Discussion on declaring as disbelievers those who rule by man-made laws.

The questioner : Yes, may Allah keep you safe. Now, there are two issues. The first is the issue of referring to the Shari'ah for judgment. The other issue is that, for example, the government of Egypt, or the government of Kuwait, or Libya, or Tunisia, and so on, or Syria, or others, when you look at them from another angle, you find that they protect idols, they protect tyrants, and they approve the worship of other than Allah (Mighty and Majestic). There is no doubt that whoever protects this and believes in its correctness, and that he is defending those who call upon other than Allah and seek aid from other than Allah, there is no doubt that he is like them in ruling. The one who seeks aid from other than Allah is one who associates partners with Allah, and likewise, whoever protects him, defends him, and supports the continuation of this, there is no doubt that they are like them. So if you look at this, there is shirk (associating partners with Allah) in the belief.

The Shaykh : You, may Allah bless you. In your speech, there was something I do not know if you intended it or if it was a slip of the tongue. And if you intended it, there is no disagreement. You said, "and he believes in that," and the problem is solved.

The questioner : And this is the reality.

The Shaykh : Do you mean that? No, the reality is one thing and the belief is another, may Allah bless you. I mean, now, the reality of a Muslim man who prays and fasts, but he is a bank manager who deals in riba (usury or interest), and an employee in the bank who writes and so on. Do we rule that he is a disbeliever and an apostate?

The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : We do not rule that.

The Shaykh : Why? What is the criterion for the ruling? This person commits a major sin, and ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is likewise. But ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, if it is accompanied by a belief, it is disbelief in itself, apostasy. And if it is not accompanied by a belief, and therefore I used to argue with these people you mentioned earlier, the group of Hijrah and Takfir (declaring disbelievers). I said to them something that has no refutation at all. I said, "Do you see a difference between the one who declares that he rules by laws, but you do not know if he considers it permissible in his heart or not, and the one who declares that he rules by Islam, but in a certain ruling, he rules contrary to Islam? We take this second one, ruling by other than Islam. We said to him or to them, 'Do you declare him a disbeliever?' It was as if they stood there, stunned, thinking, because he believed that this question had not come to them before. Finally, the answer comes, despite their noses: We do not declare him a disbeliever.

The questioner : I, may Allah keep you safe, I gave an example of a case.

The Shaykh : No problem, I have not finished yet, if you allow me.

The questioner : I mean, shirk in worship.

The Shaykh : I see no difference between shirk in worship and shirk in ruling; both are the same.

The questioner : Believing, for example, in calling upon other than Allah (Mighty and Majestic), this person believes in the divinity of other than Allah, and the one who protects him protects shirk.

The Shaykh : Now, may Allah bless you, we are not talking about belief, we are talking about the action, otherwise you are not with me in distinguishing between the action and the belief.

The questioner : The action originates from the belief.

The Shaykh : But the belief, may Allah bless you, is not apparent.

The questioner : But it is the cause of the action.

The Shaykh : I do not discuss this with you, all of this, but it is not apparent, meaning we cannot infer from a person's action what is in his heart. And the greatest proof of that is the story of that Companion who killed the polytheist when he saw he would kill him, and he said, "There is no god but Allah." Do you know the story? He said, "He did not say it except as a ruse." He said, So if we wanted to study this phenomenon, if we saw a person fighting a disbeliever, and when this disbeliever was under the blow of a sword, he said, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah," what do we rule? Do we rule that he said it as a ruse? Out of fear of being struck and killed? Yes, but the word "There is no god but Allah" is a weapon stronger than this in the apparent ruling of the Islamic Shari'ah. For this reason, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, I think you are with me on this? Well, now I return and say, the action, and I reserve my position now, and the speech is part of the action, so I say, the action, except for the speech, any action that contains a violation of the Shari'ah does not give us what is in the heart of this doer, unlike his speech. So if he says, "I worship the tyrant, I disbelieve in Muhammad, I disbelieve in this ruling," and so on, the matter is over. Is my speech clear?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : For this reason, I return and say, the action does not indicate what is in the heart. And as long as we have a matter from which we have no escape, either belief-based disbelief or action-based disbelief, if we see from a Muslim person action-based disbelief, we do not necessarily conclude that he has committed belief-based disbelief, unless he turns away from it with his tongue. Is that clear?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, now I was telling you about the example I gave to those people. A ruler who rules by the Shari'ah once ruled contrary to the Shari'ah. What do you say? They said, after thinking, "We do not declare him a disbeliever." Why? He said, "Because this is only once. He has not made a system to rule contrary to the Shari'ah." I said to him, "Well, the second time in another case, and even if I do not lengthen the explanation for you, the third and fourth time, and so on. When do you say this is disbelief and he has apostatized from his religion?" So they were silent. We said, "So, brothers, the matter is tied to the belief. This one who ruled the first ruling, the Shari'ah judge, let us say it plainly, this Shari'ah judge, in the custom of people, in appearance, is a Shari'ah judge who rules by what Allah has revealed. He ruled a government that contradicted the Shari'ah of Allah. He has one of two states in the depths of his heart: either he considers this ruling permissible, in which case he is a disbeliever with one ruling, he considers it permissible in his heart, so he is a disbeliever. Or, if he does not consider it permissible in his heart, he is an open sinner. This is a matter that does not accept discussion between Muslims at all. Then this same case is repeated, the same answer comes, it is repeated, the same case, the same detail comes, and so on to infinity. So this whole matter is tied to the belief. Whoever believes that a certain ruling from the rulings of the Islamic Shari'ah is not suitable for this time, he is a disbeliever. As for merely ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, you know the saying of the exegetes, especially Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir, that the verse was revealed regarding the Jews. Perhaps you remember this. And on that basis, whoever has a belief like the belief of the Jews, that is, those who do not believe in what came in Islam, he is a disbeliever like the Jews. As for the one who believes that the ruling is that it must be so, but Allah curses the devil, the Syrian expression, "the chair," this is no longer letting us rule, it is not letting us except to support the people and follow them, and so on. Then I want now to enter with you into a very precise topic. There is no Muslim ruler on the face of the earth today who does not deviate from Islam in some of his rulings. Do you not agree with me on this?

The questioner : Yes, without doubt.

The Shaykh : Well, what do we say? Do we say if the percentage is ten percent, five percent, he does not disbelieve at five percent, he disbelieves at ten percent, or is this detail necessary? This detail is necessary, as proof that I gave an example earlier that does not accept argument. A Shari'ah judge ruled by a non-Islamic government. When we asked him, he said, "This is not suitable for this time." He disbelieved with one ruling, or rather, not with a ruling, merely by saying that this is not suitable. And another person always takes bribes and gives the right to those who are not its rightful owners. This is ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, my brother. Why is it like this? This is forbidden, it is not permissible, yes, forbidden, and Allah, may Allah turn us to Him in repentance. No matter how often this action is repeated, are you not with us in saying that this is a Muslim but an open sinner? So the matter is not a matter of proportion, meaning we do not say Zayd, one of the rulers, has more rulings that contradict Islam, so he is an apostate from his religion, and Zayd, one of the other rulers, has fewer rulings that contradict Islam, so he is not an apostate from his religion. No, the matter has no relation to the quantity, whether little or much. Its relation is to what is settled in the heart, whether little or much. So whoever denies the suitability of ruling by Islam, even in one issue, he is a disbeliever. This is from one aspect.