What is meant by the statement of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his companion): "Disbelief less than disbelief"?

The questioner : Commenting on your words yesterday when you were asked about the issue of ruling, and you mentioned the distinction that creedal disbelief is the disbelief of belief.

Another questioner : We ask for clarification.

The Shaykh : Creedal disbelief and practical disbelief, yes.

The questioner : And you mentioned the saying of Ibn 'Abbas: "Disbelief less than disbelief," and similarly I believe... and al-Shanqiti - also... some of the brothers see... just as Shaykh "Omar al-Ashqar" mentioned in his book "Al-'Aqeedah" and others, that this statement of Ibn 'Abbas and others, "Disbelief less than disbelief"... only applies to one who rules in a single case by other than what Allah has revealed, and not... from existing rulings to rulings... ... or as some of them said... so what is the correct view... of these two statements?

The Shaykh : The correct view, which we are certain of, is what you heard yesterday! As for this doubt, we hear it repeatedly from the group of takfir (declaring people disbelievers), and I established the argument against them in the following manner: If there is a judge who rules by the Shari'ah, ruling by the Shari'ah and not by the law, and when a case is brought to him he rules contrary to the Shari'ah, the question arises: Did he become a disbeliever? The group of takfir, despite their noses, could only say, after some thought: No, he did not become a disbeliever. We said to them: Why? Is it not true that he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed? He said: He usually rules by the Shari'ah, and this time he ruled by other than the Shari'ah. We said to him: Okay, in another case - also - he followed his desire and ruled by other than the Shari'ah; did he become a disbeliever? He said: Like the first one, but with some weakness. I said to him: A third time, a fifth time, and a fiftieth time; did he become a disbeliever? He said: Yes, when I increased the number for him, he said: He became a disbeliever. We reduced the number for him... and sometimes he presents one man and delays another, tell me: What is the criterion for you that in the first, second, and third time he perhaps did not become a disbeliever? And in the fifth and fiftieth he became a disbeliever; what is the criterion? Did you not look at the fact that in the first, second, and third time you looked at the fact that it is true that he contradicted the Shari'ah, but he believes that in his contradiction of the Shari'ah he is contradicting the Shari'ah, it does not mean he is defiant against the Shari'ah and that this Shari'ah is no longer suitable for this time and the like.
So this man, no matter how many times his rulings are by other than what Allah has revealed, he remains as he is in terms of creed. So what is new for you regarding this person when we depicted for you that he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed fifty times, and if you asked him: Do you see this ruling as true? He would tell you: No. Okay, why did you rule by other than what Allah has revealed? May Allah curse Satan!! Like the one who... intoxicants, like the one who... theft and so on, what is the difference between this one who does not rule by what Allah has revealed and those who - also - do not apply the rulings of Allah to themselves? So does the repetition of the thing have a relation to creed? No, but it has a relation to the increase of what? Sin.
Therefore, creed - my brother - has a relation to the heart, like faith. Where is the primary attachment of faith? It is the heart. Similarly, the opposite of faith, which is disbelief, also has a relation to the heart. So the issue does not have a relation to the frequency of the believer falling into contradiction of the Shari'ah, whether much or little; the ruling is one way or another. But of course, the ruling is one in terms of whether he is a disbeliever or not, but the ruling is not one for the one who errs with his Lord once like the one who errs with Him fifty times; this is undoubtedly more severe in sin and transgression. But the research regarding the issue of takfir or a person falling into disbelief; this has a relation to the heart. So if this person expresses with his tongue what is settled in his heart, or if there is decisive evidence that he is a disbeliever in his heart, we rule that he is a disbeliever. But as is the case with many of our rulers today, there are contradictory indications. They are, on one hand, some of them at least fast and pray and perform the rituals of Islam... in any case, this is... for me that there is no difference between once or twice or five or ten. The important thing, in other words, is that I draw your attention to the fact that the issue has a relation sometimes to Islam, and sometimes to faith. If the research is in declaring disbelievers those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed; meaning we give a ruling regarding the outcome of their affair with Allah; then this has a relation to what? To faith. And if the matter is related to what appears to us, then this has a relation to Islam, meaning the apparent rulings. So any person from whom appears what makes him a disbeliever, we rule that he is a disbeliever, and his affair is with Allah (Mighty and Majestic); knowing that our ruling may be wrong and may be right; is that clear or not?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh: Huh?

