Ruling on judging by other than what Allah has revealed and the legislation of man-made laws : Fatawas of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Saleh Al Uthaymeen

The ruling on judging by other than what Allah has revealed and on the legislation of man-made laws has been a long-discussed topic in the Islamic world. In verses 44, 45 and 47 of Surah Al-Ma’idah, Allah Almighty has described three distinct attributes: kafir, zalim and fasiq. Without a correct analysis of these three attributes, there arises the danger of extremist takfir on the one hand and excessive laxity on the other. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, has discussed this issue in great detail and in a well-structured manner in several of his fatawa and tafsir works. In this article, I have gathered the Shaykh’s views, translated them, and added a summary commentary so that readers may benefit.

If a ruler judges by other than Allah’s law, is he a kafir, fasiq or zalim?

Allah has described those who do not judge by what He has revealed with three attributes:

He, the Exalted, said: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is they who are the disbelievers.” (Al-Ma’idah, 44)

He also said: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is they who are the wrongdoers.” (Al-Ma’idah, 45)

And He said: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.” (Al-Ma’idah, 47)

The people of knowledge have differed on this matter.

One view is that the subject to whom these attributes apply is one and the same, because a disbeliever is also a wrongdoer, as Allah says: “And the disbelievers, they are the wrongdoers.” (Al-Baqarah, 254) And he is also a fasiq, as Allah says: “But as for those who defiantly disobeyed, their refuge is the Fire.” (As-Sajdah, 20) meaning they disbelieved.

Another view is that the subjects are multiple and that the attributes apply according to the manner of judging. This is the more correct view. In this case, a person will be considered a kafir in three situations.

The first situation is when he believes that judging by other than what Allah has revealed is permissible. The proof for this is Allah’s saying: “Then is it the judgement of ignorance they seek?” (Al-Ma’idah, 50) Everything that contradicts the judgement of Allah is from the judgement of ignorance, based on the definitive consensus that it is not permissible to judge by other than what Allah has revealed. Therefore, one who deems lawful or permits judging by other than what Allah has revealed opposes the definitive consensus of the Muslims. Such a person is a disbeliever and an apostate, like one who believes that fornication or alcohol is lawful, or that bread or milk is unlawful.

The second situation is when he believes that a judgement other than Allah’s is equal to Allah’s judgement.

The third situation is when he believes that a judgement other than Allah’s is better than Allah’s judgement.

The proof is the saying of Allah: “And who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who firmly believe?” (Al-Ma’idah, 50) The verse implies that Allah’s judgement is the best of judgements, supported by His saying reaffirming this: “Is not Allah the most just of judges?” (At-Tin, 8). Since Allah is the best of judges in terms of rulings and the most just of judges, whoever claims that a judgement other than Allah’s is equal to or better than Allah’s judgement is a disbeliever, because he has denied the Qur’an.

A person is a wrongdoer (zalim) when he believes that judging by what Allah has revealed is the best of judgements, that it is more beneficial for the servants and the land, and that it is obligatory to apply; yet hatred and spite for the one being judged against drive him to judge by other than what Allah has revealed. Thus, he is a zalim.

A person is a fasiq when he judges by other than what Allah has revealed due to his own desire while believing that Allah’s judgement is the truth, but he judges by other than it for some personal inclination, meaning a love for that which he judged with. This is without any dislike for Allah’s judgement or any intent to harm someone through it. For example, he judges in favor of a person who bribed him, or because the person is a relative or a friend, or because he hopes to fulfill some need through him, and the like, while he believes that Allah’s judgement is the best and obligatory to follow. This person is a fasiq. Although he is also a wrongdoer, the description of fusuq takes precedence over the description of zulm in his case.

As for those who draft legislative laws while knowing Allah’s judgement and knowing that these laws contradict Allah’s judgement, such a person has replaced the Shari’ah with these laws. He is a disbeliever because he did not turn away from the Shari’ah in favor of this law except that he believes it is better for the servants and the land than Allah’s Shari’ah. When we say that he is a disbeliever, we mean that this act leads to disbelief.

However, the one who drafted these laws may sometimes be excused, such as when he was deceived and told that this does not contradict Islam, or that it falls under masalih mursalah (unrestricted public interests), or that it is a matter that Islam has left to the people.

There are some scholars, although mistaken, who say that the matters of transactions have nothing to do with the Shari’ah; rather, they depend on what rectifies the economy in every era according to its circumstances. So if the situation requires that we establish usurious banks or impose extra taxes on the people, there is no harm in that.

There is no doubt that this is an error. If they were exercising ijtihad, may Allah forgive them; otherwise, they are in grave danger. It is more fitting for these people to be labeled as scholars of the state, not scholars of the millah (religious community).

Without a doubt, the Shari’ah came to organize acts of worship, which are between a person and his Lord, and transactions, which are between people and creation in contracts, marriages, inheritance, and other matters. The Shari’ah is complete from all aspects. Allah says: “This day I have perfected for you your religion.” (Al-Ma’idah, 3)

How can it be said that transactions have nothing to do with the Shari’ah when the longest verse in the Qur’an was revealed concerning transactions? Had there been no system from the Shari’ah in transactions, people would have fallen into corruption.

I do not say that we accept everything the jurists have said, because they may be correct and they may err. Rather, we must accept everything that Allah and His Messenger said. There is no situation that occurs among people except that in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger there is that which removes its difficulty and resolves it. The error arises either from a deficiency in knowledge or understanding, which is a shortcoming, or from a lack of deep reflection, which is negligence.

However, when a person is granted success in knowledge and understanding and exerts effort to reach the truth, he will certainly reach it even in transactions. Allah says: “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an?” (An-Nisa, 82) He also says: “Then have they not pondered over the word?” (Al-Mu’minun, 68) He says: “This is a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, that they might reflect upon its verses.” (Sad, 29) And He says: “And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things.” (An-Nahl, 89) Thus, everything a person needs in his religious or worldly affairs, the Qur’an has explained with a clear and sufficient explanation.

As for one who enacts laws that contradict the Shari’ah and claims that they fall under masalih mursalah, he is lying in his claim. This is because masalih mursalah and muqayyadah (restricted interests), if the Shari’ah has considered and indicated them, then they are true and part of the Shari’ah. If the Shari’ah has not considered them, they are not beneficial and can never be so. For this reason, the correct view is that there is no such proof called masalih mursalah. Rather, what the Shari’ah has deemed beneficial is benefit, what it has negated is not benefit, and what it has remained silent about is pardon.

Many people have expanded the scope of masalih mursalah, introducing into it some reprehensible matters, innovations and the like, such as celebrating the Prophet’s birthday. They claim that it invigorates determination and energizes people because they have forgotten the remembrance of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. This is false, because all Muslims in every prayer testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger and send blessings upon him. The one whose heart is not revived by this while he is praying before his Lord, how can his heart be revived in an hour where false poems are recited, containing such exaggeration that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, would reject? This is a cause of corruption, not a benefit.

Thus, masalih mursalah, even though some senior mujtahid scholars established it, without a doubt their intention was to support Allah and His Messenger. However, these interests were used in ways other than what those scholars intended and were expanded upon. Therefore, they must be measured by the correct standard. If the Shari’ah has considered them, they are accepted; otherwise, as Imam Malik said: “Everyone’s statement can be taken or rejected except the inhabitant of this grave,” and there are comprehensive principles under which specific cases are subsumed.

Let it be known that a person must fear his Lord in all rulings, and he should not be hasty in deciding upon them, especially concerning takfir, which some people of zeal and emotion now apply without thinking or deliberation. When a person declares someone a disbeliever and that person is not deserving of it, the ruling returns upon the one who said it. Declaring a person a disbeliever entails many rulings: his blood and wealth become lawful and all the rulings of disbelief apply to him. Just as it is not permissible to apply the term of disbelief to a specific individual until the conditions of takfir are clear in his case, one must also not be cowardly in applying the term of disbelief to those whom Allah and His Messenger have declared disbelievers. But we must differentiate between a specific individual and a non-specific one. For a specific individual, judging him as a disbeliever requires two matters.

First, it must be established that the act he committed entails disbelief.

Second, the conditions of takfir must apply to him, the most important of which is knowledge that this act is a cause of disbelief. If he is ignorant, he is not declared a disbeliever. For this reason, the scholars mentioned that one of the conditions for implementing a hadd punishment is that the person knows that the act is prohibited. This is only for implementing a hadd, not for takfir, and caution regarding takfir is even more deserving and befitting.

Allah the Exalted said: “Messengers as bearers of good tidings and warners, so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers.” (An-Nisa, 165) And He said: “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” (Al-Isra, 15) And He said: “And Allah would not let a people go astray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid.” (At-Tawbah, 115) Along with the presence of these conditions, the absence of preventive factors is necessary. If a person does something that entails disbelief under compulsion or in a state of bewilderment, he is not considered a disbeliever. The evidence is the saying of Allah: “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief, except one who is forced while his heart is at rest with faith.” (An-Nahl, 106) And the story of the man who found his lost animal in a desolate area and, out of extreme joy, mistakenly said: “O Allah, You are my servant and I am Your Lord.” He was not held accountable for that.^[1]Majmu’ Fatawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, vol. 9-10, page 740-745

قال الشيخ ابن عثيمين:

فائدة :

وصف الله الحاكمين بغير ما أنزل الله بثلاثة أوصاف :

– ۱ قال تعالى : ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون) [المائدة: ٤٤] .

– ۲ وقال تعالى : ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الظالمون) [المائدة: ٤٥] .

-۳ وقال تعالى : ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الفاسقون) [المائدة ٤٧] .

