If a ruler rules by other than what Allah has revealed, what is the criterion for declaring him a disbeliever?

The questioner : His EminenceThe Shaykh : Most scholars say that if a ruler rules by other than what Allah has revealed, but he does not consider ruling by other than what Allah has revealed permissible, and he knows that Allah’s ruling is better than the ruling of others, then he is not declared a disbeliever unless he considers it permissible. What is the evidence that he is not declared a disbeliever unless he considers it permissible? And if considering it permissible only occurs in the heart by believing that a forbidden thing is permissible, how can we know that this person considers it permissible or not? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Yes, first: May Allah bless you. We must know that the meaning of declaring a person a disbeliever is transferring him from Islam to disbelief. This entails great rulings, the most important of which is that his blood and wealth become permissible to take. This is a serious matter, and it is not permissible for us to be lax in it. For example, if we say this is lawful and this is forbidden without knowledge, it is less severe than if we say this person is a disbeliever and this person is a Muslim without knowledge. It is well known that declaring someone a disbeliever and declaring someone a Muslim is a matter for Allah (Mighty and Majestic). When we look at the evidence, we find that Allah described those who rule by other than what He has revealed with three descriptions. He said: He said: He said: And He described ruling by other than what Allah has revealed as ignorance, saying: So we must find a way out of these descriptions, which appear to contradict each other. There is no way out for us in this except to apply the established principles of the Shari'ah. For example, if a man comes and abolishes the Shari'ah ruling and replaces it with laws that contradict what Allah revealed to His Messenger, then there is no doubt that he considers it permissible, because he has finally abolished the ruling and established a law of his own making, or made by someone in an even worse state than him. This person is a disbeliever, because his abolishing the Shari'ah rulings and replacing them with laws means that he considers it permissible. But the question remains: do we declare this specific man a disbeliever, or do we wait until the argument is established against him? Because he may be confused about worldly matters compared to matters of creed or worship. That is why you find that he respects worship and does not change it. He does not say, for example, that the midday prayer comes while people are working, so we postpone it to the afternoon prayer, or that the night prayer comes while people need sleep, so we bring the night prayer forward to the sunset prayer. He respects this. But in worldly matters, he may be bold and establish laws that contradict the Shari'ah. In this regard, there is no doubt that it is disbelief, because he has abolished the Shari'ah ruling and replaced it with something else. However, we must establish the argument against him and ask why he did that. Some scholars, who are state scholars, may confuse him by distorting words from their context in order to please the ruler. They say, for example, that worldly matters, economically and agriculturally, and in terms of taking and giving, are left to humans, because interests differ. Then they deceive him with the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): or Most of the rulers existing now are mostly ignorant and do not know anything. So if a man with a large turban, long sleeves, and wide cuffs comes and tells him that this is a matter of interests, and interests differ according to time, place, and circumstances, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "You know your worldly affairs best," and it is not a problem to replace the laws that were codified in the time of the Companions and at an appropriate time with laws that suit the people of this time, they make permissible for them what Allah has forbidden. They say, for example, that there are two types of riba: investment riba and exploitative riba. The first is permissible and the second is forbidden. Then they write, "Write this article," and he becomes ignorant. But if we establish the argument against him and say, "This is wrong, this is an error, and it is a distortion by this scholar who deceived you," and then he persists in what he is upon, at that time we rule that he is a disbeliever, and we do not care. So the result is that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) divided this matter in order to reconcile these absolute texts with the known principles of the Shari'ah. Yes.