Is there a difference between ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and legislating in judgment?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Here, my shaykh, in this issue, they cite evidence for declaring the rulers disbelievers in general. When they first spoke to us about the issue of declaring rulers disbelievers, we asked them: Do you say that everyone who rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever? When they said yes, we asked them: What do you say about the rulers of the Umayyads who ruled by other than what Allah has revealed, the rulers of the Abbasids, and the unjust emirs, about whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered patience until we see clear disbelief? This means that what they did was not clear disbelief. So they resorted to changing the wording; instead of saying "rules by other than what Allah has revealed," they say "replaces the law of Allah and replaces the judgment of Allah." They said: We accept the Salaf's distinction that one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, while believing that the judgment of Allah is the truth and what is below it is falsehood, and who legalizes the lawful and forbids the unlawful by his belief and his tongue, even if his action contradicts that and he believes it is not permissible to rule alongside Allah, we say this is practical disbelief. But if he believes that his judgment is better than the judgment of Allah, or equal to the judgment of Allah, or that it is permissible for him to rule alongside Allah, that is doctrinal disbelief. They said: We accept your distinction regarding the issue of ruling, but we do not accept it regarding the issue of legislation, for whoever legislates in a single detail is a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Practically or doctrinally?
The questioner : I mean doctrinally and exiting Islam.
The Shaykh : I do not say practically or doctrinally.
The questioner : They say that permissibility is not required; that is, he is a disbeliever, a disbeliever by his action alone.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, we are now bringing up our point against them.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : You have not fallen short; you have clarified their viewpoint. We say: They say it is not so. Whoever legislates a ruling, we say, legislates either by speech or by belief. So we are still at the point where they agreed with us.
The questioner : In the first point, they agreed with us.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : And they changed its sin, and we are still at the point of equating them.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So we are now asking them.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Did they legislate or did they legislate doctrinally or practically? If they said doctrinally, they are with us as they were before. If they said no, by speech, then they have departed from what they were with us on. If they said they legislated practically and not doctrinally, they have gained nothing, as you indicated in your speech that they changed the titles; they varied in expression to mislead. And what is the difference between "legislated," which means he will rule by what he legislated? The word "legislated" refers to ruling, and ruling refers to action, and action is either accompanied by a belief or not. So they have gained nothing from this playing with words, because we will hold them to this logical sequence from which they have no way to escape. A man who wrote a system in ink on paper and another who did not write a system in ink on paper, and both agreed in acting according to this system; one wrote it and the other left the paper blank, but they share in the action. Do they differ? They may differ and they may agree. They may agree, each of them, and they may differ in the means; one wrote and the other did not write, and they agreed in the action, so they differed in the means. They may agree in the goal; neither of them considers permissible in the depths of his heart what they did. One wrote and the other did not write; neither of them considers it permissible in his heart, and Allah knows best what is in his soul. Indeed, he may say, "May Allah accept our repentance; we were forced; we wanted to preserve our chair; we wanted to preserve our status and our position," and so on. This is practical disbelief. They may differ; one considers it permissible in his heart, and his disbelief becomes doctrinal disbelief, even if he did not write a single word. The one who acted according to what was written, one of them considered it permissible in his heart and said, "The law is what Islam brought, but its time has passed. We are now in a time different from that time." This one is more disbelieving than the one who wrote. This one is more disbelieving than the one who wrote because he considered permissible what he did in his heart, whereas the one who did not consider permissible what he did and what he wrote in his heart. So this is playing with words, Professor.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The result is the same!
The Shaykh : Practically or doctrinally?
The questioner : I mean doctrinally and exiting Islam.
The Shaykh : I do not say practically or doctrinally.
The questioner : They say that permissibility is not required; that is, he is a disbeliever, a disbeliever by his action alone.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, we are now bringing up our point against them.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : You have not fallen short; you have clarified their viewpoint. We say: They say it is not so. Whoever legislates a ruling, we say, legislates either by speech or by belief. So we are still at the point where they agreed with us.
The questioner : In the first point, they agreed with us.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : And they changed its sin, and we are still at the point of equating them.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So we are now asking them.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Did they legislate or did they legislate doctrinally or practically? If they said doctrinally, they are with us as they were before. If they said no, by speech, then they have departed from what they were with us on. If they said they legislated practically and not doctrinally, they have gained nothing, as you indicated in your speech that they changed the titles; they varied in expression to mislead. And what is the difference between "legislated," which means he will rule by what he legislated? The word "legislated" refers to ruling, and ruling refers to action, and action is either accompanied by a belief or not. So they have gained nothing from this playing with words, because we will hold them to this logical sequence from which they have no way to escape. A man who wrote a system in ink on paper and another who did not write a system in ink on paper, and both agreed in acting according to this system; one wrote it and the other left the paper blank, but they share in the action. Do they differ? They may differ and they may agree. They may agree, each of them, and they may differ in the means; one wrote and the other did not write, and they agreed in the action, so they differed in the means. They may agree in the goal; neither of them considers permissible in the depths of his heart what they did. One wrote and the other did not write; neither of them considers it permissible in his heart, and Allah knows best what is in his soul. Indeed, he may say, "May Allah accept our repentance; we were forced; we wanted to preserve our chair; we wanted to preserve our status and our position," and so on. This is practical disbelief. They may differ; one considers it permissible in his heart, and his disbelief becomes doctrinal disbelief, even if he did not write a single word. The one who acted according to what was written, one of them considered it permissible in his heart and said, "The law is what Islam brought, but its time has passed. We are now in a time different from that time." This one is more disbelieving than the one who wrote. This one is more disbelieving than the one who wrote because he considered permissible what he did in his heart, whereas the one who did not consider permissible what he did and what he wrote in his heart. So this is playing with words, Professor.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The result is the same!
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.