واختلف أهل العلم في ذلك :

فقيل : إن هذه الأوصاف الموصوف واحد ؛ لأن الكافر ظالم؛ لقوله

تعالى : والكافرون هم الظالمون) [البقرة: ٢٥٤]، وفاسق ؛ لقوله تعالى : وأما الذين فسقوا فمأواهم النار ) [السجدة: ٢٠]؛ أي: كفروا

وقيل: إنها الموصوفين متعددين، وإنها على حسب الحكم، وهذا هو الراجح . فيكون كافراً في ثلاثة أحوال:

ا. إذا اعتقد جواز الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله، بدليل قوله تعالى : أفحكم الجاهلية يبغون) [المائدة: ٥٠] ، فكل ما خالف حكم الله ؛ فهو من حكم الجاهلية، بدليل الإجماع القطعي على أنه لا يجوز الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله فالمحل والمبيح للحكم بغير ما أنزل الله مخالف لإجماع المسلمين القطعي، وهذا كافر مرتد، وذلك كمن اعتقد حل الزنا أو الخمر أو تحريم الخبز أو اللبن.

ب -إذا اعتقد أن حكم غير الله مثل حكم الله .

ج – إذا اعتقد أن حكم غير الله أحسن من حكم الله .

بدليل قوله تعالى : ومن أحسن من الله حكماً لقوم يوقنون) [المائدة: ٥٠]؛

فتضمنت الآية أن حكم الله أحسن الأحكام، بدليل قوله تعالى مقرراً ذلك : أليس الله بأحكم الحاكمين) [التين : ] ، فإذا كان الله أحسن الحاكمين أحكاماً وهو أحكم الحاكمين؛ فمن ادعى أن حكم غير الله مثل حكم الله أو أحسن فهو كافر لأنه مكذب للقرآن .

ويكون ظالماً : إذا اعتقد أن الحكم بما أنزل الله أحسن الأحكام، وأنه أنفع للعباد والبلاد، وأنه الواجب تطبيقه، ولكن حمله البغض والحقد للمحكوم عليه حتى حكم بغير ما أنزل الله ؛ فهو ظالم .

ويكون فاسقاً : إذا كان حكمه بغير ما أنزل الله لهوى في نفسه مع اعتقاده أن حكم الله هو الحق، لكن حكم بغيره لهوى في نفسه؛ أي: محبة لما حكم به

لا كراهة لحكم الله ولا ليضر أحداً به مثل : أن يحكم لشخص الرشوة رشي إياها، أو لكونه قريباً أو صديقاً، أو يطلب من ورائه حاجة، وما أشبه ذلك مع اعتقاده بأن حكم الله هو الأمثل والواجب اتباعه؛ فهذا فاسق، وإن كان أيضاً ظالماً، لكن وصف الفسق في حقه أولى من وصف الظلم .

أما بالنسبة لمن وضع قوانين تشريعية مع علمه بحكم الله وبمخالفة هذه القوانين لحكم الله ؛ فهذا قد بدل الشريعة بهذه القوانين، فهو كافر لأنه لم يرغب بهذا القانون عن شريعة الله إلا وهو يعتقد أنه خير للعباد والبلاد من شريعة الله، وعندما نقول بأنه كافر ؛ فنعني بذلك أن هذا الفعل يوصل إلى الكفر .

ولكن قد يكون الواضع له معذوراً، مثل أن يغرر به كأن يقال: إن هذا لا يخالف الإسلام، أو هذا من المصالح المرسلة، أو هذا مما رده الإسلام إلى الناس .

فيوجد بعض العلماء وإن كانوا مخطئين – يقولون : إن مسألة المعاملات لا تعلق لها بالشرع، بل ترجع إلى ما يصلح الاقتصاد في كل زمان بحسبه، فإذا اقتضى الحال أن نضع بنوكاً للربا أو ضرائب على الناس؛ فهذا لا شيء فيه .

وهذا لا شك في خطئه؛ فإن كانوا مجتهدين غفر الله لهم، وإلا ؛ فهم على خطر عظيم، واللائق بهؤلاء أن يُلَقَّبوا بأنهم من علماء الدولة لا علماء الملة .

ومما لا شك فيه أن الشرع جاء بتنظيم العبادات التي بين الإنسان وربه والمعاملات التي بين الإنسان مع الخلق في العقود والأنكحة والمواريث وغيرها ؛ فالشرع كامل من جميع الوجوه، قال تعالى : اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم [المائدة : ٣] .

وكيف يقال : إن المعاملات لا تعلق لها بالشرع وأطول آية في القرآن نزلت في المعاملات، ولولا نظام الشرع في المعاملات لفسد الناس؟!

وأنا لا أقول : نأخذ بكل ما قاله الفقهاء؛ لأنهم قد يصيبون وقد يخطئون، بل يجب أن نأخذ بكل ما قاله الله ورسوله ، ولا يوجد حال من الأحوال تقع بين الناس إلا في كتاب الله وسنة رسوله ما يزيل إشكالها ويحلها، ولكن الخطأ إما من نقص العلم أو الفهم، وهذا قصور، أو نقص التدبر ؛ وهذا تقصير .

أما إذا وفق الإنسان بالعلم والفهم وبذل الجهد في الوصول إلى الحق؛ فلا بد أن يصل إليه حتى في المعاملات، قال تعالى : أفلا يتدبرون القرآن [النساء : ۸۲]، وقال تعالى : أفلم يدبروا القول [المؤمنون: ٦٨]، وقال تعالى : كتاب أنزلناه إليك مبارك ليدبروا آياته) [ص: ۲۹]، وقال تعالى : ونزلنا عليك الكتاب تبياناً لكل شيء [النحل: ۸۹]، فكل شيء يحتاجه الإنسان في دينه أو دنياه؛ فإن القرآن بينه بياناً شافياً .

ومن سن قوانين تخالف الشريعة وادعى أنها من المصالح المرسلة؛ فهو كاذب في دعواه لأن المصالح المرسلة والمقيدة إن اعتبرها الشرع ودل عليها فهي حق ومن الشرع، وإن لم يعتبرها فليست مصالح ولا يمكن أن تكون كذلك، ولهذا كان الصواب أنه ليس هناك دليل يسمى بالمصالح المرسلة، بل ما اعتبره الشرع؛ فهو مصلحة، وما نفاه ؛ فليس بمصلحة، وما سكت عنه؛ فهو عفو .

والمصالح المرسلة توسع فيها كثير من الناس؛ فأدخل فيها بعض المسائل المنكرة من البدع وغيرها؛ كعيد ميلاد الرسول فزعموا أن فيه شحذاً للهمم وتنشيطاً للناس لأنهم نسوا ذكر رسول الله الله ، وهذا باطل؛ لأن جميع المسلمين في كل صلاة يشهدون أن محمداً عبده ورسوله ويصلون عليه، والذي لا يحيى قلبه بهذا وهو يصلي بين يدي ربه كيف يحيى قلبه بساعة يُؤتَى فيها بالقصائد الباطلة التي فيها من الغلو ما ينكره رسول الله ﷺ ؟! فهذه مفسدة وليست بمصلحة .

فالمصالح المرسلة وإن وضعها بعض أهل العلم المجتهدين الكبار؛ فلا شك أن مرادهم نصر الله ورسوله، ولكن استخدمت هذه المصالح في غير ما أراده أولئك العلماء وتوسع فيها، وعليه؛ فإنها تُقاس بالمعيار الصحيح، فإن اعتبرها الشرع قبلت، وإلا ؛ فكما قال الإمام مالك: «كل أحد يؤخذ من قوله ويرد إلا صاحب هذا القبر، وهناك قواعد كليات تطبق عليها الجزئيات .

وليعلم أن يجب على الإنسان أن يتقي ربه في جميع الأحكام؛ فلا يتسرع في البت بها خصوصاً في التكفير الذي صار بعض أهل الغيرة والعاطفة يطلقونه بدون تفكير ولا روية، مع أن الإنسان إذا كفر شخصاً ولم يكن الشخص أهلاً له ؛ عاد ذلك إلى قائله، وتكفير الشخص يترتب عليه أحكام كثيرة؛ فيكون مباح الدم والمال، ويترتب عليه جميع أحكام الكفر، وكما لا يجوز أن نطلق الكفر على شخص معين حتى يتبين شروط التكفير في حقه يجب أن لا تجبن عن تكفير من كفّره الله ورسوله ، ولكن يجب أن نفرق بين المعين وغير المعين ؛ فالمعين يحتاج الحكم بتكفيره إلى أمرين :

– ۱ ثبوت أن هذه الخصلة التي قام بها مما يقتضي الكفر .

– ۲ انطباق شروط التكفير عليه، وأهمها العلم بأن هذا مكفر، فإن كان جاهلاً؛ فإنه لا يكفر، ولهذا ذكر العلماء أن من شروط إقامة الحد أن يكون عالماً بالتحريم، هذا وهو إقامة حد وليس بتكفير، والتحرز من التكفير أولى وأحرى .

قال تعالى: رسلاً مبشرين ومنذرين لئلا يكون للناس على الله حجة بعد الرسل) [النساء: ١٦٥]، وقال تعالى: ﴿وما كنا معذبين حتى نبعث رسولا) [الإسراء : ١٥]، وقال تعالى : وما كان الله ليضل قوماً بعد إذ هداهم حتى يبين لهم ما يتقون) [التوبة: ١١٥]، ولا بد مع توفر الشروط من عدم الموانع، فلو قام الشخص بما يقتضي الكفر إكراها أو ذهولاً لم يكفر؛ لقوله تعالى: ﴿من كفر بالله من بعد إيمانه إلا من إكراه وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان) [النحل: ١٠٦]؛ ولقول الرجل الذي وجد دابته في مهلكة : اللهم ! أنت عبدي وأنا ربك؛ أخطأ من شدة الفرح» (١) ، فلم يؤاخذ بذلك .

