Taken FromAhlu Sunnah Wal

Jamaah.Com

Are The Muslim Rulers Of Today Taghoot Due To Their Tabdeel (Changing The Shariah), Istibdaal

(Replacing The Shariah) Or Their Ruling By Other

Than What Allah Has Revealed

By Abdul Kareem Ibn Ozzie

Today we live in a time in which the takfire and some Muslims influenced by their dawah due to the sinful behaviour, tyrannical rule and oppression of the Muslim rulers have themselves adopted the cloak of oppression by making unjustified takfir of the Muslim rulers by claming the are taghoot. They do this in order to justify not giving them the bay’ah (pledge of allegiance), demonstrations, protest, openly backbiting the ruler, revolts, rebellions with guns etc, not hearing and obeying the rulers etc.

The question is are they correct in calling the Muslim rulers of today taghoot or are they incorrect and just meeting oppression and wrong doing with more wrong doing and oppression.

Imam Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab said “The word Taghoot is general. So everything that is worshipped besides Allah, while being pleased with this worship – whether it is something worshipped, someone followed, or someone obeyed in the absence of obedience to Allah and His Messenger, then that is considered Taaghoot. The Tawaagheet (pl. of Taghoot) are many, but their heads are five:

The First: The Devil who calls the people to worship other than Allah.

The Second: The tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah’s rulings.

The Third: The one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed.

The Fourth: The one who claims to have knowledge of the Unseen, apart from Allah.

The Fifth: The one who is worshipped apart from Allah, while being pleased with being worshipped.” Taken from The Explanation of "The Meaning of Taaghoot" Of Muhammad bin Abdil-Wahhaab By Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis

Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis said, “The second of the heads of the five Tawaagheet is: The oppressive ruler that changes and replaces the law of Allah, as was done by the Jews. This is done either because:

1.one seeks to belittle Allah’s Laws, or 2.because he prefers some other law system over Allah’s

Laws, 3.or because the Devil has gained mastery over that ruler

that has changed and replaced the Laws of Allah.

What provides evidence for this category is the following noble ayah:"Have you not seen those (hypocrites) who claim to have faith in that which has been revealed to you, and that which was revealed before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taaghoot, when they have been ordered to reject them? But the Devil wishes to lead them far astray." [Surah An- Nisaa: 60]

So Allah has described their stating that they have Faith as only a claim (on their part), thus rejecting it and holding them to be liars. This is because they sought judgement from other than Allah, turning away from Allah’s Law.

This was after they were commanded to not seek judgement from it, by having been commanded to disbelieve in and reject the Taaghoot. But the Devil overpowered them and

led them astray from Allah’s path.” Taken from The Explanation of "The Meaning of Taaghoot" Of Muhammad bin Abdil-Wahhaab By Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis

Explanation Of When A Muslim Ruler Becomes A Kaafir (Disbelieving) Taghoot Due To Tabdeel (Changing The Law Of Allah) & Istibdaal (Replacing The Laws Of Allah) For Something Else

As for the ruler who changes Allahs law he may be a ruled to be a disbelieving taghoot with major kufr or may be ruled to be a major sinner with minor kufr who is not a taghoot.

Changing or altering Allahs law and then claiming this ruling was from the Shariah is known as tabdeel (changing/altering) whether in one specific ruling or in every ruling.

The ruler who does this in some specific ruling believing it is halaal for him to do this type of tabdeel has committed major kufr and is a taghoot. Due to his lying upon Allah and the messenger of Allah claiming something is from the religion and it is not, this is a false testimony. He is even worse if he enforces this law and punishes them for not following this law as he has no right to do so.

An example of this is if a Muslim ruler legislates, a law which states that it is obligatory for women over the age of puberty to go to Jummah on Friday (when it is only recommended so they have a choice whether to go or not to go). Therefore it states if they are caught not going they will be lashed or imprisoned and be made to go Jummah. Then he claims this law is from revealed legislation (ash-shar' al-munazzal) the Quran and Sunnah, when in reality it is from

the altered legislation (ash-shar' al-mubaddal) which is based on whatever is ascribed to the religion but is not from it.

So in this case the ruler is making it halaal to rule (or judge) by other than Allahs law.

Aboo Bakr bin al-’Arabee stated in Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, vol.2, pp.624-625: if he (the ruler) rules by his own self claiming that it is from Allah (the law which the ruler himself has legislated), this is tabdeel (changing/altering Allahs law) and necessitates (major) kufr.

Shaykh Bin Baz said when discussing Muslim rulers ruling by secular law or any other law which is not Allahs law “when he (the Muslim ruler) declares it lawful (istahalla) to judge by the secular law, or declares it lawful to judge with such and such, and likewise, [when he makes it lawful] to judge with such and such Shariah, then he is a kaafir…” Taken from Hiwaar Hawla Masaa’il it-Takfeer Ma’a Allaamah ash-Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ibn Baz” and it is found also in al-Furqaan Magazine No. 94).

Also if a Muslim ruler does do tabdeel of the whole shariah he is a kaafir taghoot, as that is major kufr of belief. Changing the whole shariah indicates hatred on the limbs and in the heart for the shariah. No Muslim ruler of today has done tabdeel of the whole shariah.

In addition if the Muslim ruler legislates, a single law or a number of laws making the halaal haram or the haram halaal for his subjects believing this is permissible for him to do then this is known as tabdeel also. The ruler who does this has committed major kufr, due to his believing that it is

permissible for him as well as Allah and his messenger to make things halaal and haram.

