Posted by Abu Iyaad
Translated
June 2001
Filed under Miscellaneous
IN THE YEARS GONE BY, the Qutubiyyah, used as evidence for their position the following passage from "Kitāb al-Tawḥīd" of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān to justify their unrestricted and generalised, absolute takfir of the rulers who judge by other than what Allāh has revealed.
Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān stated: [1]
And Shaykh Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm said: “As for what has been said regarding it, that it is the lesser disbelief (kufr dūna kufr) when he judged to someone other than Allāh (or something other than what Allāh has revealed) while believing that he is disobedient and that the judgement of Allaah is the truth, then this is something that occurs from him once or something like that (i.e. occurs infrequently). As for the one who lays down laws in an organised and arranged manner and requests submission and compliance to them, then this is disbelief, even if he says, 'We have erred, and the Sharīʿah laws are more just', so this is disbelief that expels from the religion.”
So he distinguished between the partial ruling (by other than what Allāh has revealed) which does not recur and between the general rule which becomes a reference point in all of the rulings or most of them. And he affirmed that this disbelief expels from the religion absolutely. This is because the one who removed the Islamic Sharīʿah and put secular law in its place, in replacement of it, then this indicates that he considers that this [secular] law is better and more beneficial than the Sharīʿah, and there is no doubt that this is the major disbelief which expels from the religion.
When the youth began to use the above words of Shaykh al-Fawzān to justify takfir of the rulers, the Shaykh was approached and asked for his clarification, and we present further below the actual text of the discussion.
Excerpt from the Cassette “Questions and Answers on al-Ḥākimiyyah”
Listen to the audio:
Questioner: Someone has understood from your words in Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, which are from your comments, with regards to the issue of al-Ḥākimiyyah and ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed. So they have understood from them that [by the act alone] you perform specific takfir of a specific ruler who does not judge by what Allāh has revealed. And then they applied (what they understood from your words) to the rulers of the Gulf states.
Shaykh al-Fawzān: [Laughs]… is it due to hawā (desire)?… the words are clear, there is no ambiguity in them, the words are clear. The distinction (tafsil) that is mentioned (i.e. previously in the beginning of the chapter) relates to them. And it was then said after that that the one who banishes the Shari’ah entirely and puts another law in its place, that this indicates that he views the [secular] law to be better than the Sharīʿah, and whoever holds this opinion, he is the one who is a kāfir [emphasis given]. This is in the same book itself… however they only take [from the book] according to their own understanding of it and what is of benefit to them, yet they abandon the rest of the words. If they had read the words from the beginning, the matter would have become clear [to them].
Questioner: And the statement of Shaykh Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm is [understood] in the same way?
Shaykh al-Fawzān: Yes, it is the same. His words mean that the one who abolishes the Shari’ah and puts in its place another law, then this indicates that he considers this law to be better than the Sharīʿah. And [subsequently] whoever considers this law to be better than the Sharīʿah, then such a one is a kāfir in the view of everybody, there is no doubt in this.
Questioner: They mean the rulers of the Gulf states O Shaykh?
Shaykh al-Fawzān: [words unclear] … … the words [in the book] are general. As for people and specific individuals, then this requires investigation.
Questioner: So there is a difference between [takfir of] a specific individual and a general ruling?
Shaykh al-Fawzān: Yes, between a general ruling…
Questioner: So you intended only a general ruling [not a ruling upon specific individuals]?
Shaykh al-Fawzān: Yes, a general ruling, there is no doubt about this. So he said ‘the rulers of the Gulf states (was meant)?’
Questioner: Yes, this is it, however al-hawā (desire) overtook him?
Shaykh al-Fawzān: Yes, hawā (desire).. .[words unclear]… Is this rectification? Performing takfir of the rulers of the Gulf states, is this from rectification (of the affairs)?
Questioner: No it is not…
Shaykh al-Fawzān: It is not rectification… it is but kindling of tribulation (fitnah).
Questioner: May Allāh reward you…
End of the discussion.
For the sake of completeness, we present below the complete chapter under discussion, so the reader can see the actual view of the Shaykh and so all of the words can be read together and within context and so that the distinction (tafṣīl) he mentioned can also be understood.
