Posted by Abu Iyaad
Translated
June 2001
Filed under Miscellaneous
The following is one of the views of Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn on the subject matter of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, instituting opposing legislations and making them obligatory upon people to follow. Towards the end of his life, the Shaykh (رحمه الله) was asked to provide clarification of his views in the heels of the fitnah of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah who were using these issues to make unrestricted, generalized takfīr of rulers and governments, without following the legislated procedures of making takfīr of a specific individual.
While this view of the kufr of the one who abolishes the entire Sharīʿah and brings a new law, a new way and new religion, or the one who institutes secular laws clashing with the Sharīʿah and imposes them upon the people, making it binding upon them to refer to them, is explained in the speech of some of the scholars, they are all careful to point out that making takfīr of individual rulers is a serious affair, having grave consequences.
They explain that the proof must be established first, because many of the rulers have been put to trial with this issue. Further, it was not the rulers themselves who abolished the Shariʿah in their lands or instituted secular laws wholesale, it was the Colonialists and Imperialists who brought their secular laws and law courts to places like North Africa, India and elsewhere. So the rulers present today came to power while the situation was like this, and they have been put to trial with these issues.
However, the Takfīrī Khārijites are not upon the way and methodology of these Salafi scholars, even though they make use of their statements and positions. Instead, they are upon the way and methodology of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah. For this reason, you will never find them being able to quote a single one of the Salafi scholars, neither Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, nor Shaykh Ibn Bāz, nor Shaykh al-Albānī, nor Shaykh al-Fawzān, or Shaykh Muqbil, nor any of those scholars whom they quote from agreeing with them in their mass blanket takfīr of rulers and governments and making their replacement to be a broad and primary methodology binding upon Muslims.
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله) was asked:[1]
Is there a difference between a specific issue in which the qāḍī (judge) passes judgement with other than what Allāh revealed and between issues that are considered general legislation.
So he responded:
Yes, there is a difference, because the prior categorisation is not applicable to issues that are considered general legislation, rather they are from the first category only…
Note: In a prior question on ruling by other than what Allāḥ revealed the Shaykh presented two categories:
Those who desire and seek judgement through other than what Allāh revealed, and with respect to whom īmān has been negated in some verses, and those to whom disbelief, oppression and sinfulness are ascribed in other verses in Sūrah al-Māʾidah.
With respect to the latter, they are of two groups:
The first, those who do not rule by what Allāh revealed while they belittle it, believing other than it is better and more suitable, and more beneficial to the creation. They are those who place legislations for people that oppose the Islāmic legislations so that they become a way upon which people proceed in their affairs, and they did not place these opposing legislations except that they believe the are more suitable and beneficial for people. So they are disbelievers.
The second, those who do not judge by what Allāh revealed without belittling it, and without believing other than it is more suitable and beneficial to the creation. But he did so in order to oppress the one in whose case he is judging. This one is an oppressor. And if he did so due to desire, such as a bribe, or to favour the one in whose case he is judging, for a share of the world, he is a sinner.
Returning to the Shaykh’s speech:
… this is because this legislator of the legislation that opposes Islām, he only legislated it due to his belief that it is more suitable than Islām and more beneficial for the servants, as has preceded. .
And ruling by other than what Allāh revealed divides into two types:
The first of them: that the ruler replaces the law of Allāh the exalted with this law whilst he has knowledge of the law of Allāh but he holds that the opposing law is more befitting and more beneficial for the servants than the rule of Allāh or that it is equal to the law of Allāh or that turning away from the law of Allāh is permissible (jāʾiz), so he makes this the law (qānūn) that it is obligatory [upon the people] to refer back to for judgement. so the likes of this one is a kāfir with the kufr that ejects from the religion and that is because he is not pleased with Allāh as his Lord, Muḥammad as his Messenger and Islām as his religion and the sayings of Allāh are applicable to him:
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allâh for a people who have firm Faith.” (5:50-)
“Whosoever does not rule by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers.” (5:44-)…
The second type: that he replaces the law of Allāh the exalted with an opposing law in a specific issue, without making that a law (qānūn) to which [he makes it] obligatory [upon the people] to refer back to in judgement - then he is in one of three situations:
The first situation: that he does this knowing the rule of Allāh the Exalted, believing that the opposing law is more befitting than it and more beneficial for the servants, or that it is equal to it, or that turning away from the rule of Allāh is permissible, so this one is a kāfir with the kufr which ejects from the religion as has preceded in the first category (above).