So for instance if the Muslim ruler legislates, a law stating it is halaal to sell alcohol. He states it is halaal as he believes in his heart it is halaal. So this is a action and belief of kufr which nullifies his Islam. Because the shariah makes it clear it is haram to sell alcohol, so this ruler’s law is in fact making the haraam halaal. Even if he does not state on his tongue or in his legislation it is halaal but he claims his ruling is from the shariah then this is still tabdeel which makes him a kaafir taghoot.

Understand this point, if however the ruler legislates, a law or laws allowing a haraam action(s) or prohibiting a halaal action(s) but in the legislation it is not stated that this haraam action he allowed is halaal nor is stated it is from the shariah and the same goes for the halaal action he prohibited, then this ruler has committed minor kufr and major sin but not major kufr.

The reason is because even though he legislated, these strange laws it is not known whether he thinks these laws are from Islam or if he thinks these the haram is halaal and the halaal is haram regarding his strange laws, as the ruler has not stated such on his tongue nor is this sort of wording in his legislation. So takfire (ruling him to have major kufr) can not be applied to the one whom they is a doubt over his believes as his actions maybe done based on his desires and therefore do not represent his true believes in his heart on this issue.

If a Muslim ruler does do tabdeel of the shariah in certain specific issues not believing it is permissible for him to do so, but believing it is haram for him to do so and he does it

out of disobedience to Allah he has committed minor kufr (kufr of actions)and major sin BUT NOT MAJOR KUFR.

Aboo Bakr bin al-Arabee stated in Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, vol.2, pp.624-625: “Yet if one rules by his own (rules i.e. the law which the ruler himself has legislated) out of desire and disobedience then this is a (major) sin and the person (the ruler) will be forgiven according to the basis of Ahl us-Sunnah in regards to the belief that the sinful will be forgiven.”

Shaykh Bin Baz was asked: “Is replacement (of the Shariah) with the secular laws (tabdeel ul-qawaaneen) considered to be major kufr that expels from the religion?”

He replied: “When he makes it permissible (istibaaha). When he makes it permissible to judge with a law other than the Shariah he becomes a disbeliever with the major kufr – if he makes that permissible. As for when he does that for specific reasons, out of disobedience to Allah, for the sake of bribery, or pleasing somebody, and knows that this is haraam, then this is kufr doona kufr (the minor kufr).

As for when he does it while declaring it lawful (mustahillan lahu), then this is major kufr. As Ibn Abbaas said, concerning the saying of Allah the Most High, “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun (i.e. disbelievers -of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws)”.

(Al-Ma'idah 5:44) – So he said, “This is not like the one who disbelieves in Allah, but it is the minor kufr (kufr doona kufr)”…” Taken from Hiwaar Hawla Masaa’il it-Takfeer

Ma’a Allaamah ash-Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ibn Baz” and it is found also in al-Furqaan Magazine No. 94).

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim made the issue of tabdeel synonymous with what is generally understood by “ruling by other than what Allah has revealed” like some of the other scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah in the past.

Ibn al-Qayyim said, “And as for the replaced law (al-hukm al-mubaddal) - and that is ruling by other than what allah has revealed - then it is not permissible to implement it nor to act by it, and it is not permissible to follow it, and the one guilty of it (saahibuhu) is between (the states) of kufr (disbelief), fusooq (rebellion) and dhulm (oppression).” (Kitaab ur-Rooh p.394).

As he made the issue of tabdeel synonymous with what is generally understood by “ruling by other than what Allah has revealed” it is important to understand Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyahs view on ruling by other than Allahs law.

In Madaarij us-Saalikeen, vol.1, pp.336 Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said: “…What is correct (concerning the Islamic ruling on the ruler/person who rules by other than Allahs law) is: that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed goes between the two types of kufr, minor or major depending on the condition of the ruler (or judge).

1.If he believes in the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed in this situation yet averts from ruling by it, along with his admittal that he deserves punishment for this, and then this is minor kufr.

2.Yet if he believes that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is not an obligation or that he has a choice

in ruling by it, while accepting that it is the rule of Allah, then this is major kufr.

If he (the ruler) is ignorant or errors: then he is mistaken and takes the ruling of those who fall into error (being a free from sin and not a kaafir due to ignorance)….”

Change Of Topic: Istibdaal (Replacement) Of Shariah Laws:

As for the Muslim ruler becoming a taghoot due to Istibdaal (substitution, replacement) of shariah laws, then there is a lot of confusion surrounding this topic.

There is a difference between partial istibdaal (partially replacing the shariah laws) and total istibdaal. Partial istibdaal which means some of his rulings are referred to the shariah and some are referred to other than Allahs law. So partial istibdaal referrers to the Muslim ruler who in some specific cases in which he thinks there is some worldly benefit to him refers judgment to other than Allahs law (or rules by other than Allahs law).

Total istibdaal is when the ruler replaces all the shariah laws, so that in every issue the ruler referrers judgment to other than Allahs law.

The Muslim ruler who does partial istibdaal (partially replacing the shariah laws) may be a kaafir with major kufr, if he thinks the laws that are not from the shariah are better, equal, halaal to rule by or more suitable for his state then he his a kaafir.

