How is the proof established against a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed?

The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh : Regarding the issue of declaring someone a disbeliever, and specifically declaring rulers to be disbelievers, our position on this matter, and the position of the people of the Sunnah and the community, is that one does not declare a specific individual to be a disbeliever. However, we ask you to shed light on a branch of this issue. We know that we cannot declare a specific person, such as a ruler who does not rule by what Allah has revealed, claims to be a Muslim, and states that the religion of the state is Islam, while corruption is rampant in his land and sins are committed openly, to be a disbeliever until the proof is established against him. Therefore, the questions raised are: How is the proof established? Who establishes it? When can it be said that we have established the proof? What is the nature of this proof? Is it a condition for establishing it that a meeting be held with him? These are questions and difficulties that confront students of knowledge, and they do not find a satisfactory answer for them. We ask our respected Shaykh to cool our hearts and satisfy our longing with a decisive answer on this topic. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that the proof is "Allah said" and "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said." And if we know that this is the proof, it is self-evident that we know the other thing, which is the answer to part of the questions that were grouped together, namely: Who establishes this proof? The answer, naturally, is that the one who establishes it is the knowledgeable man, the one who knows and has studied the Book and the Sunnah. And it is a common error in this time that many people, who perhaps should not be included in the ranks of students of knowledge, let alone be called people of knowledge, are imagined to be doing so. We hear many of these people, on many occasions, saying, for example, "I established the proof against such-and-such a Sufi," while he is a beginner in knowledge and thinks that he has established the proof. And that Sufi may be a scholar, like many of the scholars of the present day who graduated from some universities, such as Al-Azhar University and others. They are usually strong in what they call the auxiliary sciences. So a near-student of knowledge comes and argues with them and discusses with them, and then concludes by saying that he has established the proof against them. No one establishes the proof except one who is firmly established in the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, and the sayings of the righteous Salaf (may Allah be pleased with them), as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah says, or as he points to that in his famous treatise:
"Knowledge is 'Allah said' and 'His Messenger said,' and 'The Companions said'; it is not deception.
Knowledge does not make you a fool who opposes the Messenger with the opinion of a jurist."
... to the end of the speech. The point is that I see the one who establishes the proof is the knowledgeable person who is well-versed in the Book and the Sunnah and the sayings of the righteous Salaf. So, regarding what came from the details of this question: is it obligatory that establishing the proof upon him be direct, or not? The answer, without a doubt, is that the strongest, clearest, and best proof is confronting the deviant and the misguided with the proof face to face. But if that is not always feasible for some people, or for some of the callers from among the scholars of knowledge, then at the very least, one should send him a letter. Nowadays, the means of sending, hearing, and conveying are completely facilitated through paths that were not available before. By this second method as well, it can be said that the proof has been established upon so-and-so. Ultimately, this precision in these questions only benefits us if the ruling is in our hands, if we were the rulers, because what follows from establishing the proof is distinguishing the disbeliever from the Muslim, especially if this Muslim was a Muslim by inheritance, and then something occurred from him that takes him out of his religion, making him an apostate. The apostate, in the ruling of Islam, must be killed, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So, establishing the proof has this effect if the one establishing the proof holds authority. But if it is individuals from among the people, even if they are from the scholars of knowledge, who establish the proof upon, for example, a certain ruler, and then this ruler continues in his tyranny, it does not benefit us at all that we established the proof upon him, except before Allah (Mighty and Majestic) on the Day of Resurrection, such that he has no excuse to say, "The scholars of knowledge did not inform me, and I did not understand." But it is not the effect of establishing the proof that some of the extremists among the Muslims today imagine, that since we have established the proof, there is nothing before us but to rebel. This rebellion is not justified by such an establishment of proof. Establishing the proof benefits us only in that the one upon whom the proof was established does not seize us by the hair on the Day of Judgment to say to us before our Lord, "Why did you not point me to the truth when you saw me deviating from it?" But it does not mean that it is permissible for us to rebel against these people, because this rebellion, unfortunately, history in the present age confirms that it leads to many and very many harms, such as the shedding of souls and the killing of innocent women and children and the like. Therefore, what the Khalaf inherited from the Salaf in their beliefs is that it is not permissible to rebel against the rulers. This does not mean that the principle of rebellion is not permissible, but rather it means that this rebellion leads to harm without any benefit. Otherwise, if we assume a scenario where a nation or a group of Muslims prepared the two preparations we mentioned earlier in answering the statement of Allah the Exalted: , they prepared completely, such that it became predominant in their minds that they are able to overturn the system of governance. At that point, a stage comes where one cannot but speak of it. Let no one think that I will say this stage is achieving a revolution or a coup. No, there is nothing in Islam called a military coup or a bloody revolution or the like, as I have explicitly stated in some of my comments and writings. But all that these people who have prepared with their two branches, the spiritual and the material preparation, can do is remove from governance the ruler who does not rule by what Allah has revealed, not by revolution or coup, but as Allah the Exalted said: . Islam, without a doubt, came so that the word of Allah is the highest, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: . And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the sound hadith: . At the time when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to call people to worship Allah alone, having no partner with Him, and he was sent with the sword as well, he was not sent with the sword except as a means to achieve the call. In other words, the fighting of the Muslims against the disbelievers is not the goal; the only goal is calling the disbelievers to faith in Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So whoever responds, as it came in the hadiths, has what we have and bears what we bear. And whoever refuses, he has the right to refuse, by the evidence of the well-known verse: . If he refuses, he is given the choice between two things: either to pay the jizyah from the hand while in a state of humiliation, or the sword. The sword comes in the third stage. This is a point that must be understood well, because the enemies of Islam, whether Westerners or those who imitate the West, take this hadith as a pretext and claim that Islam spread by the force of the sword. As you have seen, the sword comes in the last stage. Whoever stands in the way of the call, we stand against him with the sword. And whoever leaves the path of the call open, he walks to the end of the road and is left to his own affairs, on the condition that he proves to the Islamic governance that he is subject to its rulings. The evidence for that is that he pays the jizyah from the hand while in a state of humiliation. This is known from the rulings of Islam. At that point, we return to what we were discussing: a word about a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, and they have the spiritual and material preparation that enables them to establish the state of Islam. It is not permissible for them to achieve a revolution or a coup, but rather they must call the ruler to rule by Islam, by giving him the choice: either you rule by what Allah has revealed, or you open the path for those who want to rule by what Allah has revealed. If he responds, that is good and excellent, because we treat the disbelievers with this treatment, so a fortiori, if he displays Islam as came in the question. If he refuses and stands in the face of these callers, then at that time, the sword must be used. But we say when is that? It is when these people are prepared and ready to face those who stand in the way of the Muslim call. As for carrying out a revolution or a military coup, this is not permissible. Otherwise.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, Abu Muhammad.

The Shaykh : You as well...