Chapter: The Ruling Upon the One Who Judges by Other Than What Allāh Has Revealed
Allāh the Most High said: “And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the disbelievers.” (5:44-). This noble verse shows that ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed is kufr (disbelief). This kufr can sometimes be the major disbelief which expels from the religion and sometimes it can be the minor disbelief which does not expel from the religion. And this is based upon the state and condition of the ruler.
So if he believes that ruling by what Allāh has revealed is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter, or if he belittles the rule of Allāh and believes that the secular laws and legislative codes are better than it, and that the it is not suitable for this era, or if he sought to please the disbelievers and the hypocrites by ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed, then all of this is the major disbelief .
However, if he believed in the obligation to rule by what Allāh has revealed and knew what the judgement was in this instance, but he turned away from it while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then he is a sinner and is labelled a “kāfir” with the minor form of disbelief. And if he was ignorant of the judgement of Allāh concerning it while having striven hard and expended efforts in knowing the judgement but erred, then he will receive a reward for his ijtihād and his error will be forgiven. This is in relation to a particular matter.[2]
As for making judgement in matters in general (al-ḥukm al-ʿāmm), then this varies. Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said:
“For if the ruler is pious, but he makes a judgement without knowledge, then he will be amongst the inhabitants of Hellfire. And if he knew (the judgement) but he judged in opposition to the truth which he knew, he will be amongst the inhabitants of the Hellfire. And when he judged without knowledge or justice, then it is more befitting that he should be amongst the inhabitants of Hellfire. This is when he makes a judgement concerning an affair in relation to a particular person. As for when he makes a general ruling regarding the religion of the Muslims and makes truth into falsehood, falsehood into truth, sunnah into bid’ah and bid’ah into sunnah, the ma’roof into munkar and the munkar into ma’roof, forbids what Allāh and His Messenger have commanded and orders what Allāh and His Messenger have prohibited. Then this is another manifestation, the Lord of all the Worlds, Diety of the Messengers and the Master of the Day of Judgement, to whom belongs praise in this world and the hereafter will pass judgement over it.[3] “His is the Decision, and to Him you (all) shall be returned.” (28:88-), “He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), that He may make it (Islâm) superior over all religions. And All-Sufficient is Allâh as a Witness.” (48:28-). [4]
He (Shaykh al-Islām) also said:
“There is no doubt that the one who does not believe in the obligation to rule by what Allāh has revealed is a disbeliever. Hence, whoever declares it permissible to judge amongst the people with what he considers to be justice, without following what Allāh has revealed, then he is a disbeliever. There is no nation except that it orders ruling with justice. And sometimes justice, as perceived by its senior leaders, can exist in its religion. Many of those who ascribe themselves to Islām judge by their customs which Allāh has not revealed, such as the ancestral customs of the bedouins. And the chiefs (umarā) were obeyed (in this) and they used to consider that it is desirable to judge by these such customs, without the Book and the Sunnah. And this is disbelief. For many people have accepted Islām but along with this they do not judge except by their natural [inherited] customs, those which are ordered by those whom they obey. So if they know that it is not permissible to judge except by what Allāh has revealed and did not adhere to that, but in fact declared it to be lawful for themselves to judge in opposition to what Allāh has revealed, then they are disbelievers.”[5]
And Shaykh Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm said:
“As for what has been said regarding it, that it is the lesser disbelief (kufr dūna kufr) when he judged to someone other than Allāh (or something other than what Allāh has revealed) while believing that he is disobedient and that the judgement of Allaah is the truth, then this is something that occurs from him once or something like that (i.e. occurs infrequently). As for the one who lays down laws in an organised and arranged manner and requests submission and compliance to them, then this is disbelief, even if he says, ‘We have erred, and the Sharīʿah laws are more just’, so this is disbelief that expels from the religion.”
So he distinguished between the partial ruling (by other than what Allāh has revealed) which does not recur and between the general rule which becomes a reference point in all of the rulings or most of them. And he affirmed that this disbelief expels from the religion absolutely. This is because the one who removed the Islamic Sharīʿah and put secular law in its place, in replacement of it, then this indicates that he considers that this [secular] law is better and more beneficial than the Sharīʿah, and there is no doubt that this is the major disbelief which expels from the religion.