Shaykh Bin Baz said “As for when he ( the ruler who does partial istibdaal in specific cases) says, ‘There is no harm in

judging by what Allah has revealed’, even if he said that the Shariah is better, however he says, ‘there is no harm in this, it is permissible’, he is declared a disbeliever on account of that with the major kufr, regardless of whether he says that the Shariah is still better, or it is equal to the Shariah, or that it is better than the Shariah, then all of this is (major) disbelief.”

Shaykh Bin Baz said about this type of ruler “When he makes it permissible (istibaaha) to judge with a law other than the Shariah he becomes a disbeliever with the major kufr – if he makes that permissible. As for when he does that for specific reasons, out of disobedience to Allah, for the sake of bribery, or pleasing somebody, and knows that this is haraam, then this is kufr doona kufr (the minor kufr).

As for when he does it while declaring it lawful (mustahillan lahu), then this is major kufr. As Ibn Abbas said concerning the saying of Allah the Most High, “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws)”. (Al-Ma'idah 5:44) –

So he (Ibn Abbas) said, “This is not like the one who disbelieves in Allah, but it is the minor kufr (kufr doona kufr)”. Meaning, “when he declares it lawful (istahalla) to judge by the secular law, or declares it lawful to judge with such and such, and likewise, [when he makes it lawful] to judge with such and such Shariah, then he is a kaafir.” Taken from the book, “Hiwaar Hawla Masaa’il it-Takfeer Ma’a Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdul- Azeez Ibn Baaz” and it is found also in al-Furqaan Magazine No. 94

Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, in the Islamic University of Madinah, during his lesson, “Sharh Sunah Abu Dawood” on 16/11/1420H, spoke about a the Muslim ruler doing istibdaal and he said “And as for Istihlaal ((making something lawful) of the heart, believing in the heart it is permissible), even if it was only in one matter (one ruling of the ruler), so he makes it lawful to judge by other than what Allah has revealed (by doing partial istibdaal (partially replacing the shariah laws)), and considers it to be lawful, then this is (major) kufr.”

Shaykh Abdul Aziz Abdul Latif said “Ruling by other than Allah's law is lesser kufr (kufr asghar, which makes the doer a major sinner) when a ruler or a judge rules by other than what Allah has revealed in a specific case - while believing in the obligation of ruling by what Allah revealed in that specific case - abandoning it (Allah's law) due to disobedience and desire, but recognizing at the same time that he is sinning with regard to that, and deserving of punishment.” Excerpted from: "Hukmu’Llahi wa maa Yunaafeeh" Dar Al-Watan Lin-Nashr, Riyadh, 1413

However he may be a Muslim with major sin and minor kufr due to his does partial istibdaal (partially replacing the shariah laws), while believing that he is disobedient, believing that the rule of Allah is the truth and the rule of Allah is better than his legislation (which is not Allahs law) that he refers judgment to in specific cases. This ruler is considered either a faasiq (sinner) or adhaalim (oppressor).

Ibn Taymiyyah: "As for one who is committed to the rule of Allah and His Messenger, inwardly and outwardly (i.e. beliefs in his heart that Allahs law is better than his legislation that he refers judgment to in specific cases and

he outwardly does acts of a Muslim), but he disobeys and follows his desires (in these specific cases by not ruling by Allahs law), his situation is like that of the sinners (he is a major sinner but not a kaafir)." [Minhaj al-Sunnah 5/131]

Ibn ul-Qayyim said: "If he believes in the obligation of ruling by what Allah revealed in this case (the case in which the ruler did istibdaal and ruled by other than Allahs law), and he abandons it disobediently, recognizing that it is deserving of punishment, then that is lesser kufr (minor kufr, which makes the doer a major sinner)." [Madarij as-Salikin, 1/336]

Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, in the Islamic University of Madinah, during his lesson, “Sharh Sunah Abu Dawood” on 16/11/1420H, spoke about a the Muslim ruler doing istibdaal and he said “As (long as) a person considers himself to be in error, that he is doing what is evil (munkar), and that he is committing disobedience, and that he is fearful of sin, so this is the minor kufr (kufr doona kufr, kufr that does not make a person leave Islam).”

Shaykh Bin Baz said “If he does not desire (lam yaqsud) Istihlaal (making it lawful) by that, but (ruling by the law he did istibdaal of a specific shariah law with, other than Allahs law) did it due to some other reasons, then this is kufr doona kufr (the minor kufr).”

As for the Muslim ruler who totally replace the shariah itself this is an act of kufr which proves that the doer holds kufr in his beliefs as the inward is tied to the outward. Therefore this act of kufr indicates that the doer’s emaan has completely gone, because this act would only occur from a person whose heart is full of corruption and hatred for Islamic law. This would be a sign that they have kufr in

their heart and so as well as doing an act of kufr they also hold kufr in their beliefs. This is why the Muslim ruler who totally replaces the shariah as point of reference for judgments in his state with a completely new law system has disbelieved due to committing major kufr.

The ruling on the ruler who totally replaces the shariah is major kufr. However this kufr is major unlike the one whom only partially or only in specific issues refers judgments to other than Allahs, his kufr could be major or minor.

The reason for the difference is if a Muslim ruler only partially or only in specific issues refers judgments to other than Allahs he has initially committed minor kufr. For this type of Muslim ruler to be ruled with major kufr, Juhood (rejection) of those parts of the shariah he is replacing and Istihlaal (making it lawful) to refer judgments in those issues back to other than the shariah have to occur form him.

