What is the ruling on one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed in some cases, such as the thief, the fornicator, and the drinker of intoxicants?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In our days, Arab states do not judge fully by the Noble Qur'an, but rather by a foreign constitution. For example, the thief has his hand cut off, the fornicator is stoned, and the drinker of intoxicants is flogged eighty lashes. Why do we not do this? Why do they not judge by what Allah has revealed? And what is the punishment for one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed?
The Shaykh : The punishment for the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed is the same as the punishment for the individuals who are ruled over and who do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Is the answer clear, or is it not much?
The questioner : It needs a little clarification. Why is our constitution not the Noble Qur'an in these days?
The Shaykh : Do you know that today there are people who deal in riba (usury or interest)?
The questioner : There are.
The Shaykh : And there are banks called Islamic banks and banks called Arab banks. Are their owners Muslims or disbelievers?
The questioner : There are disbelievers and there are Muslims.
The Shaykh : We are concerned with the Muslims. Do these Muslims judge by what Allah has revealed? Because you, young men, I know what your problem is. You look up and forget yourselves and forget those around you, and you even forget those you deal with in unlawful transactions. So now, what is the ruling on these people who deal in riba (usury or interest)?
The questioner : It is a discretionary punishment (ta'zir)...
The Shaykh : I am telling you, is not the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed the one who has contradicted the Shari'ah of Allah? And is not the one who deals in riba (usury or interest) one who has contradicted the Shari'ah of Allah? Is he a disbeliever?
The questioner : He is a disbeliever because he contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah.
The Shaykh : And the one who steals and the one who commits fornication?
The questioner : He is a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : So all of them are disbelievers, meaning there is no Muslim left on the face of the earth.
The questioner : He has contradicted the commands of Allah.
The Shaykh : I know, my brother, that he has contradicted them. I am not ignorant that he has contradicted them, but I am ignorant as to whether he is a disbeliever or not? If Allah wills, I will bring the chapter on declaring someone a disbeliever (takfir) and proceed straight through: the one who deals in riba (usury or interest) is a disbeliever, the fornicator is a disbeliever, the thief is a disbeliever, the talebearer is a disbeliever. Say, yes, indeed.
The questioner : Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Is he not one who contradicts the Shari'ah? The man is on the side of my pocket, do not approach. Look, our brothers, young men, the Muslim, Allah the Exalted said, instructing and educating:[Al-Ma'idah 5:105] And there is a very wonderful hadith that says: So our preoccupation today is with our rulers who certainly do not judge by what Allah has revealed, while we have neglected ourselves. The proof is that there is no difference between them and us at all. First, the rulers who rule us did not descend from the sky, or Mars, or Jupiter, or any of the planets, but rather from our land; they sprang up and emerged. Second, they may be our fathers, our sons, our brothers, and so on. They pray with us, fast with us, and even perform Hajj and 'Umrah, and so on. What is the difference between these rulers and these ruled people who do the same or more? One may deal in riba (usury or interest) and not pray, and one may commit fornication and not fast and not pray, and so on. Therefore, first, from a personal standpoint, we must occupy ourselves with ourselves before others. And when we rectify ourselves, the corruption of others does not harm us, as in the previous verse: [Al-Ma'idah 5:105] This is first. Second, if we are guided, and this guidance is not from one person, but from three, five, ten, a hundred, a thousand, but rather the overwhelming majority—do you agree with me in this concept? Do you think that in that case, there will be rulers over us who rule by other than what Allah has revealed? Think carefully. I believe, as you say, if this people are mostly upon the Book and the Sunnah, walking in obedience to Allah and staying away from the disobedience of Allah, these rulers, if they want to remain in their seats, must, against their will, follow the people. Even if they are not upon the creed, yes, they will follow the Book and the Sunnah, because that is what the atmosphere requires. But they know the atmosphere they are living in now. Do not hold me to this now. Let me give an example. Until recently, the rule here was not democratic; it was a monarchy, a royal constitution, meaning it was not a republic or democratic. Now, overnight, what happened? It flipped and became democratic. What does democratic mean? Rule by the people. This is democracy: rule by the people. What was the position of the Islamic groups when the previous system flipped to a democratic system? Did they support this system or not?
The questioner : They supported it.
