A Benefit on the Ruling on Referring to Man-Made Laws and the Ruling on Their Legislator

It is derived from this verse that there is no reference to man-made laws, and that laws contrary to the ruling of Allah are invalid. This is indeed the case, for the law is established by humans, and they do not possess comprehensive knowledge, neither in the present nor in the future. They have not encompassed the world in knowledge. The most that can be said is that the one who established the legal provision knows only the apparent conditions of his people. Does he know every person, and that this ruling is suitable for them? No, this is a deficiency.
Second: Even if he knew the conditions of people in general, could he know the condition of every individual? For people differ, even in the same ruling. Have you seen the rich and the poor? The rich has zakah upon him, while the poor does not have zakah upon him. It is permissible to give zakah to the poor, but it is not permissible for the rich to receive it. The incapable and the capable: the capable prays standing, while the incapable prays sitting. Does the one who established the law know the conditions of people such that the law is suitable for all their conditions? No, so this is another deficiency.
Third: Do the legislators of the law perceive the conditions of people in the future or not? They do not perceive it. And it is known that rulings differ according to the difference in conditions. For this reason, we find that the Islamic Shari'ah differs from the Christian Shari'ah, and the Christian Shari'ah differs from the Jewish Shari'ah. Here is Isa (Jesus) saying: The Islamic religion also came different in many secondary matters from the religions that preceded it. Allah the Exalted said: So the law is deficient in every aspect. If it is deficient in every aspect, can this deficient thing be a reference in disputes? It cannot.
We remain with the one who refers to the law: will he be a disbeliever? This requires detail. If a person finds no way to take his right except through the law, this is not disbelief, nor is it forbidden. If you are in a country governed by the law and you have a dispute with a person, and you cannot resort to a Shari'ah ruling, there is no harm in referring to the law. And if it rules in your favor, this is like the police. If we said otherwise, the rights of people would be lost. The precise scholar Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed to this meaning in his book al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah. But if you refer to the law while you know that it rules with injustice, is it permissible for you to refer to it or not? It is not permissible, there is no doubt in this. Because some people may, according to the Shari'ah ruling, not deserve this thing, but according to the law, they deserve it. So he says: "I will refer to the law to take my right according to the law." What do we say? We say: This is forbidden and not permissible. An example of this is what they call bank interest. Bank interest is forbidden in the Shari'ah ruling. This man knows that it is forbidden in the Shari'ah, but he says: "I want to refer to the law because the law will enable me to get it." It is not permissible, because this is consuming wealth unjustly. If one refers to the taghut (that which contradicts the Shari'ah ruling), and it is to extract the right, not to believe that what it ruled is the truth—pay attention to the difference—to extract the right, not to believe that what it ruled is the truth, answer me, then this is permissible, and it is as if you made them police who extract your right from the one who wronged you. But if it is to believe that what is in the law is the truth, despite its contradiction with the Shari'ah, then this is forbidden. This is regarding referring to the law.
We remain with the establishment of the law. The one who establishes the law is either one who knows that it contradicts the Shari'ah, but he believes that it is more beneficial for creation than the Shari'ah of the Lord of creation. Then this is a disbeliever, without doubt. A disbeliever whose disbelief takes him out of the religion, because he is denying the saying of Allah the Exalted: and denying His saying: because he has now established a book in place of the Book of Allah. And this is clearly a disbeliever. He replaced the religion of Allah with other than it, and replaced the ruling of Allah with other than it. So this is a disbeliever. But if he does not know that it contradicts the Shari'ah, and he did so by ta'wil (figurative interpretation) if he is from the people of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), or by misguidance if he is not from the people of ijtihad, then he is not declared a disbeliever. For example, if he believes that the issue of 'inah (a buy-back sale used to disguise a loan) is permissible and establishes it as a law. The issue of 'inah is known to you: that one sells something for a deferred price and buys it for cash for less. He says, for example: "Article such-and-such: If one sells something for a deferred price and buys it for less, the contract is valid." This article contradicts the Shari'ah, but he does not know that it contradicts the Shari'ah, or he interprets it as permissible based on the form of the transaction. Then he is not declared a disbeliever. And the establishment of a law that contradicts the Shari'ah may be due to misguidance, not ta'wil, such that the ruler is ignorant and uneducated, but some of the scholars of the state misguides him. He says: "This is not a problem, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says: and we know that this is better for us in this world based on his assumption. Then he is not declared a disbeliever. So now, the one who establishes a law that contradicts the Shari'ah, believing that it is more appropriate than the Shari'ah and more beneficial for creation, is a disbeliever, and we have no doubt in this. But with two conditions: that he knows that it contradicts the Shari'ah, and that he believes it is more beneficial for creation or like the Shari'ah. Even the one who believes in similarity is a disbeliever, because Allah says: and He says: .
As for the one who established it contrary to the Shari'ah by ta'wil or misguidance, he is not declared a disbeliever, because in his view, he has not contradicted the Shari'ah, so he is not declared a disbeliever for this. The summary now: When people differ in something, to whom do they refer? To Allah: If someone says: "From where do we know the ruling of Allah?" We say: From the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is explained by the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-Nisa: 59].