However ruler who totally replaces the shariah Juhood (rejection) of those parts of the shariah he is replacing and Istihlaal (making it lawful) to refer judgments in those issues back to other than the shariah DO NOT have to occur form him to be ruled with major kufr. This is because in his case the total replacement of the Shariah, in its entirety, (such that nothing remains of Islam, and its subsequent replacement with another, entirely different Shariah) gives us evidence that such a person holds this other law to be better than that of Allah, and hence it is major kufr.

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan stated, explaining the meaning of his statement in Kitaab ut-Tawheed (and his commentary upon the saying of Shaykh Mohammed Ibn Ibraaheem), “…And it was then said after that that the one who

abolishes the Shariah entirely (nihaa’iyyan) (means the Muslim ruler completely and totally effaces Islam and everything related to it, such that nothing of it remains, or is allowed to remain, and then brings another law to replace it totally, then that does not exist today), and puts another law in its place, that this is evidence (daleel) to show that he views the [secular] law to be better than the Shariah, and whoever holds this opinion, he is the one who is a kaafir [emphasis given]…”

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan said “the one who abolishes the Shariah and puts in its place another law, then this gives evidence that he considers this law to be better than the Shariah. And [subsequently] whoever considers this law to be better than the Shariah, then such a one is a kaafir in the view of everybody, there is no doubt in this.” (Cassette: Questions and Answers on al-Haakimiyyah)

An important point that must be understood is if a Muslim ruler allows the mosques to remain, and the people to pray therein, and allows the man to have beards and the women to wear the jilbab and the hijaab, and the many other aspects of the Shariah. But he says we should rule by other than Allahs law (communism, democracy, cultural customs or his own made up legislation etc) and that is the way to go, then such a one is a kaafir, irrespective of whether he physically totally abolished the Shariah or not.

Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis said, “The third category from the heads of Taaghoot, is the one that rules by other than what Allah revealed, as Allah says: "And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers." [Surah Al-Maa’idah: 44]

This is the same whether it is a judge or a king or a president or so on. So whoever rules by other than what Allah revealed, implementing it knowingly, then he is a Taaghoot, even if he claims what he may claim. And indeed Allah has declared him a disbeliever. However some of the Salaf would not declare the one who ruled by other than what Allah revealed in issues such as kinship or bribery and so on to be disbelievers.

This was even though, fundamentally, he would rule by what Allah revealed and judge the people according to that. So he wouldn’t rule by other than Allah’s laws absolutely (i.e. only on some issues).” Taken from The Explanation of "The Meaning of Taaghoot" Of Muhammad bin Abdil-Wahhaab By Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis

Explanation Of When A Muslim Ruler Becomes A Kaffir Taghoot Due To Ruling By Other Than What Allah Has Reviled

The Muslim ruler becomes a disbelieving taghoot when he commits major kufr (major disbelief) for ruling by what other than Allah has reviled. As the taghoot are all disbelievers.

But the ruler who rules with other than Allah has revealed and is considered to have committed minor kufr is still a Muslim but a very sinful one due to his sin minor kufr.

Below are the words of some well known and respected scholars clarifying the two rulings on whoever rules by other than Allahs law. There is a verdict of major kufr and

minor kufr which the ruler who rules by other than Allahs law may receive depending on his situation.

Imam Ibn al-Jawzee said:

1.“And the decisive speech in this regard is that whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - while rejecting it [in belief] {jahahda) and he knows that it is Allah who revealed it - as the Jews did - then he is a disbeliever.

2.And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - inclining to his desires without rejecting it [in belief] then he is a dhaalim, faasiq and it has been reported from Alee bin Abu Talhah from Ibn Abbaas that he said: “Whoever rejects (jahada) what Allaah has revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it (aqarra bihi) but does not judge by it - then he is a dhaalim, a faasiq.” (Zaad al-Maysir 2/366)

Imam Ibn Abil Azz al-Hanafee stated in Sharh ul-Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah, pp.323-324: “Here there is a matter which has to be understood and that is: ruling by other than what Allah has revealed can be kufr which expels one from the religion; it can be disobedience, major or minor.

So this all depends on the condition of the ruler: if he believes that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is not an obligation, or that he has a choice in a matter, or that he mocks it while admitting that it is the rule of Allah, then this is major kufr; If he believes that it is an obligation to rule by what Allah has revealed and this is his knowledge of the situation, yet

he does not rule by it, along with his admittance that he deserves punishment, then this is disobedience and such a person is a disbeliever for committing kufr in the figurative sense or has committed minor kufr (which does not expel a ruler/person from Islam);

If he is ignorant of the rule of Allah, while he exerts great efforts in trying to know the ruling yet makes a mistake, then this is one who has been mistaken (so he is not sinful). He has a reward for his ijtihad and his error is forgiven.”

Imam as-Saadi stated in Tafseer ul-Kareem ur-Rahmaan, vol.2, pp.296-297: “Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is from the actions of the people of kufr.

1.It can be (major) kufr which expels one from the religion, if he believes that it is halaal and permitted for him to rule by it(other than Allahs law);

2.Or it could be a major sin. Of the actions of kufr are that which deserve a severe punishment (as he would have committed minor kufr which does not expel him from Islam).”

Shaikh Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqeetee said: “Know that the liberating stance in this topic is that kufr, dhulm and fisq, all of them can be used in the legislation with the intent of 'disobedience' at one time and with the intent of 'kufr that ejects from the religion another time'.

