Do we rule that a Muslim has apostatized if it becomes clear that his belief is not sound, such as saying that the Qur'an is incomplete and contradictory, and that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married for lust?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Eleven. Do we rule that a Muslim has apostatized if it becomes clear that his belief is not sound, such as saying that the Qur'an is incomplete and contradictory, and that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) married for lust in his own heart, and he is insistent on this belief? Or must the ruling of his apostasy and the annulment of his blood be from a Muslim imam? If an individual Muslim rules against him with apostasy and applies 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, with no disagreement whatsoever. Likewise, the one who says that the Messenger (peace be upon him) married for lust in his own heart, and he is insistent on this belief. I say likewise, with the addition that if this speaker says that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) married for lust in his own heart, intending to criticize the Messenger (peace be upon him) for that, then this is undoubtedly an apostasy from his religion. Because criticizing the Messenger (peace be upon him) and attributing a defect to him is a violation of his (peace be upon him) purity from such defects, on which the Muslims have agreed regarding his purity from them.
As for if we assume that this speaker said the Messenger married for his lust, but he limited it to what is permissible, in which there is no defect in the Messenger, then we cannot declare him a disbeliever, nor can we declare him misguided. But we know, in our present society today, that the talk about the Messenger (peace be upon him) and that he married more than the four he permitted for his Ummah, the source of this is 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. If the one 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 one, whether the ruling of this person's apostasy must be from a Muslim imam, or the ruling of his apostasy and the annulment of his blood must be from a Muslim imam. Here are two matters that may be confused for some people: ruling that a person is an apostate, or ruling that a person deserves to be killed, this is one thing; and executing what the person subject to this ruling deserves, this is a second thing. We can say that every Muslim can say: whoever claims that there is a defect or contradiction in the Qur'an is a disbeliever. Every Muslim can say this to every disbeliever. But not every Muslim can execute the ruling that befits the one who was declared a disbeliever due to his apostasy from his religion. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between ruling with apostasy and executing what is required for this apostate. Executing the ruling, which is killing, is for the ruler. This is not specific to the apostate, but extends to all those subject to hudud, such as the fornicator, whether married or unmarried, and the thief. None of these is permissible for an individual Muslim to carry out. 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 he was killed with truth, 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 is an apostate, which every one who knows this ruling can do, and executing the hadd of apostasy on this person, which is not permissible for anyone to do except the Muslim ruler. It is usually said in such a discussion: "Well, what if there is no Muslim ruler?" Meaning, well, does that mean each of us becomes a Muslim ruler? There is no Muslim ruler, unfortunately, meaning that each of us will act as a Muslim ruler? Then expect the bad and very bad results, as we said.
The questioner : Because in a question for ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, does ... the ruling of his apostasy and the annulment of his blood must be from a Muslim imam? We know the answer to this. Executing the ruling is from a Muslim imam, while issuing the ruling 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: If an individual Muslim rules against him with apostasy and applies the ruling by killing him, does he sin by doing so or not? The answer is yes, he sins, because he did something he was not ordered to do. Because the one who wants to execute a ruling, the execution of this ruling is entrusted to another person, so he did it without being entrusted with it by the Shari'ah. So that is transgressing the limits of Allah the Exalted and Majestic, and He the Exalted and Majestic says:[At-Talaq 65:1] Please, regarding the question.
The questioner : If a person says he 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, do not ... regarding the question.
The questioner : The one who believes in the unity of existence, is he not a disbeliever?
The Shaykh : This is not the question.
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, with no disagreement whatsoever. Likewise, the one who says that the Messenger (peace be upon him) married for lust in his own heart, and he is insistent on this belief. I say likewise, with the addition that if this speaker says that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) married for lust in his own heart, intending to criticize the Messenger (peace be upon him) for that, then this is undoubtedly an apostasy from his religion. Because criticizing the Messenger (peace be upon him) and attributing a defect to him is a violation of his (peace be upon him) purity from such defects, on which the Muslims have agreed regarding his purity from them.
As for if we assume that this speaker said the Messenger married for his lust, but he limited it to what is permissible, in which there is no defect in the Messenger, then we cannot declare him a disbeliever, nor can we declare him misguided. But we know, in our present society today, that the talk about the Messenger (peace be upon him) and that he married more than the four he permitted for his Ummah, the source of this is 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. If the one 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 one, whether the ruling of this person's apostasy must be from a Muslim imam, or the ruling of his apostasy and the annulment of his blood must be from a Muslim imam. Here are two matters that may be confused for some people: ruling that a person is an apostate, or ruling that a person deserves to be killed, this is one thing; and executing what the person subject to this ruling deserves, this is a second thing. We can say that every Muslim can say: whoever claims that there is a defect or contradiction in the Qur'an is a disbeliever. Every Muslim can say this to every disbeliever. But not every Muslim can execute the ruling that befits the one who was declared a disbeliever due to his apostasy from his religion. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between ruling with apostasy and executing what is required for this apostate. Executing the ruling, which is killing, is for the ruler. This is not specific to the apostate, but extends to all those subject to hudud, such as the fornicator, whether married or unmarried, and the thief. None of these is permissible for an individual Muslim to carry out. 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 he was killed with truth, 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 is an apostate, which every one who knows this ruling can do, and executing the hadd of apostasy on this person, which is not permissible for anyone to do except the Muslim ruler. It is usually said in such a discussion: "Well, what if there is no Muslim ruler?" Meaning, well, does that mean each of us becomes a Muslim ruler? There is no Muslim ruler, unfortunately, meaning that each of us will act as a Muslim ruler? Then expect the bad and very bad results, as we said.
The questioner : Because in a question for ... .
The Shaykh : No problem, does ... the ruling of his apostasy and the annulment of his blood must be from a Muslim imam? We know the answer to this. Executing the ruling is from a Muslim imam, while issuing the ruling 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: If an individual Muslim rules against him with apostasy and applies the ruling by killing him, does he sin by doing so or not? The answer is yes, he sins, because he did something he was not ordered to do. Because the one who wants to execute a ruling, the execution of this ruling is entrusted to another person, so he did it without being entrusted with it by the Shari'ah. So that is transgressing the limits of Allah the Exalted and Majestic, and He the Exalted and Majestic says:
And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah has certainly wronged himself
ومن يتعد حدود الله فقد ظلم نفسهThe questioner : If a person says he 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, do not ... regarding the question.
The questioner : The one who believes in the unity of existence, is he not a disbeliever?
The Shaykh : This is not the question.