attached to it is apostasy upon apostasy. And if the first case is not apostasy but rather a practical contradiction of the Shari'ah, then no matter how often this contradiction is repeated, the ruling is one. Then I personally am amazed at those who raise the banner of declaring rulers disbelievers, forgetting that this also includes the ruled. What do they say about these usurers who live for many years and deem permissible what Allah has forbidden of riba? Is this person a disbeliever or not? He deems it permissible practically, just like that ruler. This detail is necessary. The one who eats riba, the one who commits zina, the one who steals, the one who drinks intoxicants and becomes addicted to intoxicants, and so on. This detail that we mention regarding rulers also relates to the ruled themselves. So the one who drinks once in his life, if he deems it permissible in his heart, he has apostatized from his religion. And if he becomes addicted to it for his whole life and says when it is mentioned: May Allah accept our repentance, this person is not a disbeliever and not an apostate from his religion. Therefore, the issue is very clear for one who has correct knowledge and correct understanding. And Allah is sufficient for the believers in fighting. Okay, answer the one whose name is what?