The Shaykh : If these people were Muslims, they would not have supported it, because you are now asking a very precise question:[Al-Ma'idah 5:44] Now, this democracy decides that rule is not for Allah, but for the people. So what if the hearts of the Muslims claim that the ruling system has changed to a democratic system? The earth would not be inhabited, hehehe. The important thing is that the system became democratic and was supported by the people. So if the people were truly Muslim, this support for this disbeliever system—a democratic system—would not have been found. Now, let us take another step. Because of this democratic system that was supported by the people, a group of Islamic preachers entered this parliament. Does it judge by what Allah has revealed or by other than what Allah has revealed? It is clear from its title that it is democratic. So how did this happen? The answer is that they say in some of these countries, the vinegar is in it, the cause stems from us and not from the rulers. I am not saying this is praise for the rulers; it is enough that the vinegar is in it, but...
The questioner : If he rules by the Book of Allah...
The Shaykh : There is no objection, my brother. But who will carry the burden of ruling by what Allah has revealed? There is no people. Yes, that is it. We must treat ourselves first, then work on others. But I will not miss the opportunity to expose your character as a questioner. You are in the corner, and in the corners there are secrets. I will expose your character. I will tell you: when there are rulers who rule by other than what Allah has revealed, and opposite these rulers is a people who truly want to rule by what Allah has revealed, then at that time, the truly Muslim people call these rulers to rule by what Allah has revealed. If they refuse, then to relinquish their throne. If they refuse, then fighting. Have I exposed your character now? But I will tell you: is there anyone who fights? Therefore, do not search for purely hypothetical issues. Search for matters that concern your own souls. These are the matters that one of the Islamic preachers gathered in a very wonderful word when he said, "Establish the state of Islam in your hearts, and it will be established for you on your land." If you do not establish the state of Islam in your hearts, it will not be established for you on your land.
The questioner : There is a rule: if the ruler is righteous, the time in which he is will be righteous.
The Shaykh : And if you reverse it, is it correct or incorrect?
The questioner : The time will not be righteous except by righteousness.
The Shaykh : Reverse it: if the people are righteous.
The questioner : If the ruler is righteous, the people will be righteous.
The Shaykh : I am telling you, reverse it. Do you think the reverse is correct? If the people are righteous, the ruler will be corrupt? Well, do not rush. You are saying there is a rule: if the ruler is righteous, the people are righteous. Is that not what you are saying? Well, I will say the opposite to you. I will tell you that, even though the truth may be more with me, if the people are righteous, the ruler will be righteous, or not?
The questioner : It is possible that they will be righteous less than the ruler making the people righteous. The possibility of the people making the ruler righteous is less than the ruler making the people righteous.
The Shaykh : I see it exactly the opposite, and this is what I wanted to reach. But I am reminding you, earlier, I do not know if you have receded, and it is not for you to recede. You said the rule: the reverse is also correct. Did you say that or not? I said I wanted to ask you, but you, if Allah wills, gave me the answer without needing me to ask. I want to tell you: which of the two rules is more correct? If the people are righteous, is it closer to the ruler being righteous, or if the people are corrupt and the ruler is righteous, is the righteousness of the people by the righteousness of the ruler more likely than the people being righteous and the ruler being corrupt? Which of the two rules is closer to reality?
The questioner : The people are righteous and the ruler is corrupt.
The Shaykh : If the situation is reversed, it spills over. In any case, you are affected. When I mentioned the rule based on the hadith, "If two are righteous, the people are righteous: the rulers and the scholars," this statement is correct, but the reverse is also correct. In other words, if the people are righteous, as we said earlier regarding the rulers, the rulers will become righteous, even against their will. Now, I want to tell you something strange. Perhaps I mentioned this hadith for two reasons. The first is to point out that it is not authentic. The second is to draw your attention to the fact that if the people are righteous and the scholars are not, the scholars will be forced to become righteous if the people are righteous. Do you know why? For example, if you are in a community and this community is run byThe Shaykh : one of the sheikhs whom the Ummah has been afflicted with. He has a little bit of something, but he has adopted a little bit of knowledge. However, he uses this knowledge as a means to take the lead in gatherings, to be magnified, and to have his hand kissed, and so on. Now, if we assume that the people around him, who have accustomed him to extending his hand so that they can kiss it, open up and say that this hand-kissing was not what the Salaf al-Salih did with the rulers, with the governors, or with the scholars. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, 'Ali, 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar—the elite of the Companions—it is very, very rare that anyone's hand was kissed. As for one of them extending his hand, that is impossible. So, if we assume that this group around thisThe Shaykh : or that sheikh extends his hand and they kiss it, having accustomed them to this, then pay attention, Mr. Professor, did the Salaf do this? Is this how it was? It will end up being a matter of going back and forth, but they will understand thatThe Shaykh : he has no argument. What will be the outcome?The Shaykh : Will it continue or will it be abolished?
