The Shaykh Al-Albani’s opinion on using the verse “When they said to their people: ‘Indeed, we are disavowed of you and of what you worship besides Allah. We disbelieve in you, and enmity and hatred have become apparent between us and you forever until you believe in Allah alone’” as evidence for the impermissibility of entering parliaments.

The questioner : (May Allah preserve you) In the follow-up remarks you made at the conference, you cited the saying of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) thereby establishing that enmity and hatred are the result, and that the goal of their removal is the attainment of faith. So when faith in Allah alone, excluding the partners, is attained, whether in legislation or in worship, then affection and love are established. This verse is clear evidence for the impermissibility of entering these parliaments, or of having such leniency, where one sits next to a communist, or an atheist, or one who follows a religion other than Islam, whether a grave-worshipping polytheist or the like, as if they were brothers. Does this argument hold up?

The Shaykh : I do not think so. There is no doubt that the verse, as you know, is explicit regarding a Muslim sitting with polytheists. And we cannot today rule that the existing parliaments in Muslim countries are polytheists. And I think you know, or at least believe, because what a person knows, he believes, that you believe in the scientific detail that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah expound upon, that disbelief is of two types: doctrinal disbelief and practical disbelief. So one who falls into practical disbelief should not be treated as one who falls into doctrinal disbelief. I do not know if you see this distinction?

The questioner : This distinction, in terms of individuals, the individual himself, there is no doubt in its application. But now the reality of states is that they support shirk (associating partners with Allah) and protect it, and even oppose and be hostile to those who deny shirk.

The Shaykh : This is also, in my opinion, because when you say, (May Allah bless you), states or governments, it is not hidden from you that these governments are composed of individuals; they are not a distinct personality separate from every individual, but a group of individuals. So when we look at this group of individuals, we look at the majority among them: are they under the apparent ruling of Islam, which does not split hearts? Are they Muslims in our view, or are they disbelieving polytheists in our view? If the former prevails over the latter, we say they are Muslims and we must treat them as Muslims; otherwise, it is the latter. Therefore, the distinction, (May Allah bless you), between individuals and governments is a theoretical distinction, not a practical one, because governments or states are composed of such-and-such a king, such-and-such a minister, such-and-such a minister, and so on, and such-and-such a deputy, such-and-such a deputy. This group is either ruled to be Muslim, with all its flaws and defects, or ruled to be disbelieving. That is, we are now, very clearly, unable to rule that any of the parliaments whose king, for example, prays and fasts, and likewise some of the ministers, if not all of them, and many of the deputies, and so on, are like the people of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) from whom Ibrahim (peace be upon him) disavowed himself in that explicit verse. And so, disavowal of shirk and its people is a matter on which no two people differ, and no two camels butt heads over it, as it was said in olden times. But the important thing in the matter is to determine whether the place of disavowal from these people is here because they are polytheists, or they are not polytheists, but rather deviants from Islam, slightly or greatly; that is another matter. Therefore, this discussion leads us to addressing another reality regarding this political deviation that has afflicted some of our Salafi brothers as well. There is a deviation... the sword of takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) is drawn against all individuals who join a state whose title is not the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no doubt that you live with us and know the reality of some Islamic groups in Egypt, and in Cairo specifically, and that there was a group known as the Group of Emigration and Takfir, and that a section of them, unfortunately, killed some of them. Among them was a name, what was his name? Shukri Mustafa. And from these individuals, they sent people to the Muslim world to spread the ideology of takfir, not only of these rulers, but of all the employees with them, even the imams of the mosques, the mu'adhdhins (callers to prayer) of the mosques, and the worshippers behind the imams. I do not know if you have heard anything of this or not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, some of them came to Damascus, and many discussions took place between me and them. Among them was a giant Upper Egyptian man named Ismail; I forgot his lineage afterwards. I met him in Jeddah, and he knowsThe Shaykh : Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Banna. Yes, he knows him well. I do not know if you met this man?

Another questioner : Is he dark-skinned like this?

The Shaykh : He is still...

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Did he return to Egypt?

Another questioner : No, he is in Jeddah.