مجموع فتاوى ابن عثيمين، جز ٩-١٠، ص ٧٤٠-٧٤٥

There is no benefit in any law that contradicts the Qur’an

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

From the principle in this verse: “Indeed, this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright” (Al-Isra, 9), it becomes clear to us that all laws contradicting the Qur’an contain no good. Even if it is supposed that there is some good in them, then what is in the Qur’an is better and more greatly beneficial. “And they do not come to you with an example but that We bring you the truth and the best explanation.” (Al-Furqan, 33) “And if they had done what they were advised with, it would have been better for them and a stronger affirmation. And then We would have given them from Us a great reward. And We would have guided them to a straight path.” (An-Nisa, 66-68) The summary is that whatever is most upright in beliefs, statements, actions, morals, policies, transactions, and matters to be abandoned and prohibited, the Qur’an guides to them. We derive from this several great principles. Among them is that when two benefits conflict and one of them is more beneficial, we adopt the more beneficial one. Another is that when two proofs conflict and one of them is harsher, we adopt the easier one. Thus, whatever is most upright, the Qur’an guides to it. And the opposite is also true. Whatever is more crooked, worse, and more evil, the Qur’an does not guide to it; rather, it guides to its opposite.^[2]Hidayatul Qur’an, page 183

وقال الشيخ ابن عثيمين رحمه الله:

في هذه القاعدة : ﴿ إِنَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ يَهْدِي لِلَّتِي هِيَ أَقْوَمُ ﴾ [الإسراء : ٩ ] يتبين لنا أن جميع القوانين المخالفة للقرآن كلها لا خير فيها وأنه إن قدر فيها الخير ، فما في القرآن خير وأشد وأفيد : ﴿ وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَاكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا ﴾ [ الفرقان : ٣٣ ] ، وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ فَعَلُوا مَا يُوعَظُونَ بِهِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَشَدَّ تَثْبِيتًا – وَإِذًا لَآتَيْنَاهُمْ مِنْ لَدُنَّا أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا . وَلَهَدَيْنَاهُمْ صِرَاطًا مُسْتَقِيمًا ﴾ [ النساء : ٦٦ – ٦٨ ] ، فالحاصل أن كل ما كان أقوم في العقائد والأقوال والأعمال والأخلاق والسياسات والمعاملات والمتروكات والمنهيات ، فإن القرآن يهدي إليها . ونأخذ من هذا قواعد عظيمة منها إذا تعارض مصلحتان أحدهما أنفع أخذنا بالأنفع ومنها إذا تعارض نصان أحدهما أشد أخذنا بالأخف، فكل ما كان أقوم كان القرآن يهدي إليه ، والعكس بالعكس ، فكل ما كان أعوج وأردأ وأسوأ فإن القرآن لا يهدي إليه بل يهدي إلى ضده .

هداية القرآن، ١٨٣

This concise excerpt presents a foundational point of usul (principles). Here the Shaykh states that all laws contradicting the Qur’an contain no benefit. Even if some apparent benefit exists, it is deficient compared to the guidance of the Qur’an.

This is a crucial argument, because proponents of modern legislation often claim that man-made laws contain “practical benefits”. The Shaykh cuts this argument at its root by saying: even if we assume there is benefit, the Qur’an’s rulings contain that benefit in a superior and more complete form.

Two principles of usul are noteworthy here: (1) when two benefits conflict, adopt the more beneficial one, (2) when two proofs conflict, adopt the easier one. These two principles prove that there is scope for flexibility within the Shari’ah, so there is no need to discard the Shari’ah as “impractical”.

Shirk in legislation: its connection to Rububiyyah

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, said elsewhere:

If a person commits shirk with Allah, he is a disbeliever with a disbelief that expels him from the religion, whether it be by belief, statement, or action.

Shirk by belief is such as believing that Allah the Exalted has a partner in creation, or in the management of the universe, or in sovereignty, or in worship, or anything similar.

Shirk by action is such as prostrating to an idol.

Shirk by statement is such as calling upon other than Allah, or seeking help from other than Him, or saying: “Labbaik, You have no partner except a partner that is Yours; You possess him and whatever he possesses,” and the like.

Thus, committing shirk, whether by heart, by statement, or by action, is considered apostasy from Islam. Included in shirk with Allah is associating others with Allah in legislation, meaning that a person believes someone other than Allah has the right to legislate laws for people that they place in the position of Allah’s Shari’ah. The evidence is the saying of Allah: “They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, and also the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God.” (At-Tawbah, 31) They used to make lawful what Allah had forbidden and they would declare it lawful, and they would make unlawful what Allah had made lawful and they would declare it unlawful. As for the one who enacted these laws, he has placed himself in the station of divinity or in the station of lordship, meaning he made himself a legislating lord. And whoever obeys him in that and agrees with him is also a mushrik, because he has placed him in the position of a lord in legislation.^[3]Sharh al-Mumti’ ‘ala Zad al-Mustaqni’, 14/409

وإذا أشرك بالله فهو كافر كفراً مخرجاً عن الملة، سواء كان باعتقاد، أو بقول، أو بفعل

فالاعتقاد بأن يعتقد أن الله تعالى شريكاً في الخلق، أو في التدبير، أو في الملك، أو في العبادة، أو ما أشبه ذلك

وبالفعل مثل أن يسجد للصنم.

وبالقول مثل أن يدعو غير الله، أو يستغيث به، أو يقول : لبيك لا شريك لك إلا شريكاً هو لك ، تملكه وما ملك، وما أشبه ذلك.

فالإشراك سواء كان بالقلب، أو بالقول، أو بالفعل يعتبر ردة عن الإسلام، ومن الإشراك بالله أن يشرك مع الله غيره في الحكم، بأن يعتقد أن لغير الله أن يشرع للناس قوانين، يُحِلُّونها محل شريعة الله، لقوله تعالى : اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أرباباً من دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَهَا وَاحِدًا ﴾ [التوبة : (۳۱] ، وكانوا يحلون ما حرم الله فيحلونه ويحرمون ما أحل الله فيحرمونه، أما من سن هذه القوانين فقد جعل نفسه في مقام الألوهية، أو في مقام الربوبية، يعني جعل نفسه رباً مشرعاً، ومن أطاعه في ذلك ووافقه عليه فهو مشرك؛ لأنه جعله بمنزلة الرب في التشريع.

شرح الممتع على زاد المستقنع، ١٤/٤٠٩

The shirk of legislation (tashri’)

In this excerpt, the Shaykh has looked at the matter from the angle of shirk. The first excerpt dealt with the tripartite division of kufr, zulm, and fusuq; here the Shaykh identifies an essential creedal problem: granting anyone besides Allah the authority of legislation constitutes shirk in Rububiyyah.

Here, in light of verse 31 of Surah At-Tawbah and the hadith of ‘Adi ibn Hatim, it is clarified that taking rabbis and monks as “lords” meant adhering to their standards of lawful and unlawful, not praying to them. The same principle applies to modern legislators.

Notably, the Shaykh here states that not only the legislator but also the follower commits shirk: “whoever obeys him in that and agrees with him is also a mushrik.” Who is this follower? It is the one who knowingly accepts this system at the level of belief.

Man-made law and seeking judgement from taghut

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

His statement: “or someone else,” meaning: if other than the ruler or state authority hires him. For example, if you hire someone to climb a tree for you or go down a well, and he perishes, there is no compensation due from you, because he did that with his own consent and choice. Through this we realize the error of those laws enacted in some countries stating that a worker in companies is entitled to compensation in all circumstances, even if he is an adult of sound mind acting with free will, and even if he was not deceived, but rather understood his work and its risk, if there was any risk. This is a taghuti ruling, contradicting the ruling of the Shari’ah. It is not permissible to act upon it, and it is obligatory to judge in this matter according to what Allah’s Shari’ah demands. It will be said that this worker is not entitled to compensation, unless he was compelled to do the work, in which case he is compensated. If you say, “Is this not a general international law?” The answer is: no. Rather, the general international law is the law of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. No one among the servants of Allah has the right to legislate for the servants of Allah that which is not in the Shari’ah of Allah. Judgement belongs to Allah alone, as He the Exalted said: “Legislation is not but for Allah.” (Yusuf, 40) Thus, any person who enacts laws contradicting the Shari’ah of Allah has appropriated for himself an aspect of lordship and associated partners with Allah in what is exclusive to Him. So no one may judge among Allah’s servants except according to what Allah’s Shari’ah requires. On this basis we say that the general international law, as well as specific or communal law, is only the law of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, which He has legislated for His servants.

All laws besides that are false, because they are deficient and inadequate. Even if all the intelligent people of the world agreed on their validity, they would still be deficient and inadequate, unable to fulfill any objective properly. If they fulfill an objective from one side, they destroy many other objectives from other sides. Even if it is assumed that they serve an objective from one side, they only serve that objective for specific people, in a specific place, and at a specific time. As for rulings suitable for every time and place, they are only the rulings of Allah, Glorified and Exalted. Through this we understand the grave danger of going to this approach, meaning that we enact man-made laws which the Shari’ah did not lay down and then judge among Allah’s servants with them, and we turn to them for judgement instead of to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. Allah, the Exalted, has warned about the condition of these people, saying: “Have you not seen those who claim that they have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to taghut, while they were commanded to reject it.” (An-Nisa, 60) Ponder the phrase “they claim that they have believed.” In reality they are not believers; it is merely a claim. A claim may or may not correspond to reality. They claim with their tongues that they have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you. But their hearts are the opposite, because He said: “They wish,” and the place of wishing is the heart, “to refer legislation to taghut, while they were commanded to reject it.” Had they been truthful in their faith, they would have rejected this taghut and would not have wished to refer judgement to it. “And Satan wishes to lead them far astray.” So, in this regard, they are in agreement with Satan’s wish, not the wish of the Most Merciful. “And when it is said to them, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.” They do not explicitly say “no” so that their disbelief does not become apparent; rather, “they turn away from you in aversion,” meaning they turn aside. “So how will it be when disaster strikes them for what their hands have put forth? Then they come to you swearing by Allah, ‘We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation.'” Meaning, we intended only to do good and to reconcile between the Shari’ah and man-made legislation. But are they truthful? He, Glorified be He, said: “Those are the ones of whom Allah knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them, admonish them, and speak to them a far-reaching word concerning their inner selves. And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah.” (An-Nisa, 63-64) He was not sent so that his rulings would be toyed with, abandoned, and judgement sought from taghut instead.^[4]Sharh al-Mumti’ ‘ala Zad al-Mustaqni’, vol. 14, page 112-114

