The Takfirists' use of the hadith (the two Jews who replaced the ruling of stoning with scalding and the Tatar ruling with the yasq) as evidence for the disbelief of rulers, and the Shaykh's response
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: I will tell you, my Shaykh, what they cite from the authentic hadith in the story of Anas regarding the two Jews who committed fornication and replaced the ruling of stoning with scalding and other things. They say that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, ruled that they were disbelievers. Look at the discussion regarding the Jews, my Shaykh, may Allah bless you. They say that Allah ruled that they were disbelievers because they changed the law of Allah in this matter.
The Shaykh: Where do they see this reasoning?
The questioner: They say that the hadith, meaning the context of the hadith, indicates that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, ruled that they were disbelievers for what they did.
The Shaykh: The hadith is reasoned in this way.
The questioner: The hadith of Anas when it is mentioned.
The Shaykh: No, no, I am asking a question, meaning.
The questioner: In it, it was revealed, meaning after the story was mentioned, that was the cause for the revelation of the verses.
The Shaykh: Fine, but this does not mean that the takfir was due to this specific detail; rather, this detail was the cause for the revelation of the verse.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Meaning, we cannot agree with their claim that they were declared disbelievers because they ruled with other than what Allah, Mighty and Majestic, ruled, as it is a ruling here. There is no doubt and no ambiguity in the detail that we must remind them of. We say that it is necessary to remind here that declaring something permissible is either practical or in the heart. If the hadith reasons their disbelief due to this ruling and this part of the legal rulings, that does not constitute a text stating that practical disbelief is what they agree with us on, meaning that practical disbelief takes one out of the religion. Their argument with this does not benefit them at all, because we will say to them: Did the Jews in this matter where they changed the ruling of stoning do so as a practical declaration of permissibility or a declaration in the heart? They must say one of the two. If they say they changed it in speech and action but not in belief, then their argument is wrong that Allah declared them disbelievers because of their changing this ruling. And if they say it is because they changed and altered the belief, they agree with us as they agreed with us there, so what does it benefit them to argue with this hadith?
The questioner: May Allah bless you. This is it, my Shaykh, because I also said to them: We want to know the point of dispute. The point of dispute is with the one who says with his tongue, "I believe that the ruling of Allah is the truth," and if he legislates contrary to the ruling of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Do you have [evidence] that the Jews were acknowledging that the ruling of Allah is the truth and that they were wrong in their action? If you say we have no evidence for that, we say then your evidence is not in the point of dispute. Then a questioner said to me, and one of them said to me: "And you also have no evidence that they were disbelievers in belief." I said: I did not claim this; rather, it is your evidence, not mine. It is your evidence. An evidence where possibility [of error] intrudes, the argument falls.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner: The second thing: The Jews were disbelievers without ruling with this ruling, meaning their disbelief preceded this thing.
The Shaykh: It is so, may Allah bless you.
The questioner: May Allah bless you. They also cite the story of the yasq and the words of Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir regarding the yasq of Genghis Khan and his case with the Tatars, that whoever legislates a ruling other than the ruling of Allah has committed disbelief.
The Shaykh: Stay in your place.
The questioner : It is me.
The Shaykh: Never.
The questioner: The same speech.
The Shaykh: Never.
The questioner: We say to them: Did these people believe in the falsity of what Genghis Khan brought? If they say, and you have no evidence that they did, we say then your evidence falls!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh: Where do they see this reasoning?
The questioner: They say that the hadith, meaning the context of the hadith, indicates that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, ruled that they were disbelievers for what they did.
The Shaykh: The hadith is reasoned in this way.
The questioner: The hadith of Anas when it is mentioned.
The Shaykh: No, no, I am asking a question, meaning.
The questioner: In it, it was revealed, meaning after the story was mentioned, that was the cause for the revelation of the verses.
The Shaykh: Fine, but this does not mean that the takfir was due to this specific detail; rather, this detail was the cause for the revelation of the verse.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Meaning, we cannot agree with their claim that they were declared disbelievers because they ruled with other than what Allah, Mighty and Majestic, ruled, as it is a ruling here. There is no doubt and no ambiguity in the detail that we must remind them of. We say that it is necessary to remind here that declaring something permissible is either practical or in the heart. If the hadith reasons their disbelief due to this ruling and this part of the legal rulings, that does not constitute a text stating that practical disbelief is what they agree with us on, meaning that practical disbelief takes one out of the religion. Their argument with this does not benefit them at all, because we will say to them: Did the Jews in this matter where they changed the ruling of stoning do so as a practical declaration of permissibility or a declaration in the heart? They must say one of the two. If they say they changed it in speech and action but not in belief, then their argument is wrong that Allah declared them disbelievers because of their changing this ruling. And if they say it is because they changed and altered the belief, they agree with us as they agreed with us there, so what does it benefit them to argue with this hadith?
The questioner: May Allah bless you. This is it, my Shaykh, because I also said to them: We want to know the point of dispute. The point of dispute is with the one who says with his tongue, "I believe that the ruling of Allah is the truth," and if he legislates contrary to the ruling of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Do you have [evidence] that the Jews were acknowledging that the ruling of Allah is the truth and that they were wrong in their action? If you say we have no evidence for that, we say then your evidence is not in the point of dispute. Then a questioner said to me, and one of them said to me: "And you also have no evidence that they were disbelievers in belief." I said: I did not claim this; rather, it is your evidence, not mine. It is your evidence. An evidence where possibility [of error] intrudes, the argument falls.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner: The second thing: The Jews were disbelievers without ruling with this ruling, meaning their disbelief preceded this thing.
The Shaykh: It is so, may Allah bless you.
The questioner: May Allah bless you. They also cite the story of the yasq and the words of Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir regarding the yasq of Genghis Khan and his case with the Tatars, that whoever legislates a ruling other than the ruling of Allah has committed disbelief.
The Shaykh: Stay in your place.
The questioner : It is me.
The Shaykh: Never.
The questioner: The same speech.
The Shaykh: Never.
The questioner: We say to them: Did these people believe in the falsity of what Genghis Khan brought? If they say, and you have no evidence that they did, we say then your evidence falls!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.