text: Limaathaa Kafarat al-Hukoomaat / Why have the Governments Disbelieved? By Abu Dujanah Section A: Introduction to this Discussion. Bismillah, alhamdulilah, was-salatu wasalaamu 'ala Rasool illah, wa ba'd: From the topics of contention in this day and age, amongst the people of Islaam, and especially the youth of this noble deen is the issue of those rulers who rule the lands of Islaam today, from West Africa all to the Far East of Asia, and what the ruling of Islaam is upon them. And in recent times, the people who have spoken on this issue have multiplied, and the works on this issue have increased manifestly - as every young brother or sister, following the Islaamic scene will say. And this topic, is from the core matters of at-Tawheed, which was the message of all the Messengers and Prophets, from our father Aadam 'alayhis-salaam, until our beloved Messenger Muhammed bin 'Abdillah - sallahu 'alayhi wa 'ala aalihi wa salam; as Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala says: 'And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allâh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tâghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tâghût besides Allâh)." Then of them were some whom Allâh guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth).'. From the actions that Allah - swt - has specified for Himself, is legislation [ at-tashree'], by placing laws, and regulations for mankind with which to worship Him. As Allah - swt - says: Say (O Muhammad SAW): "The decision [ hukm ] is only for Allâh" (Surat al-An'aam: 57), and (Surat Yoosuf: 40); and His saying - subhanah, "And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allâh (He is the ruling Judge)." (Surat ash-Shooraa: 10). And therefore, whoever appoints a sharee'ah other than that of Allah, then he has made himself a partner with Allah, and whoever takes his rulings in matters, then he has taken him as a Lord beside Allah, as Allah - swt - says: "They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allâh (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allâh)", we understand this hadeeth with the saying of our beloved Prophet - s - to 'Adiyy bin Haatim, who was a Christian but came to Islaam, he heard the Prophet - s - recite this ayah, so 'Adiyy said: 'We did not worship them besides Allah'. The Prophet - s - replied: 'Did they not make forbidden what Allah had made permissable, and made permissable what Allah had made forbidden?' 'Adiyy replied:'Ofcourse'. So he - s - said: 'So that was your worshipping of them'. (Found in Imaam Ahmad's Musnad and the Jaami' of at-Tirmithi, and he declared it hasan.) al-Aloosee explains this ayah by saying: 'It is not meant that these people used to believed the monks and rabbis to be the Lords of this world, but what is meant is that they obeyed them in their prohibitions and permissions'. Here we understand that worshipping Allah then in His legistlation, is from the core of at-tawheed, as stated earlier. And look at how Allah likens worshipping other than Him, and matters of ruling in surat al-Kahf: '...And associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord.' (al-Kahf: 110) and; 'And He makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule,' and in the recitation of Ibn 'Aamir (and it is from the seven different recitations), we read 'wala tushrik fee hukmihi ahada' (And do not share in His decision and His rule, anyone), coming in the form of prohibition. (al-Kahf: 26). Do you see how Allah has likened them using the exact same words, except replacing "'ibaadah" with "hukm"? And after considering this, I think this reason alone - i.e. knowing it is from the core matters of tawheed - is enough as a mechanism to make us strive to know the reality of this matter, and the position we ought to take towards it. I will end here, wallahu tabaraka wa ta'ala a'lam. Definition of Imaan and Kufr According to Ahl as-Sunnah Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Raheem, wa bihi nasta'een: Necessary Introductions 1: Definition of al-Imaan and its opposer, al-kufr The term al-Imaan according to Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah has had different definitions throughout Islaamic history, and this arose due to the circumstances of that time. At one time, for example, intention (an-niyyah) was included in the definition, and at other times, it was not mentioned - although it was included in what is meant. For example, here, we will take Imaam ash-Shaf'iee's statement definining Imaan: "The consensus of the Companions, and the tabi'een, and whoever was after them, and whom so ever we saw [regarding imaan], was: 'al-Imaan is speech, actions and intention, and one cannot exist ( yatajaza`), except with the others.'" - See, Majmoo' al-Fatawaa , volume 7/309. Imaam Muhammed bin 'Abdilwahaab's definition is as following: "There is no difference - in opinion - regarding tawheed to be in the heart, and tongue and actions. And if one of these does not exist (akhtala), then this person cannot be a Muslim; and if he knows at-tawheed, and does not act upon it, then he is someone who has the disbelief of obstinacy ( kaafir mu'aanid), like the disbelief of Fir'awn, Iblees and their likes." - See, Kashf ash-Shubuhaat , page 40. Likewise, Shaykh al-Islaam mentions the saying of Sahl bin 'Abdullah at-Tasatri (a scholar of the Salaf) regarding "Imaan, what is it? So he said: 'Speech, and actions and intention and sunnah; if Imaan is speech without actions, then it is kufr, and if it were speech and action without intention, then it is nifaaq, and if it were speech, actions and intentions without sunnah, then it is bid'ah' " - See al-Imaan , page 172. The definitions of Imaan, are summarised in the above, for more statements, I advise the dear reader to revise volume 7 of al-Fatawa, that has been gathered in a separate book Kitaab al-Imaan for Shaykh al-Islaam Ahmad bin Taymiyyah, rahimahullah. So here, we have established a definition of al-imaan: 1. It is speech of the tongue. 2. Actions of the heart. 3. Actions of the body. Next matter to be raised up insha'Allah will be: Can kufr, that leads to expulsion from this religion, happen with actions like with belief, or not ? And I will end here, wallahu tabaraka wa ta'ala a'lam wa ahkam. - Abu Dujanah. Necessary Introductions 2: A question about kufr Bismillah, alhamdulilah was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasool illah, wa ba'd: Necessary Introductions 2: Can kufr, that leads to expulsion from this religion, happen with actions like with belief, or not ? After having established that imaan is speech of the tongue, action of the heart and actions of the body, a crucial question here arises: Can kufr, that leads to expulsion from this religion happen with actions and speech, like with belief or not ? We understand that not believing in Allah in your heart, or rejecting Him in your heart is clear kufr, there is no dispute about that, the dispute amongst the people of the Qiblah occurs when we discuss actions. So the Muslims are divided into four groups regarding this: Ahl as-Sunnah, al-Khawaarij, al-Jahmiyyah and Murji'atul-Fuqahaa`. 1. Ahl as-Sunnah say: al-Kufr can be through beliefs and actions alike. Beliefs such as saying that Allah has a partner, or that the Prophet - s - was revealed to by mistake, or that the Hour will not come, and so on, are examples of the kufr that can occur in beliefs. Actions are categorised into two for Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah: [1] Actions that are not kufr themselves, such as stealing and adultery and fornication and drinking alcohol, killing another Muslim, suicide, and so on - this is what is termed as 'kufrun duna kufr', or 'al-kufr al-'amali al-asghar'. Meaning: these actions do not lead their doer to expulsion from this religion unless accompanied with istihlaal (declaring them to be permissable). These actions will decrease his imaan but not to the level of al-kufr. For these actions, we do not do takfeer unless accompanied by istihlaal . And the above is what is meant by at-Tahawi's statement: "And we do not do takfeer of anyone from the people of the Qiblah, unless he does istihlaal of it". Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah commented on that statement and said: "And us, if we say: that Ahl as-Sunnah are upon agreement that a person does not become a kaafir due to sin, then we mean by it the sins such as fornication and drinking [alcohol]". - See al-Imaan , page 214. [2] There are actions that are kufr in themselves, and take you out of the fold of Islaam. Whoever does it then he is, in the view of Ahl as-Sunnah, a kaafir, inside and outside (thaahiran wa baatinan), and these acts do not need istihlaal for the kufr to fall upon the person. These actions are mentioned in the Books of Apostasy in the books of the Salaf. And Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah place four conditions that must be fulfilled to attribute an action to a person and cause the ruling to fall upon him: [a.] The individual must have knowledge of what he is doing. [b.] The individual must be doing it out of choice, and have the capability to do it - he must not be forced. (I will mention what is meant by 'forced' (ikraah), using the words of Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalaani in this discussion). [c.] The individual must not have a justifiable ta`weel for what he did. [d.] The individual must have meant to do the action, on purpose. These four principles will be discussed here later bi ithn illah, perhaps in the next issue raised up here. Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullah, states: "And generally then, whoever says or does what is disbelief, disbelieves due to that, even if he does not intend/want [to disbelieve], because no one wants (yaqsud) to disbelieve except him whom Allah wills so for" - See, as-Saarim al-Maslool , page 178. 2. al-Khawaarij: They do not differ between actions that do not lead to disbelief and those that do. So whoever commits a major sin according to them or constantly commits a minor sin is a kaafir. They also say that whoever differs with them or is not from them is a kaafir too. Najdah bin 'Aamir said: "Whoever looks, a small look, or lies even a small lie, and he insisits on it - then he is a mushrik" - See al-Farqu baynal-Firaq for al-Baghdadi, page 68. 'Abdullah bin Yahya al-Abaadi said, when he became the ruler over Yemen: "Whoever commits fornication, then he is a kaafir. Whoever steals then is a kaafir. Whoever drinks alcohol then he is a kaafir, and whoever doubts that he is a kaafir is a kaafir too." - Ibid. Also, it is important to note that the Khawaarij - on the whole - do takfeer of 'Uthmaan, 'Aisha, az-Zubayr, Talha and 'Abdullah bin 'Abbass, radiallahu ta'ala 'anhum. 3. al-Jahmiyyah: They say that disbelief can only occur through the heart; they do not do takfeer of a person due to him committing actions of kufr. They place al-istihlaal as a condition for takfeer due to sins that are major kufr in themselves. Shaykh al-Islaam says of the Jahmiyyah: "Hanbal said: al-Humaydi said: I was informed that there are a people who say: 'If someone says: We affirm as-Salah, and az-Zakah and as-Sawm and al-Hajj, but we will not do any of that until we die, then he is a believer, as long as he does not reject these things, as he knows that his rejection of those things leads to disbelief.' I say: This is the clear kufr, and in contradiction with what the Book of Allah, and the Prophet, and the scholars of Islaam said . . . and Hanbal said: I heard Abu 'Abdullah, Ahmad bin Hanbal say: 'Whoever says this, then he has disbelieved in Allah and rejected ( radd ) what Allah has ordered his Prophet with'". - See Kitaab al-Imaan , page 208. So the scholars of the Salaf would do takfeer of those people (i.e. al-Jahmiyyah) due to their statements, and due to them placing the condition of istihlaal qalbi and juhood (open rejection) for doing takfeer due to sins that are kufr in themselves. 4. Murji`at al-Fuqahaa`: They are mainly constituted of the Ahnaaf and some Ashaa'irah. They do takfeer of one who does an action of kufr because they say it proves that this person has internal disbelief, and not because the action is kufr itself , but because it is proof and a sign of the persons internal disbelief and that it is proof for the istihlaal this the doer has done in his heart. Ibn Hazm says in al-Fisal fil-Milal wal-Ahwaa` wan-Nihal , 3/119: "And those people said: That insulting Allah - 'azza wa jall - or insulting the Prophet - s - is not kufr, but it is proof that in the doers heart is kufr." Shaykh al-Islaam Ahmad bin Taymiyyah says: "Whoever insults Allah or insults His Prophet, then he has disbelieved inside and outside (thaahiran wa baatinan), whether the insulter believes that that is forbidden or not, or was doing isthilaal of it or not, whether it is sprouting from his inner belief or not, and this is is the understanding of the specialised schools and all the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, who say that Imaan is speech and actions." - See as-Saarim al-Maslool , page 512. al-Haafith Ibn Hajr says: "And from the Muslimeen are those who are expelled from this deen without wanting to, and without choosing another religion over the religion of Islaam" - See Fath al-Baari , 12/373. Shaykh Hamad bin 'Ateeq says: "For the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet - s - and the concensus of the ummah is upon that anyone who says what is disbelief, and does what is disbelief, disbelieves, and it is not a condition for his heart to have disbelieved aswell ( wa laa yushtarat fee thaalika as-sadru bil-kufr). - See ad-Difaa` 'an Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Itibaa' , page 22-23. I will end here, and the next part will be on some of the actions of disbelief and a discussion of the kufr in the matters of legislation and rulership, etc. that are the chief purpose of this discussion. Subhanak Allahumma wa bihamdika, ash-Shadu al-laa ilaha illa ant, astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilayk. Necessary Introductions 3: How Qur'aanic Interpretation if Performed Bismillah, alhamdulilah, was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasool illah: Necessary Introductory Points 3: Best ways of Interpreting the Qur'aan As a bulk of this discussion will concern interpreting the Qur'aan, it would be useful here to recall what the best ways of interpreting the Qur'aan are. Shaykh al-Islaam says: "If you ask what is the best method of tafsîr, the answer is that the best way is to explain the Qur'aân through the Qur'aân. For, what the Qur'âan alludes to at one place is explained at the other, and what it says in brief on one occasion is elaborated upon at the other. But if this does not help you, you should turn to the Sunnah, because the Sunnah explains and elucidates the Qur'âan. Imaam Abu 'Abdullâh Muhammad Ibn Idrees ash-Shafi'ee has said: "All that the Prophet, peace be upon him, has said is what he has derived from his understanding of the Qur'âan." Allâh has said: "We have sent down to you the book in truth that you may judge between me, as Allâh guides you; so do not be an advocate for those who betray their trust." [al-Qur'aân 4:105] "We have sent down to you the message that you may explain clearly to people what has been sent to them, and that they think over it. " [al-Qur'âan 16:44] "We sent down the Book to you for the express purpose that you should make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe. "[al-Qur'âan 16:64] This is why the Prophet sallallâhu 'alayhi wa sallam said: Know that I have been given the Qur'âan and something like it. [Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. IV 131; Abi Dâwood, Sunan, Sunnah, 5] "Namely the Sunnah. In fact, the Sunnah, too has been given to him through wahy as the Qur'aân, except that it has not been recited to him as the Qur'âan. Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee and other scholars have advanced a number of arguments in support of this point; but this is not the place to quote them. [See ar-Risaalah for more of a discussion of evidences.] "In order to understand the Qur'aan, you should first look to the Quraan itself. If that does not help, then turn to the Sunnah. "When you do not get any help from the Qur'âan or the Sunnah, turn to the words of the companions. For they know the Qur'ân better: they have witnessed its revelation, and passed through the situations in which it was revealed: and know it and understand it fully, especially their scholars and their seniors. "If you do not find the interpretation in the Qur'aan or the Sunnah, and you did not find it in the sayings of the Sahabah, then many of the a`immah have turned to the sayings of the tabi'een - until he [ash-Shafi'ee] said - Shu'bah bin al-Hajjaaj and others said: 'The sayings of the tabi'een in the furoo' is not a hujjah, so how can it be a hujjah in tafseer?' Meaning, it cannot be a hujjah against the one who differs with them, and this is correct, if however they have concensus on a matter, then there is no doubt that it is a hujjah, and if they differ then the sayings of some of them cannot be hujjah against others, nor can it be a hujjah against those who come after them. [And from there], we return to the language of the Qur'aan, or the sunnah, or the general language of the Arabs, or the sayings of he sahabah in it. As for tafseer due to mere opinion, then that is forbidden." - See Majmoo' al-Fatawaa , volume 13/363-370, also see Muqadimmah fee Usool it-Tafseer for Shaykh al-Islaam, found in a small booklet. So in brief summary, for interpretation of the Qur'aan, we are to return to the following: [a.] The Qur'aan. [b.] The Sunnah of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa aalihi wa salam. [c.] The sayings of the Sahabah. [d.] The ijmaa' of the Tabi'een. [e.] The language of the Arabs. Ending here, the next section bi ithnillah, will discuss certain principles in Usool al-Fiqh regarding a sayings of the companions, and what is to be done if sayings differ or conflict. Wallahu tabaraka wa ta'ala a'lam wa ahkam, Bismillah irahman irraheem, wa bihi nasta'een: Necessary Introductions 4: There is no hujjah in the saying of a Sahabi, if another Sahabi differed with him. The differences in the sayings of the companions are of two types: Number 1) Differing in the type ( ikhtilaaf at-tanawu' ), meaning that both statements are correct, or they lead back to one meaning, but the statements differed due to various reasons, from them: -> Naming and mentioning some types of names and their categories, such as their saying in 'at-taghoot' that it is ash-Shaytaan, or al-Kaahin, or as-Sanam; and this is all correct and leads back to one correct meaning. -> Reffering to one meaning, but using different words, such as saying as-Saarim or al-Muhannad, and they are all words for as-Sayf (examples of such can be found in the English language too). Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullah says of this: 'And these two groups, that were mentioned in the different ways of interpreting the Qur'aan can be at times due to using different (tanawu) names and attributes, and at times due to mentioning the different types and their categories, like using examples, and this is what is mostly found in the interpretations of the Salaf of this Ummah, that people might think are contradictory (mukhtalaf) - See Majmoo' al-Fatawaa , volume 13/340. Number 2) Contradictory differing ( ikhtilaaf at-tudhaad ): Where the two statements are differing in reality, and there is no way you can compromise or juxtapose them, and there is no doubt that one of them has to be correct, and the other wrong, or both wrong. If the sayings of the sahabah are contradictory then, then there is no hujjah in either of them, and one is obliged to see which of the sayings is stronger, and this is the mathhab of the four a`immah, and the majority of the scholars of this ummah: Abu 'Umar bin 'Abdilbarr said, "And as-Samati narrates that Abu Haneefah said in a matter of [contradiction] amongst two sahabah: 'One if two sayings is wrong, and the wrong one is to be rejected (mawdoo').'" - See Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm , volume 2/83. Ibn 'Abdilbarr also said, "Maalik said in the matter of differing amongst the sahabah of the Prophet - s -, 'One is wrong, and one is right and it is upon you to do ijtihaad'" - See Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm , volume 2/81. Imaam ash-Shafi'ee rahimahullah said, "[What] Do you see [in]the statements of the companions of the Prophet of Allah, if they differ? So I [ash-Shafi'ee] said, 'We take from it what agrees with the Book or the Sunnah or the Ijmaa' or what is most correct in analogy ( qiyaas ).'" - See ar-Risaalah with the editing of Ahmad Shaakir, page 596-597. Ibn al-Qayyim said, in his discussion of the principles of the math-hab of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal, rahimahullah, "The third principle of his principles: If the companions differ, then you are to follow from them, what is closer to Book and the Sunnah, and we are not to go out of their statements, and if it does not come clear to us what agrees most, then we are to state there is a difference of opinion and we are not to stick to one statement." - See I'laam al-Muwaqi'een , vol. 1/31. Ibn Taymiyyah said: "And as for the statements of the companions: If they are popular and no one criticised them in their era, then it is a hujjah according to the majority of scholars, and if they differ [i.e the companions], then it is to be returned to Allah and the Prophet, and the statements of some of them, with the differing of others is not to be considered a hujjah, with the agreement of all the scholars" - See Majmoo' al-Fatawaa , volume 20/14. Also, Shaykh al-Islaam adds: "And whoever from the scholars said that a statement of a sahabi is a hujjah, then he said it if he knows that there is no sahabi to differ with him over it, and that there is no text [Qur'aan or Sunnah] that contradicts it - [until he says] - but if there is a difference that is found, then the statement [of the sahabi] is not a hujjah, with full agreement [of the scholars]." - al-Fatawaa , vol. 1/283-284. Also Abu 'Umar bin 'Abdulbarr recalls a lengthy discussion on this matter in his great book, Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilmi wa Fadlih , under a chapter entitled: "An Anthology of Evidences Regarding What is Required of the Person Concerning the Differences of Scholars". In this chapter he mentions the following, and this is a brief summary, and return to the book if you are interested to know further: - The fuqahaa` have differed on this matter into two parties, one says it is permissable to take whatever statement you want, as long as it is known that there is no mistake in it, or a difference with an ayah, or a hadeeth or the ijmaa' of the scholars; if he finds any of these, he cannot follow it or adopt the statement as proof. And this is the school of 'Umar bin 'Abdul'azeez, and al-Qaasim bin Muhammed and Sufyaan ath-Thawri, and their proof is his saying - s: "My companions are like the stars, so whomever you follow, you will be guided". And he adds, [i.e. Ibn 'Abdulbarr]: "And this is a weak school according to a group of the people of knowledge, and most of the fuqahaa` and people of opinion ( nathr ), have rejected it." Also note that the hadeeth that is used as proof has been declared da'eef according to al-Bazzaar and Ibn 'Abdulbarr and Ibn Hazm aswell. - As for Maalik, ash-Shafi'ee and whoever followed them, and also al-Layth bin Sa'd, and al-Awzaa'ee, and Abi Thawr, who said that if two statements contradict, then there is a correct one and an incorrect one, and what is obligatory when it comes to the difference of opinion is to follow the proofs from the Book and the Sunnah and the Ijmaa' and Qiyaas. And Ibn 'Abdulbarr, the great Imaam, talks much about this matter, so refer back to his beneficial book, between pages 80 and 90 of volume 2 of his book. Also you may want to refer to al-Ihkaam for al-Aamidi (a detailed book in Usool), volume 4/155-160; and al-Ihkaam for Ibn Hazm (a useful detailed book in Usool), vol. 5/67-68; and I'laam al-Muwaqi'een for Ibn al-Qayyim, volume 4/118, and Irshaad al-Fuhool for ash-Shawkaani, (a highly recommended book in Usool for a beginner student of knowledge), page 226. So as you can see, the talk on this matter is much amongst the people of knowledge, and I have resorted to only mentioning the saying of the four mathaahib in it, as that is more than enough for us I believe. I will end here, I hope this post is clear, room for questions will be made at the end of the discussion bi ithn illah. And I end by saying: And Allah knows best, and we ask Him alone to increase us in knowledge and taqwa. Necessary Introductions 5: al-Kufr and Kufr, what is the difference? Bismillah, alhamdulilah was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasool illah, wa ba'd: Necessary Introductions 5: Kufr that is signified with "al", (al-kufr), means al-kufr al-akbar. It is crucial for us to know, that there is a difference between the word "al-kufr", if it comes in this manner: kufr, kaafir, kufaar, kaafiroon, and if it comes in this manner: al-kufr, al-kaafir, al-kufaar and al-kaafiroon. And in this Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullah said: "There is a difference between the kufr which is signified with the laam such as the his saying, - s -: "There is nothing between the slave, and al-kufr and al-shirk except leaving as-salah"; and between kufr which is not signified (munakar fil-ithbaat)" - See Iqtidaa as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem page 69 of al-Madani print, or page 79 of the version published by Daar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah. So if we have the word 'kufr' alone, then it could mean al-kufr al-akbar or al-kufr al-asghar, and this is only in the sunnah, as for the Qur'aan, then every type of kufr mentioned there is kufr akbar without exception. As for kufr, that comes identified and signified, then what is meant by it is nothing but al-kufr al-akbar, this is because adding "al" in the language of the Arabs means that the speaker is trying to give the full meaning of the word, (to be explained), and there is no difference amongst the linguists on this matter. For example, if I were to say: Hamza ash-Shujaa' (Hamza, the Brave one) that would by default mean, that Hamza has reached full and complete qualities in bravery, if however I were to say Hamza Shujaa', then that would mean that he has some qualities (or perhaps all) of bravery, and to read up more on this, recommended books include: al-Iydaah fee 'Uloom al-Balaaghah , for al-Khateeb al-Qazweenee (around page 101, of the print Daar al-Kutub al'Ilmiyyah produce), and any of the famous books of 'Abdulqaahir al-Jurjaani in the science of al-Balaaghah (such as Min Dalaa`il al-I'jaaz fee 'Ilm il-Ma'aani , page 189), also Ibn al-Qayyim mentions something on this note in his as-Salah (which I have lost now), if my memory does not fool me. After establishing this, if I were to say: Bush al-Kaafir, then I mean that I have ruled upon him with al-kufr al-akbar which leads to explusion from this religion, due to the "al" that came to signify and elaborate that full and complete kufr has been found in this man; likewise then is the ayah in Surat al-Maa'idah, "fa`ulaa`ika humm ul-kaafiroon ", this means that those people have reached the complete kufr. al-Lajnah ad-Daa`imah has issued a fatwa on this matter, in the reply to question 5226: "As for the type of kufr in His ta'ala, saying: 'Wa man lam yahkum bimaa anzal allah fa`oolaa`ika hummul-kaafiroon", then it is kufrun akbar ", fatwa issued by: 'Abdullah bin Qu'ood, 'Abdullah bin Ghudyaan, 'Abdurazzaq 'Afeefee, and 'Abdul'azeez bin Baaz. -See Fatawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa`imah lil-Buhooth al-'Ilmiyyah wal-Iftaa` , collected by ad-Diwayish, volume 20/93. And yes, I am aware of the explanation that these scholars came with later, but it is clear from this that they have stated that the origin in the ayah is al-kufr al-akbar. There are many additional quotes for Shaykh al-Islaam and his student Ibn al-Qayyim on this matter of linguistics, (see for example Majmoo' al-Fatawa , volume 6/471 and 7/115, and see Mukhtasar as-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah , page 16, of Daar al-Kutub al'Ilmiyyah print) - but I will resort to using shorter, more concise quotes: al-Qaadi Shihaabadeen al-Quraafi said: "And if the speaker is the shar' [i.e. the revealed texts], we carry the His statement upon the way in which He uses it throughout". - See Sharh Tanqeeh al-Mafsool , Daar al-Fikr print, page 211. What is meant by al-Qaadi al-Quraafi's quote is explained in the following: Allah - subhanahu wa ta'ala - uses the word "kufr" in the Qur'aan to always indicate al-kufr al-akbar, and there is not one single reference to indicate other than al-kufr al-akbar, therefore we cannot carry the statement to mean otherwise unless that has been clarified by Allah - swt -, or has been clarified by the Prophet - s. And to affirm this, Shaykh 'Abdullateef bin 'Abdurahman aal-ash-Shaykh says: "And the terms thulm, al-ma'siyyah, al-fusooq, al-fujoor, al-mawalaat, al-ma'aadaat, ar-rukoon, and ash-shirk, and similar to those terms, which are found in the Qur'aan or Sunnah, what is meant by them is their full wording (musamahaa al-mutlaq), and it's full reality (haqeeqatiha al-mutlaqah), and this is the origin according to the usooliyeen, as for the second (meaning, i.e. to carry it as kufr asghar, etc.) then this cannot be carried upon, unless we are provided with a pronounced (lathfiyyah)or meaning (ma'nawiyyah) divertive evidence (qareenah), and this is only known through the explanation of the Messenger (bayaanin nabawiy), or tafseer of the sunnah, Allah ta'ala says: "Wa maa arsalna min rasoolin illa bilisaani qawmihi liyubayina lahum", Ibraheem 4 (and we have not sent a Prophet except with the tongue of his people, so that he may make matters clear for (bayyin) them)." - See, ar-Rasaa`il al-Mufeedah , for Shaykh 'Abdullateef, collected by Sulaymaan bin Sahmaan, pages 21-22. What is meant by Shaykh 'Abdullateef, is that the origin is to take the words - which has come in the Qur'aan or the saying of the Prophet, s - upon the complete, unlimited meaning, and to carry the word kufr upon that, meaning kufr akbar, unless we have a substituting and diverting statement from the Prophet - s -, proof of such a matter lies in the hadeeth of the Prophet - s - were he mentions the kufr of 'asheer (provisions, life sustenance), in his advice to women, so the sahabah asked: "do they disbelieve in Allah?", so he - s - said: "They disbelieve (meaning, reject) (yakfurana) al'asheer and al-ihsaan (life sustenance and good doing)", collected by al-Bukhaari under the chapter "Kufr duna kufr", in the book of Imaan on his saheeh. And the proof of this is clear, for when the Prophet - s - said: "yakfuruna", the sahabah immediately carried it out to be kufr akbar, "yakfuruna billah?" (do they disbelieve in Allah?), and it was only then that the Prophet - s - told them that this disbelief, this kufr, is otherwise (i.e. it is al-kufr al-asghar). Likewise, Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalaani says in his Fath : "The shaari' has defined that if the word 'shirk' is mentioned, then what is meant is what opposes tawheed, and this word has been repeated in the Book, and the ahadeeth, and nothing is meant by it except this" - See, Fath al-Baari , volume 1/65 (and you can see vol. 1/91 in the new Daar as-Salaam print of the book, with the short uncompleted commentry of Shaykh 'Abdul'azeez bin Baaz, rahimahullah). Furthermore, Abu Hayyaan al-Andaloosi, the great linguist and mufassir said: "And if the term al-kufr is mentioned, then it means kufr in deen" - See tafseer al-Bahr al-Muheet , volume 3/493. Update, and from the contemoraries, is Shaykh Muhammed bin Saalih al-'Uthaymeen who affirmed this principle in Hukm Taarik as-Salah, found here: http://www.salafi.net/books/htarik.html. A Reply to a Doubt Some people may then ask about the statements of Ibn 'Abbass, where he was asked about entering upon a woman through her anus, and he replied with an answer such as: "thaalik al-kufr". In reply to that, we say: The linguistic principle is an established principle amongst the people of this art, and due to that, whatever