قوله: «أو غيره» أي: لو استأجره غير السلطان، فلو استأجرت إنساناً أن يصعد لك شجرة أو أن ينزل بئراً، فهلك فإنه لا ضمان عليك؛ لأنه فعل ذلك برضاه واختياره. وبهذا نعرف خطأ تلك القوانين التي قُننت في بعض الدول، أن العامل لدى الشركات يكون مضموناً بكل حال، حتى لو كان بالغاً عاقلاً مختاراً، وحتى لو كان غير مغرور، بأن عرف عمله وخطره إن كان فيه خطورة، فهذا حكم طاغوتي مخالف لحكم الشريعة، ولا يجوز العمل به، ويجب أن يحكم فيه بمقتضى شريعة الله، فيقال: إن هذا العامل غير مضمون؛ إلَّا إذا كان مكرهاً على العمل فيكون مضموناً. فإن قلت: أليس هذا قانوناً دولياً عاماً؟ الجواب: لا بل القانون الدولي العام هو قانون الله – عزّ وجل، وليس لأحد من عباد الله أن يُقنّن في عباد الله ما ليس في شريعة الله، فالحكم لله – عزّ وجلَّ ـ وحده، كما قال تعالى: ﴿إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ﴾ [يوسف: ٤٠]، فأي إنسان يشرع قوانين تخالف شريعة الله فقد اتخذ لنفسه جانباً من الربوبية، وشارك الله – تعالى – فيما هو من خصائصه، فلا أحد يحكم في عباد الله إلَّا بما اقتضاه شرع الله. وعلى هذا نقول: إن القانون الدولي العام والشعبي الإفرادي هو قانون الله عزّ وجلَّ، الذي شرعه لعباده.

وكل القوانين سوى ذلك فإنها باطلة؛ لأنها ناقصة وقاصرة، حتى لو اجتمع أذكياء العالم على مشروعيتها فإنها ناقصة قاصرة، لا تفي بأي غرض من الأغراض، وإن وَفَتْ بغرض من جانب هدمت أغراضاً أخرى من جوانب أخرى، وإن قدر أنها تخدم غرضاً من جانب، فإنها لا تخدم هذا الغرض إلا في أناس معينين، وفي مكان معين وفي زمان معين، أما الأحكام الصالحة لكل زمان ومكان فإنها أحكام الله – سبحانه وتعالى ـ، وبهذا نعرف خطورة الذهاب إلى هذا المذهب وهي أن نسن القوانين الوضعية التي لم يضعها الشرع ونحكم بها عباد الله، ونجعل التحاكم إليها لا إلى كتاب الله وسنة رسول الله، وقد نوه الله – تعالى – عن أحوال هؤلاء فقال: ﴿أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ﴾ [النساء: ٦٠]، وتأمل كلمة ﴿يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا﴾، فهم في الحقيقة غير مؤمنين، بل هو زعم فقط، والزعم قد يوافق الواقع وقد لا يوافقه، فهم يزعمون أنهم آمنوا بما أنزل إليك، وما أنزل من قبلك بألسنتهم، لكن قلوبهم على العكس من ذلك لقوله ﴿يُرِيدُونَ﴾ والإرادة محلها القلب ﴿أَن يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَن يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ﴾، ولو كانوا صادقين في إيمانهم لكفروا بهذا الطاغوت، ولم يريدوا أن يتحاكموا إليه، ﴿وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا﴾، وعلى هذا فهم موافقون لمراد الشيطان لا لمراد الرحمن، ﴿وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى مَا أَنزَلَ الله وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ﴾ أي إلى الكتاب والسنة فلا يُصرحون بقولهم: لا، حتى لا يظهر كفرهم، ولكنهم يَصُدُّونَ عَنكَ صُدُودًا أي: يعرضون، فَكَيْفَ إِذَا أَصَبَتْهُم مُّصِيبَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ جَاءُوكَ يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا إِحْسَنَنَا وَتَوْفِيقًا، أي: أردنا أن نحسن وأن نوفق بين الشريعة والوضيعة وهل هم صادقون؟ قال سبحانه: ﴿أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وَعِظْهُمْ وَقُل لَّهُمْ فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ قَوْلًا بَلِيغًا﴾ وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللهِ [النساء: ٦٣ – ٦٤] لا ليتلاعب بأحكامه وتترك، ويراد التحاكم إلى الطاغوت.

شرح الممتع على زاد المستقنع،ج ١٤ , ص ۱۱۲-١١٤

Refutation of the claim of “general international law” and the definition of taghut

This excerpt is strategically one of the most interesting. The Shaykh begins with a simple matter of fiqh and proceeds directly to a critique of international labor law.

The core idea is that a worker who knowingly, voluntarily, and without compulsion undertook risky work is not subject to diyyah (blood money) on the employer if he dies, because he made his own decision. The Islamic Shari’ah respects an individual’s will and responsibility.

Yet in the labor laws of many countries, it is stated that the company must pay compensation in all cases, even if the worker knowingly took the risk. The Shaykh called this a “taghuti ruling” because it contradicts the principles of the Shari’ah.

Here the Shaykh strikes at the philosophical root of the claim of “general international law.” He states that the law which is truly international and universal is the law of Allah, for only His law is applicable to all times, all places, and all peoples. Man-made law is always the product of a specific time, a specific place, and the thought of specific people. Therefore, it does not qualify as “international.”

In his analysis of verse 60 of Surah An-Nisa, the Shaykh highlights a subtle grammatical point: “yaz’umun” means they claim, not that they know for certain. This word itself indicates that their faith does not correspond to reality. And “yuridun” (they wish) is an action of the heart, meaning that their wish to seek judgement from taghut is not merely a verbal statement but a desire of the heart. This distinction proves their hypocrisy.

The cause of calamities and disasters: deviation from the Shari’ah

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, also said:

We say: there is no doubt that this calamity that has swept through these countries and neighboring areas is from our own doing, due to wrongdoing, some rulers’ departure from the Shari’ah of Allah and their application of laws and systems contradicting the Shari’ah in judgement, and the wickedness of some people by deviating from obedience to Allah, such as neglecting prayers, following desires, and many other things.

The matters we have mentioned provoke the wrath of the Creator, Mighty and Majestic. And when Allah, Mighty and Majestic, becomes angry with a people, He will send down upon them a punishment fully consistent with wisdom.^[5]Majmu’ Fatawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, vol. 25, page 547

وقال أيضا:

فنقول: ما وقع من هذه المصيبة التي اجتاحت هذه البلاد وما جاورها لاشك أنها من عند أنفسنا بسبب الظلم وخروج بعض الحكام عن شريعة الله وتحكيمهم للقوانين والنظم المخالفة لشريعة الله وفسق بعض الناس بالخروج عن طاعة الله من إضاعة الصلوات، وإتباع الشهوات وغير ذلك.

وهذه الأمور التي ذكرنا تغضب الخالق عز وجل، وإذا غضب الله عز وجل على قوم، فإنه سوف ينزل بهم العذاب المطابق للحكمة تماماً.

مجموع فتاوى للعثيمين, 25\547

The Shaykh states that the calamities befalling Muslim lands have two sources: first, at the level of rulers, the implementation of laws that contradict the Shari’ah; second, at the level of the populace, neglecting prayers and following desires. Both provoke Allah’s wrath.

An important point here is that the Shaykh does not place sole blame on the rulers; he also holds the people accountable. This is a balanced perspective, because many only blame the rulers while not admitting their own responsibility. The Shaykh’s point is that sins at both levels cause collective calamity.

There is no justice in laws other than Allah’s

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, further said:

Then he explained this charity, saying: “Judging justly between two people is a charity.” Meaning, two men bring a dispute to you and you judge justly between them; you rule between them with fairness. Everything that conforms to the Shari’ah is justice, and everything that contradicts the Shari’ah is wrongdoing and injustice. On this basis we say: these laws by which some people judge, which contradict the Shari’ah of Allah, are not justice; rather, they are wrongdoing, injustice, and falsehood. Whoever judges by them believing that they are like the judgement of Allah or better than it, then he is a disbeliever, an apostate from the religion of Allah, because he has denied the saying of Allah the Exalted: “And who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who firmly believe?” (Al-Ma’idah, 50) meaning, no one is better than Allah in judgement. But only those who have firm faith understand this. As for the one whose insight Allah has blinded, he does not perceive; rather, his evil deed is made fair-seeming to him so that he sees it as good, and refuge is sought with Allah.^[6]Sharh Riyad as-Salihin, p. 612

ثم بين هذه الصدقة فقال: (تعدل بين اثنين صدقة) يعني: رجلان يتخاصمان إليك فتعدل بينهما؛ تحكم بينهما بالعدل، وكل ما وافق الشرع فهو عدل، وكل ما خالف الشرع فهو ظلم وجور. وعلى هذا فنقول: هذه القوانين التي يحكم بها بعض الناس وهي مخالفة لشريعة الله ليست عدلاً، بل هي جور وظلم وباطل، ومن حكم بها معتقداً أنها مثل حكم الله أو أحسن منه، فإنه كافر مرتد عن دين الله؛ لأنه كذَّب قول الله تعالى: ﴿ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ حُكْمًا لِّقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ ﴾ [المائدة: ٥٠] يعني: لا أحد أحسن من الله حكماً، لكن لا يفهم هذا إلا من يوقن، أما الذي أعمى الله بصيرته، فإنه لا يدري بل قد يزين له سوء عمله فيراه حسناً والعياذ بالله.