The Shaykh : In Jeddah, he is still there.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : I know. I want to get to this topic. I met him on some of my travels, and he thanked me for my debates with him there in Damascus, because he left me angry, meaning furious. And after that, he sent me a letter, one of the most amazing letters that came to me, admitting that we were misguided and we were such-and-such, and so on. And here, a group who were affiliated with these brothers of oursThose present : Now, we know some of them individually. Before we migrated from Damascus to Oman, I was hesitating about the path of da'wah (calling to Islam). I was told that there is a group that adopts this da'wah of takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) and hijrah (migration). I asked, "What do you think about meeting them?" I told them, "I have no objection." So we made an appointment and met on the first night, from Maghrib to 'Isha'. We learned from them things we had heard about, which are very serious. The summary is that they declare all Muslims disbelievers, with no distinction between the ruler and the ruled. This reminded me of a joke I had heard from some of my non-Arab shaykhs, the Albanians and others like them. One shaykh visited a group in their home. When he left, he declared the whole group disbelievers. Why? He said, "The custom in that land, out of respect for their shaykhs and scholars, is that when a guest enters the house and takes off his sandals, the host must arrange the sandals for the scholar so that he does not have to strain himself, or stretch out his hand to position the sandals in the direction he is going. No, the host must, out of respect for the guest, direct the sandals for him. He did not notice this, so he declared them disbelievers! Why? He said, 'This indicates a lack of respect for the scholar. And whoever does not respect the scholar does not respect the knowledge. And whoever does not respect the knowledge does not respect the Messenger who brought it, nor the Lord of the worlds. Therefore, he is a disbeliever.'" In this way, these people reminded me. They declare all Muslims disbelievers without exception, with no distinction between the ruler and the ruled. Therefore, they abandoned the Jumu'ah (Friday) prayer and congregational prayer, and withdrew into themselves. As a natural result of this opinion of theirs, on that first night we met, I said to the host, who is my brother-in-law, "Call the adhan for prayer." He called the adhan, and the group withdrew. They asked for permission, saying, "Please, pray with us." We knew they do not pray, so they withdrew. We made an appointment for a second night. The meeting was on the second night in the home of one of them, and the discussion continued until exactly eleven o'clock, close to midnight. But the signs of the discussion appeared, evidenced by the fact that they prayed behind us. Then we made an appointment to complete the research on the third night. May Allah reward you. The research continued from after the Maghrib prayer until the Fajr adhan. But it was decisive, and praise be to Allah. They are still on the Salafi line with us. The point is that this trend still has an impact in some, or many, of the Islamic countries, especially in the homeland of this da'wah, which is Egypt. It is the takfir of the rulers of the Muslims, as they say in our region of Sham, "on the whole line," meaning without exception. Then they declare disbelievers those who do not declare them disbelievers, in a chain reaction. So, May Allah reward you, we must now fight, in fact, on two fronts: the front that takes the Salafi da'wah toward political party da'wah, and the other front that tries to exaggerate the Salafi da'wah and bring it to what the Khawarij were before, which is declaring Muslims disbelievers for sins they have committed. They are deeply engaged in investigating what they imagine to be evidence for their position of takfir, even to the extent of a verse where Allah the Exalted said: They had prepared some answers and interpretations. The point is, I fear, May Allah reward you, and do not hold me to this, because I have lived this age and I am frank with everyone, especially with our brothers who are on the line with us. I fear that applying this verse in this general way will lead us to that deviant line of exaggerating in declaring Muslims disbelievers for falling into practical disbelief. Practical disbelief is not permissible for us to declare Muslims disbelievers and remove them from the arena of Islam and treat them as disbelievers. This is the summary of my answer regarding the argument from the previous verse.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you. Our Shaykh, regarding the issue our brother mentioned...The Shaykh : ...the issue of the government now. If we change the word "government" to "system," meaning the system of governance, not the individuals of the government. The system of governance is disbelieving, and the laws are such and such. But this does not necessitate that declaring the system of governance disbelieving means declaring its individuals disbelievers. This is what I wanted to say, reminding you of a word we heard from you, my teacher, which is the issue of... and although there is a distance, they meet in one aspect. For example, the Communist Party as a party, we declare it disbelieving, without doubt or hesitation. But not everyone who affiliates with this party is a disbeliever. A person might affiliate for the end-of-month salary or something like that. So we cannot declare him a disbeliever. Even if we sometimes bolded and said this is practical disbelief, but it is not creedal disbelief. If it is of this nature, would not our brother's words...The Shaykh : ...have a valid aspect?

The Shaykh : Correct. But I fear this more, because, my brother, the issue of the Communists: the Communists have announced their da'wah that Islam is not suitable. So everyone who announces this is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, because it is creedal disbelief. But the least we can say is, if a ruler among the rulers—and I do not exclude anyone at all from this perspective, not near or far—and if we exclude, we exclude based on the degree of deviation from Islam, much or little. These rulers, all of them, whoever is deviating from Islam, much or little, if words appear from them that make us feel that there is a ruling in Islam that is not suitable for application in this time, that is clear apostasy. And whoever adopts this, in little or much, they are apostates from their religion. But merely adopting laws that are not, in their origin or in their entirety, Islamic, that is practical disbelief. It must be accompanied by something so that we are convinced that it is creedal disbelief. Therefore, I distinguish between the Ba'ath Party or the Communist Party. These people announced in their messages that Islam came for the Arabs and has passed and ended, and so on. But many of the rulers, and I do not say all the rulers, many of the rulers, nothing appears from them except their clinging to the throne. This is a catastrophe without doubt, and their striving to dominate the people. But I do not consider this creedal disbelief. If someone sees this, I hope he will clarify it to us so that we can come closer and understand each other, if Allah wills.