we have, we have to measure it out according to it. Knowing that then: [a.] For the statement of Ibn 'Abbass to be understood, I am certain that there would have had to been a divertive evidence from the context of the statement, which makes it go from al-kufr al-akbar to al-kufr al-asghar, this qareenah ( divertive evidence ), may be pronounced in the discussion, or it may be due to the context of the situation (i.e. Ibn 'Abbass knew that this man had prior knowledge of a matter, etc.). [b.] There are various statements attributed to Ibn 'Abbass on this matter, I ask those who try to use this one evidence to demolish an entire principle, agreed upon by the people of linguistics, to bring proof that Ibn 'Abbass, did not - for some time at the least - believe that entering a woman in that manner is from al-kufr al-akbar (and see ash-Shawkaani's Nayl al-Awtaar or any well known book of jurisprudence, to see the various sayings attributed to Ibn 'Abbass). [c.] This is a principle established amongst the people of knowledge and some have been named above, I would put it very far, if they had not come across these statements attributed to Ibn 'Abbass, and not understood them in a way other than the way those claimants want to understand them. [d.] As has been mentioned by the scholars above, they said that this rule applies to the Qur'aan and Sunnah - they didn't mention the sayings of the sahabah, but as it is a linguistic rule, it must include that also, wallahu a'lam. In summary then: we say, the origin of the ayah is al-kufr al-akbar due to the evidences provided above, and more. I will end here, hoping that this comes in much benefit to the youth and people of tawheed, we ask Allah to increase us in knowledge and taqwa. The next section will be - most likely - on the matter of istihlaal and its meaning, etc. And Allah knows best, and is more wise. Necessary Introductions 6: General and Specific rulings Bismillah irahman iraheem, wa bihi nasta'een: Necessary Introductions 6: The point is with the generality of the statement, not the restriction of the cause And here we begin with an important principle, from the principles of usool al-fiqh, and it is that al'Ibrah bi'umoom illafth, laa bikhusoosi-sabbab , that the point/issue is with the generality of the statement, not the restriction of the cause. And here is a translation of what Shaykh Shaykh 'Abdurrahmaan ibn Naasir as-Sa'dee, translated by our beloved brother 'Ali at-Tameemee, hafithahullah: "And: "al-'ibrah bi 'umoomil-lafdh laa bi khusoosi-sabab [the lesson. or consideration is in the generality of the wording, not in its specific cause of legislation]." "The khaass (specific) can mean the 'aam (general); and visa versa, providing the existance of qaraa'in (signs) are indicative of this. "The Khitaab (address) of the Lawgiver to any one of the Ummah, or His Speech in any specific issue, actually includes all the Ummah, and all the specific issues, unless there is an evidence indicative of it being khaass (specific). Likewise, the asl (basic principle) conecring the cations of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam is that his Ummah is to take him as a model and an example to follow, except when there exists an evidence indicative of that being specific to him." We know that the Prophet - s - was sent to people collectively, as Allah - swt - said: "And We have not sent you but to all the men as a bearer of good news and as a warner, but most men do not know." - (Surat Saba`: 38) So when the Prophet - s - said for example, to one menstrating woman: "If menstration comes, then leave as-Salah" (Agreed upon), he was talking to one woman in specific, but we know that the ruling is general for every woman until the day of Judgement. Likewise, in the hadeeth of the man who came to ask the Prophet - s - about his condition after he had shaved his hair before slaughtering an animal, so the Prophet - s - said: "Slaughter, and there is no shame" (Agreed upon). These are two examples to a general ruling, although the situation is specific. Sometimes however, we have certain incidents where the Prophet of Allah - s - would restrict a ruling for a person in specific, such as his saying to Abu Burdah: Abu Burda slaughtered (the sacrifice) before the ('Id) prayer whereupon the Prophet said to him, "Slaughter another sacrifice instead of that." Abu Burda said, "I have nothing except a Jadha'a." (Shu'ba said: Perhaps Abu Burda also said that Jadha'a was better than an old sheep in his opinion.) The Prophet said, "(Never mind), slaughter it to make up for the other one, but it will not be sufficient for anyone else after you." - See: Saheeh al-Bukhaari : Volume 7, Book 68, Number 464. So this ruling is specificly for Abu Burda, due to his saying - s -: "..but it will not be sufficient for anyone else after you." The above evidences were used by Imaam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, in al-Burhaan fee Usool il-Fiqh , volume 1/370-371, so revise it for more. In a brief and short summary, ending here, as the main point I wanted to make is that: a statement is general as long as there is no proof that it is specific, i.e.: the lesson. or consideration is in the generality of the wording, not in its specific cause of legislation. And with this, the ayah in surat al-Maa`idah is general in all the Muslimeen and kufaar: " wa man lam yahkum bimaa anzal Allah...", and it is general ('aam) due to the manner ( seeghah ) it is has come: "wa man" (whoever). The scholars of Usool al-Fiqh talked much on this matter, and any promiment book of Usool is sufficient for the one who wants to find out more, see for example: Muthakirah fee Usool al-Fiqh for ash-Shinqeeti, al-Ihkaam for al-Aamidi and al-Mustasfaa for al-Ghazaali, they discuss the matters and things that make something general, and how we know what is general and what is not, and what are the mannerisms ( siyagh ) by which something is known to be general or specific, and so on. Introductory Point 7: The Saying of a Sahabi, this ayah was revealed in such-and-such Bismillah irahman iraheem, wa bihi nasta'een: Introductory Point 7: The Saying of a Sahabi, this ayah was revealed in such and such an event, is not a restriction upon it. From our principles of which we must know is: that the saying of a companion, that "this ayah was revealed in such-and-such an event" is not a specification (takhsees) of the ayah . The proof in that, is our previous principle, that the 'the lesson. or consideration is in the generality of the wording, not in its specific cause of legislation', that may be revised to see evidences for this principle regarding the companions. Furthermore, Shaykh al-Islaam Ahmad bin Taymiyyah, 'alayhi rahmatullah said: "And from that, is their saying [the sahabah]: 'This ayah was revealed in such and such and individual', so by this we have an example of the person whom this ayah was revealed regarding - it was revealed due to him, and he is the cause of the revelation - they did not intend by this to specify this ayah to this person, [examples] are the ayah of Li'aan, ayah of Qadhf, ayah of Muhaarabah, and similar to it. No Muslims says it is restricted and specific to the one whom it was revealed regarding. "And the general term (al-lafth al'aam), if a group say that this ayah is restricted to such, then they mean by it, the type of person, that is was revealed due to - they never meant by their saying, that this ayah is restricted to that person whom it was revealed due to "So no Muslim says that the ayah of Thihaar [in Surat al-Mujaadilah], did not concern anyone [or is restricted to] Aws bin Saamit, and the ayah of Li'aan, did not concern anyone [or is restricted to] 'Aasim bin 'Udayy, or Hilaal bin Umayyah: and that the ayaat of dispraise (thamm) of the kufaar, do not include anyone but the kufaar of Quraysh; and similar to this, which no Muslim nor intelligent person would say. "For Muhammed - s - it is known, from the necessities of his religion, that he is sent to all Jinn and Mankind, and Alah - swt - addressed both thaqalayn (man and jinn), as He said: "I will warn you with it [the Qur'aan], and whomever it reaches". So whomever this Qur'aan reaches, from Jinn or Man, then the Prophet - s - has warned him with it. And warning is to inform someone of something frightening, and the frightening thing is the punishment of Allah, ta'ala; and [he - s - also informed], that whoever obeys [Allah], then Allah - ta'ala - will be kind to him." - See Majmoo' al-Fataawa , volume 16/138-139. Also, Shaykh al-Islaam talks much about this elsewhere, using very similar words as the above, see: Majmoo' al-Fataawa , volume 13/338-339. I do not need to translate it, as he recalls almost the same stuff as above. Moreover, Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah says, "And the ayaat that Allah brought down unto Muhammed - s - in it, is an addressing to all creation from mankind and Jinn, because his message is for all thaqalayn generally, even though from the reasons that the ayah was revealed, was due to what was amongst the Arabs, but nothing from the ayaat is restricted due to the specific reason that it was revealed due to, and this is with agreement of all the Muslimeen, but they differed: Does the ayah become restricted due to the type of cause ? As for the specific reason it was revealed, then none of the Muslimeen have said that: the ayaat of talaaq or thihaar, or li'aan, or the hadd of as-sariqah and al-muharibeen are restricted to the specific individuals they were revealed regarding." - See Majmoo' al-Fataawa , volume 19/14. Therefore, no one can say that the ayaat in Surat al-Maa`idah, are restricted to the people they were revealed due to (the Jews), rather they are general. The differing may come down to: is the type of cause (that the ayah was revealed for) what we have to always pay attention to, when applying this ayah or can we apply it on it's generality and it's manifestation (thaahir). In this there is differing amongst the people of knowledge and this will be discussed, in the coming posts, bi ithnillah. Ending here we say, Allah - swt - knows best, and is more wise. Whatever good is from Allah, and all mistakes and evil are mine and the shaytaans, subhanak allahumma wa bihamdika, nash-hadu al-laa ilaha illa ant, nastaghfiruka wa natoobu ilayk. Introductory Point 8: Using ayaat revealed regarding the disbelievers, unto believers Bismillah irahman iraheem, wa bihi nasta'een: Introductory Point 8: Using ayaat revealed regarding disbelievers, unto believers and examples of that. From the matters related to our two previous posts, is this: an ayah can be revealed regarding the kufaar, except that you can use it as evidence against Muslims, as long as its wording is general and does not carry an restrictions. And from the examples of such are the following (and there are hundreds for the matter): 1) Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, said: "And the Mujrimeen [criminals, polytheists, sinners] shall see the Fire and apprehend that they have to fall therein. And they will find no way of escape from there. And indeed We have put forth every kind of example in the Qur'an, for mankind. But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything. And nothing prevents men from believing, (now) when the guidance (the Qur'an) has come to them, and from asking forgiveness of their Lord, except that the ways of the ancients be repeated with them (i.e. their destruction decreed by Allah), or the torment be brought to them face to face? And We send not the Messengers except as givers of glad tidings and warners. But those who Disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the Truth thereby. And they treat My Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and that with which they are warned, as a jest and mockery! - (Surat al-Kahf: 53-56). It is clear, from the above, that this ayah was revealed regarding the kufaar, yes the Prophet - sallalahu 'alayhi wa aalihi wa salam - used it as proof on 'Ali bin Abi Taalib, radiallahu ta'ala 'anhu, when he requested from 'Ali and Faatimah to awaken and pray in the night, and they made certain excuses, so the Prophet - s - said: "But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything." And the hadeeth, can be found in al-Bukhaari's collection, no. 1127 and 7347. 2) His saying, sallallahu 'alayhi wa aalihi wa salam, "A people who let a woman take control of their affairs, will not be successful", collected by al-Bukhaari, and this hadeeth came, or was transmitted because the leaders of Persia had given the monarchy to the daughter of Kisra, but the companion Abu Bakrah, radiallahu ta'ala 'anhu, used it against 'Aa`ishah, radiallahu ta'ala 'anha, on the day of the Jamal, see al-Bukhaari's Saheeh, hadeeth no. 7099. 3) Allah - swt - saying: "Say [O Muhammad (sallallaahu 'alayhe wa sallam)] Allah rescues you from this and all [other] distresses, and yet you worship others besides Allah. Say: "He has the power to send torment on you from above or from under your feet, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, and make you taste the violence of one another." See how variously We explain the Ayaat [proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.] so that they may understand." - (Surat al-An'aam: 64-65). And so, this is a warning to the Mushrikeen, "and yet you worship others besides Allah". Despite that however, the Prophet - s - used these ayaat, and took it to also apply to the Muslims; due to what al-Bukhaari collects from the authority of Jaabir radiallahu 'anhu who said: "When the following ayah was revealed: "He has the power to send torment on you from above", the Prophet - s - said: "I seek refuge in Your wajh", and then He said: "or from under your feet", so he - s - said: "I seek refuge in Your wajh", then, when this was revealed:"or to cover you with confusion in party strife, and make you taste the violence of one another", he - s - said: "This is easier, or this is less suffering". And you can revise, hadeeth no. 4628, in al-Bukhaari's Saheeh. As I said, the evidences for this principle are plentiful, but the above is enough I believe. And know, that was the same argument used by the enemies of the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammed bin 'Abdilwahaab, so they criticised him for using ayaat revealed concerning the kufaar, and using them on believers - such as the ayaat about the kufr of the one who calls on other than Allah, and seeks help (ighaathah) from them - such as the the claim of the Mufti of Makkah then, Zeenee Dahlaan, "And he held unto [i.e. Ibn 'Abdilwahaab]to do takfeer, the ayaat revealed due to the Mushrikeen, he took them and carried them upon the Muwahideen". So he was refuted by many of the scholars of that blessed da'wah, Shaykh 'Abdullah Abu Biteen said: "And for the saying, of the one who says that these ayaat were revealed concerning the original Mushrikeen, so it does not incluide whomever does what they did in the present age (falaa tatanawal man fa'ala fi'lahum), then this is great disbelief, and this saying is not said by anyone except a ox who's well grounded in ignorance, so does this person say that the punishments in the Qur'aan and Sunnah are only for a specific people who came and went ? So the fornicator is not to be punished today ? And the hands of the thief are not to be cut ? And similar to this ? This saying is something one should be ashamed of. Does this person say that those commanded with prayer and fasting and the rest of the obligations in the Qur'aan, exterminated and so the Qur'aan has become negated?" "Also from their sayings [i.e. the enemies], Shaykh 'Abdullateef bin 'Abdurahmaan aal-ash-Shaykh said, "And from his doubts, is his saying that some of these ayaat were revealed concerning the one who worships idols, and this was revealed in Abu Jahl, and this was revealed in so-and-so, and he tries - qaatallahullah - to negate the Qur'aan, from including people like him and similar to him who worship other than Allah, and equates him with His [true] Lord". "Shaykh 'Abdullateef also said, "And from the reasons that prevent one from understanding the book of Allah, is that they assumed that whatever Allah speaks of concerning the Mushrikeen, and what He ruled upon them, and