Is it valid for those who declare others disbelievers to cite the incident of the Tartars and Genghis Khan, and that they legislated a ruling other than the ruling of Allah, as evidence for declaring disbeliever anyone who does not judge by what Allah has revealed?

The questioner : They also cite the story of the Yasaq and the words of al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir regarding the Yasaq of Genghis Khan and his case with the Tartars, claiming that whoever legislates a ruling other than the ruling of Allah has committed disbelief.

The Shaykh : Stay where you are.

The questioner : It is me.

The Shaykh : Never.

The questioner : The same statement.

The Shaykh : Never.

The questioner : We say to them: Did these people believe that what Genghis Khan brought was invalid? If they say, "What do you have to prove that they believed so?" then we say, "Your evidence is void."

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And may He reward you as well. Yes.

Another questioner : Shaykh, in addition to the fact that Ibn Kathir, in *Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya*, when he mentioned the Yasaq and its subject, stated that he claimed prophethood and that he took the rulings of the Yasaq from Allah.

The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.

The questioner : Look at how they use evidence and make their arguments.

The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest. These people follow what is ambiguous. If they follow what is ambiguous in the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), why do they not do with historical reports what they do with the Qur'an and the Sunnah? This is desire, this is desire.

The questioner : In this, Shaykh, in this same issue, there is another matter, which is that they say: if one legislates, then he has made lawful, even if that is not in his heart. So here is a question: Is making lawful...

The Shaykh : Stay where you are.

The questioner : Yes, is making lawful, may Allah preserve you, Shaykh, is making lawful necessarily requiring verbal declaration by the tongue of making lawful what Allah has forbidden, after the proof has been established against him, or is it sufficient in some cases with just the action?

The Shaykh : Making lawful is like disbelief; there is no difference between the two. Disbelief, as a linguistic term, is more indicative of the actual state of disbelief than the indication of making lawful that this one who makes lawful is a disbeliever. So if our position, and they are with us, is that disbelief is divided into two categories: disbelief that takes one out of the religion, and disbelief that does not take one out of the religion, then it is even more so, and even more so, and even more so, that making lawful is also divided into two categories: making lawful that takes one out of the religion, which reverts to making lawful in the heart, and making lawful that does not take one out of the religion, which is practical making lawful. From here, we said regarding the hadith in al-Bukhari, which some people of desires in this time weaken, and some of them follow Ibn Hazm, the Imam, where he (peace and blessings be upon him) said as a linguistic expression, because they spend the night with intoxicants and musical instruments and the like, and they deserve the punishment mentioned in the hadith. It is possible that it is making lawful in the heart, and this is clearer and closer to the punishment mentioned in this hadith. So they do not benefit anything from the word "making lawful" if it is mentioned in a place that it means the disbelief of apostasy, because the word "disbelief" itself does not always and forever mean the disbelief of apostasy. This is all I have, and I hope that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, will inspire us with guidance. Yes.

Another questioner : Shaykh, the hadith that our brother Abu al-Hasan referred to is the hadith of al-Bara' in Sahih Muslim.

The Shaykh : Yes.

Another questioner : Sahih Muslim.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

Another questioner : .

The Shaykh : They lied.

The questioner : Here is the most important point, Shaykh, in the entire hadith.

The questioner : So he called one of their scholars and said, "I swear you by Allah who revealed the Torah to Moses, do you find the punishment for the fornicator in your book like this?" They said, "No, and if you had not sworn me by this, I would not have informed you. We find stoning, but it became common among our nobles, so when we took a noble, we left him, and when we took a weak person, we established the punishment on him. We said, 'Come, let us agree on something to establish on the noble and the lowly,' so we made branding and flogging in place of stoning." Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said So he ordered that he be stoned. Then Allah, the Exalted, revealed to His saying It says: "If this is given to you, take it." It means: If Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) commands you with branding and flogging, take it, and if he gives you the ruling of stoning, beware. Then Allah, the Exalted, revealed , ... .

The Shaykh : In the disbelievers.

The questioner : All of them It is naturally problematic; it is not "all of them" (kullaha) but "all of them" (kulluha) is the problematic one, "all of them" (kulluha), but the correct one is "all of them" (kullaha).

The Shaykh : Yes, the verses, I mean.

The questioner : The verses, yes, Shaykh. In fact, this text is very clear that they attributed the change to the Book of Allah. So here is the point of belief in which they are. If this were attributed to themselves as a result of desire or something, it would not be declaring them disbelievers.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Is that not so, our professor?

The Shaykh : It is so, yes.

The questioner : May Allah preserve you.