شرح رياض الصالحين، ٦١٢

This excerpt raises a foundational definitional question: what actually is justice?

Here the Shaykh establishes a principle: what conforms to the Shari’ah is ‘adl (justice). What opposes the Shari’ah is zulm (injustice), no matter how much it is claimed to be “fair.”

In modern legal discourse, it is often said that man-made law can also ensure justice. The Shaykh cuts the root of this claim. Because “justice” is not a neutral concept; its standard must be defined. And the standard can only come from Allah, since He alone is All-Knowing and the source of law.

There is another subtle point in this excerpt. The Shaykh says that whoever judges by man-made laws believing them to be equal to or better than Allah’s judgement is a disbeliever, because he denies verse 50 of Surah Al-Ma’idah. This statement is consistent with the first excerpt, but adds the angle of denying the Qur’an, which is directly a recognized cause of kufr.

Denying the verses of the Qur’an and the misguidance of man-made laws

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, also said:

The tenth benefit: denying the verses of Allah is a cause for punishment, as in His saying: “And those who deny Our signs, the punishment will touch them because they were defiantly disobedient.” Let it be known that the verses of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, are divided into two types: legislative verses and universal verses. The legislative verses are the laws that the messengers brought from Allah. Because if you reflect on these rulings, whether for the Muslim nation or for previous nations, you will find them in complete accordance with wisdom and benefit. And if all the people of the earth gathered to produce something like them, they could never do so. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said: “Then is it the judgement of ignorance they seek? And who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who firmly believe?” (Al-Ma’idah, 50) So never think that any system or law can reform creation as the Islamic Shari’ah can.

Thus, those people who have gone to judging by man-made laws, which humans have put in place, have gone astray. Because this human who put them in place is without doubt subject to error. Moreover, he does not encompass all the interests of creation in all corners of the earth, nor their interests throughout all future times, because matters change. Therefore, it is not permissible to rely on these laws. It is obligatory to take laws from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, because Allah the Exalted knows best about creation in their present and future states, He is the most merciful to creation, and He is the most just of judges.^[7]Tafsir al-Qur’an lil-‘Uthaymeen, vol. 6, page 241-242

الفائدة العاشرة : أن التكذيب بآيات الله سبب للعقوبة لقوله : وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِايَاتِنَا يَمَسُّهُمُ الْعَذَابُ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ ، وليُعلم أن آيات الله – عز وجل – تنقسم إلى قسمين : آيات شرعية وآيات كونية، فالآيات الشرعية ما جاءت به الرسل من شرائع الله؛ لأنك لو تأملت هذه الأحكام سواء في الأمة الإسلامية، أو في الأمم السابقة لوجدتها مطابقة تماماً للحكمة والمصلحة، وأنه لو اجتمع كل أهل الأرض على أن يأتوا بمثل ذلك ما أتوا قال الله – عز وجل -: ﴿أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ حُكْمًا لِقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ ﴾ [المائدة : ٥٠] ، فلا تظن أن أي نظام، أو قانون يُصلح من الخلق ما تصلحه الشريعة الإسلامية.

ولذلك ضل أولئك القوم الذين ذهبوا إلى تحكيم القوانين الوضعية التي وضعها بشر، فهذا البشر الذي وضعها معرض للخطأ بلا شك . كما أنه غير محيط بجميع مصالح الخلق في جميع أقطار الدنيا، ولا بمصالحهم؟

لأن في جميع الأزمان المقبلة؛ لأن الأمور تتغير، إذا فلا يجوز الاعتماد على هذه القوانين، ويجب أن تؤخذ القوانين من كتاب الله وسنة رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم -؛ لأن الله تعالى أعلم بالخلق حالاً ومستقبلاً، ولأنه أرحم بالخلق، ولأنه أحكم الحاكمين .

تفسير القرآن للعثيمين، جز ٦، ص ٢٤١-٢٤٢

Here the Shaykh poses the question: why can’t humans create universal laws? Because humans are trapped within three limitations.

First, humans are prone to error and are ignorant of their own ignorance. Second, humans do not encompass all the needs of all people in all parts of the earth. Third, humans do not know how future matters will change.

Why is Allah’s law acceptable in contrast to these three limitations? Because He is the All-Knowing, the Most Merciful, and the Most Just of judges. Knowledge alone is not enough; mercy must also be present, otherwise the law becomes cruel. Mercy alone is not enough; knowledge must also be present, otherwise the law becomes erroneous. The combination of both exists only in Allah.

In this excerpt, the Shaykh also says something often overlooked. He does not say that the Shari’ah contains explicit solutions for every problem. He says the guidance for solutions exists if one searches with a combination of knowledge, understanding, and deep reflection. This speaks of an active responsibility towards the Shari’ah, not passive adherence.

The relationship between seeking judgement from taghut and hypocrisy

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, further said:

Then He, the Exalted, said: “Have you not seen those who claim that they have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to taghut, while they were commanded to reject it.” (An-Nisa, 60) The interrogative particle here is for expressing wonder. Meaning, will you not wonder at a people who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you, but they do not wish to refer judgement to Allah and His Messenger? They only wish to refer judgement to taghut, and taghut is everything that contradicts the Shari’ah of Allah. Among these people are some of those rulers with whom Allah has tested the Muslims, who want to return in judgement among the people to misguided laws far removed from the Shari’ah, laws drafted by such and such disbelievers and atheists who know nothing about Islam. They were also in an era from which eras may differ, and they legislated for a nation that may differ from other nations.

However, with regret, some of those whom the disbelievers colonized from Islamic lands took these laws and began applying them to the Islamic populace, paying no attention to the people’s resentment of them, and paying no attention to their contradiction to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, while they claim that they believe in Allah and His Messenger. How can that be? They wish to refer legislation to taghut while they were commanded to reject it. They were commanded by Allah to reject the taghut, yet they wish that judgement be referred to the taghut. “And Satan wishes to lead them far astray.” (An-Nisa, 60) Satan wishes to lead them far astray from the religion of Allah, not a near one. Because one who judges by other than the Shari’ah of Allah has indeed fallen into the greatest and farthest misguidance.

Allah the Exalted said: “And when it is said to them, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.” (An-Nisa, 61) Meaning, when it is said to them: come to what Allah has revealed, i.e., the Qur’an, and to the Messenger, then you see the hypocrites turning away from you completely. He did not say “you see them,” in order to show that these are hypocrites. Thus He made it explicit where implication could have been used, and this is a benefit. Also, to include them and other hypocrites besides them. For the hypocrite, refuge is sought with Allah, when invited to Allah and His Messenger, turns away and shuns.

“How then, when disaster strikes them for what their hands have put forth? Then they come to you swearing by Allah, ‘We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation.'” (An-Nisa, 62) Meaning, what will be their condition when a calamity befalls them, their faults are exposed and become known, then they come to you swearing by Allah falsely, “We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation,” meaning we only intended to do good and reconcile between the Shari’ah and man-made legislation. Yet it is never possible to reconcile the judgement of Allah and the judgement of taghut. Even if it is assumed that the judgement of taghut agrees with the judgement of Allah, in that case it would be considered Allah’s judgement, not taghut’s. That is why there is no beneficial issue in man-made laws that the Islamic Shari’ah has not already preceded. For this reason, Allah said: “Those are the ones of whom Allah knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them, admonish them, and speak to them a far-reaching word concerning their inner selves.” (An-Nisa, 63) Meaning, these are the ones whose secrets of the heart Allah knows, even if they display to people that they believe in Allah and that they intend good and reconciliation between Shari’ah rulings and legal rulings. These are the ones whose hearts’ contents Allah knows, and what they intended for their nation. “So turn away from them” – this command to turn away is a threat to them. “And speak to them a far-reaching word concerning their inner selves,” meaning say to them an eloquent word that reaches their souls so that they may take heed.^[8]Sharh Riyad as-Salihin lil-‘Uthaymeen, page 408-409

ثم قال تعالى : هو أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ ءَامَنُوا بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يتحاكموا إلى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أَمِرُوا أَن يَكْفُرُوا يه ﴾ [النساء : (١٠) ، الاستفهام هنا للتعجيب – يعني ألا تتعجب من قوم ، يزعمون أنهم آمنوا بما أنزل عليك ، وبما أنزل من قبلك ، ولكنهم لا يريدون التحاكم إلى الله ورسوله ، إنما يريدون أن يتحاكموا إلى الطاغوت ، وهو كل ما خالف شريعة الله . ومن هؤلاء القوم ما ابتلى الله به المسلمين من بعض الحكام الذين يريدون أن يرجعوا في الحكم بين الناس إلى قوانين ضالة بعيدة عن الشريعة ، وضعها فلان وفلان من كفار وملاحدة ، لا يعلمون عن الإسلام شيئًا ، وهم أيضًا في عصر قد تختلف العصور عنه ، وفي أمة قد تختلف عنها الأمم الأخرى .

لكن – مع الأسف – فإن بعض الذين استعمرهم الكفار من البلاد الإسلامية ، أخذوا هذه القوانين ،

وصاروا يطبقونها على الشعب الإسلامي ، غير مبالين امتعاض الشعب منها ، وغير مبالين بمخالفتها لكتاب الله وسنة رسوله ، وهم يزعمون أنهم آمنوا بالله ورسوله ، كيف ذلك ؟ وهم يريدون أن يتحاكموا إلى الطاغوت و قد أمروا أن يكفروا به ، أمروا أمرًا من الله أن يكفروا بالطاغوت ، ومع ذلك يريدون أن يكون التحاكم إلى الطاغوت ، ﴿ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُضِلُّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا ﴾ [النساء : (٦٠) يريد الشيطان أن يضلهم عن دين الله ضلالاً بعيدًا ليس قريبا ؛ لأن من حكم غير شريعة الله قد ضل أعظم الضلال ، وأبعد الضلال .