described them with then that is all concerning a people who no longer exist, and a people from our predeccesors, and a people who have exterminated and do not have ancestors. . . and some of them may have heard the saying of some of the Mufasireen, that 'this ayah was revealed concerning the worshippers of the idols' and 'this is in the Christians', so he assumes, this person, that this is specific for them, and that the ruling does not cross other than them, and this is from the chief reasons that prevent the slave from understaning the Qur'aan and the Sunnah". - See, for all the above, from the statement of Dahlaan to the last quotation, a book called Da'aawil-Munawi`een Lid-da'wat ash-Shaykh Muhammed bin 'Abdilwahaab written by 'Abdul'azeez bin al-'Abdal-Lateef, published by Daar Tayyiba, 1409 AH, pages 227-230. I think my point is clear, so I will end here. And we finish by saying: Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is more wise, and knows best. An important note Bismillah irrahman irraheem, wa bihi nasta'een: An important point regarding my words that the ayaat in Surat al-Maa`idah are general in all the Muslims: Whoever does then he has ruled, and an explanation of it. One may argue, that if this ayah is general in all the Muslims, then that means when a man commits fornication then he has ruled by other than what Allah has revealed. This is true, and Ibn Hazm al-Andaloosi affirms this principle in his marvellous book al-Fisal fil-Milali wal-Ahwaa`i wa-Nihal, where he says, "man fa'ala faqad hakam" (Whoever does then he has ruled), and it was this argument which the Khawaarij used against the soldiers of 'Ali and Mu'aawiyah, they said that these people had committed sins, and whoever commits sins then he has ruled by other then what Allah has revealed, and whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed then he is a kaafir, therefore Ali and Mu'aawiyah's troops are a bunch of kaffarah. That was their argument, and they argued by saying: "man fa'ala faqad hakam". And likewise today, some people may try to use this argument against us. In reply, we say: in the language of the Arabs, words are to be taken upon two meanings, ath-thaahir, i.e. the manifest meaning, and al-mu`awwal, i.e. the interpreted meaning. For example, the word jaar, in it's manifest meaning, is neighbour; in its mu`awwal meaning however, it could mean your wife. But when someone mentions jaar alone, then we are to take it to mean its manifest meaning, which is its complete meaning. Thus if I say, jaari at'abani, (my jaar got me tired) immediately the listener presumes that I am talking about my neighbour, and not my wife. Likewise then, alhukm in its open manifest complete meaning, means judging, judging between two people in a matter from the matters. Its mu`awwal partial meaning however, can be a sin, and this is what was meant by Ibn Hazm. Therefore, the one who for example, commits fornication, he falls partially in the ayah, therefore the partial ruling befalls him (i.e. the full ruling is alkufr, but the partial ruling would be getting flogged). Which is why, in the saying attributed to Ibn 'Abbass, he told the Khawaarij: "laysa alkufr alathee tath-haboona ilayh" (It is not the kufr that which you are going to), because what the armies of 'Ali and Mu'awiyah did falls under al-mu`awwal and not ath-thaahir meaning. I ask Allah to make this clear for us, and to make it benefit the people of tawheed, and its youth in particular. Necessary Introduction 9: Explanation of the Saying of the Salaf... Bismillah, alhamdulilah, wassalatu wasalamu 'ala rasoolillah, wa ba'd: Necessary Introduction 9: An explanation of what was meant by the saying of many of the Salaf: 'And we do not do takfeer of anyone from the People of the Qiblah due to a sin, as long as he does not do istihlaal of it' And this is a popular saying, narrated and attributed authentically to many of the Salaf, and there are slight variants in the wording: sometimes it was 'and we do not do takfeer of anyone due to a sin, as long as he does not do istihlaal it,' and at other times it was, 'and we do not do takfeer of any Muslim due to a sin that that he does not do istihlaal of' and similar to it. The saying mentioned in the subtitle, is the most popular, wallahu a'lam, and the one found in at-Tahawi's 'aqeedah. Nevertheless, we say that this saying is true, although it is not found in the Qur'aan, nor Sunnah, but it is an established saying amongst the people of knowledge, as al-Lalikaa`ee mentions in his book of 'aqeedah, Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl as-Sunnah; but unfortunately many contemporary people who attribute themselves to knowledge have misunderstood this statement to mean that a person does not become a kaafir, even if he does all the mukaffiraat (things that make one a kaafir), as long as he does not do istihlaal of them. And it was for this 'aqeedah, that the Salaf announced the holder of to be a kaafir, as Shaykh al-Islaam mentions in his Fatawaa, voume 7/209; and see also as-Sunnah for Abu Bakr al-Khalaal, page 587, Daar ar-Raayah print, 1410 AH). Know, oh fellow Muwahhid, that is is nothing but the 'aqeedah of the extreme murji'ah, who have unfortunately arisen and become rampant in this day and age. As for what is meant by this statement then, are the sins that are not kufr when done, such as drinking alcohol and commiting fornication and their likes, these sins, if he considers them not haraam, then he disbelieves due to. Sins however, that are disbelief, such as insulting Allah, or insulting His Prophet, sallalahu 'alayhi wa aalihi wa salam, or mocking the ayaat of the Qur'aan, or misusing the mushaf (the copy of the Qur'aan), then istihlaal is not required for the doer of these actions to disbelieve. For that reason, some of the scholars of the Salaf, limited this statement by adding the words, "from the People of the Qiblah", meaning, the people who have not done any actions of disbelief. To prove our statement that what the Salaf meant by "Ahl al-Qiblah" are the Muslims, is the statement of Abu Muhammed al-Hasan al-Barbahaari, "None of the people of the Qiblah leave Islaam unless they reject (yarudd) an ayah from the book of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, or reject any narrations from the Messenger of Allah, sallahu 'alayhi wa salam, or pray to other than Allah, or sacrifice to other than Allah. And if he does any of that, it is obligatory upon you to expel him from Islam. If he does not do any of that, he is a believer and a Muslim in name, even if not in reality." - See Kitaab Sharh as-Sunnah, for Abu Muhammed al-Hasan bin 'Ali bin Khalaf al-Barbahaari, with the editing of Shaykh Muhammed bin Sa'eed al-Qahtaani, page 31, Daar Ibn al-Qayyim print, 1408 AH. Shaykh al-Islaam says: "And for that reason, the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, said in their explanation of the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah, that they do not do takfeer of any of the people of the Qiblah due to sins, reffering [by that] to the innovation of the Khawaarij, who do takfeer due to sin" - See Majmoo' al-Fatawaa, volume 12/474. And Ibn Taymiyyah also says, and I have quoted this earlier in this discussion: "And us, if we say: that Ahl as-Sunnah are upon agreement that a person does not become a kaafir due to sin, then we mean by it the sins such as fornication and drinking [alcohol]". - See al-Imaan , page 214. And Shaykh al-Islaam mentions similar to this, in the following references in his Fatawaa: Volume 7/302 and vol. 20/90, so revise them for benefit. Shaykh Haafith Hikmi (a great scholar from the Salaf) said, "And we do not do takefer of a Believer due to sins except with istihlaal, which we have previously mentioned [in this text], then that does not include disbelief, and what is meant by it are the sins, that are not shirk" - See Ma'aarij al-Qubool, with the commentary of our Shaykh, 'Umar Mahmood Abu 'Umar, commonly knows as Abu Qatadah, volume 2/438. Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari, rahimahullah, says: "And we do not do takfeer of anyone from the people of he Qiblah due to a sin, like fornication and stealing, and similar to that from major sins, and they [i.e. the doers] are believers even though they commited major sins" - See, Maqalaat al-Islamiyeen, al-Maktabah al-'Asriyyah print, volume 1/347. And from the best quotes on this matter, is what Shaykh Muhammed bin 'Abdilwahaab said in his reply to one of his opposers: "And as the third [in some prints, the second, and the former is more correct] matter: And it is from the biggest of your deceptions, which you are trying to use against the people, is that [you said], that the people of knowledge said: 'And it is not permissable to do takfeer of a Muslim due to a sin', this is true, but this is not what we are talking about; because the khawaarij do takfeer of the one who fornicates, and the one who thieves, or sheds blood, and even with every major sin, if a Muslim does them, then he has disbelieved [according to them]. As for Ahl as-Sunnah, then their understanding is that a Muslim cannot disbelieve except due to shirk, and we do not do takfeer of the tawagheet (the false dieties) nor their followers except due to shirk, and you are a person from the ignorant of people, you assume that whoever prays and claims to be a Muslim then he does not disbelieve. . . Did you see the companions of the Prophet of Allah - s - when they fought the people who refused to pay az-zakah, and when they wanted to repent, Abu Bakr refused and said, 'We will not accept your repentance until you bear witness that our killed ones are in paradise, and yours in hellfire - do you think Abu Bakr and his companions don't understand, and you and your father understand? Woe to you, oh ignorant one, oh man of contructed ignorance if you believe this!" - See ar-Rasaa`il ash-Shakhsiyyah lish-Shaykh Muhammed bin 'Abdilwahaab, Jaam'iat al-Imaam Muhammed bin Su'ood print, page 233-234. Proving all that has been said above, is the ijmaa' of the Sahabah, radiallahu 'anhum, for they have unanimously agreed that the one who drinks alcohol does not become a disbeliever until he makes istihlaal of it, as in the event of Qudaamah bin Math'oon (who drank alcohol, thinking it was permissable for him, so they established the hujjah, and 'Umar said, had he stayed upon what he had thought, we would have killed him as a kaafir); like they have an ijmaa' that the person who comes with acts of kufr, then he disbelieves, even if he does not do istihlaal of them, such as abandoning as-salah, and we have established earlier that the ijmaa' of the sahabah is a clear and manifest and undisputable evidence. I have lengthened in this point, as I think it is very important due to the fact that many contemporaries have foolishly attempted to deceive the people by saying that we cannot do takfeer of someone who comes with acts of kufr, unless he declares them permissable, and we seek refuge in Allah from these blatant lies. I ask Allah 'azza wa jall to benefit from this, and to raise up a generation of youth who learn and act upon their knowledge. Necessary Introduction 10: On alistihlaal Bismillah, alhamdulilah, was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasoolillah: Necessary Introduction 10: Meaning of alistihlaal, the ruling upon it, and examples of it. 1. Meaning: alistihlaal technically means, in Sharee'ah terminology: making something that Allah has prohibted, halal on a personal or general (i.e. imposing) level. 2. Ruling: It's major kufr, evidences: [a.] From the book of Allah: 'The postponing (of a Sacred Month) is indeed an addition to disbelief: thereby the disbelievers are led astray, for they make it lawful one year and forbid it another year in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah, and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their deeds seems pleasing to them. And Allah guides not the people, who disbelieve.' - (Surat at-Tawbah: 37). So here, Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, shows to us how making halaal, what is haraam is only an increase in kufr, and an increase in kufr is kufr; more in this ayah will come up in this discussion, bi ithnillah. [b.] From the Sunnah: the hadeeth of al-Baraa` bin 'Aazib, radiallahu 'anhu, who said: "My uncle, al-Haarith bin 'Amro passed by me, and he had a banner that the Prophet - s - had signed for, so I asked him [about it], so he said: The Prophet of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, sent me to kill a man who married his fathers wife." - See: Imaam Ahmad's Musnad, Abu Dawood's collection, an-Nisaa'i, Ibn Maajah, and Ibn al-Qayyim considered it hasan in his Tahtheeb Sunan Abi Dawood, and al-Albaani considered it saheeh in his Irwaa` al-Ghaleel. Ibn Jareer comments on this hadeeth, and says: "So this act of his - marrying his fathers wife - was the strongest of proofs that he denied (taktheeb) of the Prophet of Allah, sallalahu 'alayhi wa salam, and his rejection (juhood) of a muhkam ayah, for that reason whoever does it (man fa'alahu), he was ruled with killing, and the striking of his neck. For that reason, the Prophet sallalahu 'alayhi wa salam, ordered his killing and the striking of his neck, for this is the sunnah of the apostate in Islaam" - See Tahtheeb al-Athaar, volume 2/148. Shaykh 'Abdul'azeez bin 'Abdullateef says in his book, Nawaaqid al-Imaan al-Qawliyyah wal-'Amaliyyah in the footnote under that hadeeth, page 328: "And compare what you read and what happens in Muslim societies, when the ruling entities in those Muslim countries allowed places of interest, fornication, alcohol and so on from the prohibted things, and it licensed those evil things, even imposing those evil things, and defending them and strengthening them, not only this, but these governments have also allowed alliance to the kufaar, under the pretext of 'benefit', and 'living together friendily' and Allah is the only helper". [c.] The ijmaa' of the Sahabah: In the story of Qudaamah bin Math'oon who drank alchohol thinking it was halaal for him, due to his wrong ta`weel of the following ayah: "Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate. . . " - (Surat al-Maa`idah: 93). So 'Umar explained the mistake in his ta`weel to him, and the sahabah agreed that if Qudaamah affirms that alcohol is forbidden then he is to be flogged, if he however insisted on it being halaal then he would have been killed an apostate. And the hadeeth is narrated by 'Abdurazzaaq, with a saheeh isnaad, as Ibn Hajr said in Fath al-Baari, volume 13/141. And so these evidences prove that whether istihlaal is done on a personal level, or a general imposing level then it is kufr. From this you understand that it is not a condition for istihlaal to be kufr to make it a law, rather it can be kufr even on a personal level (i.e. I believe alcohol to be permissable, as in the case of Qudaamah). How istihlaal is done: [a.]Orally: such as in the aformentioned ayah in Surat at-Tawbah, on an-Nasee`(the postponing of sacred months), and what used to be done is that a man would raise up during the time of Hajj - in Jaahiliyyah, before Islaam - and would announce that he has made the month of Muhharam in the next year not-sacred, and he has made the month of Safar sacred instead. Also, we have the case of Qudaamah who made istihlaal by tongue too. [b.]By writing: because writing takes the place of speaking, which is why we have the fiqhi principle: 'Writing is like Addressing/Talking' (al-Kitaab kalkhitaab). See - Sharh al-Qawaa'id al-Fiqhiyyah for Shaykh Ahmad al-Zarqaa, page 285, Daar al-Gharb al-Islaami print, 1403 AH; and al-Mughni Ma' ash-Sharh al-Kabeer for Ibn Qudaamah, volume 11/326-327, published by Daar al-Awqaaf in Saudi Arabia. Examples of istihlaal: [a.]Orally: The swearing in act when a man is to become a ruler, he swears by the constitution, and how he will stick to it, and protect it, and in these man-made constitutions we have the permissable made impermissable, and the impermissable made permissable. [b.]Writing: What these constitutions have written of them, making forbidden things permissable, such as interest, alcohol, gambling and fornication and adultery, and how they permit the blood of a Muslim for the blood