What is the ruling on a Muslim rejoicing at the fall of a disbelieving ruler who is replaced by another disbeliever?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, some Muslims watch the West and its developments, and when something happens there, they display joy and happiness. Is this considered a defect in practical or heart-based creed? And what do you advise these people?

The Shaykh : Excuse me, what do you mean? What do you mean by them?
Abu Malik : Bill Clinton, O Shaykh.

The questioner : So-and-so left and so-and-so came.

The Shaykh : Ah

The questioner : This is lighter than that, and this will benefit the Muslims, and so on.

The Shaykh : This is a weakness of both faith and intellect. A weakness of faith and intellect. The reality that every Muslim must keep in mind on such an occasion is to remember the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: so that they may taste the punishment.

The questioner :

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. The point is that this joy is childish joy, not the joy of men, first. And second, it is not the joy of believing men. Because Bush fell and someone took his place.
Abu Malik : Clinton.

The Shaykh : I don't know what his name is, by Allah. The names are heavy on my mind.
Abu Malik : By Allah, O Shaykh, the names of devils.

The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah. The point is that Bush fell and so-and-so won the election. They all follow the same policy; it is merely a change of faces. Therefore, it is a great foolishness to rejoice that Bush is gone and so-and-so has come in his place, especially since we do not yet know the good from the evil of this so-and-so, if there is any good from them. Why this haste, when disbelief, first, is all one religion, and the American people are known for their policy toward the Jews? So the fact that Bush fell and so-and-so won does not change the policy of this people at the speed imagined by some of the weak in dreams and intellect, thinking, "We are rid of Bush, good." And this one is perhaps worse than Bush. In any case, a Muslim does not rejoice at the fall of a disbelieving person and the rise of a disbelieving person in his place, because disbelief is one religion and the policy is one policy. Look now, who was in the ministry of the Jews and who took his place?
Abu Malik : Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

The Shaykh : Yitzhak Rabin. What difference did we see between the fall of that one and the rise of this one? None at all. It is merely a game for those with weak dreams. And unfortunately, some Muslims, or some politicians who are not governed by the policy of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Therefore, I can say that Allah, as Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said, I say on this occasion: These who rejoice at the fall of this one and the success of that one, as I said earlier, their dreams are like the dreams of children, or even birds. Allah is the Helper.
Abu Layla : Our Shaykh, the one who is always falling is present in their Senate, and so on, meaning there is no difference in policy with him.

The Shaykh : One policy.
Abu Layla : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, does this matter have a connection to creed? That is, is it possible that some of our brothers declare disbelief upon one who displays joy at such disbelievers?

The Shaykh : No, no. This is all an error and a sin. If it has a connection to disbelief, it is practical disbelief, my brother. We take a rule and rest. Disbelief that expels one from the religion is connected to the heart.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : It is not connected to the tongue. And now your question reminds me of another fair division of disbelief. There is verbal disbelief and heart-based disbelief. The previous division was creedal disbelief and practical disbelief. Now, another fair division: verbal disbelief and heart-based disbelief. Heart-based disbelief is equal to creedal disbelief. Verbal disbelief is equal to practical disbelief. So a person who displays joy at the fall of Bush and the success of George or Antonius or the like, this is joy that, without doubt, should not come from a Muslim. So we can call this verbal disbelief. But this does not make him a disbeliever, because it occurred in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), as I believe it is not hidden from any of you. For example, the hadith of Ibn Abbas when he said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave a sermon to his Companions one day, and a man stood up to say to him whatever he wished, "What Allah wills and what you wish, O Messenger of Allah." He said: . So this is verbal disbelief. He said to him, "Have you made me equal to Allah?" But he did not compel him with anything of the requirements of creedal disbelief. So we must always and forever keep this correct division before our eyes: creedal or heart-based disbelief, and practical or verbal disbelief, because speech is part of action. So if we see such a thing, we do not rush to say "disbelief," even if he spoke the word of disbelief, we do not rush to declare him a disbeliever and expel him from the religion until we clarify what he intends by this word. Yes.
Abu Malik : Our Shaykh, if you allow me before the brother Salim speaks, I say that in the policy of the Western countries, or the disbelievers in general, there are roots and branches.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Abu Malik : So the roots do not change over the years.

The Shaykh : Ah
Abu Malik : Absolutely. There are fixed roots of policy, and these fixed roots are the ones that

The Shaykh : govern.
Abu Malik : from which they set out and govern the course of the small and large politicians in how that country is run. The branches are truly branched from these roots. And when we follow the course of international global policies that have surrounded us, especially us, and brought us to what they brought us to of calamities, we find that the change that occurred happened only in the forms in which these branches, branched from these roots, were formulated.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Abu Malik : And so we give an example of that, for instance, the issue of Palestine. The issue of Palestine, truly, for nearly forty-five years, we have followed this issue in a way that has taken us out of every five or ten years, a time period that divided the issue by dimensions of time. We have gone from one state to another, and we look at the state that preceded and find it better than the state that follows. And international policy is what forces us to prefer the next stage and not prefer the stage that has passed.

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar.
Abu Malik : And so we have now reached, with these policies that the disbelieving states have formulated for us, the conviction that the best thing we can do now regarding the Palestinian issue is to accept everything that happens without asking why or how?

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar.
Abu Malik : And this end that it has reached gives us an idea: do you think if, for example, Bush had come or remained, could we imagine that the end that the Palestinian issue reached and was placed on the table of the negotiations currently taking place in Washington, for example, could Bush have hastened the end before his position changed and the new president came? Of course, the answer is no. Will this man who is coming hasten the solution of the issue and say, "I saw what was before the policy that Bush drew for this issue, do I return to the previous stage to stand there and solve the issue, or make the issue solved by the theories that governed this issue in the previous time period?" The answer is no.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is it.
Abu Malik : And so the policy is one and does not differ. So if we rejoice at the coming of Clinton, we weep for Bush.

The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Helper.