The honorable Shaykh cites your fatwa in the general legislation regarding the ruling in *al-Majmu' al-Thamin* that it is manifest disbelief, because it is a change, and this is attributed to Shaykh Muhammad ibn
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The questioner : His EminenceThe Shaykh : This issue is currently being raised in many papers under the title "The People of the Sunnah and the Community," and in reality it follows the path of the Khawarij, so we wanted to verify this matter with you.
The issue concerns what is attributed to general legislation in what rulers rule by. Evidence is cited for this, meaning your fatwa, may Allah preserve you, in *al-Majmu' al-Thamin*, that this is disbelief and that it does not require, meaning this disbelief is manifest, because it is a change. This statement is also attributed to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, may Allah have mercy on him.
So the question here — to be explicit and clear — is: Do the impediments of declaring someone a disbeliever, or what the People of the Sunnah and the Community have stipulated regarding establishing the proof against one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed as general legislation, apply? May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : It is necessary, may Allah bless you, that for every person who commits an act of disbelief, there be no impediment to declaring him a disbeliever. Therefore, in the authentic hadith, when they asked if they should oppose the rulers, he said:Sahih al-Bukhari 7055, 7056 So it is necessary that the disbelief be explicit and known, not admitting of figurative interpretation. If it admits of figurative interpretation, then its doer is not declared a disbeliever, even if we say it is disbelief.
So a distinction is made between the statement and the speaker, and between the act and the doer. An act may be open sinfulness, but the doer is not an open sinner because there is an impediment preventing his being declared an open sinner. And it may be disbelief, but the doer is not declared a disbeliever because there is an impediment preventing his being declared a disbeliever. What harmed the Muslim community in the emergence of the Khawarij was nothing but this defective figurative interpretation. The Khawarij, for example, interpreted this as disbelief and went out, as they said to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). The Khawarij were with him; they were with 'Ali ibn Abi Talib against the army of the people of Sham. When the reconciliation took place between 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and the people of Sham, the Khawarij who were with him went out against him until he fought them and killed them, and praise be to Allah. But the point is that they went out and said: "You are now ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, because you ruled by humans," so they went out against him.
So this defective figurative interpretation is the calamity, the calamity of the community from defective figurative interpretation. A thing may not be disbelief, but this person believes it is disbelief, so he goes out, seeing it as manifest disbelief, and goes out. And a thing may be disbelief, but the doer is not a disbeliever because there is an impediment preventing his being declared a disbeliever, so this one who goes out believes he has no excuse and goes out.
Therefore, it is obligatory for a person to be cautious about rushing to declare people disbelievers or open sinners. Perhaps a person does an act of open sinfulness with no doubt about it, but he does not know. So if you say: "My brother, this is forbidden," he says: "May Allah reward you with good," and he stops doing it. Is this not a reality? Answer? Yes, there is no doubt. So how can I rule that a person is an open sinner without establishing the proof against him? So these whom you refer to, from what is happening in the arena between the rulers of the Arabs and Muslims, may be excused in it because the proof has not been made clear to them, or it was made clear to them and someone came to confuse them and make it ambiguous for them, for example. So it is necessary to be deliberate in the matter. Then, on the assumption that the permissibility of going out is established, meaning we see manifest disbelief, and we have from Allah a proof regarding it, and the word "we see" is a condition, and "disbelief" is a condition, and "manifest" is a condition, and "we have from Allah a proof" is a condition, four conditions.
His saying: is a precaution against rumors that have no truth to them, and the meaning of "you see" is that you know with certain knowledge.
is a precaution against open sinfulness, meaning: if the ruler is a drunkard, an open sinner, a wicked person, but he has not reached the level of disbelief, it is not permissible to go out against him.
The third: meaning: explicit, not admitting of figurative interpretation.
And the fourth: "we have from Allah a proof" means: it is not explicit in our own minds only, but we are relying on clear, decisive evidence.
These four conditions are a condition for the permissibility of going out, but there remains with us a fifth condition for the obligation of going out. Is it obligatory for us, if it is permissible for us to go out against the ruler? Is it obligatory for us to go out? It is looked into, the public benefit is looked into: are we capable of removing him? At that time we go out. If we are not capable, we do not go out, because all obligatory acts of the Shari'ah are conditioned by what? By capability and ability.
Then, if we go out, perhaps a greater and more significant harm will result from our going out than if this man remained as he is, because if we go out and then he shows strength, we become more humiliated, and he persists more in his tyranny and disbelief. So these matters require reason, and that the Shari'ah be coupled with reason, and that emotion be kept away in these matters. We need emotion for our enthusiasm, and we need reason and the Shari'ah to bind us, so brakes are necessary, as they say. What does a car do without brakes?