1.And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, turning away and contradicting the Messenger and nullifying the rulings (ahkaam) of Allaah, then his dhulm, fisq, and (major) kufr - all of them are disbelief that eject from the religion.

2.And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, whilst believing that he is committing a forbidden action and doing a reprehensible action, then his kufr, dhulm and fisq does not eject him from the religion (minor kufr). (Adwaa al-Bayaan 2/104)

Shaikh Mohammad Ibn Ibraaheem in his Fataawaa (1/80) dated 9/1/1385H – five years after Tahkim ul-Qawanin was pubished: “And likewise, the implementation of the meaning of ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’ is by judging to his Shari’ah and confining oneself to that whilst rejecting whatever opposes it from the secular laws and all those matters for which Allaah gave no authority.

1.And the one who judges by them (hakama bihaa) or refers to them (haakama ilaihaa) - for judgement whilst believing in the correctness (sihhah) of that or the permissibility (to judge by them) (jawaaz), then he is a kaafir with the kufr that ejects from the religion.

2.And if he does that without belief (I’tiqaad) in their correctness and (regarding it) permissible to judge by them (jawaaz), then he is a kaafir with the kufr in action (minor kufr), which does not eject from the religion.”

The Fataawa by the Permanent Committee for Research and Verdicts compiled by Shaykh Ahmad bin Abdur-Razzaq ad-Duwaish, Volume 1 (Aqeedah). Question No. 11 of Fatwa No.5741.

Q. The one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed is he a Muslim or a Kaafir [guilty of] the major kufr and are

his actions accepted?

A. All Praise is due to Allah and prayers and peace upon the His Messenger, his family and his companions. To proceed:

Allah the Most High said: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafiran" (5:44), and He the Most High said, "And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Dhaliman" (5:45) and He the Most High said, "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fasiqan" (5:47).

1.However if he declares that to be lawful and believes (in his heart) it to be permissible, then this is the major kufr (which expels the doer from Islam), the major fisq and the major dhulm which expels him from the religion.

2.However, if he did this due to a bribe or some other motive while believing in the forbiddance (of this act), then he is considered a disbeliever (figuratively not literally) with the minor kufr (still a Muslim but committing the major sin of minor kufr), a dhalim (oppressor) with the minor dhulm and a fasiq (sinner) with the minor fisq which does not expel him from the religion as the people of knowledge have explained in the exegesis (tafsir) of the aforementioned verses.

The Permanent Committee for Research and Verdicts: Abdullah bin Ghudayan, Abdur-Razzaq Afifi and Abdul Aziz bin Baz

Shaykh Abd-Allah al-Ghunaymaan spoke about these two rulings saying, “we must make this distinction (between the

ruler who judges according to shariah, but may rule in a manner contrary to the shariah on some issues, because of his own whims and desires or because of a bribe and the one who fails to rule by that which Allah has revealed and bases the entire legal system on man-made laws a kaafir.

The one who rejects the law of Allah and casts it aside, and replaces it with man-made laws and the opinions of individuals has committed an act of kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam.

Whereas the one who adheres to the religion of Islam, but is a sinner and wrongdoer by virtue of his following his whims and desires in some cases, or pursuing some worldly interest, but admits that he is a wrongdoer by doing so, is not guilty of kufr which would put him beyond the pale of Islam.

(Also) whoever thinks that ruling by man-made laws is equal to ruling by shariah, and thinks that it is OK to do that, is also guilty of kufr that puts him beyond the pale of Islam, even if it is only in one instance”.

Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz said “kufr is of two types - kufr akbar and kufr asghar - just as dhulm (oppression) is of two types and like fisq (sinning) is of two types – akbar (major) and asghar(minor). So whoever declares lawful (istahalla) judgement by other than what Allah has revealed, or declares lawful zinaa (illegal sexual intercourse between unmarried people), or usury(interest), or other than them from the prohibited things whose prohibition is agreed upon then he has disbelieved with major kufr, and major dhulm and major fisq. And whoever does that without declaring them permissible - then his kufr is kufr asghar and his

dhulm is dhulm asghar and likewise with his fisq..." [Ash-Sharq al-Awsat 12/5/1416]

Also Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz said: And whoever ruled by other than what Allah has revealed then he will not be in other than one of four situations:

1.The one who says: "I rule by this because it is superior to the Shariah of Islam." Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the major disbelief (i.e. ejected from the Religion).

2.The one who says: "I rule by this because it is like the Shariah of Islam, so ruling by it is permissible and ruling by the Shariah is permissible." Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the major disbelief.

3.The one who says: "I rule by this and ruling by the Shariah of Islam is superior but ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is permissible. Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the major disbelief.

4.The one who says: "I rule by this" while he believes that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is not permissible and who says that "the Shariah of Islam is superior and it is not permissible to rule by other than it" but he is neglectful, or treats matters lightly, or does this action due to a reason that proceeds from his rulers, then he is a disbeliever in the sense of minor disbelief which does not eject from the Religion - and it is considered one of the greatest of major sins. Al-Hukmu bi-Ghairi Maa Anzalallaahu wa Usool ut-Takfeer pp. 71/72

Shaykh Fawzaan said “The scholars have clarified this (issue, ruling by man-made laws) and the closest thing (to being correct) is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir wherein it is stated that the one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed then if he views that as being better than the Books of Allah, or that his rule is better than the rule of Allah, or that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is the same as the rule of Allah or that the he has a choice to rule by what Allah has revealed or not based on choice-then such an individual is judged with Kufr. There is no doubt that such an individual is a disbeliever according to the Ijma.