Additional Notes
These are notes additional to the above article from 2001.
01 It was clear almost a quarter of a century ago, as it is today, that the Salafi scholars whose words were being used to make blanket, unrestricted takfīr of the rulers, without following the rules and guidelines in making takfīr of specific individuals, freed themselves from these people. And that is because the daʿwah methodology of these scholars was other than the daʿwah methodology of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah, Takfīriyyah, which revolves entirely around the rulers, making takfīr of them, calling to revolt against them, and drawing and inciting the youth upon this.
02 This nurturing is the precursor to the emergence of the likes of ISIS (Daesh), al-Jubhah and other extremist groups, for whom the entire religion and the entirety of Tawḥīd is tied to this one matter alone, the issue of Takfīr and Ḥākimiyyah, and the claim that Islām and the Sharīʿah are absent and do not exist due to apostasy of all the rulers and governments and hence, the greatest obligation or priority is removing them and establishing an Islamic State, and this is of greater importance to them than the shirk of the grave-worshippers.
And the reality is that when the people are ungrateful, disobedient, fall into shirk, and become attached to saints and the graves and the likes, then this necessitates decrease in provision (rizq) and the removal of safety and security (amn). From the latter is the removal of justice and the Shariʿah laws through which their safety is provided, and this is decreed upon them by Allāh, through rulers He places over them from His wisdom, so they do not judge with justice and nor do they rule by all of what Allāh commanded.
03 The situation we see in the Muslim lands is an effect, an outcome. In the modern era, due to colonialism, secular laws were brought into many Muslim lands by the colonizers, and subsequently Muslim rulers in these lands took rule while the situation was like this, and they were not the ones who initially replaced or removed the Shariʿah laws. So all of this is a sad state of affairs, however, this situation is an outcome, an end-result of other things.
The short-sighted Takfīrī-Khārijite manhaj is focused on the rulers, making takfīr of them and rousing the people against them and portraying as if removing them is an individual obligation and the only way to restore strength and honour. However, this is not the manhaj of the scholars which they sometimes quote. These contemporary scholars reject this manhaj, and even if they hold a view of major kufr for a particular form or manifestation of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, or legislating and the likes, they distinguish between the ruling on the act and the ruling on the person.
04 It should be kept in mind that the view of Shaykh al-Fawzān is the same as that of other scholars, which is that ruling by other than what Allāh revealed (or instituting secular laws, or replacing laws) is major kufr when the ruler believes what he ruled with, or instituted, or legislated is better than, or equal to the Sharīʿah, or it is permissible to judge by it, or that the Sharīʿah is no longer applicable, or suitable, or is backward and the likes.
In the particular case of when a ruler completely removes the Sharīʿah, from top to bottom, in all affairs, then this conclusively proves that he holds one of the above beliefs, and/or that he hates the Sharīʿah, and thus his action constitutes major disbelief without any doubt.[6] This is a matter agreed upon by the scholars. However, the scholars are not agreed with respect to what is less than that.
Footnotes
1. Kitāb al-Tawḥīd of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān (pp. 49-40).2. Sharḥ al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah (363-364).
3. Note: There is no judgement of takfīr made in this passage for this particular form of not ruling by what Allaah has revealed and this particular text is another one of those ambiguous texts that have been used by the Quṭbiyyah to support their daʿwah methodology of takfīr and khurūj.
4. Majmoo al-Fataawaa (35/388)
5. Minhāj al-Sunnah (5/130).
6. This is because of the binding and necessary link (talāzum) between the heart (the inner) and the limbs (the outer) in opposition to the Murjiʿah who claim that complete, perfect faith can exist in the heart, without any external righteous actions, or that inward faith can remain alongside outward acts of blatant kufr (such as kicking the Qurʾān or fighting a Prophet) and that such actions have no connection, or basis in the actions of the heart. As for the saying of the extremist Murjiʾah that a man can inwardly be a believer despite outwardly committing acts of major kufr, because to them, faith is only knowledge (maʾrifah) or assent (taṣdiq) in the heart, then this is false. It is on this basis that they denied kufr is by action as well as by belief.