The questioner : Do you rule based on disbelief?

The Shaykh : I say: There are two things, one is called faith and one is called Islam. Faith has a relation to the heart, Islam has a relation to the limbs, to the deeds that appear to people. So if a deed appears from a person that makes us feel strongly, without doubt, that he is a disbeliever in the depths of his heart, we rule at that time that he is a disbeliever and his account is with Allah. Do you understand how? But if it appears to us that he is a Muslim who prays and fasts and so on, but there are weak indications that he is not a Muslim, we do not prioritize these weak indications over those strong indications. So if the group says absolutely: with Allah; then this means a ruling on what is settled in their hearts. So does the non-application of a ruling of Allah or more indicate that disbelief has been established in his heart and he has denied what Allah has revealed of His Shari'ah?
This is not permissible, otherwise every one who contradicts a ruling of the Shari'ah would be a disbeliever. And we mentioned yesterday examples: , so whenever we see a person fighting a person or a group fighting a group, and both groups are Muslims; we say: This group that rebelled is disbelievers; because the Messenger said: or ? No, but we study the issue with some deliberation; does this Muslim who kills or fights his Muslim brother see that as a permissible, lawful matter contrary to what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has legislated of the prohibition of the blood of a Muslim? If he expresses in his speech a false creed, then he is a disbeliever at that time. But merely relying on an apparent sign from him is contrary to the rulings of the Shari'ah.
We know that the Messenger (peace be upon him) rebuked the Companion when he killed the disbeliever after he had said: "There is no god but Allah." He rebuked him, and when the Companion excused himself by saying that he had not said it except as a ruse or out of fear of being killed or the like, he said: , yes, he said: . Even though, if we were to study this matter now with some deliberation, patience, and thought, we would find that this Companion, specifically, according to the logic of the takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) groups, was in the right. Why? Because before the sword touched him, he was fighting the Muslims; he was a disbeliever. So when the sword was about to touch him, he said: "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah." So the apparent indication is that this man did not say this good word except as a means of escape from being killed. Nevertheless, what did the Messenger (peace be upon him) hold onto when he objected to this Companion and rebuked him? He said: "There is no god but Allah." Did he say it as a means of escape, or did he say it with faith? That is between him and his Lord. The important thing is that this word is a shield of protection. We, these rulers, at least some of them, we find that they not only testify, but they also pray and fast, and so on. But from another side, they do not rule by what Allah has revealed. We do not justify their ruling, but we say that it is not permissible to declare a Muslim a disbeliever, whether he is one of these rulers or a judge among the Muslim judges. And often these people rule by other than what Allah has revealed, so we do not declare them disbelievers. Rather, it is sufficient for us to say: these people contradict the Shari'ah, and indeed they do not rule by what Allah has revealed. If we can convince them and compel them to rule by what Allah has revealed, then that is good and excellent. If we cannot, then we continue on our path until we are able to establish the Muslim state.
... What is the benefit now of declaring, let us suppose that this is the truth, for the sake of argument, that all these rulers are disbelievers? What is the benefit? We revolt? I do not believe that there is revolt in Islam. Rather, we need to follow the path that the Messenger (peace be upon him) took until he gathered the group and established the Muslim state on the basis of this group. History repeats itself, and we must make history repeat itself, so we follow the same path that the Messenger (peace be upon him) took. That means it is necessary to establish the foundation, otherwise these revolts and these leaps are harming us, not benefiting us at all; they are pushing us backward. This is if the call itself were correct. How much more so when it is invalid? No, we have no evidence at all that compels us to declare a disbeliever someone from whom we see Islam, and from whom we do not see, on the other hand, a turning away from acting upon Islam. This is a matter of action where they are shortcoming and being held accountable; we say all of this. But that they are disbelievers while they are praying? This is of no use!