The second situation: that he does this knowing the rule of Allāh, believing that it is more befitting and more beneficial but he opposes it due to intending harm to the one in whose case he is judging or in order to benefit the one in whose case he is judging, so such a one is a oppressor (ḍhālim) and is not a kāfir and it is about him that the saying of Allāh the Exalted was revealed: “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, they are the oppressors.” (5:45-).
The third condition: that it is the same as above, but he opposed it due to a desire in his soul, or for a certain benefit that he would accrue, so this one is a fāsiq (rebellious) and is not a kāfir and it is about him that the verse was revealed: “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, they are the sinners.” (5:47).
Finally, the Shaykh then spoke of the seriousness of this matter:
And this issue, meaning the issue of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed is from the great issues by which the rulers of this era have been put to trial. So it is upon a person not to rush in judging them with what they do not deserve until the truth becomes clear to them, because the issue is very dangerous.
We ask Allāh the Exalted, that he rectifies for the Muslims those in authority over their affairs, and their close advisors. Just as it is it is upon the person whom Allāh has given knowledge to explain this to those rulers so that the proof is established upon them and the right way is made clear, such that the one who perishes, perishes upon clear evidence, and the one who lives, lives upon clear evidence. And one should not belittle himself in explaining this, nor should he fear anyone therein, for indeed, honour belongs to Allāh, and to His Messenger and to the Believers. And Allāh is the one who grant success.
As for the Takfīrī Khārijites—whom Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn and other scholars warned against—they do not follow this advice because they believe and call the youth to the belief that all rulers without exception are apostates, and that it is an individual obligation to revolt against them and remove them, or work towards that end, if there is no current ability, and they turn this into a broad methodology that is to be pursued in this era, as an actual manhaj of daʿwah.
And in this, none of the Major Scholars, not even those who statements they use, are with them. Rather, they oppose those upon this way and refute them and warn against them, because the consequences and outcome of their daʿwah leads to much greater evil than the one they attempt to put an end to. There are lessons in this from recent events in Iraq, Libya and Syria, keeping in mind that the rulers of all these three countries had takfir made upon them, for their Ba'thism, Socialism and Alawi beliefs respectively.
Arabic Text:
Footnotes
1. Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa Rasāʾil (Dār al-Waṭan, 1413H), 2/144-147.
Posted by Abu Iyaad
Translated
June 2001
Filed under Miscellaneous
The following is one of the views of Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn on the subject matter of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, instituting opposing legislations and making them obligatory upon people to follow. Towards the end of his life, the Shaykh (رحمه الله) was asked to provide clarification of his views in the heels of the fitnah of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah who were using these issues to make unrestricted, generalized takfīr of rulers and governments, without following the legislated procedures of making takfīr of a specific individual.
While this view of the kufr of the one who abolishes the entire Sharīʿah and brings a new law, a new way and new religion, or the one who institutes secular laws clashing with the Sharīʿah and imposes them upon the people, making it binding upon them to refer to them, is explained in the speech of some of the scholars, they are all careful to point out that making takfīr of individual rulers is a serious affair, having grave consequences.
They explain that the proof must be established first, because many of the rulers have been put to trial with this issue. Further, it was not the rulers themselves who abolished the Shariʿah in their lands or instituted secular laws wholesale, it was the Colonialists and Imperialists who brought their secular laws and law courts to places like North Africa, India and elsewhere. So the rulers present today came to power while the situation was like this, and they have been put to trial with these issues.
However, the Takfīrī Khārijites are not upon the way and methodology of these Salafi scholars, even though they make use of their statements and positions. Instead, they are upon the way and methodology of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah. For this reason, you will never find them being able to quote a single one of the Salafi scholars, neither Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, nor Shaykh Ibn Bāz, nor Shaykh al-Albānī, nor Shaykh al-Fawzān, or Shaykh Muqbil, nor any of those scholars whom they quote from agreeing with them in their mass blanket takfīr of rulers and governments and making their replacement to be a broad and primary methodology binding upon Muslims.
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله) was asked:[1]
Is there a difference between a specific issue in which the qāḍī (judge) passes judgement with other than what Allāh revealed and between issues that are considered general legislation.
So he responded:
Yes, there is a difference, because the prior categorisation is not applicable to issues that are considered general legislation, rather they are from the first category only…
Note: In a prior question on ruling by other than what Allāḥ revealed the Shaykh presented two categories:
Those who desire and seek judgement through other than what Allāh revealed, and with respect to whom īmān has been negated in some verses, and those to whom disbelief, oppression and sinfulness are ascribed in other verses in Sūrah al-Māʾidah.