As for the individual who believes that the rule of Allah is the truth and that the man-made law is false but he rules by it due to desire or due to a temptation that has overcome him-then such an individual is sinful and a transgressor yet is not judged with Kufr. This because he believes that the rule of Allah is obligatory and ruling by other than it is false but has done it in order to obtain a career or due to a temptation. In this instance his Aqeedah remains, as he still has his belief in the Book of Allah and that it is the truth and has to be ruled by, then in this case his Aqeedah remains.

Such an individual is judged to be sinful and not judged with having kufr because this is Kufr Amali (Kufr of actions, Kufr less than Kufr is minor kufr which does not expel a person from Islam). Session question-answer of the lecture "Takfir: Between excess and neglect" delivered at Masjid ar-Raajihee in Hayy ul-Jazeerah, Riyadh, KSA dated 10/10/1428 AH (21/10/2007 CE)

Shaykh Albani said while explaining the reason for the revelation of the verse “the one who does not rule by what

Allah revealed…”, and that it refers to kufr in action not in belief.

“I say: it is not permissible to declare them kaafir due to this, and to eject them from the religion, when they are believers in Allah and His Messenger, even though they are sinning by ruling by other than what Allah revealed - this is not permissible. Because even though they are like the Jews from the point of view of their ruling (by other than what Allah revealed), they differ from the point of view that they have faith and conviction in Allah contradicting the Jews for indeed they rejected the Messenger as indicated in their previous saying, “but if he does not then beware and do not agree to have him arbitrate.”

And the reason behind this is that kufr is of two types: kufr in belief and kufr in action, and the kufr in belief is linked to the heart, and the kufr in action is linked to the limbs. So the one whose actions are kufr due to their contradicting the Shariah, and this kufr follows on from what has become established in his heart i.e. kufr in belief, then this is the kufr which Allah will not forgive and this person will reside in the Fire forever. But if (these kufr actions) contradict what is established in his heart, then he is a believer in the Rule of his Lord, but he contradicts this with his actions.

So his kufr is kufr of action only, and it is not kufr in belief. And he is under the Will of Allah, if He Wills He will punish him, and if He Wills He will forgive him. And it is with this (second) type (of kufr) that some of the ahaadeeth are to be understood which generalise the term kufr for a Muslim who performs a sinful action. And it would be good to mention some (all the hadeeth are authentic):

1) “Two things if done are kufr: abusing genealogies and wailing over the dead.” Reported by Muslim

2) “Arguing over the Quran is kufr.” 3) “Abusing a Muslim is fisq (sinful), and killing him is

kufr.” Reported by Muslim 4) “Speaking about the favours of Allah is giving thanks

and leaving it is kufr” 5) “Do not return to being kaafir after me by some of you

hitting the necks of (killing) others.” Agreed upon. (Another authentic hadeeth is “whoever goes into his women from behind (anus) has indeed done kufr”)

And many other ahaadeeth for which there is no need to go into great detail about at this time. So any Muslim who performs any of these sinful actions, then his kufr is kufr in action i.e. he has done an action of the kuffaar. Except in the case that he sees it (the sin) to be permissible, and does not believe in it’s being a sin, so in this case he would be a kaafir whose blood is lawful because now he has also shared in the belief of the kuffaar.

And ruling by other than the what Allah revealed is not exempted from this principle, and what is narrated from the salaf supports this, and that is none other than their saying on the tafsir of this verse, “kufr less than kufr (minor kufr which does not expel a person from Islam)” as is authentically reported from the Commentator of the Quran, Ibn Abbas, and then some of the Taabieen and others learnt this from him…maybe they may illuminate the path ahead of those that have been misguided in this dangerous issue, and have taken the road of the Khawarij who declared people to be a kaafir due to their committing sins even though they may pray and fast!” Taken from them Silsilah as-Saheehah (vol 6. no.2552)

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaymeen stated “Allah has described those who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed with three descriptions: "Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers [kaafiroon]." "Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the oppressors [dhaalimoon]" "Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the sinners [faasiqoon]."

The People of Knowledge have differed concerning this. So it is opined that these descriptions in fact describe one and the same thing because the kaafir is a dhaalim due to the saying of Allah, "And the disbelievers are the oppressors." [al-Baqarah (2): 254] [Similarly the kaafir] is a faasiq due to the saying of Allah, "As for the sinners then their abode will be the Fire." [as-Sajdah (32): 20]

It is also opined that these are distinct descriptions and that they are [applied] in accordance to the situation: So [one] becomes a kaafir in three circumstances, when he believes that it is permissible to rule by other than what Allah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the saying of Allah, "So is it the rule of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) that they seek?" [Al-Maidah (5): 50]. Everything that opposes the rule of Allah constitutes the rule of Jaahiliyyah. [Also the evidence for this] is the definitive consensus that it is not allowed to rule by other then what Allah has revealed.

(The three situations one becomes a kaafir due to ruling by other than Allahs law.)

(1) Therefore the one who considers it lawful and permissible to rule by other then what Allah has revealed has contradicted this definitive consensus

and such a person is a kaafir and an apostate. This (is similar to the case of one) who, considers fornication or alcohol to be permissible or considers bread or milk to be unlawful.

(2) When he believes that ruling by other then what Allah revealed is equivalent (equal) to ruling by the rule of Allah.