The questioner : He will withdraw his hand, even against his will.
The Shaykh : Similarly, those who have accustomed him to standing up for him whenever he enters will realize that this is contrary to the Sunnah. You heard the hadith at the beginning of the session. He will be forced to do what? He will have to follow his group. And who are they? The scholars. So what can be said about the rulers? Therefore, it is upon us to rectify ourselves before we concern ourselves with others, as evidenced by the previous verse. But let us assume, as we said earlier, that the ruler must be warned that he must judge by what Allah has revealed. If he responds, then good. If he does not respond, he is asked to resign. If he is clinging to the throne and the chair, then fighting him is permissible. Where are the fighters? Where are the mujahideen? They do not exist. So let us recruit ourselves. How do we recruit ourselves? With beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds.
The Shaykh : The punishment for the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed is the same as the punishment for the individuals who are ruled over and who do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Is the answer clear, or is it not much?
The questioner : It needs a little clarification. Why is our constitution not the Noble Qur'an in these days?
The Shaykh : Do you know that today there are people who deal in riba (usury or interest)?
The questioner : There are.
The Shaykh : And there are banks called Islamic banks and banks called Arab banks. Are their owners Muslims or disbelievers?
The questioner : There are disbelievers and there are Muslims.
The Shaykh : We are concerned with the Muslims. Do these Muslims judge by what Allah has revealed? Because you, young men, I know what your problem is. You look up and forget yourselves and forget those around you, and you even forget those you deal with in unlawful transactions. So now, what is the ruling on these people who deal in riba (usury or interest)?
The questioner : It is a discretionary punishment (ta'zir)...
The Shaykh : I am telling you, is not the one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed the one who has contradicted the Shari'ah of Allah? And is not the one who deals in riba (usury or interest) one who has contradicted the Shari'ah of Allah? Is he a disbeliever?
The questioner : He is a disbeliever because he contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah.
The Shaykh : And the one who steals and the one who commits fornication?
The questioner : He is a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : So all of them are disbelievers, meaning there is no Muslim left on the face of the earth.
The questioner : He has contradicted the commands of Allah.
The Shaykh : I know, my brother, that he has contradicted them. I am not ignorant that he has contradicted them, but I am ignorant as to whether he is a disbeliever or not? If Allah wills, I will bring the chapter on declaring someone a disbeliever (takfir) and proceed straight through: the one who deals in riba (usury or interest) is a disbeliever, the fornicator is a disbeliever, the thief is a disbeliever, the talebearer is a disbeliever. Say, yes, indeed.
The questioner : Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Is he not one who contradicts the Shari'ah? The man is on the side of my pocket, do not approach. Look, our brothers, young men, the Muslim, Allah the Exalted said, instructing and educating:
O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided
يا أيها الذين آمنوا عليكم أنفسكم لا يضركم من ضل إذا اهتديتمOne of you sees the speck in his brother's eye and does not see the beam in his own eye.
يبصر أحدكم القذاة في عين أخيه ولا يرى الجذعة في عينه هوO you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided
يا أيها الذين آمنوا عليكم أنفسكم لا يضركم من ضل إذا اهتديتمThe questioner : They supported it.
The Shaykh : If these people were Muslims, they would not have supported it, because you are now asking a very precise question:
And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.
ومن لم يحكم بما أزل فأولئك هم الكافرونThen it is they who are the wrongdoers.
فأولئك هو الظالمونThen those are the open sinners
فأولئك هم الفاسقونThe questioner : If he rules by the Book of Allah...