قال الله لى : ﴿ وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ رَأَيْتَ الْمُنَافِقِينَ يَصُدُّونَ عَنكَ صُدُودًا ﴾ [النساء : (١١) أي إذا قيل لهم : تعالوا إلى ما أنزل الله وهو القرآن ، وإلى الرسول ، وعند ذلك رأيت المنافقين يصدون عنك صدودًا ، ولم يقل : رأيتهم ، لأجل أن يبين أن هؤلاء منافقون . فأظهر في موضع الإضمار ، وهذه فائدة . ولأجل أن يشمل هؤلاء وغيرهم من المنافقين ؛ فإن المنافق -والعياذ بالله – إذا دعي إلى الله ورسوله أعرض وصد .

فكَيْفَ إِذَا أَصَبَتْهُم مُّصِيبَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ جَاءُوكَ يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا إِحْسَانًا وتوفيقا ﴾ [النساء : (۱۲) . يعني كيف حالهم إذا أصابتهم مصيبة ، وكشفت عوراتهم واطلع عليها ، ثم حاءوك يحلفون بالله وهم كاذبون : إِن أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا إِحْسَانًا وَتَوْفِيقًا ( يعني ما أردنا إلا الإحسان والتوفيق بين الشريعة وبين القوانين الوضعية ، ولا يمكن أن يكون هناك توفيق بين حكم الله وحكم الطاغوت أبدًا ، حكم الطاغوت لو فرض أنه وافق حكم الله لكان حكما لله لا للطاغوت ، ولهذا ليس في القوانين الوضعية من المسائل النافعة ؛ فإنها قد سبق إليها الشرع الإسلامي ؛ ولهذا قال : أُولَيكَ الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وَعِظْهُمْ وَقُل لَّهُمْ فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ قَوْلًا بَلِيغَا ) و النساء : (٦٣) ، يعني هؤلاء هم الذين يعلم الله ما في قلوبهم ، وإن أظهروا للناس أنهم يؤمنون بالله ، وأنهم يريدون الإحسان والتوفيق بين الأحكام الشرعية والأحكام القانونية ، هؤلاء هم الذين يعلم الله ما في قلوبهم ، وماذا أرادوا لأمتهم ، ﴿ فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ ) ، وهذا الأمر بالإعراض عنهم تهديدا لهم وَقُل لَّهُمْ في أَنفُسِهِمْ قَوْلاً بَلِيمًا ) أي قل لهم قولاً بليغا يصل إلى أنفسهم ليتعظوا به.

شرح رياض الصالحين للعثيمين، ص ٤٠٨-٤٠٩

This excerpt is a detailed tafsir of verses 60-63 of Surah An-Nisa, but the Shaykh directly links it to the modern reality.

Here the Shaykh identifies the historical cause: how did man-made laws enter Muslim countries? Through colonization. The disbelievers came and imposed their laws. Even after independence, those laws remained because some rulers found that system convenient.

There is a deep observation here: who made these laws? The Shaykh said: people who knew nothing about Islam, who lived in a different era and a different society. Then those laws were imposed on the Muslim populace. In this there is an intellectual contradiction that the Shaykh highlights directly: these rulers claim to be believers, yet they consider laws made by non-Muslims applicable to Muslims.

Regarding the claim of “reconciling the Shari’ah with man-made laws,” the Shaykh makes a logical point that is easy to understand. If any issue in man-made law coincides with the Shari’ah, then that issue is already from the Shari’ah; taghut gets no credit. And where there is contradiction, there is no room for reconciliation. Thus the claim of “reconciliation” is an empty claim.

Replacing the Shari’ah with man-made law is complete kufr

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, further said:

Based on this we say: those who now judge by laws and cast the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger behind their backs are never believers. They are not believers, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: “But no, by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you judge in that which arises between them.” And His saying: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is they who are the disbelievers.” (Al-Ma’idah, 44) These judges who rule by man-made laws do not apply them only in a specific case where they have contradicted the Book and the Sunnah out of desire or wrongdoing. Rather, they have replaced the entire religion with these laws; they have placed this law in the position of Allah’s Shari’ah. This is kufr, even if they pray, fast, give charity, and perform Hajj. They are disbelievers as long as they turn away from Allah’s judgement, knowing it, towards these laws that contradict it. “But no, by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you judge in that which arises between them, then find no discomfort within themselves from what you have decided and submit completely.” So do not be surprised if we say that whoever replaces the Shari’ah of Allah with other laws has disbelieved, even if he fasts and prays. Because disbelief in part of the Book is disbelief in the entire Book. The Shari’ah cannot be divided; either you believe in all of it, or you disbelieve in all of it. If you believe in part and disbelieve in part, then you are a disbeliever in all of it, because your condition indicates that you only believe in that which suits your desires. As for what opposes your desires, you do not believe in it. This is kufr. By doing so, you have followed your desire and taken your desire as a god besides Allah.

In summary, the matter is extremely dangerous, perhaps the most dangerous thing for Muslim rulers today. They have enacted laws that contradict the Shari’ah while knowing the Shari’ah, yet they enacted them, and refuge is sought with Allah, in imitation of Allah’s enemies from the disbelievers who legislated these laws and upon which people walk. The wonder is that, due to the deficiency of their knowledge and weakness of their religion, they know that the legislator of this law is such and such a person from the disbelievers, from an era hundreds of years removed, in a place different from the lands of the Islamic nation, among a people different from the Islamic nation. Despite all this, they impose these laws upon the Islamic nation and do not turn back, neither to the Book of Allah nor to the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace be upon him. Then where is Islam? Where is faith? Where is the confirmation of the message of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and that he is a messenger for all mankind? Where is the affirmation of the comprehensiveness of his message, that it covers everything?

Many ignorant people think that the Shari’ah is specific only to worship between a person and his Lord, or to personal status matters such as marriage, inheritance, and the like. They are mistaken in this assumption. The Shari’ah is comprehensive in everything. If you wish this to be clear to you, then ask: what is the longest verse in the Book of Allah? You will be told: the longest verse is the verse of debt: “O you who believe, when you contract a debt for a specified term…” (Al-Baqarah, 282), which is entirely about transactions. So how can we say that Islamic law is specific to worship or personal status? This is ignorance and misguidance. If it is intentional, then it is misguidance and arrogance. If it is out of ignorance, then it is a shortcoming, and one must learn and know.

The essential point is that a person cannot be a believer except with three conditions: first, making the Prophet, peace be upon him, the judge; second, not finding in his heart any discomfort or constriction with what the Prophet, peace be upon him, ruled; third, submitting completely and yielding a full submission. With these three conditions fulfilled, a person is a believer. If they are not fulfilled, he either exits faith entirely or has deficient faith. And Allah is the one who grants success.^[9]Sharh Riyad as-Salihin lil-‘Uthaymeen, page 411-412

وبناء على هذا نقول : إن الذين يحكمون القوانين الآن ، ويتركون وراءهم كتاب الله وسنة رسوله ما هم بمؤمنين ، ليسوا بمؤمنين ، لقول الله تعالى : ﴿ فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ) ، ولقوله : ﴿ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولَبِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ ﴾ [المائدة : ٤٤] ، وهؤلاء المحكمون للقوانين لا يحكمونها في قضية معينة خالفوا فيها الكتاب والسنة ، لهوى أو لظلم ، ولكنهم استبدلوا الدين بهذه القوانين ، جعلوا هذا القانون يحل محل شريعة الله ، وهذا كفر حتى لو صلوا وصاموا وتصدقوا وحجوا ؛ فهم كفار ما داموا عدلوا عن حكم الله وهم يعلمون بحكم الله – إلى هذه القوانين المخالفة له . و فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تسليما ) فلا تستغرب إذا قلنا : إن من استبدل شريعة الله بغيرها من القوانين فإنه يكفر ولو صام وصلى ؛ لأن الكفر ببعض الكتاب كفر بالكتاب كله ، فالشرع لا يتبعض ، إما أن تؤمن به جميعا ، وإما أن تكفر به جميعا ، وإذا آمنت ببعض وكفرت ببعض ؛ فأنت كافر بالجميع ؛ لأن حالك تقول : إنك لا تؤمن بما يخالف هواك . وأما ما خالف هواك فلا تؤمن به . هذا هو الكفر . فأنت بذلك اتبعت الهوى ، واتخذت هواك إلها من دون الله.

فالحاصل : أن المسألة خطيرة جدا ، من أخطر ما يكون بالنسبة لحكام المسلمين اليوم ؛ فإنهم قد وضعوا قوانين تخالف الشريعة وهم يعرفون الشريعة ، ولكن وضعوها – والعياذ بالله – تبعا لأعداء الله من الكفرة الذين سنوا هذه القوانين ومشى الناس عليها ، والعجب أنه لقصور علم هؤلاء وضعف دينهم ، أنهم يعلمون أن واضع القانون هو فلان ابن فلان من الكفار ، في عصر قد اختلفت العصور عنه من مئات السنين ، ثم هو في مكان يختلف عن مكان الأمة الإسلامية ، ثم هو في شعب يختلف عن الأمة الإسلامية ، ومع ذلك يفرضون هذه القوانين على الأمة الإسلامية ولا يرجعون ! يرجعون إلى كتاب رہے الله ولا إلى سنة رسول الله ﷺ ، فأين الإسلام؟ وأين الإيمان؟ وأين التصديق برسالة محمد ﷺ وأنه رسول للناس كافة ؟ وأين التصديق بعموم رسالته وأنها عامة في كل شيء ؟ .