(3) When he believes that ruling by other then what Allah revealed is better than ruling by what Allah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the saying of Allah, "And who is better than Allah in judgment for a people who have certainty?" [al-Maidah (5): 50] So this verse states that the ruling of Allah is the best of rulings as is further proven by the saying of Allah, endorsing this, "Is Allah not the best of judges?" [at-Teen (95): 8]. So when Allah is the best of the judges in ruling and He is the most just of the rulers then whosoever claims that the rule of other than Allah is equivalent or better than the rule of Allah is a kaafir because he has denied the Quran.

(The situations one rules by other than Allahs law but they are still Muslim but are sinful.)

(One) becomes a dhalim (oppressor). When he believes that ruling by what Allah has revealed is the best of judgments and the most beneficial for the servants and the lands and that it is obligatory to apply it. However hatred and jealousy (of his subjects) lead him to rule by other than what Allah revealed over his subjects - such a person is a dhaalim.

(One) becomes a faasiq (sinner). When he follows his own desires, for example he rules in favour of a person due to

being bribed by him, or due to his being a close relative or friend, or [because the ruler] seeks the fulfillment of a need from his comrades or the likes. This along with the belief that the rule of Allah is the ideal and it is obligatory to follow it - such a person is a faasiq. Even though he is also a dhaalim, describing him as a faasiq is more befitting.” Taken from Al-Qawl al-Mufeed `ala Kitaab at-Tawheed' [2/263-269]

So from the above it is clear that the Muslim ruler who rules by other than Allahs law could be committing minor kufr due to ruling by other than Allahs law. If he does this he is not considered a taghoot.

Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi’ee said “When the ruler rules by other than what Allah sent down for the sake of obtaining a bribe or out of desires (i.e. for some worldly reason) then this ruler is NOT considered a Taghoot .” Taken From Al-Masaa’il al-‘Ilmiyyah fee Qadhaayaat al-Imaan wa at-Takfeer Al-As’ilat-ul-Yamaneeyah wa Ajwibah Fadheelah al-Muhaddith al-Allaamah Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi’ee Compiled by ash-Shaykh Ali al-Halabee

Also from the statements of the scholarsdit is clear that a ruler could be committing major kufr due to him ruling by other than Allahs law. This type of ruler is considered a taghoot.

Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi’ee said “Now if the one who rules deems that the man made laws are equal to the laws of Allah or that they are better than the laws of Allah (or more suitable for the modern era or in the state h is the ruler of) and he is aware of this distinction, then this ruler IS considered a Taghoot . ” Taken From Al-Masaa’il al-‘Ilmiyyah fee Qadhaayaat al-Imaan wa at-Takfeer Al-

As’ilat-ul-Yamaneeyah wa Ajwibah Fadheelah al-Muhaddith al-Allaamah Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi’ee Compiled by ash-Shaykh Ali al-Halabee

In this article it has been made clear that when the takfires claim the Muslim rulers of today are taghoot it is based on their understanding that the heads of the taghoot are five.

The second head is the tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah’s rulings and replaces the law of Allah, so he does tabdeel (change/alters) the shariah or he does istibdaal (replaces) the shariah. The third head out the five heads of taghoot is the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed.

These two heads of the taghoot are clear however from what has preceded it has become clear that every ruler (if not every ruler but the majority of today’s Muslim rulers have fallen in to the one of the sins of tabdeel, istibdaal or ruling by other than Allahs law however this does not automatically make them become a taghoot. The reason is a taghoot is a disbeliever none of the Muslim rulers of today have fallen in to the three sins (tabdeel, istibdaal and ruling by other than Allahs law) associated with the two categories of the five heads of taghoot to the extent that they have become disbelievers.

A Muslim ruler based on the two categories of taghoot discussed in this article;

1.Tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah’s rulings and replaces the law of Allah

2.One who judges by other than what Allah has revealed,

Would become a kaafir taghoot if he does 100%

1.Tabdeel of the shariah (or tabdeel of making all the haram in the shariah halaal or all the halaal in the shariah haraam)

2.Istibdaal of the shariah3.Or rules by other than Allahs law (i.e. refers judgement

to other than Allahs law) in his whole legislation,Because this action alone is a clear indication he has no love for the shariah but only hate for it in his heart (therefore it is major kufr in belief), a man has love for the shariah would have at least a few shariah laws in his legislation, a man who hates the shariah would have not even one law from the shariah. THE SCHOLARS OF AHLUS SUNNAH BELIVE THIS DOES NOT EXIST TODAY & HAS VERY RAERLY EXISTED IN ISLAMIC HISTORY.

Or he would become a kaafir taghoot if he does tabdeel, istibdaal or rules by other than Allahs law partially in certain specific issues(one issues or hundreds makes no difference) believing in his heart (i.e. major kufr in belief) any of the following:

1.It is halaal for him to do this (in this category is not just ruling by other than Allahs law, istibdaal, tabdeel of the shariah but also tabdeel of making the haram halaal or the halaal haraam)

2.This law (which is not Allahs law) is better3.This law (which is not Allahs law) is equal to Allahs laws4.This law (which is not Allahs law) is not better or equal

to Allahs laws but more suitable for his state.

If a Muslim ruler of today or the future does fall into one of these categories of being a kaafir taghoot he is NOT TO BE DECLARED A KAAFIR until the SCHOLARS (NOT THE STUDENTS OF KNOWLEDGE, DAAEEIS OR LAY PEOPLE) have established the proof upon this ruler, the

conditions of takfir are fulfilled and the preventive factors of takfir are removed.