With respect to the latter, they are of two groups:
The first, those who do not rule by what Allāh revealed while they belittle it, believing other than it is better and more suitable, and more beneficial to the creation. They are those who place legislations for people that oppose the Islāmic legislations so that they become a way upon which people proceed in their affairs, and they did not place these opposing legislations except that they believe the are more suitable and beneficial for people. So they are disbelievers.
The second, those who do not judge by what Allāh revealed without belittling it, and without believing other than it is more suitable and beneficial to the creation. But he did so in order to oppress the one in whose case he is judging. This one is an oppressor. And if he did so due to desire, such as a bribe, or to favour the one in whose case he is judging, for a share of the world, he is a sinner.
Returning to the Shaykh’s speech:
… this is because this legislator of the legislation that opposes Islām, he only legislated it due to his belief that it is more suitable than Islām and more beneficial for the servants, as has preceded. .
And ruling by other than what Allāh revealed divides into two types:
The first of them: that the ruler replaces the law of Allāh the exalted with this law whilst he has knowledge of the law of Allāh but he holds that the opposing law is more befitting and more beneficial for the servants than the rule of Allāh or that it is equal to the law of Allāh or that turning away from the law of Allāh is permissible (jāʾiz), so he makes this the law (qānūn) that it is obligatory [upon the people] to refer back to for judgement. so the likes of this one is a kāfir with the kufr that ejects from the religion and that is because he is not pleased with Allāh as his Lord, Muḥammad as his Messenger and Islām as his religion and the sayings of Allāh are applicable to him:
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allâh for a people who have firm Faith.” (5:50-)
“Whosoever does not rule by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers.” (5:44-)…
The second type: that he replaces the law of Allāh the exalted with an opposing law in a specific issue, without making that a law (qānūn) to which [he makes it] obligatory [upon the people] to refer back to in judgement - then he is in one of three situations:
The first situation: that he does this knowing the rule of Allāh the Exalted, believing that the opposing law is more befitting than it and more beneficial for the servants, or that it is equal to it, or that turning away from the rule of Allāh is permissible, so this one is a kāfir with the kufr which ejects from the religion as has preceded in the first category (above).
The second situation: that he does this knowing the rule of Allāh, believing that it is more befitting and more beneficial but he opposes it due to intending harm to the one in whose case he is judging or in order to benefit the one in whose case he is judging, so such a one is a oppressor (ḍhālim) and is not a kāfir and it is about him that the saying of Allāh the Exalted was revealed: “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, they are the oppressors.” (5:45-).
The third condition: that it is the same as above, but he opposed it due to a desire in his soul, or for a certain benefit that he would accrue, so this one is a fāsiq (rebellious) and is not a kāfir and it is about him that the verse was revealed: “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, they are the sinners.” (5:47).
Finally, the Shaykh then spoke of the seriousness of this matter:
And this issue, meaning the issue of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed is from the great issues by which the rulers of this era have been put to trial. So it is upon a person not to rush in judging them with what they do not deserve until the truth becomes clear to them, because the issue is very dangerous.
We ask Allāh the Exalted, that he rectifies for the Muslims those in authority over their affairs, and their close advisors. Just as it is it is upon the person whom Allāh has given knowledge to explain this to those rulers so that the proof is established upon them and the right way is made clear, such that the one who perishes, perishes upon clear evidence, and the one who lives, lives upon clear evidence. And one should not belittle himself in explaining this, nor should he fear anyone therein, for indeed, honour belongs to Allāh, and to His Messenger and to the Believers. And Allāh is the one who grant success.
As for the Takfīrī Khārijites—whom Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn and other scholars warned against—they do not follow this advice because they believe and call the youth to the belief that all rulers without exception are apostates, and that it is an individual obligation to revolt against them and remove them, or work towards that end, if there is no current ability, and they turn this into a broad methodology that is to be pursued in this era, as an actual manhaj of daʿwah.
And in this, none of the Major Scholars, not even those who statements they use, are with them. Rather, they oppose those upon this way and refute them and warn against them, because the consequences and outcome of their daʿwah leads to much greater evil than the one they attempt to put an end to. There are lessons in this from recent events in Iraq, Libya and Syria, keeping in mind that the rulers of all these three countries had takfir made upon them, for their Ba'thism, Socialism and Alawi beliefs respectively.
Arabic Text:
Footnotes
1. Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa Rasāʾil (Dār al-Waṭan, 1413H), 2/144-147.