The student: Accidents.
The Shaykh : Major accidents, and the car also, without an electrical charge to move it, does not move.
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The questioner : His EminenceThe Shaykh : This issue is currently being raised in many papers under the title "The People of the Sunnah and the Community," and in reality it follows the path of the Khawarij, so we wanted to verify this matter with you.
The issue concerns what is attributed to general legislation in what rulers rule by. Evidence is cited for this, meaning your fatwa, may Allah preserve you, in *al-Majmu' al-Thamin*, that this is disbelief and that it does not require, meaning this disbelief is manifest, because it is a change. This statement is also attributed to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, may Allah have mercy on him.
So the question here — to be explicit and clear — is: Do the impediments of declaring someone a disbeliever, or what the People of the Sunnah and the Community have stipulated regarding establishing the proof against one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed as general legislation, apply? May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : It is necessary, may Allah bless you, that for every person who commits an act of disbelief, there be no impediment to declaring him a disbeliever. Therefore, in the authentic hadith, when they asked if they should oppose the rulers, he said:
unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah
لا ، إلا أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم فيه من الله برهانSo a distinction is made between the statement and the speaker, and between the act and the doer. An act may be open sinfulness, but the doer is not an open sinner because there is an impediment preventing his being declared an open sinner. And it may be disbelief, but the doer is not declared a disbeliever because there is an impediment preventing his being declared a disbeliever. What harmed the Muslim community in the emergence of the Khawarij was nothing but this defective figurative interpretation. The Khawarij, for example, interpreted this as disbelief and went out, as they said to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). The Khawarij were with him; they were with 'Ali ibn Abi Talib against the army of the people of Sham. When the reconciliation took place between 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and the people of Sham, the Khawarij who were with him went out against him until he fought them and killed them, and praise be to Allah. But the point is that they went out and said: "You are now ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, because you ruled by humans," so they went out against him.
So this defective figurative interpretation is the calamity, the calamity of the community from defective figurative interpretation. A thing may not be disbelief, but this person believes it is disbelief, so he goes out, seeing it as manifest disbelief, and goes out. And a thing may be disbelief, but the doer is not a disbeliever because there is an impediment preventing his being declared a disbeliever, so this one who goes out believes he has no excuse and goes out.
Therefore, it is obligatory for a person to be cautious about rushing to declare people disbelievers or open sinners. Perhaps a person does an act of open sinfulness with no doubt about it, but he does not know. So if you say: "My brother, this is forbidden," he says: "May Allah reward you with good," and he stops doing it. Is this not a reality? Answer? Yes, there is no doubt. So how can I rule that a person is an open sinner without establishing the proof against him? So these whom you refer to, from what is happening in the arena between the rulers of the Arabs and Muslims, may be excused in it because the proof has not been made clear to them, or it was made clear to them and someone came to confuse them and make it ambiguous for them, for example. So it is necessary to be deliberate in the matter. Then, on the assumption that the permissibility of going out is established, meaning we see manifest disbelief, and we have from Allah a proof regarding it, and the word "we see" is a condition, and "disbelief" is a condition, and "manifest" is a condition, and "we have from Allah a proof" is a condition, four conditions.
His saying:
that you see
أن ترواdisbelief
كفراًThe third:
manifest
بواحاًAnd the fourth: "we have from Allah a proof" means: it is not explicit in our own minds only, but we are relying on clear, decisive evidence.
These four conditions are a condition for the permissibility of going out, but there remains with us a fifth condition for the obligation of going out. Is it obligatory for us, if it is permissible for us to go out against the ruler? Is it obligatory for us to go out? It is looked into, the public benefit is looked into: are we capable of removing him? At that time we go out. If we are not capable, we do not go out, because all obligatory acts of the Shari'ah are conditioned by what? By capability and ability.
Then, if we go out, perhaps a greater and more significant harm will result from our going out than if this man remained as he is, because if we go out and then he shows strength, we become more humiliated, and he persists more in his tyranny and disbelief. So these matters require reason, and that the Shari'ah be coupled with reason, and that emotion be kept away in these matters. We need emotion for our enthusiasm, and we need reason and the Shari'ah to bind us, so brakes are necessary, as they say. What does a car do without brakes?
The student: Accidents.
The Shaykh : Major accidents, and the car also, without an electrical charge to move it, does not move.