Ibn Taymiyyah said in his Majmoo al-Fataawa (12/466), “It is not proper for a person to declare anyone a Kaafir from amongst the Muslims… until the evidence is established against him…”

Ibn Taymiyyah also said, “Indeed takfir has conditions and impediments (preventive factors of takfir)… ” Majmoo al-Fataawa12/487, 488

Also Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan stated “…it is not permissible for the ignoramus to speak in issues of knowledge especially in regards to major issues such as takfir ( takfir al-muayyin (takfir of a particular individual) of a Muslim, as it is obligatory on all Muslims to make takfir al-muayyin of every atheist, agnostic, and followers of all other faiths)…So it is incumbent to refrain the tongue in speaking about the likes of such issues, especially takfir…. And humans are mostly ignorant of its application and can apply it incorrectly and thus judge a person with misguidance and kufr, and the ruling could thus return upon the claimant. So if a person says to his brother “O kaafir, O fasiq” and the man is not like that (i.e. neither a kaafir nor a fasiq) the ruling can return upon the one who said it…” Muhammad bin Fadh al-Husayn (editor and compiler), al-Ajabaat ak-Muhimmah fi’l-Mashaakil al-Mumilah (Riyadh: Mataabi’ al-Humaydee, 1425 AH/2004 CE, Second Edition), pp.56-58

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, “The judgement of apostasy and expelling someone from the religion is only appropriate for the people of knowledge (scholars) who are

firmly grounded in knowledge, and they are the judges in the various shariah law courts, and those who are able of giving legal verdicts. And this is just like the other matters, and it is not the right of every person, or from the right of those who are learning, or those who ascrib e themselves to knowledge, but who have deficiency in understanding. It is not appropriate for them to make judgements of apostasy (upon others). Since mischief will arise from this, and sometimes a Muslim might be judged as an apostate but he is not actually so the takfir of a Muslim who has not committed one of the nullifications of Islam contains great danger…” Maraaji'aat fee Fiqh il-Waaqi... comp. by Abdullaah bin Muhammad ar-Rifaa'ee

So after SCHOLARS have established the proof upon this ruler, the conditions of takfir are fulfilled and the preventive factors of takfir are removed. IF ALL THE SCHOLARS OF AHLUS SUNNAH AGREE with this takfir, because takfir of no Muslim can be established in this ummah as a fact if the scholars differ over this persons takfir, Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab said “We (the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah) do not make takfir except in accordance with what the all of the scholars have agreed upon (amount to major kufr)” Ad-Durur as-Sunniyyah, vol.1, p.102.

Also Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen transmitted that takfir is not an issue which is disputed, in al-Qawaa’id al-Muthla he said, “You will find from many people today, from those who attach themselves to the religion and to protecting the religion of Allah, making takfir of those who neither Allah made takfir of or His Messenger. Rather indeed, unfortunately, some people have begun to discuss their rulers and try to impugn them with kufr due to them having merely done something which

those people believe is haraam. Yet the matter could be one about which there is a difference of opinion…”

This understanding is based on he fact that to make takfir of an individual Muslim a person needs to see clear explicit disbelief (kufran bawaahan) as in the hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim the prophet explained to the sahaba do not oppose the command of the Muslim ruler, the prophet said, ‘‘except if you were to see clear explicit disbelief (kufran bawaahan) about which you have a proof from Allah.’’

Imam Nawawi stated in Riyadh us-Saaliheen when explaining the word ‘buwaahan’ meaning ‘clear and explicit’ and it does not need any interpretation. So clear and explicit means no one scholar should differ over this person’s takfir if his kufr (disbelief) is clear and explicit about which all the scholars have a proof from Allah.

So after the all the above has been done and agreed upon by all the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, then and only then can the students of knowledge, daaeeis and the lay people believe in their hearts and declare on their tongues that this ruler is a kaafir and these people can also remove their obedience from this ruler (i.e. they do not need to hear and obey him in anything). Inshallah it should be very clear now when a Muslim ruler becomes a kaafir taghoot and when we can hold in our hearts and declare on our tongues when a ruler is a kaafir taghoot.

As for today in our time the Muslim rulers are classed by the SCHOLARS OF AHLUS AS (FAASIQS) SINNERS WITH MAJOR SIN, KUFR WHICH IS MINOR KUFR

AND OPPRESSION HOWEVER THEY DO NOT HOLD THEM TO BE KAAFIR TAGHOOT.

The reason for this is even though they fall in to the two categories of taghoot discussed in this article;

1.Tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah’s rulings and replaces the law of Allah

2.One who judges by other than what Allah has revealed,The Muslim rulers of today only rule by other than Allahs law, do istibdaal or tabdeel partially in specific issues like the Islamic hudood (Islamic criminal punishments) out of sin, disobedience, desires, ignorance, fear of the western powers (like the USA, France and the UK for example) and seeking a worldly gain.

Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah stated in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, vol.7, p.312: “Therefore, from the statements of the Salaf were: “A person can have within him both emaan and kufr” and likewise within their saying: “that one can have within him emaan and kufr, it is not the kufr which expels one from the religion.” Ibn Abbas and his companions stated in regards to the saying of Allah, “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are disbelievers.” (Al-Maidah (5): 44) They said it means: “They disbelieved with a type of kufr which does not expel one from the religion”, and Ahmad and other Imams of the Sunnah followed him in that.”