كثير من الجهلة يظنون أن الشريعة خاصة بالعبادة التي بينك وبين الله ل فقط ، أو في الأحوال الشخصية من نكاح وميراث وما يشبه ذلك ، وهم أخطؤوا في هذا الظن ، الشريعة عامة في كل شيء، وإذا شئت أن يتبين لك هذا ، فاسأل ما هي أطول آية في كتاب الله ؟ سيقال لك : إن أطول آية هي : آية الدين : ﴿ يَتَأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا إِذَا تَدَايَنتُم بِدين … ﴾ [البقرة : (۲۸۲) ، كلها في المعاملات ، فكيف نقول : إن الشرع الإسلامي خاص بالعبادة أو بالأحوال الشخصية . هذا جهل وضلال ، إن كان عن عمد ؛ فهو ضلال واستكبار ، وإن كان عن جهل ؛ فهو قصور ويجب أن يتعلم الإنسان ويعرف

المهم : أن الإنسان لا يمكن أن يؤمن إلا بثلاثة شروط : الأول : تحكيم النبي ﷺ ، والثاني : ألا يجد في صدره حرجا ولا يضيق صدره بما قضى النبي – عليه الصلاة والسلام – ، والثالث : يسلم تسليما، وينقاد انقيادا تاما . فبهذه الشروط الثلاثة يكون مؤمنا ، وإن لم تتم فإما أن يخرج من الإيمان مطلقا وإما أن يكون ناقص الإيمان . والله الموفق

شرح رياض الصالحين للعثيمين، ص ٤١١-٤١٢

This excerpt is an important expansion of the first excerpt. There it was mentioned which beliefs lead to kufr. Here it is stated which scale of action leads to kufr.

The core distinction here is that giving a wrong ruling in one case is one thing, while replacing the entire Shari’ah and putting man-made law in its place is a completely different thing. The former may be zulm or fusuq. The latter is always kufr, even if the legislator prays and fasts.

Here the Shaykh establishes a principle that many find difficult: disbelief in part of the Book is disbelief in the entire Book. Because if someone says, “I accept the worship part of the Shari’ah but not the governance part,” he is actually saying he only accepts what suits his desires. This is not iman; it is following desire.

This excerpt also refutes the error of restricting the Shari’ah to “only worship and personal status matters.” The Shaykh’s argument is simple: what is the longest verse in the Qur’an? The verse on debt, which is entirely about mu’amalat and economics. This alone proves that the Shari’ah is not limited to the sphere of worship.

Shirk in following laws other than Allah’s and the conditions of takfir

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, further said:

The answer is that the greatest of creation (the Messenger) said: whoever swears by other than Allah has committed disbelief or shirk. So swearing by the Prophet is from shirk.

If someone says: some people let this oath slip from their tongues unintentionally, like they say “by the Prophet” without intention, the answer is: we say, if it is unintentional, he must still purify his tongue from it and not accustom himself to this forbidden oath until he completely rids himself of it.

Included in shirk in Rububiyyah is that a person takes peers who legislate laws contradicting the Shari’ah of Allah, and he agrees with them in that while knowing it contradicts the Shari’ah. For this reason, Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him, titled a chapter in Kitab al-Tawhid: “Chapter: Whoever obeys scholars and rulers in making lawful what Allah has forbidden or making forbidden what Allah has made lawful has taken them as lords.” So if there is a people who follow man-made laws contradictory to the Islamic Shari’ah while knowing they contradict the Shari’ah, then we say: these are a mushrik people, because they have taken a judge besides Allah, Mighty and Majestic, who judges among creation. It is well known that judging among creation is among the requirements of Rububiyyah. So they have taken them as lords besides Allah. For this reason, it is narrated from ‘Adi ibn Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted: “They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, and also the Messiah, son of Mary,” he said: “O Messenger of Allah, we do not worship them.” He said: “Do they not make lawful what Allah has forbidden, and you declare it lawful, and they make forbidden what Allah has made lawful, and you declare it forbidden?” He said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah.” He said: “That is their worship.” So the Prophet, peace be upon him, considered this as shirk. For this reason, the Prophet, peace be upon him, forbade obeying the ruler in disobedience to Allah. He forbade obeying any created being in disobedience to Allah.

Then he, peace be upon him, said: “Obedience is only in what is right.” He once sent a small expedition and appointed a man over them, telling them: “Obey your leader.” One day the leader became angry with them and said: “Gather wood for me.” So they gathered wood. Then he said: “Light a fire in it.” So they lit a fire in it. Then he said: “Enter into it.” Their obedience in gathering wood was correct, and their obedience in lighting the fire was correct. But when he said: “Enter into it,” they paused and said: “How can we enter the fire when we believed only to flee from the fire?” They refrained and did not enter. Then when they returned to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and told him the news, he said: “If they had entered it, they would never have come out of it. Obedience is only in what is right.”

Thus, following the major leaders in matters that contradict the Shari’ah of Allah is from shirk in Rububiyyah, because judging among people stems from the requirements of Rububiyyah and authority.^[10]Fatawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, vol. 7, page 285-286

فالجواب : إن أعظم الخلق هو الذي قال من حلف بغير الله فقد كفر أو أشرك (1) فيكون الحلف بالنبي من الشرك .

فإذا قال انسان : إن بعض الناس يجري على لسانهم هذا القسم يقول والنبي بدون قصد فالجواب : أن نقول إذا كان بغير قصد فانه يلزمه أن يطهر لسانه منه، وأن لا يعود نفسه على هذا القسم المحرم حتى يتخلص منه .

من الشرك بالربوبية أن يتخذ الإنسان أندادا يشرعون تشريعات تخالف شرع الله ، فيوافقهم فيها مع علمه بمخالفتها للشريعة، ولهذا ترجم الامام محمد بن عبد الوهاب – رحمه الله – ترجم على ذلك في كتاب التوحيد بقوله : «باب من أطاع العلماء والأمراء في تحليل ما حرم الله أو تحريم ما أحل الله فقد اتخذهم أرباباً فإذا وجد قوم يتبعون القوانين الوضعية المخالفة للشريعة الإسلامية مع علمهم بمخالفتها للشريعة فإننا نقول : هؤلاء قوم مشركون لأنهم اتخذوا حاكما يحكم بين الخلق غير الله – عز وجل – . ومن المعلوم ان الحكم بين الخلق من مقتضيات الربوبية فقد اتخذوهم أربابا من دون الله ولهذا يروى من حديث عدي بن حاتم رضي الله عنه أنه قال للرسول ﷺ في قوله تعالى : اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبانهم أربابا من دون الله والمسيح ابن مريم قال يا رسول الله إنا لسنا نعبدهم قال : «اليس يحلون ما حرم الله فتحلونه ويحرمون ما أحل الله فتحرمونه قال : نعم يا رسول الله قال : فتلك عبادتهم (۲) فجعل النبي ﷺ هذا من الشرك ولهذا منع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من طاعة ولي الأمر في معصية الله منع من أن يطاع أحد من الخلق في معصية الله . فقال عليه الصلاة والسلام «إنما الطاعة في المعروف». فقد أرسل سرية وأمر عليهم رجلا وقال لهم أطيعوا أميركم فغضب عليهم الأمير ذات يوم وقال اجمعوا لي حطبا فجمعوا حطبا ثم قال أوقدوها النار فأوقودها النار ثم قال ادخلوا فيها. طاعتهم في جمع الحطب صحيحة، وطاعتهم في إضرام النار صحيحة . لكن لما قال ادخلوها توقفوا وقالوا كيف ندخل في النار ونحن لم نؤمن إلا فراراً من النار فامتنعوا ولم يدخلوها فلما رجعوا إلى رسول الله ﷺ وأخبروه الخبر قال : «انهم لو دخلوا فيها ما خرجوا منها، إنما الطاعة في المعروف (۱) .

إذا متابعة الكبراء في مخالفة شريعة الله من الشرك بالربوبية لأن الحكم بين الناس من مقتضيات الربوبية والسلطان .

فتاوى ابن عثيمين، جز ٧، ص ٢٨٥-٢٨٦

This excerpt is the practical application of the third excerpt.

The third excerpt stated that agreeing at the level of belief to laws contradicting the Shari’ah is shirk in Rububiyyah. Here it is stated that obeying a leader who follows laws opposing the Shari’ah also falls under shirk in Rububiyyah.

The reference to the chapter from Kitab al-Tawhid is significant here: “Whoever obeys scholars and rulers in making lawful what Allah has forbidden or making forbidden what Allah has made lawful has taken them as lords.” The Shaykh applies this principle to modern state legislation.

The hadith of the fire incident is used very effectively here. Obedience in gathering wood was correct, in lighting the fire was correct, but entering the fire was not. The Companions stopped because this violated the limits of Allah’s Shari’ah. This incident establishes a principle: obedience is not unconditional; it is valid only within the boundaries of the Shari’ah.

The conditions of takfir and its impediments: an important question and answer

The conditions for establishing proof (iqamat al-hujjah) in takfir

Question

There is an issue being raised now concerning what is related to general legislation by which rulers judge. Proponents of this view cite your fatwa, may Allah preserve you, in Al-Majmu’ ath-Thamin that this is clear disbelief because it is a replacement of Allah’s Shari’ah. Similarly, this is also attributed to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, may Allah have mercy on him.

The question here is: do the impediments of takfir, or the conditions that Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah have stipulated for the establishment of proof, apply to the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed as a general legislation?

Answer:

Every person who commits an act of disbelief, it is necessary that there be no impediment to his takfir. For this reason, it is mentioned in the authentic hadith when they asked: should we openly rebel against the rulers? He said: “No, unless you see clear disbelief about which you have proof from Allah.” So it must be clear disbelief, well-known, which does not admit of any interpretation. If it admits of interpretation, then the one who does it is not declared a disbeliever, even if we say that this act is disbelief.