The Shaykh : There is no objection, my brother. But who will carry the burden of ruling by what Allah has revealed? There is no people. Yes, that is it. We must treat ourselves first, then work on others. But I will not miss the opportunity to expose your character as a questioner. You are in the corner, and in the corners there are secrets. I will expose your character. I will tell you: when there are rulers who rule by other than what Allah has revealed, and opposite these rulers is a people who truly want to rule by what Allah has revealed, then at that time, the truly Muslim people call these rulers to rule by what Allah has revealed. If they refuse, then to relinquish their throne. If they refuse, then fighting. Have I exposed your character now? But I will tell you: is there anyone who fights? Therefore, do not search for purely hypothetical issues. Search for matters that concern your own souls. These are the matters that one of the Islamic preachers gathered in a very wonderful word when he said, "Establish the state of Islam in your hearts, and it will be established for you on your land." If you do not establish the state of Islam in your hearts, it will not be established for you on your land.
The questioner : There is a rule: if the ruler is righteous, the time in which he is will be righteous.
The Shaykh : And if you reverse it, is it correct or incorrect?
The questioner : The time will not be righteous except by righteousness.
The Shaykh : Reverse it: if the people are righteous.
The questioner : If the ruler is righteous, the people will be righteous.
The Shaykh : I am telling you, reverse it. Do you think the reverse is correct? If the people are righteous, the ruler will be corrupt? Well, do not rush. You are saying there is a rule: if the ruler is righteous, the people are righteous. Is that not what you are saying? Well, I will say the opposite to you. I will tell you that, even though the truth may be more with me, if the people are righteous, the ruler will be righteous, or not?
The questioner : It is possible that they will be righteous less than the ruler making the people righteous. The possibility of the people making the ruler righteous is less than the ruler making the people righteous.
The Shaykh : I see it exactly the opposite, and this is what I wanted to reach. But I am reminding you, earlier, I do not know if you have receded, and it is not for you to recede. You said the rule: the reverse is also correct. Did you say that or not? I said I wanted to ask you, but you, if Allah wills, gave me the answer without needing me to ask. I want to tell you: which of the two rules is more correct? If the people are righteous, is it closer to the ruler being righteous, or if the people are corrupt and the ruler is righteous, is the righteousness of the people by the righteousness of the ruler more likely than the people being righteous and the ruler being corrupt? Which of the two rules is closer to reality?
The questioner : The people are righteous and the ruler is corrupt.
The Shaykh : If the situation is reversed, it spills over. In any case, you are affected. When I mentioned the rule based on the hadith, "If two are righteous, the people are righteous: the rulers and the scholars," this statement is correct, but the reverse is also correct. In other words, if the people are righteous, as we said earlier regarding the rulers, the rulers will become righteous, even against their will. Now, I want to tell you something strange. Perhaps I mentioned this hadith for two reasons. The first is to point out that it is not authentic. The second is to draw your attention to the fact that if the people are righteous and the scholars are not, the scholars will be forced to become righteous if the people are righteous. Do you know why? For example, if you are in a community and this community is run byThe Shaykh : one of the sheikhs whom the Ummah has been afflicted with. He has a little bit of something, but he has adopted a little bit of knowledge. However, he uses this knowledge as a means to take the lead in gatherings, to be magnified, and to have his hand kissed, and so on. Now, if we assume that the people around him, who have accustomed him to extending his hand so that they can kiss it, open up and say that this hand-kissing was not what the Salaf al-Salih did with the rulers, with the governors, or with the scholars. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, 'Ali, 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar—the elite of the Companions—it is very, very rare that anyone's hand was kissed. As for one of them extending his hand, that is impossible. So, if we assume that this group around thisThe Shaykh : or that sheikh extends his hand and they kiss it, having accustomed them to this, then pay attention, Mr. Professor, did the Salaf do this? Is this how it was? It will end up being a matter of going back and forth, but they will understand thatThe Shaykh : he has no argument. What will be the outcome?The Shaykh : Will it continue or will it be abolished?
The questioner : He will withdraw his hand, even against his will.
The Shaykh : Similarly, those who have accustomed him to standing up for him whenever he enters will realize that this is contrary to the Sunnah. You heard the hadith at the beginning of the session. He will be forced to do what? He will have to follow his group. And who are they? The scholars. So what can be said about the rulers? Therefore, it is upon us to rectify ourselves before we concern ourselves with others, as evidenced by the previous verse. But let us assume, as we said earlier, that the ruler must be warned that he must judge by what Allah has revealed. If he responds, then good. If he does not respond, he is asked to resign. If he is clinging to the throne and the chair, then fighting him is permissible. Where are the fighters? Where are the mujahideen? They do not exist. So let us recruit ourselves. How do we recruit ourselves? With beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.