of a kaafir, and the examples of this are many, and take many forms: - From it, is the obligation to rule by the forbidden, as we read in the constitutions: 'Ruling in the Courts is with the Law', and this law is falsehood, and forbidden and disbelief; but they make it an obligation to rule by it, and imposing is greater than making a matter permissable, for the permissable, you have a choice, you can do it, and you can not do it, but imposing something means that if you do not do it, you get punished. For that reason, these people (law-makers), they punish those who do not rule by their man-made laws. - From it, is making the blood of a Muslim permissable without an Islaamic shar'ee reason, so that if a Muslim was to rebel against one of them apostates - whom it is obligatory to remove - his blood would become permissable and they would kill him, and this man, this Mujaahid, who is fulfilling an Islaamic obligation would be killed and his blood would is considered halaal by the law. - From it aswell, is their permittance of forbidden things, such as providing licences for interest-based banks, and the opening of bars, and dance clubs and gambling (betting) places, and prostitute homes (brothels), and so on. And licensing (at-tarkhees) is like permitting something as Ibn Manthoor says in Lisaan al-'Arab under that entrance. Whoever makes something on which there is an ijmaa' on permissable, disbelieves with ijmaa' as Ibn Taymiyyah mentions in Majmoo' al-Fatawaa, volume 3/267. We see, in this day and age, some states claiming to be Islaamic, and rule by the Book and the Sunnah, yet they give licences and permit interest banks, and this alone is enough to do takfeer of those governments, for this is licencing and permitting and allowing interest, on which there is an ijmaa' that is prohibted. - From it, is their silence on criminal acts that Allah has made forbidden, which means that it is permissable in their law, because their laws state: 'No crime, or punishment except with the principles of the law'. Supporting this statement, is the statement of one of the men who legistlated laws in Egypt, who said: "And the matter which the law does not consider a crime, then it is permitted in origin, with respect to [or in the eyes of] the authority. . ." - See Sharh Qaanoon al-'Uqoobaat, for Doctor Mahmood Mustafa, page 14, Jaam'iat al-Qaahirah print, edition 10, 1983 print. Therefore, according to this, apostasy could be permissable, because these man-made laws do not punish due to it, so if a man insulted Allah or His Prophet, he is not punished instantly; but if he insults the King who rules the country, then he would have been punished due to that, because these constitutions that are put in place in the lands of the Muslims today state that the King/Ruler is infallible and cannot be criticised! Furthermore, we can also say then that according to these man-made laws, fornication is permissable, and alcohol is permissable, and music is permissable, and dancing in public and so on . . . I will end here, and may possibly add an additional point or two in this post. This will be the last of the necessary introductions bi ithnillah, and the reason why all this has been written is because I wanted to make the matter clearer for our dear readers, and to make them understand the principles, and the fundementals to this matter, so that when one of the arguers for the rulers of shirk comes along and says a few words and mentions a few principles, you would know how to deal with him, and put him in his place of loss. I ask Allah 'azza wa jall to benefit us from what has been written here, subhanakallahumma wa bihamdik, nash-hadu al-laa ilaha illa ant, nastaghifruka wa natoobu ilayk. Section B: The evidences of the disbelief . . . Bismillah, alhamdulilah was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasool illah, wa ba'd: The textual evidences on the kufr of the rulers by other than what Allah has revealed After the introductory section which dealt with the matters related to this topic, although not the main issue of the discussion, we will move on to the crux of the matter, and that is the evidences and proof for the disbelief of those rulers who rule by other than the sharee'ah of the creator. So we say, and Allah is our sole helper: There are three manattaat (main elements) of disbelief in this matter of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed: 1) Not ruling by what Allah has revealed: because ruling by man-made laws consequently means leaving what Allah has revealed and decreed for it, and for Allah is a ruling and a judgement in every matter. 2) Making or inventing a law other than the law of Allah: and these are the man-made laws themselves that we are talking about here. 3) Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed: meaning ruling by this law, that is contradictory and against the law of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. Everyone of these three manattaat is disbelief in itself, and the portion that those rulers who rule our lands today receive of it depends on what they have actually done; as for the president and the ruler himself, then all three are found in everyone of them. Likewise, the parliaments and assemblies, i.e. the legislative council, then all three are found too, for he is the one who invents the law (manaat two) and likewise he permits it and rules by it (manattaat one and three). Likewise, the ministries of 'justice' also fall into this category as they are the ones who discuss its permissibility and what is to be legislated and what is not to be legislated and so on. As for the judges, the qudaat, then manaat one and three are found in them, as they do not legislate any laws, but rather they rule by them and do not rule by what Allah has revealed. In that, if he were to decree that a thieve is to be jailed, then he has not ruled by what Allah has revealed (that is to cut his hand), and ruled by other than it and that 'other' is what they - the councils in charge and ruler - have legislated for it. In certain countries, the judges take the role of legislating as well, so that three manaattaat of disbelief are found in them. In the following, we will seek to establish the decree of Allah - subhanahu wa ta'ala - in those rulers today, and an elucidation of their kufr: First manaat of disbelief: Not ruling by what Allah has revealed (tarkul-hukm bimaa anzal Allah) Proof that it is kufr is His saying, subhanah: 'And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers', (Surat al-Maa`idah: 44). Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala here makes the ruling of disbelief based simply on not ruling by what He has revealed, and not on ruling by other that it. The ayah is general, and is defined and signified by "al" (as has been explained in the introductory points), so it is major kufr; based on this, some scholars of Islaam have stated that leaving ruling by what Allah has revealed in one matter from the matters then that person is a kaafir, whether he was ruling by what Allah has revealed generally, or not, and no one is exempted from this except the mistaken mujtahid. Note however, that this opinion will be discussed further, and it will become clearer to the reader that this is in fact a slightly less popular view amongst the scholars of the Salaf, but nonetheless it is a valid opinion with its strong evidences, and in addition this is irrelevant to the rulers today as they have not only ruled by other than what Allah has revealed, but they have also legislated and ruled by their man-made legislations, thus fulfilling the second and third manattaat of disbelief. Coming up next will be a detailed explanation of the second manaat of kufr, with the help of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. Subhanakallahumma wa bihamdik, ash-hadu al-laa ilaha illa ant, astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilayk. Evidences: Second main element of kufr Bismillah, alhamdulillah was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasool illah: The textual evidences on the kufr of the rulers by other than what Allah has revealed: The Second manaat of kufr And the second manaat of disbelief is as has been mentioned: Legislating that which Allah has not permitted, meaning, making or inventing a law other than the law of Allah. It has been already stated, in the first post - the introduction - that legislation and judgement is solely for Allah, as He, subhanahu wa ta'ala says: "Verily ruling is only for Allah" and "And none share in His ruling". Upon that, anyone who makes and invents a law that contradicts Allah's law, then he has made himself a partner with Allah, and made himself a god for people, and he disbelieves due to that, and with all these things due to the following evidences: Number one: "Do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion, what Allah has not permitted?", surat ash-Shoora: 21. It is clear then, and established that whoever legislates what Allah has not permitted, then he has made himself a partner in ruboobiyyah with Allah and associate with Him subhanah. And the meaning of "in the religion" is the law, and the system, as this is form the meanings of "relgion", as Allah speaks of Yoosuf 'alayhis-salaam, and says "It is was not for him to take his brother into the religion of the king, and the 'religion' here is the sharee'ah of that king. In the tafseer of this ayah, Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah said: 'And His saying, may He exalt in His highness:"Do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion, what Allah has not permitted?": meaning, they do not follow what Allah has legislated for you in this upright religion, but rather they follow what their shayateen of jinn and man, and what they have legislated for them of taboos, such as the Bahirah Saa`ibah, Wasilah, or Ham. They also permitted eating flesh and blood of animals not slaughtered for consumption, gambling and other kinds of misguidance, ignorance and falsehood. These are things that they invented during Jahiliyyah, when they came up with all kinds of false rulings on what was permitted and what was forbidden, and false rites of worship and other corrupt ideas." - See Tafseer Ibn Katheer, vol. 4/111. Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullah said of this ayah: "Do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion, what Allah has not permitted?", so whoever makes it acceptable (nadab) for something to seek closeness to Alah with, or made it obligatory with his words or actions without Allah permitting so, then he has legislated in the religion what Allah has not permitted, an whoever follows him in that then he has taken [that man] as a partner with Allah, he has legislated for him in the religion what Allah has not permitted" - See Iqtidaa` as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem, page 267 of al-Madani print. Number two: His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala, "And none shares in His ruling" (Surat al-Kahf: 26) The same that was said in the above evidence is said here, and that is whoever legislates that which Allah has not permitted then he has made himself a partner with Allah ta'ala. I will quote the tafseer of Shaykh ash-Shinqeeti, rahimahullah, of this ayah in the following posts bi ithnillah. Number three: His saying, ta'ala: "And so to many of the mushrikeen their (Allah's so-called) "partners" have made fair-seeming the killing of their children" (Surat al-An'aam: 137). The ayaat around this ayah, start with, "And they assign to Allah a share of the tilth and cattle which He has created, and they say: "This is for Allah according to their pretending, and this is for our partners." until "Indeed lost are they who have killed their children, from folly, without knowledge, and have forbidden that which Allah has provided for them, inventing a lie against Allah. They have indeed gone astray and were not guided.". Ibn 'Abbaas radiallahu 'anhumaa said: "If you are curious to know the ignorance of the Arabs, then read what is above [before], ayah 103 from Surat al-'An'aam: 'Indeed lost are they who have killed . . . ' to 'and were not guided'" - Collected by al-Bukhaari. What is reffered to by Ibn 'Abbaas radiallahu 'anhumaa, in this statement, is the ignorance and shirk in Allah that the people of the days of ignorance used to have. And this ignorance and shirk was because their associates in lordship (their shurakaa`), from the shayateen of man and jinn had made it halaal what Allah had made haraam, and what Allah had not permitted, and from that is the killing of children fearing poverty, and burying girls in fear of shame. For more revise the tafseer of Ibn Katheer, volume 2/179-181. The first person to have legistlated for them these false legislations was 'Amr bin Luhayy al-Khazaa'iy, as you will see in the next evidence (no. 4). And so from the clearest evidences in this ayah that legislating other than what Allah has permitted is disbelief, is Allah's description of it in His words "partners"; in that He described whoever legisaltes as a partner with Him, ta'ala Allah 'an thaalik 'uloowan kabeera. Number four: "Allah has not legislated things like Bahirah (a she_camel whose milk was spared for the idols and nobody was allowed to milk it) or a Sa'ibah (a she_camel let loose for free pasture for their false gods, e.g. idols, etc., and nothing was allowed to be carried on it), or a Wasilah (a she_camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she_camel at its first delivery and then again gives birth to a she_camel at its second delivery) or a Ham (a stallion_camel freed from work for their idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it, all these animals were liberated in honour of idols as practised by pagan Arabs in the pre_Islamic period). But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allah, and most of them have no understanding." (Surat al-Maa`idah: 103). Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah, said, "al-Bukhaari said: Moosa bin Isma'eel informed us that, Ibraheem bin Sa'd on the authority of Saaleh bin Kaysaan on the authority of Ibn Shihaab on the authority of Sa'eed bin al-Musayyab who said: 'he Bahirah is a female camel whose milk was spared for the idols and no one was allowed to milt it. The Sa'ibah is a female camel let loose for free pasture for the idols, and nothing was allowed to be carried on it. Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allaah [saaws] said, 'I saw 'Amr bin 'Amir Al-Khuza'i pulling his intestines behind him in the Fire, and he was the first to start the practice of Sa'ibah'. As for the Wasilah, it is a female camel set free for the idols because it had given birth to a she-camel in its first delivery and then another she-camel at its second delivery. They used to set such camel free if she gave birth to two females without a between them. As for the Ham, it is a male camel which would be freed from work for the idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it. The male camel freed from work in this case is called a Hami. This is how Muslim and an-Nisaa`i collected it. . . . So this man, 'Amr, is the son of Ibn Luhayy the son of Qim'ah, who was one of the leaders of Khuzaa'ah, who took control of the House (al-Ka'bah), and he was from the first to change the religion of Ibraheem al-Khaleel, so he entered the idols into the peninsula and called the backward people to worship it and seek closeness to it, and he legislates for it these Jaahili legislations, as Allah speaks of them: 'And they assign to Allah a share of the tilth and cattle which He has created' to the end of those ayaat. . . . And His saying, ta'ala, "But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allah, and most of them have no understanding." means that they have legislated these things, which are not even a way of seeking closenss to Him, but the mushrikeen lied and legislated it and made it a way for them to seek closeness to Him, and what they want will not happen for them, rather what they are doing is going to be a disaster for them" - End of the words of Imaam Ibn Katheer, see: Tafseer al-Qur'aan al-'Atheem, volume 2/107-108. What is wanted by us in this ayah, is that Allah has called those who legislate as disbelievers who lie, "But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allah, and most of them have no understanding.". Number five: His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala: "The postponing (of a Sacred Month) is indeed an addition to disbelief: thereby the disbelievers are led astray, for they make it lawful one year and forbid it another year in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah, and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their deeds seems pleasing to them. And Allah guides not the people, who disbelieve." (Surat at-Tawbah: 37) an-Nasee` (postponing of the months), is an institution (a legislation) in conflict with Allah's legislation of sacred months. In Jaahiliyyah, if they wanted to fight in a particular month that was sacred (which was prohibted to them), they would simply alter the months, saying that this year this month is not sacred, instead this month is, thus legislating in this matter what Allah has made forbidden. So Allah informed them that this is an 'increase' and addition in disbelief, and an increase in disbelief is disbelief. Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah said of this ayah: "And from the things that Allah criticised the mushrikeen for is their control and treatment of the sharee'ah of Allah and them using their corrupt opinions to change to the rules of allah with their cool desires, and their making halaal what Allah had made haraam, and them making haraam what Allah had made halaal . . . and they had innovated before Islaam in a slight peroid, the making halaal of the month of al-Muharram, and delaying it to the month of Safar, so they make halaal the sacred months, and make haraam the normal other months, so that they are in agreement with the number of months Allah has made forbidden" - See Tafseer Ibn Katheer, vol. 2/356. Abu Mansoor al-Baghdaadi, rahimahullah, said in al-Farq bin al-Firaq, in his descrption of the one of the groups outside of Islaam, "Or making permissable (abaah) what the Qur'aan has declared forbidden, or making forbidden what Allah has made mubaah clearly without further interpretation required - then he is not from the ummah of Islaam at there is no respect (walaa karama)." - See al-Farq bin al-Firaq, page 14, Mu`assasat al-Halabi print. And it has been stated earlier in this thread that the governments today have licensed interest-based banks, and alcohol and their likes - not forgetting their allowance of apostasy and insulting Allah and mockery of His deen, so whoever does it or allows its practice is out of this ummah and deserves no respect whatsoever, so what of the ones who impose this unto the people ? Number six: His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala: "They took their monks and rabbis as lords beside Allah, and Jesus the son of Maryam, and they were not commanded to worship except one Lord, laa ilaha illa huw, exalted He is above what they associate with him" - (Surat at-Tawbah: 31) Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah, said of this ayah: "And His saying: "they took their monks and rabbis as lords beside Allah, and Jesus the son of Maryam"; Imaam Ahmad, at-Tirmithi and Ibn Jareer collect from the way of 'Aday bin Haatim, radiallahu 'anh, that when he heard of the call of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, he rushed to ash-Shaam [the Levant], and he had become a Christian in Jaahiliyyah, so his sister and a group of people from his tribe were taken as prisoners, but the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, released his sister, so she returned to her brother and made him interested in Islaam and in coming to see the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, so 'Aday came to Madeenah, and he was the leader of his tribe, Tee`, and his father was Haatim at-Taa`ee, popularly known as al-Karam; so the people talked about 'Aday's coming, and when he entered upon the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, and he was wearing a silver cross, and the Messenger was reading: "They took their monks and rabbis as lords beside Allah, and Jesus the son of Maryam", so I said: "They never used to worship them", so he said, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, "Surely they did, did they not make haraam what was made halaal, and made halaal what was made haraam, so they followed them, and that is worshipping them"...And this is what Huthayfah bin al-Yaman, 'Abdullah bin 'Abbaas and others said in the tafseer of this ayah "They took their monks and rabbis as lords beside Allah, and Jesus the son of Maryam". as-Suddi said of this ayah: Meaning, they consulted men and ignored the book of Allah behind their backs, and for that reason, Allah said: "and they were not commanded to worship except one Lord", meaning what He makes haraam, then it it haraam, and what He makes halaal then it is halaal, and He is followed and His command fulfilled, "Laa ilaha illa huwa, exalted He is above what they associate with Him", meaning, He is above, holier, and free from the partners, and helpers, children, and challengers they make for Him, and there is no God but Him. - See Tafseer Ibn Katheer, volume 22/248-249. And the hadeeth of 'Aday bin Haatim was declared hasan by at-Tirmithi and Ibn Taymiyyah, see, Majmoo al-Fatawaa, volume 7/67. The ayah is clear then that the one who legislates, and makes haraam halaal, and halaal haraam, then he has made himself an associate with Allah, and this is from the clearest of kufr which many of those rulers have fallen into today. Number seven: His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala: "Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims." - (Surat aal-'Imraan: 64). al-Qurtubi, rahimahullah says of this ayah: "and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah", meaning that we are not to follow the men in making things halaal and haraam, except in accordance with Allah, [otherwise this ayah befalls us], and this is a mirror of His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala: "They took their monks and rabbis as lords beside Allah, and Jesus the son of Maryam", meaning they raised those monks and rabbis to a level equal to Allah, by accepting their tahreem [(making forbidden)] of what Allah made halaal, and tahleel [(making permissable)] of what Allah made haraam". And what has been said above applies fully to those ruelrs, and their assemblies, and their legislative councils. They have shown clearly how these rulers have taken positions only deserving of our Creater, subhanahu wa ta'ala, as the attribute of legislation is only for Allah, "Verily ruling is only for Allah". Having mentioned the proofs for the second manaat of kufr, we will move on to the third in the next post bi ithnillahi ta'ala. Whatever good here is from Allah jalla fee 'ulaah, any mistakes are from me and the shaytaan, and I seek forgiveness from Allah for them. Bismillah, alhamdulillah was-salatu was-salamu 'ala rasool illah, nas`aluka 'ilman naaf'ian wa rizqan waas'ian wa shifaa min kuli daa`, na'oothoo bika min fitnat al-qawli wa 'amal. The textual evidences on the kufr of the rulers by other than what Allah has revealed: The Third manaat of kufr And the third manaat of disbelief in this matter, is as has been mentioned: ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. The meaning of this is a man, rules by the man-made legislated law in contradiction to Allah's law. The evidences for this are the following: Number one: "Do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion, what Allah has not permitted?", Surat ash-Shoora: 21. The explanation of this ayah has been mentioned in the discussion of the second manaat, so revise that, ash-Shinqeeti said of this ayah: "And so when legislation in all matters - shar'iyyah or kawniyyah (cosmic?) - is from the specifics of Ruboobiyyah, as the mentioned ayah says, then all those who follow a legislation/institution other than the legislation of Allah, then he has taken that legislator a lord, and associated him with Allah"- See Adwaa` al-Bayaan, volume 7/196. Number two: His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala, "And none shares in His ruling" (Surat al-Kahf: 26) The same that was said in the above evidence is said here, ash-Shinqeeti, 'alayhi rahmatullah said, "And with these Heavenly texts that we have mentioned, it becomes quite clear that the ones who follow the fabricated laws, which the Shaytaan has legislated upon the tongues of his awliyaa` and which oppose that which Allaah, jalla wa 'ala, has legislated upon the tongues of His Messengers, peace be upon them, that no one doubts their Kufr and their Shirk except him who Allaah has removed his sight and has blinded them to the light of the revelation as they are!"- See Adhwaa Al-Bayaan, Vol. 4/ 82-85. (Note: I used the translation of our dear brother Abu Huthayfah al-Kanadi, hafithahullah). Number three: His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala: "They took their monks and rabbis as lords beside Allah, and Jesus the son of Maryam, and they were not commanded to worship except one Lord, laa ilaha illa huw, exalted He is above what they associate with him" - (Surat at-Tawbah: 31). This ayah has been explained in the previous posts, but I mention here the explanation of Shaykh 'Abdurahmaan bin Hasan aal-ashaykh, in his book Fath il-Majeed, "So it is made clear with this, that the ayah (9:31) proves that whoever obeys other than Allaah and His Messenger and turns away from taking from the Book and the Sunnah, concerning making Halaal what Allaah made Haraam or making Haraam what Allaah made Halaal or obeys him in the disobedience of Allaah and follows him in what Allaah did not give permission for, then he has taken him as a lord and something worshipped and made him a partner with Allaah and that contradicts the Tawheed which is the Deen of Allaah that the words of Ikhlaas: La Illaaha il-Allaah, have indicated. (This is) because the Ilaah is the thing, which is worshipped, and Allaah, ta'ala labeled their obedience as worship towards them and called them lords. Like He, ta'ala said: 'And He does not order you to take the angels and the Prophets as lords… ' In other words, '… as partners with Allaah in His worship… ' - 'Does He order you to do Kufr after you were Muslims? ' And this is the Shirk because anything which is worshipped is a Lord and all things, which are obeyed or followed concerning other than what Allaah or His Messenger have legislated, then he has been taken by the obedient one or the follower as a Lord and a thing to be worshipped. Like He, ta'ala said in Surah An'am: 'And if you obeyed them, then you are Mushrikeen. ' And this is the meaning of this Ayaah and like this Ayaah in meaning is His, ta'ala's saying: 'And do they have partners who have legislated in the Deen what Allaah did not give permission for?' And Allaah knows best." - See, Fath Al-Majeed, Pg. 110-111. Published by Dar Al-Fikr. Shaykh 'Abdurahman bin Hasan mentions after this, the explanation of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, where he said that the ones who follow this man made legislation then they are of two types: 1) The ones who know that this person has replaced the rule of Allah, so they follow the person in this replacing, so they believe in making halaal what Allah has made haraam, and making haraam what Allah has made halaal, following in that their leaders, albeit knowing that they are going against the Messengers, then this is disbelief, and Allah and His Messenger have made it shirk..... 2) That they believe that in what Allah has made haraam and made halaal, but they follow this person in disobeying Allah, like a Muslim commits a sin that he believes is a sin, then this person and similar to him are from the people of [non-disbelieving] sins. - See Majmoo' al-Fatawaa, volume 7/70. And the above is correct, and it is clear it is in the one who follows these man made laws, and not legislates or seeks judgement from them. I only mentioned this as a side point, for benefit and blessing for the readers. There are plenty of more evidences for this manaat, but we will end with the three brief evidences mentioned above, due to fear of lengthening too much and making this topic getting a bit boring. Therefore, ending here, the next post will be concerning the reason of the revelation of the ayah in Surat al-Maa`idah, then examples of the kufr of the rulers who occupy our lands today, one by one, and with the exact text from their constitution. After that we will go onto about twenty doubts discussing each one clearly, and thoroughly for our brothers. And Allah is the only helper to all good. Walhamdulilahi rabbil'alameen. Bismillah, alhamdulilah, wassalatu wassalamu 'ala rasoolillah, nas`aluka 'ilman naafi'an, wa rizqan waas'ian, wa shifaa`an min kulli daa`, na'oothoo bika min fitnat il-qawli wal'amal: Words regarding His saying, subhanahu wa ta'ala: "And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers" And here, two things will be clarified bi ithnillah. Number one: The main mistake many people have fallen into, with regards to this great matter is their inability to differentiate between legislation and not ruling by what Allah has revealed once or twice - whilst abiding to Islaamic ruling generally, and totally. And we find the opposer always bringing the statements of the Salaf regarding the condition of al-istihlaal for doing takfeer of the one who does not by what Allah has revealed, and we say to them, yes we agree with you on this matter. But this is not the reality we live today, we are not in the time of Bani Ummayyah, who would rule by what Allah has revealed, who implemented the Qur'aan as the set law, but at times, had judges who may have ruled once, or twice favour of a particular person. Today, the situtation is different: we have rulers, who have replaced the sharee'ah of Allah, and have written and imposed man-made constitutions upon the people. This is the crux of the matter. And this is the exact reason why the ayah in Surat al-Maa`idah was revealed as will come clear to the reader insha`Allah. Our difference with the people is over at-tashree', is it kufr, yes or no? If they say yes, then they are correct, and it will then become clear to them why these governments have apostated. If they say no, then they have gone against the Qur'aan, Sunnah and the ijmaa' of the ummah which Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn Katheer, mention, as you will read. Therefore, there is a difference between at-tashree', legislation, and not ruling by what Allah has revealed once or twice. One is a replacement of Allah's laws, the other, you may be practicing the laws of Allah fully, but due to desires may have disobeyed Allah and committed a great sin, which can reach to kufr. 2) The reason for the revelation of the ayaat differs slightly between two narrations, as Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir recalls in 'Umdat at-Tafseer, but the more correct one is the following: a) The ayaat from Surat al-Maa`idah: 41-50 were revealed, according to one narration in two Jews who commited fornication, and they replaced the book of Allah that was amongst them, that orders them to lash the one who does such an action, they replaced this ruling because these two Jews were nobles. I have summarised very quickly, as this is something that is quite well known, and you can refer to the tafseer of Ibn Katheer of these ayaat to read more about he second reason of revelation, and so on. But in the end, they both agree that these Jews replaced the ruling of Allah, and what happens today by these rulers is an exact mirroring of what was done by them. They have replaced the rule of Allah with these man-made constitutions, and thus this ayah applies to them fully. And in the next posts I will bring examples of the constitutions and their kufr one by one, and mention the doubts of the doubters and how to reply to them. Wassallahumma 'ala sayyidina Muhammed wa 'ala aalihi wa sahbihi wa salam. Bismillah, alhamdulilah, wassalatu wassalamu 'ala rasoolillah, nas`aluka 'ilman naafi'an, wa rizqan waas'ian, wa shifaa`an min kulli daa`, na'oothoo bika min fitnat il-qawli wal'amal: On the tafseer of the saying of Allah ta'ala: "And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers". Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah says: "And His saying, ta'ala: "And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then such are the disbelievers" al-Baraa bin 'Aazib, Huthayfah bin al-Yamaan, Ibn 'Abbass, Abu Mujliz, Abu Rajaa' al'Ataaridi, 'Ikrimah, 'Ubaydullah bin 'Abdullah, al-Hasan al-Basri and others [said]: 'It was revealed regarding the people of the book', and al-Hasan al-Basri added: 'And it is obligatory upon us'. "'Abdurazzaaq said, on the authority of Sufyaan ath-Thawri, from Mansoor, from Ibraheem, who said: 'They were revealed in the children of Isra'eel, and Allah was content with it for this ummah', collected by Ibn Jareer. "Ibn Jareer narrates aswell, I was informed by Yaquub bin Ibraheem who said, I was informed by Hushaym who said, I was informed by 'AbdulMalik bin Abi Sulayman from Salamah bin Quhayl from 'Alqamah and Masrooq that they asked Ibn Mas'ood about bribery and he said, It is from the unlawful trade So he (Quhayl) said, 'And in the Hukm He (Ibn Mas'ood) said, 'That is the Kufr! (thaak al-kufr). And then he recited: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers" "as-Sudi said: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers", He is saying, whoever does not rule by what I have brought down, so he left it purposely, or became tyrannical, and he knows, then he is from the disbelievers. "And 'Ali bin Abi Talhah said, from Ibn 'Abbass, His saying: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers": whoever rejects what Allah has revealed then he has disbelieved, but whoever affirms it [and doesn't rule] then he is an oppressive, faasiq. Narrated by Ibn Jareer, then he chose that this meant that whoever reffers to the people of the book, meaning, whoever rejects what has been revealed by Allah in the book [Qur'aan, Tawraah, etc]. "'Abdurazzaq, narates from ath-Thawri from Zakariyyah, from ash-Sha'bee, "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed" is reffering to the Muslims. "'Abudrazzaq also narrates from Ma'mar, who informed him from Ibn Tawoos, that his father asked Ibn 'Abbass about His saying, ta'ala, "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers", so he said: 'This is a trait of kufr hiya bihi kufr', and Ibn Tawoos said: 'And not like the one who disbeleives in Allah, or His Angels, or Books or Messengers' "ath-Thawri said, from Ibn Jurayj from 'Atta`, that he said: 'Kufrun duna kufr, thulmun duna thulm, fisqun duna fiqh [Kufr less than kufr, oppression less than oppression, and evil-doing, less than evil doing]' "And Wakee' said, from Sa'eed al-Makki, from Tawoos: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers", he said: 'It is not disbelief which expels one from the millah'. "And Ibn Abi Haatim said, Muhammed bin 'Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Muqree narrated to us, that Sufyaan bin 'Uyaynah narrated, from Hishaam bin Hujayr from Tawoos that Ibn 'Abbass said regarding "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers" 'It is not the kufr which you are heading for (laysa al-kufr alathi tathhaboona ilayh). Narrated by al-Haakim in his Mustadrak from the hadeeth of Sufyaan bin 'Uyaynah, and he said that it is Saheeh according to the conditions of the Shaykhayn [al-Bukhaari and Muslim], but they did not report it'" - See Tafseer Ibn Katheer, volume 2/61. All the other different interpretations of this ayah will be recalled in the next post bi ithnillah. Those who argue against doing takfeer of these contemporary rulers use the sayings above, and especially the saying attributed to Ibn 'Abbass kufrun duna kufr as some sort of evidence for that, and in what is coming up, it will become clear to the reader how astray they have gone, and how their claims collapse unto themselves. Bismillah, alhamdulilah, wassalatu wassalamu 'ala rasoolillah, nas`aluka 'ilman naafi'an, wa rizqan waas'ian, wa shifaa`an min kulli daa`, na'oothoo bika min fitnat il-qawli wal'amal: Concerning the tafseer attributed to Ibn 'Abbass of saying of Allah ta'ala: "And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers" and is the kufr in this ayah, kufr akbar or kufr asghar A beginning note, most of the following is taken from Abu Ayoob bin Noor al-Burqa'ee/Abu Marwaan as-Sudaani's refutation of 'Ali al-Halabi in his takhreej of the athaar of Ibn 'Abbaas. I will quote the athar, then quote al-Burqa'ees reply, insha'Allah. Athar One and Two Ibn Jareer reported, "Narrated to me, Hunaad and narrated to me, Ibn Wakee'ah who said, 'Narrated to me, my father from Sufyaan from Mu'amr Ibn Rashaad from Ibn Tawoos from his father from Ibn 'Abbas, "and whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers". [He said] 'In it there is Kufr, but not like Kufr in His Angels and His Books and His Messengers' (See: Tafseer Ibn Jareer, Vol. 6/256) Comment: I say this isnaad is saheeh, and what it apparent is that all the statement is from Ibn 'Abbass rahimahullah. And many people have fallen for this athar due to its isnaad and have not noticed the idraaj (interpolation) which is made clear by the narration found in the collection of Imaam 'Abdurazzaaq: We were informed by Mu'amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: "Ibn 'Abbass was asked about His saying: "and whoever does not rle by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers", [so] he said: "In it there is kufr" (hiya bihi kufrun). Ibn Tawoos said: "But not like kufr in His angels, and His books and His messengers"' [And idraaj, as can be read in the small booklet on science in hadeeth in English, by Shaykh Suhayb Hasan, is: "If an expression or statement is proved to be an addition by a reporter to the text, it is declared as mudraj (interpolated)." al-Burqa'ee quotes the definition of ath-Thahabi, which adds that 'and later a hadeeth may be found that splits the additional expression of the reporter, from the original statement, see al-Muwqitha fi 'Ilm il-Hadeeth, page 53-54] [al-Burqa'ees words:] Add to that, that 'Abdurrazaaq is more reliable (athbat) and more better (atqan) than Mu'amar, and the saying is for him if differing occurs: Ya'qoob bin Shaybah says: "'Abdurazzaaq is more reliable than Mu'amar, and better" And Ibn 'Asaakir said: "I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal say, 'If you see the companions of Mu'amar differ, then the hadeeth is for 'Abdurazzaq'" (See: Sharh 'Ilal at-Tirmithi for Ibn Rajab, volume 2/607). [In addition, one should note that Ibn Katheer does not mention the athar found in Ibn Jareer with its idraaj]. Athar Three al-Haafith Ibn Nasr al-Marwazee said: "Narrated to us Muhammed bin Yahya, narrated to us 'Abdurazaaq, narrated to us from Sufyaan, from a man, from Tawoos from Ibn 'Abbass, in His saying: "...such are the disbelievers". He said: 'Kufr which does not expel one out of the millah.'" (See Ta'theem Qadr is-Salaah, number 573). And the isnaad is da'eef due to the unknown man. Athar Four al-Haafith Ibn Nasr said: "Narrated to us Yahya bin Yahya, Sufyaan bin 'Uyaynah informed us, from Hishaam (bin Hujayr), from Tawoos that Ibn 'Abbass said concerning His saying, "...such are the disbelievers", he said 'It is not the kufr which you are going to'. Comment: And this sanad, its people are trustworthy except Hishaam bin Hujayr al-Makki, for he has been weakened by the great a`immah: Such as 'Ali bin al-Madeenee, Yahya bin Sa'eed, (see: al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, volume 9/54). 'Abdullah bin Ahmad said: "I asked Yahya about Hishaam bin Hujayr and he weakened him very much" (See al-'Ilal wa ma'rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/30). And he also said: "I heard my father [Imaam Ahmad] say: 'Hishaam bin Hujayr is a Makki, and he is weak in hadeeth'" [See: Ibid, volume 1/204] al-'Uqayli recalled him in ad-Du'afaa`. Athar Five al-Haakim narrated, from the way of 'Ali bin Harb, from Sufyaan bin 'Uyaynah from Hishaam bin Hujayr from Tawoos, that Ibn 'Abbass said: "It is not the kufr which you tend to, 'Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers' is kufr lesser than [greater] kufr".[-See al-Mustadrak, volume 2/313]. And this athar, despite its popularity, is also from the path of Hishaam bin Hujayr and he has been declared weak my the mountains of knowledge from amongst the Salaf. Athar Six Ibn Jareer at-Tabari said, narrated to us al-Muthanna, 'Abdullah bin Saaleh said, Mu'awiyah bin Saaleh told us, that 'Ali bin Abi Talhah, from Ibn 'Abbass that he said concerning His saying: "Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers", 'Whoever rejects what [He] revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it, and does not rule by it, then he is a thaalim and faasiq'" [-See Ibn Jareer's tafseer, volume 4/256]. And 'Abdullah bin Saaleh is: Ibn Muhammed bin Muslim al-Juhni al-Misree, al-Layth bin Sa'd scribe, and he is weak. 'Abdullah bin Ahmad said: I asked my father about 'Abdullah bin Saaleh, the scribe of al-Layth bin Sa'd, so he said: "He was at first firm, then he became corrupt, and he is nothing." Ibn al-Madeenee said: "I do not narrate from him anything". - See al-'Ilal wa Ma'rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/213. an-Nisaa`ee said: "He is not trustworthy", Ahmad bin Saaleh said: "He is accused, and is nothing", Saaleh Jazarah said: "Ibn Mu'een used to consider him trustworthy, and he is to me a liar in hadeeth", Abu Zur'ah said: "To me he wasn't a person who intentionally lied, and he was acceptable in hadeeth"' - [See, al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 4/441. Abu Haatim said: "Trustworthy, truthful, I never knew him as such" And much has been said about 'Abdullah bin Saaleh, but the summary is as follows, as Ibn Hibbaan mentions: He was righteous within himself, but many false ahadeeth were given to him by his neighbour, and I heard Ibn Khuzaymah say, 'He had a neighbour, with whom there was much enemity, and he [the neighbour] would narrate the false ahadeeth upon the Shaykh of Abu Saaleh, and write it in a handwriting similar to 'Abdullah and and he would throw it in his house amongst his books, so 'Abdullah would imagine that that was his own handwriting, and so he would end up narrating it [-See al-Majrooheen for Ibn Hibbaan]. And in the isnaad is 'Ali bin Abi Talhah, and his full name was Saalem bin al-Makhaariq al-Haashimi. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: "'Ali bin Abi Talhah, has many criticisms upon him." [-See ad-Du'afaa`, volume 3/234] an-Nisaa`ee said: "There is no problem with him." [-See al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 3/134] al-'Ajali said: "He is trustworthy." [-See Tareekh al-Thiqaat, page 283]. Ibn Hibban considered him from the trustworthy reliable narrators, as can be seen in ath-Thiqaat, volume 7/211. Ya'qoob narrated from Sufyaan that he is weak, and not reliable. And he also said: He is a Shaami, he is not avoided nor taken as evidence. As for his narration from Ibn 'Abbas, then is it munqati'ah (not connected), for he did not hear from him. Ibn Abi Haatim said: I heard my father say, I heard Daheem saying: 'Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear tafseer from Ibn 'Abbas. [-See al-Maraseel, page 117]. Ibn Hibban said: "He narrated from Ibn 'Abbas and never saw him" [-See, ath-Thiqaat, 7/211]. [And al-Burqa'ee quotes many more statements, and ends by saying:] al-Manwaawi quotes, in Fayd al-Qadeer, volume 2/397, Ibn Abi Haatim saying regarding 'Abdullah bin Saaleh: "He is really bad in hadeeth when narrating from Mu'awiyah bin Saaleh". And as any student of this art knows, whoever this kind of statement is said of, then he cannot be used as a witness to anything. Furthermore, I found a refutation for al-Albaani - the Shaykh of al-Halabi - were he criticised Ahmad Shaakir for classifying this hadeeth, "'Abdullah bin 'Amr narrates, 'The angels said, 'Oh our Lord, you gave the children of Aadam the dunya letting them eat and drink in it....'", so he [al-Albaani] said: "And it is not correct to me, to declare this hadeeth as strong, relying upon that, with the statement of 'Abdullah bin Saaleh, due to the latter being from those who have been criticised (dakhala 'alayh)" And then he mentioned Ibn Hibaan's statement as can be found above. [-See his commentary on the explanation of at-Tahawiyyah, page 308]. And so, we conclude by saying that the only authentic narration concerning the tafseer of this ayah, from Ibn 'Abbas is the following: We were informed by Mu'amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: "Ibn 'Abbass was asked about His saying: "and whoever does not rle by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers", [so] he said: "In it there is kufr"(hiya bihi kufrun). As for the rest, they are all weak, and Allah knows best what is correct. Written by Abu Ayoob al-Burqa'ee. [End] In addition, Hasan bin Abir-Rabee' al-Jurjaani said, that 'Abdurazzaq informed him that Mu'ammar narrated from Ibn Tawoos from his father, the statement of Ibn 'Abbass, "It is enough kufr for him" (kafaa bihi kufruh, as can be seen in Akhbaar al-Qadaa`, volume 1/40 and onwards for Imaam Muhammed bin Khalaf bin Hayyan, known as Wakee'. And from the contemporaries who have made tad'eef of the athaar that are attributed to Ibn 'Abbass, is al-Muhaddith, al-Haafith, ash-Shaykh Sulaymaan al-'Alwaan, hafithahullah, as is in at-Tibyaan Sharh Nawaaqid al-Islaam. Statements by other companions and tab'ieen 1. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ood said, as mentioned by Ibn Katheer in his tafseer, that he was asked about bribery in judgement, so he said: "That is the very kufr (thaak al-kufr)", and then he quoted the ayah, this is also mentioned by Ibn Jareer, who has numerous quotes for this, one of which is from the path of Masrooq who said: "I asked Ibn Mas'ood about as-suht (ill gotten wealth), is it [like] bribery in judgement?" So he said: "No, whoever does not ruler by what Allah has revealed then he is a kaafir, whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then he is a thaalim, whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then he is a faasiq, but as-suht is when you help someone to do something oppressive, so he gives you a gift, so you accept it" [-See Tafseer of at-Tabari, 6/240]. And at-Tabaraani collected, with a saheeh isnaad, from Ibn Mas'ood that he said: "Bribery in judgement is kufr, and it is amongst the people ill gotten wealth", Ibn Hajr al-Makki collected it in az-Zawaajir, volume 2/189, Daar al-Ma'rifah print 1402 AH. 2. And similar to this was said by 'Umar bin al-Khattab and 'Ali bin Abi Taalib, radiallahu 'anhum, as has been collected by al-Aloosee al-Baghdaadi in his tafseer; he said: "And Ibn al-Munthir collected from Masrooq that he said: "I said to 'Umar bin al-Khattab, radiallahu ta'ala 'anh, "What do you think of bribery in judging, is it from the ill-gotten wealth? He said 'No, rather it is kufr, ill-gotten wealth is when a man has a position and rank in the view of a ruler, and the man seeks something from this ruler, he cannot achieve this thing, unless he gives the ruler a gift [and this is ill-gotten wealth].'" And 'Abd bin Humayd collected from 'Ali, radiallahu ta'ala 'anh, that he was asked about as-suht (ill-gotten wealth), he said: "It is bribery", so he was asked, "In rulership", he replied: "That is the very kufr" (thaak al-kufr". And al-Bayhaqi collected from Ibn Mas'ood similar to this statement" - [See, Tafseer Rooh al-Ma'ani, for al-Aloosee, volume 3, part 6, page 140]. 