Thus, a distinction must be made between the statement and the one who makes it, and between the action and the one who performs it. An action may be fisq, but the doer is not declared a fasiq due to the existence of an impediment that prevents his being labeled fasiq. And an action may be kufr, but the doer is not declared a kafir due to the existence of an impediment that prevents his takfir. The harm that befell the Islamic ummah from the rebellion of the Khawarij was solely due to this (erroneous) interpretation. The Khawarij were with Ali ibn Abi Talib against the army of the people of Sham. But when a truce occurred between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the people of Sham, the Khawarij who were with him rebelled against him, to the extent that he fought them and killed them, and praise be to Allah. But the point is that they said: “You have let men judge, therefore you have judged by other than what Allah has revealed.” And for this reason they rebelled against him.
Corrupt interpretation is the affliction of the ummah. A matter may not be disbelief, yet a person believes it to be clear disbelief and as a result he exits the religion. And a matter may be disbelief, but the doer is not a disbeliever because there is an impediment preventing his takfir. Yet this rebel thinks there is no excuse for him, so he exits.

For this reason, one must be cautious about hastily declaring people disbelievers or fasiqun. A person may commit an act that is unquestionably fisq, but he does not know it. Then you say, “O brother, this is haram.” He replies, “May Allah reward you with good,” and he stops doing it. So how can I judge a person to be a fasiq without the proof being established against him? Those Arab and Muslim rulers you are referring to may be excused because the proof was not made clear to them, or it was presented to them but someone came and made the matter doubtful and ambiguous to them.

So deliberation in the matter is obligatory. Furthermore, even if we assume that we see clear disbelief about which we have proof from Allah, and the word “see” is a condition, “disbelief” is a condition, “clear” is a condition, and “about which you have proof from Allah” is a condition, these are four conditions.

We say: “that you see” meaning that you know with certainty, as a precaution against rumors that have no reality.

The word “disbelief” is a precaution against mere fisq, meaning: if the ruler is a fasiq and a sinner but has not reached the level of disbelief, it is not permissible to rebel against him.

Third: “clear” meaning explicit, not open to interpretation. It has also been said that clear means public.

Fourth: “about which you have proof from Allah” meaning it is not only clear in our own view; rather we rely on a clear and definitive proof.
These four conditions are conditions for the permissibility of rebellion. However, we still have a fifth condition for the obligation of rebellion, which is: if it becomes permissible for us to rebel against the ruler, is it obligatory for us to do so? Do we have to rebel? We look at the benefit (maslahah). If we are capable of removing him, then we rebel. If we are not capable, we do not rebel, because all obligations in the Shari’ah are conditional upon ability and capacity.

Moreover, if we rebel, a greater and more severe evil may result from our rebellion than if this person remained as he is. Because we rebelled and then power became entrenched for him, we became more humiliated, and he persisted further in his tyranny and disbelief. These matters require intelligence, that the Shari’ah be coupled with reason, and that emotion be set aside in these matters. We need emotion for our zeal, and we need reason and the Shari’ah so that we do not drift behind emotion, which leads to destruction.^[11]Liqa’ al-Bab al-Maftuh, 51/20 According to Maktabah Shamila numbering

«شروط إقامة الحجة في التكفير

السؤال

هناك قضية تثار الآن حول ما يناط للتشريع العام فيما يحكم به الحكام، ويستدل أصحاب هذا الرأي بفتواكم حفظكم الله في المجموع الثمين بأن هذا الكفر وأنه واضح؛ لأنه تبديل لشرع الله، كذلك ينسب هذا إلى الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم رحمه الله.

فالسؤال هنا: هل ترد موانع التكفير أو ما اشترطه أهل السنة والجماعة في إقامة الحجة على من حكم بغير ما أنزل الله تشريعاً عاماً؟

الجواب

كل إنسان فعل مكفراً فلا بد ألا يوجد فيه مانع التكفير، ولهذا جاء في الحديث الصحيح لما سألوه هل ننابذ الحكام؟ قال: (إلا أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم فيه من الله برهان) فلا بد من الكفر الصريح المعروف الذي لا يحتمل التأويل، فإن كان يحتمل التأويل فإنه لا يكفر صاحبه وإن قلنا إنه كفر.

فيفرق بين القول والقائل، وبين الفعل والفاعل، قد تكون الفعلة فسقاً ولا يفسق الفاعل لوجود مانع يمنع من تفسيقه، وقد تكون كفراً ولا يكفر الفاعل لوجود ما يمنع من تكفيره، وما ضر الأمة الإسلامية في خروج الخوارج إلا هذا التأويل، فـ الخوارج كانوا مع علي بن أبي طالب على جيش أهل الشام، فلما حصلت المصالحة بين علي بن أبي طالب وأهل الشام خرجت الخوارج الذين كانوا معه عليه حتى قاتلهم وقتلهم والحمد لله، لكن الشاهد أنهم قالوا: حكمت بغير ما أنزل الله؛ لأنك حكمت البشر، فخرجوا عليه.

فالتأويل الفاسد هو بلاء الأمة؛ فقد يكون الشيء غير كفرٍ فيعتقدها هذا الإنسان أنه كفر بواح فيخرج، وقد يكون الشيء كفراً لكن الفاعل ليس بكافر لوجود مانع يمنع من تكفيره، فيعتقد هذا الخارج أنه لا عذر له فيخرج.

ولهذا يجب على الإنسان التحرز من التسرع في تكفير الناس أو تفسيق الناس، ربما يفعل الإنسان فعلاً فسقاً لا إشكال فيه، لكنه لا يدري، فإذا قلت: يا أخي! هذا حرام.

قال: جزاك الله خيراً.

وانتهى عنه.

إذاً: كيف أحكم على إنسان بأنه فاسق دون أن تقوم عليه الحجة؟ فهؤلاء الذي تشير إليهم من حكام العرب والمسلمين قد يكونون معذورين لم تتبين لهم الحجة، أو بينت لهم وجاءهم من يلبس عليهم ويشبه عليهم.

فلا بد من التأني في الأمر، ثم على فرض أننا رأينا كفراً بواحاً عندنا فيه من الله برهان، وكلمة (رأينا) شرط، و (كفراً) شرط، و (بواحاً) شرط، و (عندنا فيه من الله برهان) شرط أربعة شروط.

فنقول: (أن تروا) أي: تعلموا يقيناً احترازاً من الشائعات التي لا حقيقة لها.

وكلمة (كفراً) احترازاً من الفسق، يعني: لو كان الحاكم فاسقاً فاجراً لكن لم يصل إلى حد الكفر فإنه لا يجوز الخروج عليه.

الثالث: (بواحاً) أي: صريحاً لا يتحمل التأويل، وقيل البواح: المعلن.

والرابع: (عندكم فيه من الله برهان) يعني: ليس صريحاً في أنفسنا فقط، بل نحن مستندون على دليل واضح قاطع.

هذه الشروط الأربعة شرط لجواز الخروج، لكن يبقى عندنا شرط خامس لوجوب الخروج وهو: هل يجب علينا إذا جاز لنا أن نخرج على الحاكم؟ هل يجب علينا أن نخرج؟ ينظر للمصلحة، إن كنا قادرين على إزالته فحينئذٍ نخرج، وإذا كنا غير قادرين فلا نخرج، لأن جميع الواجبات الشرعية مشروطة بالقدرة والاستطاعة.

ثم إذا خرجنا فقد يترتب على خروجنا مفسدة أكبر وأعظم مما لو بقي هذا الرجل على ما هو عليه، لأننا خرجنا ثم ظهرت العزة له، صرنا أذلة أكثر، وتمادى في طغيانه وكفره أكثر، فهذه المسائل تحتاج إلى تعقل، وأن يقترن الشرع بالعقل، وأن تبعد العاطفة في هذه الأمور، فنحن محتاجون للعاطفة لأجل تحمسنا، ومحتاجون للعقل والشرع حتى لا ننساق وراء العاطفة التي تؤدي إلى الهلاك.»

«لقاء الباب المفتوح» (51/ 20 بترقيم الشاملة آليا)

This is the most complex and nuanced excerpt in the entire collection, and the most relevant in the contemporary context.

The question was: if judging by man-made law is clear kufr, can the legislator or judge be automatically declared a kafir?

The Shaykh’s answer rests on a foundational principle of Ahl al-Sunnah: declaring an action as kufr and declaring the doer a kafir are completely separate matters. Judging the action is easier because the action can be seen. But judging the individual requires taking his knowledge, intention, and impediments into consideration.

The four conditions for rebellion against rulers add a distinct dimension to this excerpt. Rebellion is not permissible merely because the act itself is kufr. Three other conditions must be fulfilled: it must be known with certainty, it must admit no interpretation, and it must be based on clear Shari’ah evidence. And fifthly, there must be capability to rebel and the absence of a greater mafsadah.

The example of the Khawarij is given as a historical warning. They identified a matter of ijtihad by Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, as “judging by other than Allah’s law” and rebelled. This was their erroneous interpretation (ta’wil). The same mistake is repeated when someone hastily declares a ruler a kafir and takes the path of rebellion without assessing the impediments.

The Shaykh here speaks of a balance that could be considered the conclusion of the entire collection: emotion is needed for zeal, but action must be based on the combination of Shari’ah and reason. Emotion alone leads to destruction.

Conclusion

The summary of this lengthy discussion can be divided into two levels:

At the level of actions: Judging by other than what Allah has revealed is kufr in three situations (considering it permissible, considering it equal, considering it better), zulm in one situation (driven by enmity), and fusuq in one situation (driven by desire or self-interest). Moreover, replacing the entire Shari’ah with man-made law and putting it in the place of the Shari’ah is always kufr.

At the level of individuals: To declare a specific individual a kafir, the conditions of takfir must be fulfilled and impediments must be absent. If the person lacked knowledge, had an excuse, or was deceived, takfir does not apply, even though the act itself is kufr.

This distinction between the two levels is the fundamental basis of the Shaykh’s entire analysis.

Translated and written by: Shafin Chowdhury