3) And similar to this has been said by the tabi'een, from them: al-Hasan al-Basri, Sa'eed bin Jubayr, Ibraheem an-Nakh'ee, as-Suddi, Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali said: "Allah ta'ala said: "Akaloona lis-suht" (Takers of ill-gotten wealth), al-Hasan and Sa'eed bin Jubayr explained it to be, "It is bribery", and said: "If the judge takes bribes, then it reaches alkufr". - [al-Mughni ma' ash-Sharh al-Kabeer, volume 11/437-438]. al-Qaasimi said regarding its tafseer, as has been mentioned in al-Lubaab, that Ibn Mas'ood, al-Hasan and an-Nakh'iee said: "These ayaat are general regaring the Jews, and regarding this ummah, so whoever takes bribes, and replaces the judgement of Allah, so he ruled by other than what Allah has revaled, then he has disbelieved, and oppressed and become evil, and to it went as-Suddi, and it is the apparent meaning of the statement [i.e. the ayah]" - [See Mahaasin at-Ta`weel, for al-Qaasimi, volume 6/215, Daar al-Fikr print, 1398 AH] And this statement of as-Suddi, was recalled by Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Jareer collected with his sanad: "Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revaled", he [as-Suddi] said: "Whoever does not rule by what I revealed, so he left it intentionally, and trangressed whilst knowing, then he is from the disbelievers". - [See Tafseer at-Tabari, volume 6/257.] Reply to some doubts Doubt One The following statement is sometimes used as evidence for an ijmaa' on the correctness of the athar: Quote: The Imaam, al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee has reported in his 'Tareekh' (10/186) that: A man from the Khawarij was entered upon al-Ma'moon who said to him, "What has lede you to oppose us?" He replied, "An aayah from the Book of Allah, the Most High." Al-Ma'moon said, "And what is it?" He replied: "And Whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, they are Disbelievers" (5:44). So al-Ma'moon replied to him, "Do you have knowlede that this is a verse that has been revealed [by Allah]?" He said, "Yes". Al-Ma'moon then asked, "And what is your proof?" He replied, "The ijmaa' (concensus) of the Ummah". So al-Ma'moon replied, "Then just as you are satisfied about their consensus that this is a revealed aayah, then also be satisfied about their consensus regarding its explanation." The man then said, "You have spoken the truth. May peace be upon you O Ameer ul-Mu'mineen"! And this statement has been quoted by the muqallidah, who have no clue what they're saying, when quoting their manual, at-Tahtheer min Fitnat it-Takfeer; and so we reply to them by saying: How strange is it, that these claimants to as-Salafiyyah, couldn't find a statement to support their claims from the books and words of Ahl as-Sunnah, that they had to resort to the words of al-Ma'moon al-Mu'tazili. And so we say: 1) Which explanation is al-Ma'moon al-Mu'tazili reffering to? The explanation of Ibn Mas'ood, or Ibn al-Khattab, of Ibn 'Abbass (according to the weak narrations)? 2) What ijmaa' is this that he is reffering to? Even if we were to assume he was reffering to Ibn 'Abbass words - which requires a proof from the ones who claim this - then, aren't the words of Ibn Mas'ood alone enough to break this ijmaa'? Or do these people have no knowledge of usool al-fiqh whatsoever?! 3) Strangely enough, this statement is taken from a Mu'tazili, so we say, why did they not ponder upon these words which came from a scholar of Ahl as-Sunnah, speaking to the same Mu'tazili ruler: Quote: Found in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah for al-Haafith Ibn Katheer, vol. 10/276; on the authority of Ibn 'Asaakir, an-Nidr bin Shumayl said: "I entered upon al-Ma`moon, so he said: 'How have you awoken oh Nidr?' So I said: 'In goodness, oh Ameer al-Mu`mineen' He asked: 'What is irjaa`?' I replied: 'A religion that agrees with the Kings, they gain from the dunya with it, and lose from their religion' So he said: 'You have spoken the truth'" And since when has the ijmaa' of the people of innovation been an evidence in the religion of Allah?! May Allah have mercy upon Imaam Ahmad, who said: "Whoever claims an ijmaa' then he is a liar, perhaps the people have differed, and he doesn't know" - [See al-Ihkaam for Ibn Hazm]. And as can be seen in al-I'laam for Ibn al-Qayyim, Imaam Ahmad said: "Whoever claims an ijmaa' then he is a liar, perhaps the people have differed; these are the claims of Bishr al-Mareesee and al-Asam, let him say: "I do not know of differing, or differing upon this has not reached us". [- See al-'Ilaam volume 2/247-248]. This satisfies as a reply to this petty doubt insha'Allah, and I will end here... and Allah knows best. Wassallahumma 'ala sayyidina Muhammed wa 'ala aalihi wa sahbihi wa salam. Asalaamu3laykum! Bismillah, innalhamdullillah wasalatu wasalaam ala rasoolillah! Why have the governments disbelieved? Well what is disbelief? "And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn" (s5v44) and why did allah t3la say this: "Is not Allah the most wise and judicious of the law giving judges?" (ut-tin ayah 8) "And he is the best of law giving judges " (s8v87) "A group He has guided, and a group deserved to be in error; (because) surely they took the Shayâtin (devils) as Auliyâ' (protectors and helpers) instead of Allâh, and consider that they are guided." (s7v30) Then why have our governments disbelieved: O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion (Islâm), Allâh will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allâh, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allâh which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allâh is All_Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All_Knower. (s5v54) Or have they partners with Allâh (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion which Allâh has not allowed. And had it not been for a decisive Word (gone forth already), the matter would have been judged between them. And verily, for the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers), there is a painful torment. (s42v21) "The destruction of my ummah will be through the hands of young men from Quraish!" (sahih al bukhari) Just to conclude, from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah rahamatullaalayhi from al Bidaayah wan-Nihaaya: Thus, whoever left the wise Shari'a sent upon Muhummad Ibn 'Abdullah, the seals of the prophets and make judgements to other than it from the abroaged Shari'a has become a Kaafir. So how is it for the one who makes judgements to Al-Yassiq and makes it superior over it {The Islamic Shari'a}? Who ever did that, then he has already become a Kaafir by sonsense {Ijma} of the Muslims. Shaikh Ul Islam, Muhummad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab also said of this matter: The second form of the Taghut is the tyrannical judge who makes changes to the judgements of Allah. The evidence for that is the statement of Allah Ta3la: Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tâghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitân (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray. Surah Nisa: Ayah 60 insh'allahta3la this clarifies things! wasalaamu3laykum! Bismillah, alhamdulilah, wassalatu wassalamu 'ala rasoolillah, nas`aluka 'ilman naafi'an, wa rizqan waas'ian, wa shifaa`an min kulli daa`, na'oothoo bika min fitnat il-qawli wal'amal: Examples of the disbelief of the governments, from their constitutions, and miscellenous notes Firstly, my brothers and sisters, I have to apologise to all the beloved ones who requested from me to carry on in this work after this long delay, but this was due to other-pressing circumstances, and I hope that I'll be able to continue without interruption in the coming days and weeks. Secondly, many have asked whether this work is of my authoring or not, then, to put shortly, I refrain from calling this work mine, rather, it is more of an anthology and summarisation of many works written on this issue, and my job was simply to translate, and to add a few notes here and there, to organise it for the reader, and to add and check references, and may Allah have mercy upon al-Imaam Muhammed bin Idrees ash-Shaafi'ee, who said, "I wish, that the people took all the knowledge I have, without attributing a single word of it to me". After the above posts and matters, I would like to bring the attention of the reader to one important issue, and it is, that - as will become clear, hopefully in the next post - the matter upon which the people of Islaam do not differ upon at all, and are upon unanimous agreement, is the fact that, legislating what is in clear contradiction, or opposition of the Qur'aan and Sunnah, is what is greater disbelief, and it is upon this matter, that most of the Muslims do takfeer of the rulers on. Meaning: There are two different, although related, matters here: 1) The issue of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed in a matter, and in this, the Salaf have some slight disagreement to whether its doer is a disbeliever, or not, and most of this thread so far, has revolved around that topic, and around refuting the doubts related to it and; 2) The issue of legislation (at-tashree'), and in this, there is no doubt, amongst the people of Islaam, that the one who places a law for the people to rule, judge and abide by, and this law is in contradiction to what Allah has revealed, then he is a disbeliever. So, in this post, we will focus on the second matter, I've opted to firstly, bring examples of legislation from the various governments, relying on their own constitutions, that can be found on the internet. Examples from the Constitutions In no particular order: ALGERIA: Art. 11 - The State takes its legitimacy and its raison d'être from the People's will. Its motto is "By the People and for the People". It is exclusively for the service of the People. http://www.conseilconstitutionnel-dz.org/Anglish/indexAng.htm BAHRAIN: ARTICLE 1: (d) The system of government in Bahrain is democratic, under which sovereignty lies with the people, the source of all powers. Sovereignty shall be exercised in the manner specified in this Constitution. Article 2 Islam shall be the religion of the State; Islamic Sharia (Islamic Law) a main source of legislation; and Arabic the official language. http://www.eur.nl/frg/iacl/armenia/constitu/constit/bahrain/bahran-e.htm BANGLADESH: The Republic shall be a democracy in which fundamental human rights and freedoms and respect for the dignity and worth of the human person shall be guaranteed, and in which effective participation by the people through their elected representatives in administration at all levels shall be ensured]. http://www.bangladeshgov.org/pmo/constitution/consti2.htm YEMEN Article (6) The Republic of Yemen confirms its adherence to the UN Charter, the International Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the Arab League, and dogma of international law which are generally recognized. http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/gov/con94.htm Saudi Arabia: Article 70 International treaties, agreements, regulations and concessions are approved and amended by Royal decree. Article 83 This law may only be amended in the same way as it was promulgated. http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/sa00000_.html Further to that, is the recent fatwa issued by a group of scholars in the Arabian Peninsula regarding the disbelief found in the courts of law, as can be found here: http://forums.clearguidance.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16600 In addition to it being from the founding nations of the United Nations organisation, having joined on (24 Oct. 1945), as can be found here: http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm And much more. Tunisia: And it's status is well known, but, for the benefit: Article 5 [Personal Integrity, Conscience, Belief] The Tunislan Republic guarantees the inviolability of the human person and freedom of conscience, and protects the free exercise of beliefs, with reservation that they do not disturb the public order. Article 6 [Equality] All citizens have the same rights and the same duties. They are equal before the law. Article 28 [Legislation] (1) The National Parliament exercises the legislative power. The presentation of legislation belongs equally to the President of the Republic and to the members of the National Parliament, priority being given to bills presented by the President of the Republic. http://www.eur.nl/frg/iacl/armenia/constitu/constit/tunisia/tunisi-e.htm Turkey: ARTICLE 2. The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the http://www.byegm.gov.tr/constitution.htm Syria: Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic] (1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics. http://www.mideastinfo.com/documents/Syria_Constitution.htm Egypt: Article 1 The Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic, socialist State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. Article 4 The economic foundation of the Arab Republic of Egypt is a socialist democratic system based on sufficiency and justice in a manner preventing exploitation, conducive to liquidation of income differences, protecting legitimate earnings, and guaranteeing the equity of the distribution of public duties and responsibilities. Article 6 The Egyptian nationality is defined by the law. Article 40 All citizens are equal before the law. http://www.us.sis.gov.eg/egyptinf/politics/parlment/html/constit.htm And on this particular nation, Dr. Ayman ath-Thawaahiri, hafithahullah, has authored at least two books detailing the clear disbelief found in the relevant constitution, so, read them, for your benefit. Jordan: The State of Law is a democratic state committed to the principle of the supremacy of the law and derives its legitimacy, authority and effectiveness from the free will of the people, and all authorities within it are committed to providing legal, judicial and administrative guarantees to protect the rights, integrity and basic freedoms of the individual, which rules were laid down by Islam and confirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other international covenants and treaties promulgated by the United Nations in this regard. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/charter-national.html And on this particular nation, Shaykh Abu Muhammed 'Aasim al-Maqdisi, hafithahullah, has authored, Kashf an-Niqaab 'an Sharee'at al-Ghaab and a summary of it, detailing all the clear disbelief found in the relevant constitution, so revise it, for you benefit. Kuwait: Article 2 The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia shall be a main source of legislation. Article 6 The System of Government in Kuwait shall be democratic, under which sovereignty resides in the people, the source of all powers. Sovereignty shall be exercised in the manner specified in this Constitution. http://www.alommah.gov.kw/kwtconst/1e.asp And on this particular nation, Shaykh Abu Muhammed 'Aasim al-Maqdisi, hafithahullah, has authored a small treatise detailing the clear disbelief found in the revelant constition, so revise it, for your benefit (and as with the above two other references, they can be found on almaqdese.com). Mauritania (1) Mauritania is an indivisible, democratic, and social Islamic Republic. http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/mr00000_.html Pakistan 1) No law shall authorize the punishment of a person:- (a) for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act or omission; or (b) for an offence by a penalty greater than, or of a kind different from, the penalty prescribed by law for that offence at the time the offence was committed. http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html Islaamic law is restricted to personal matters. United Arab Emirates ÇáÅÓáÇã åæ ÇáÏíä ÇáÑÓãí ááÇÊÍÇÏ ¡ æÇáÔÑíÚÉ ÇáÅÓáÇãíÉ ãÕÏÑ ÑÆíÓí ááÊÔÑíÚ Ýíå ¡ æáÛÉ ÇáÇÊÍÇÏ ÇáÑÓãíÉ åí ÇááÛÉ ÇáÚÑÈíÉ Translation: Islaam is the official religion of the union, and Islaamic law is the main source of legislation, and the official language is Arabic. http://www.uae.gov.ae/moca/dostur/1/1.htm Qatar Article 67 of the provisional constitution gives the Emir an unrestricted right to amend the provisional constitution by amending, deleting or adding to it, as he deems fit for the interest of the State http://www.qatarlaw.com/English/sys3.htm Further to all the above, one must make mention, that any state that enters within the UN, abides by its laws, and/or legislates then this is greater disbelief, and an entire list can be found at: http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html alongside the date they joined. I will end here, and in the next post insha'Allah, we will read the statements of the Salaf and Khalaf regarding the consensus of the one who legislates what is in contradicton of Allah's law, and possibly discuss some of the doubts. Subhanak Allahumma wa bihamdika, ash-Shadu al-laa ilaha illa ant, astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilayk.