Ruling by Other than What Allaah Revealed

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Fataawaa of the Standing Committee Concerning Ruling by Other than What Allaah Revealed

By Imaam ’Abdul-’Azeez Ibn Baaz (d.1420H)

Three Fataawaa pronounced by the Committee of Major Scholars in Saudi Arabia.

As for the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed, and he believes that he is sinning, but he rules by other than what Allaah revealed, due to bribes paid to him, or other than that, or enmity to his constituents, or closeness to them, or their friendship with him, or similar to that, then this cannot be major disbelief.

[1]: Fatwaa (no. 5226):

[Q]: When is takfeer (declaring a Muslim to be a disbeliever) permissible, and when is it not permissible? What type of takfeer is mentioned in the Statement of Allaah,

“And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers.” [Sooratul Maa‘idah 5:44]?

[A]: The praise is due to Allaah Alone, and may Prayers and Peace be upon His messenger, and his family, and his companions. To proceed,

So as for your statement, ‘When is takfeer permissible, and when is it not permissible,’ then we feel that you should explain what is troubling you until we explain the ruling to you. As for the type of takfeer in the Statement of Allaah,

“And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers,”

then it is major disbelief (kufrun akbar). Al-Qurtubee said in his tafseer [2], ‘Ibn ’Abbaas and Mujaahid said, ‘Whoever does not judge by what Allaah revealed in rejection of the Qur‘aan, and in denial of the statement of the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), then he is a disbeliever.” As for the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed, and he believes that he is sinning, but he rules by other than what Allaah revealed, due to bribes paid to him, or other than that, or enmity to his constituents, or closeness to them, or their friendship with him, or similar to that, then this cannot be major disbelief. Rather, it is sin, and indeed it is disbelief less than disbelief (kufrin doona kufr), and oppression less than oppression (dhulmin doona dhulm), and disobedience less than disobedience (fisqin doona fisq). And all success is with Allaah. And may the Prayers and Peace of Allaah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and his family, and his Companions.

[2]: Fatwaa (no. 5741):

[Q]: Is the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed a Muslim, or a disbeliever with major disbelief? And are his actions accepted?

[A]: The praise is for Allaah alone, and may Peace and Greetings be upon His Messenger, his Family and his Companions. To proceed:

Allaah the Exalted said,

“And whomsoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:44]

And Allaah the Exalted said,

“And whomsoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the transgressors.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:45]

And Allaah the Exalted said,

“And whomsoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disobedient.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:47]

However, if he declares that lawful and believes that it is permissible, then his disbelief is major and his dhulm (oppression) is major and his fisq (disobedience) is major, it takes him outside of the Religion. As for if he did that due to a bribe, or for another purpose, yet he still believes that it was unlawful, then he is a sinner who is referred to as a disbeliever with minor disbelief and a disobedient one with minor disobedience. He has not left the Religion, as was clarified by the people of knowledge in the explanation of the above mentioned aayaat. And the Success is with Allaah, and may the peace greetings of Allaah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his Family and His Companions.

[3]: Fatwaa (no. 6310):

[Q]: What is the ruling upon the one who rules by the secular laws, whilst he knows that they are false. Yet, he does not wage war against them, nor does he work for their removal.

[A]: The obligation is to rule by the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) when there is a difference. Allaah Exalted said,

“So if you differ in anything, then refer it back to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is best for final determination.” [Sooratun-Nisaa‘ 4:59]

And Allaah the Exalted,

“So no! By your Lord! They have not truly believed until they refer the judgement to you in whatever occurs between them, not finding any hesitation within themselves from what you have ruled, and submit to it wilfully.” [Sooratun-Nisaa‘ 4:65]

So the rulership must be referred back to Allaah the Exalted and to the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). So if they do not rule by these two, and they declare it lawful (halaal) to rule by other than them from the secular laws, due to covetousness for money or status. Then, he is perpetrating a sin, so he is disobedient with disobedience less than disobedience (fisq doona fisq), yet he does not leave from the realm of eemaan (faith).

Footnotes:

[1] Taken from al-Asaalah (issue 29/p. 77-78)

Translated by Maaz Qureshi

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed.." - A Death Sentence for the Muslim Rulers?

By Aboo Khadeejah 'Abdul-Waahid

"There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do Messenger of Allaah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the ameer and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey."

Play/Download


Review:

"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers."
[Sooratul-Maa`idah, 5:44]

A question/condemnation posed regarding some of the Muslim rulers, implying that they are kuffar and that perhaps they should be removed is posed by one of the attendees,

[Q]: ‘Is it allowed to remove (supposed) tyrants from the position of their governments when they apostate from Islaam. For example, if you kill a Muslim, rule by something other than Allaah or assist the kuffar in killing the Muslims, are these people meant to be given three days to repent. Please elaborate, to be more specific please mention with regards to Mushaarif and Mubaarak and the ‘self-proclaimed’ custodian of the two Holy Mosques?

In his reply, Aboo Khadeejah mentions part of the following hadeeth,

It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhayfah Ibnul-Yamaan who said: Messenger of Allaah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i.e. the days of jahiliyyah or ignorance) and Allaah brought us a good time (i.e. Islamic period) through which we are now living. Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do Messenger of Allaah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the ameer and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

This hadeeth comes under the following chapter:
”Instruction to stick to the Main Body of the Muslims in the Time of Trials and Warning Against Those Inviting People to Disbelief” The Book of Government, Saheeh Muslim #5444.

A sound clarification against the misinterpretations, charming speech and bedazzling slogans of ahlut-takfeer who round up the ignorant Muslims steering them towards the path of the khawaarij. This is exemplified in the mentioning of ‘al-Istanbulee’, a radical takfeeree who tried to spearhead revolt in Egypt by killing the ruler, causing countless murders on both sides and no change in the condition of the Muslims. A manhaj that never ever brought about any good and one that opposes the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). It is clarified that this ayah ("And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers.") is not specific to the rulers, rather ‘Whosoever’, pertaining to the ruler and the ruled. In addition, clarity is brought to the issue of kufr, kufr less than kufr, major sins and who is responsible for determining these serious affairs (the Scholars). An important explanation of the Saddam Husein/Gulf War/Saudi Arabia issue is also made.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Narrations From The Scholars on Ruling By Other Than What Allaah Revealed

Ibn taymiyah said:

'"and whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, they are the disbelivers (5:44)"-meaning that it is the one who declares ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed to be lawfull (man istihalla)." (majmoo al fataawa 3/267)

Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said: “And this was the state of An-Najaashi, (ruler of Habashi). Even though he was the king of the Christians his people did not follow him in accepting Islam. Rather only a number of them accepted Islam with him, and for this, when he died there was no one to pray over him. So the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) prayed over him in Medina. He went out with the Muslims to the musalla and arranged them in rows and prayed over him and informed them of the death the day he died. He (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: "Verily a righteous brother of yours from the people of Al-Habashi has died." And many of the outwardly manifested pillars of Islam or most of them, he did not establish upon his people because of his weakness in that. So he did not do hijrah, nor did he fight jihaad, nor did he perform the hajj.

It has even been narrated that he did not even establish his five daily prayers, and he did not fast in Ramadaan, neither did he pay the legislated Zakaat (all of these are obligatory actions), because that would have made apparent to his people and they would have disapproved of it opposing him, and it was not possible for him to differ with them. We know definitely that it was not possible for him to judge between his people with the Qur'aan even though Allaah had made it an obligation upon the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) in Medina, that if the people of the book came to him, then he should not judge between them except with what Allaah has revealed to him..” [Minhaaj as Sunnah 5/112-113]


'Allaamah Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751H) said: "And it is correct that judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is both types of kufr (disbelief) - kufr asghar (the minor disbelief) and kufr akbar (the major disbelief) - and [which of the two it is] depends on the condition of the ruler. If he believes in the obligation of judging by what Allaah has revealed in this situation but turned away from it - out of disobedience - and while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment then this is kufr asghar. And if he believes that it is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter - along with his firm belief that it is the judgement of Allaah - then this is kufr akbar - and if was ignorant in the matter or made an error then he is one who errs (mukhtee’) and his ruling is as the same for those who err. [Madaarij us-Saalikeen 1/337]

Shaikh Abdur-Rahmaan as-Sa’dee (d. 1376H) said: "Judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is among the actions of the People of Disbelief - and it can also take one outside of the religion. And that is when he believes in its legality and its permissibility. And it can sometimes be one of the major sins and from the actions of disbelief - the one who is guilty of it will receive a heavy punishment - and He said: "And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, then they are the wrongdoers (dhaalimoon)." Ibn Abbaas said: "Kufr less than kufr and dhulm less than dhulm and fisq less than fisq. It is dhulm akbar when it is declared permissible but it is a great sin when it is done without declaring it permissible." [Tayseer al-Kareem ar-Rahmaan 2/296-297]

Imaam Ibn al-Jawzee (d. 596H) said: "And the decisive speech in this regard is that whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed - while rejecting it [in belief] {jahahda) and he knows that it is Allaah who revealed it - as the Jews did - then he is a disbeliever. And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed - inclining to his desires without rejecting it [in belief] then he is a dhaalim, faasiq and it has been reported from Alee bin Abu Talhah from Ibn Abbaas that he said: "Whoever rejects (jahada) what Allaah has revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it (aqarra bihi) but does not judge by it - then he is a dhaalim, a faasiq." [Zaad al-Maysir 2/366]

Shaikh Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqeetee (d. 1393H) said: "Know that the liberating stance in this topic is that kufr, dhulm and fisq, all of them can be used in the legislation with the intent of ‘disobedience’ at one time and with the intent of ‘kufr that ejects from the religion another time’. And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, turning away and contradicting the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and nullifying the rulings (ahkaam) of Allaah, then his dhulm, fisq, and kufr - all of them are disbelief that eject from the religion. And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, whilst believing that he is committing a forbidden action and doing a reprehensible action, then his kufr, dhulm and fisq does not eject him from the religion. [Adwaa al-Bayaan 2/104]

Imaam ibn Abee Izz al-Hanafee (d. 792H) said: "And there is a matter which it is necessary to comprehend well - that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed can sometimes be kufr that ejects from the religion and sometimes a major or minor sin - or it can be ‘metaphorical kufr’ (kufran majaaziyyan) or ‘minor kufr’ - and this is in accordance with the state of the ruler. If he believes that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is not waajib and that he has a choice in the matter - or if he disdains/despises it - while having conviction that it is the rule of Allaah, then this is the major kufr. And if he believes in the obligation to rule by what Allaah has revealed and in this [particular] incident [he knows it to be the rule of Allaah] but he turns away from it - whilst acknowledging that he deserves punishment then he is a disobedient person and he is termed a disbeliever with the metaphorical type of kufr or the minor type of kufr. [Sharh Aqeedat it-Tahaawiyyah p. 363]

And the Imaam and Mujaddid, Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhaab (d. 1206H) said: "Know that those things which eject from the religion (nawaaqid) are then in number: …Whoever believes (i’taqada 0that a guidance other than that of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is more perfect or that the judgement other than his is better - such as the one who gives preference to the hukm of the tawaagheet - then such a one is a disbeliever…" [Mu’allifaat Ash-Shaikh al-Imaam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab - al-Qismul-Awwal]

Imaam Al Qurtubee (rahimahullaah) said: "So just as the kaafir does not become a believer except by choosing imaan over kufr, then likewise a believer does not become a kaafir through something by which he did not intend kufr nor choose it. There is ijmaa upon this.” [Tafseer Ul-Qurtabi 7/6128]

Imaam At-Tahaawi (rahimahullaah) also said: “And we do not pronounce takfeer upon anyone from the people of Qibla by these sins, as long as they do not make them halaal, and we do not say that one who sins his imaan is not harmed.” Sharhul Aqeedatut-Tahaawiyyah p-316 (This is also a refutation of the Murjia whom the people of the Sunnah are accused of being)

The saying of Al-Qurtubee (rahimahullaah): “And Ibn Masood, and Al-Hassan said: “It is general for everyone that does not judge by what Allaah has revealed. Meaning, believing in that, and making that halaal.” [Al Jaami le Ahkaam al Quraan 6/190] And As-Su’oodee and Ibraheem An-Nakhee said similar. [See Tafseer At-Tabari 10/356-357]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) ibn Jareer at-Tabaree narrates (10/355/12053) with a saheeh isnaad from ibn Abbaas that he said about the verse, “whosoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed then they are kaafir”, “meaning kufr, but not kufr in Allaah and His Angels and Books and Messengers”

2) And in a narration from him about this verse, “it is not the kufr that they (i.e. the Khawaarij) believe, indeed it is not the kufr that ejects one from the religion, it is kufr less than kufr.”

3) And in another narration from him via the route of Alee bin Abu Talha from ibn Abbaas that he said, “the one who rejects what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, and the one who believes in it but does not rule by it is a dhaalim faasiq.”

Reported by ibn Jareer (12063). I say: ibn Abee Talha did not hear from ibn Abbaas, but the narration is good as a witness.

4) Then he (ibn Jareer) reports (12048-12051) from Ataa bin Abee Rabaah about the three verses, “kufr less than kufr, fisq less than fisq, dhulm less than dhulm.” And it’s isnaad is saheeh.

5) Then he reports (12052) from Sa’eed al-Makki from Tawoos about the verse, “it is not the kufr that ejects one from the religion”

And its isnaad is saheeh. And this Sa’eed is ibn Ziyaad ash-Shaybaanee al-Makki, and ibn Ma’een and al-Ijlee and ibn Hibbaan and others declared him trustworthy, and a group narrate from him.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Ruling by Other than the Law of Allaah

By Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaymeen

Explanatory notes from Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen (d.1421H) concerning the issue of ruling by other than what Allaah revealed.

The following is taken from the Shaykh’s concluding remarks to the hadeeth of `Adee bin Haatim that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) reciting the verse,

"They (the Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and monks to be their lords besides Allaah." [at-Tawbah (9): 31]Upon which I said, "indeed we did not worship them." [The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)] said, "did they not make unlawful that which Allaah made lawful and so you too did the same? [Did they not] make lawful what Allaah made unlawful and so you too did the same?" I replied, "verily." He said, "this then was the worship of them." Reported by Ahmad and at-Tirmidhee who declared it hasan. [The following points] are derived from the hadeeth:

That obedience with the meaning of worship is a specific type of uboodiyyah. Obedience in that which contradicts the Law of Allaah constitutes worship of the one obeyed. As for [obedience] in the worship of Allaah then this is [truly] worship of Allaah. That following the scholars and servants in that which contradicts the Law of Allaah constitutes taking them as lords [besides Allaah].
Know that following the scholars or leaders in their making lawful what Allaah has made unlawful or the opposite [causes that person] to fall into one of three categories: That he follows them while being pleased with their opinion and giving it precedence and being displeased with the ruling of Allaah - such a person is a kaafir because he has disliked what Allaah has revealed and as a result Allaah made his actions to be of no avail. No one but a kaafir has his actions rendered futile.
That he follows them while being pleased with the ruling of Allaah, knowing that it is the most ideal and best suited for the servants and the lands. However due to his following his desires he chooses this [other ruling] for example due to his [being offered] a position of responsibility. Such a person is not declared to be a kaafir, rather he is a faasiq.
That he does not know and neither is it possible for him to learn, so he blindly follows them thinking [that what he follows] is the truth. Such a person incurs no blame for he merely follows what he has been commanded and he is excused for this. This is why there occurs from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) that he said, "indeed whosoever is given a verdict not based upon knowledge then his sin is upon the one who gave him the verdict." If we were to say that this person is sinful due to the error of someone else then this necessarily leads to oppression and difficulty, and no person would trust any other due to the possibility of bearing responsibility for that persons error. {The hadeeth is reported by Ahmad (2/321, 365), Abu Daawood (4/66), ibn Maajah (1/20), ad-Daarimee (1/53) and al-Haakim (1/126) who said, "saheeh, meeting the conditions of the Two Shaykhs, I know of no defect [in it]." Adh-Dhahabee agreed.} If it is asked: why are not the second category [of people] declared to be kaafir? I would reply: if we were to say that they are kaafir then this would necessitate the disbelief of every person who commits a sin while knowing that he has disobeyed Allaah and knows that [what he has contradicted] is the ruling of Allaah.
A Benefit:

Allaah has described those who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed with three descriptions:

"Whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then they are the disbelievers [kaafiroon]."
"Whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then they are the oppressors [dhaalimoon]"
"Whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then they are the sinners [faasiqoon]."

The People of Knowledge have differed concerning this. So it is opined that these descriptions in fact describe one and the same thing because the kaafir is a dhaalim due to the saying of Allaah,


"And the disbelievers are the oppressors." [al-Baqarah (2): 254]

[Similarly the kaafir] is a faasiq due to the saying of Allaah,

"As for the sinners then their abode will be the Fire…" [as-Sajdah (32): 20]It is also opined that these are distinct descriptions and that they are [applied] in accordance to the situation: So [one] becomes a kaafir in three circumstances

When he believes that it is permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the saying of Allaah, "So is it the rule of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) that they seek?" [al-Maa`idah (5): 50]
Everything that opposes the rule of Allaah constitutes the rule of Jaahiliyyah. [Also the evidence for this] is the definitive consensus that it is not allowed to rule by other then what Allaah has revealed. Therefore the one who considers it lawful and permissible to rule by other then what Allaah has revealed has contradicted this definitive consensus and such a person is a kaafir and an apostate. This [is similar to the case of one] who considers fornication or alcohol to be permissible or considers bread or milk to be unlawful.
When he believes that ruling by other then what Allaah revealed is equivalent to ruling by the rule of Allaah.
When he believes that ruling by other then what Allaah revealed is better than ruling by what Allaah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the saying of Allaah,"And who is better than Allaah in judgement for a people who have certainty?" [al-Maa`idah (5): 50] So this verse states that the ruling of Allaah is the best of rulings as is further proven by the saying of Allaah, endorsing this,

"Is Allaah not the best of judges?" [at-Teen (95): 8] So when Allaah is the best of the judges in ruling and He is the most just of the rulers then whosoever claims that the rule of other than Allaah is equivalent or better than the rule of Allaah is a kaafir because he has denied the Qur`aan.
[One] becomes a dhaalim
When he believes that ruling by what Allaah has revealed is the best of judgements and the most beneficial for the servants and the lands and that it is obligatory to apply it. However hatred and jealousy lead him to rule by other than what Allaah revealed over his subjects - such a person is a dhaalim.
[One] becomes a faasiq

When he follows his own desires. For example he rules in favour of a person due to being bribed by him, or due to his being a close relative or friend, or [because the ruler] seeks the fulfillment of a need from his comrades or the likes. This along with the belief that the rule of Allaah is the ideal and it is obligatory to follow it - such a person is a faasiq. Even though he is also a dhaalim, describing him as a faasiq is more befitting. The strongest opinion is the second that these descriptions are distinct and that they are [applied] in accordance to the situation.
As regards the one who lays down legislative laws, despite his knowing the judgement of Allaah and that these laws are contrary to Allaah’s judgement - then this person has substituted these laws in place of the Sharee`ah. Therefore he is a kaafir - this because he does not choose these laws and turn away from Allaah’s Sharee`ah except due to his belief that they are better for the people and the land than the law of Allaah. But when we say that he is a kaafir, then the meaning of this is that this action leads to disbelief.
However the one who [legislates these rules] may have an excuse - for example he may be one who has been deluded: such that it has been said to him that this does not conflict with Islaam, or that it is something allowable as a case of benefiting the people (masaalih al-mursala), or that it is something that Islaam has left up to the [custom of] the people.
So there are some scholars - even though they are in error - who say that social transaction (mu`aamalaat) is something not dealt with by Islaam, and that rather it is referred to whatever is found to benefit the economy in each particular time. So if the situation requires us to establish usury banks or to tax the people then there is no problem with this.
There is no doubt concerning the error of [such a claim]. So if these people performed ijtihaad then may Allaah forgive them. Otherwise they are in a situation of very great danger and it is befitting that they are entitled ‘scholars of the state’ and not ‘scholars of the Religion.’…

Taken from ‘al-Qawl al-Mufeed `alaa Kitaab at-Tawheed’ [2/263-269]

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Concerning Those Who Do Not Rule by what Allaah has Revealed

By Imaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee

An excellent narration-based commentary by Imaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (d.1420H) – rahimahullaah – for the aayaat about those that do not rule by what Allaah revealed.

[IMG]file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]

The reason for the revelation of the verse "the one who does not rule by what Allaah revealed…", and that it refers to kufr in action not in belief.

2552- Indeed Allaah revealed, "the one who does not rule by what Allaah revealed then they are kaafir", "they are dhaalim", "they are faasiq". Ibn Abbaas said, "Allaah revealed them with regards to two groups from the Jews one of which had overpowered the other to the point that they consented to and agreed that for every person that the victorious tribe (al-Azeeza) killed from the subjugated tribe (adh-Dhaleelah) then the ransom was 50 wasq (?-probably a unit of currency), and that for every person the subjugated tribe killed from the victorious then the ransom was 100 wasq, and they remained in this state until the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) arrived in Madeenah and then both the tribes were subjugated, and that day they did not overcome him because of the peace treaty . Then the subjugated tribe killed a person from the victorious tribe and the victorious tribe sent someone demanding 100 wasq. So the subjugated tribe said: 'can this ever be that two people have the same religion, same genealogy, same city and the ransom for some of them be half of the others? We only used to give you this ransom due to your injustice to us, and now that Muhammad has come we will not give you this.' So a war almost started between them and then they agreed to make the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) judge between them. Then the victorious tribe said: 'by Allaah, Muhammad will not give you twice the sum of what we gave them for they (the subjugated tribe) spoke the truth, they did not give us this ransom except as an injustice on our part and due to our power over them. So secretly send someone to Muhammad who can inform you of his opinion, if he gives you what you wish then agree to have him arbitrate, and if he does not then beware and do not agree to have him arbitrate.' So they sent some people from the hypocrites to Muhammad. So when the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) came, Allaah informed him of all of their affair and what they desired and He, Azza wa Jall, revealed, "O Messenger! Let not those who hurry into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: 'we believe'…" to His saying, "then they are faasiq" [5:41-47]." Then he (ibn Abbaas) said, "By Allaah they were revealed with regards to these two (Jewish tribes), and it was these two that Allaah, Azza wa Jall meant (in these verses)"

Related by Ahmad (1/246), at-Tabaraanee in 'al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer' (3/95/1) via the route of Abd ar- Rahmaan bin Abee az-Zinaad from his father from Ubaid Allaah bin Abd Allaah bin Utbah ibn Mas'ud from Ibn Abbaas that he said: and mentioned the hadeeth.


And in 'ad-Durar al-Manthoor' (2/281), as-Suyutee ascribed the hadeeth to Abu Dawood, ibn Jareer, ibn al-Mundhir, Abu ash-Shaykh, ibn Mardawiyyah from ibn Abbaas. And it is in the tafseer of ibn Jareer (10/352) in this form but he does not mention ibn Abbaas in his isnaad.


And in Abu Dawood (3576) is the (hadeeth relating to the) revelation of the three verses specifically for the Jews of Qareedha and an-Nadeer, contravening what may be understood from the saying of ibn Katheer in his tafseer (6/160) after reporting this long narration from Ahmad, "and Abu Dawood reports something similar from the hadeeth of ibn Abee az-Zinaad from his father."


And the author of "ar-Rawd al-Baasim fee adh-Dhabb an as-Sunnah Abee al-Qaasim" quotes from him (ibn Katheer) that he declared the isnaad hasan. And I have not seen this in his book 'at-Tafseer' so maybe this occurs in his other works.

And declaring this hadeeth hasan is what the principles of this noble science dictate for it revolves around Abd ar-Rahmaan bin Abee az-Zinaad and he is as al-Haafidh (ibn Hajr) said, "truthful, his memorization changed/failed when he moved to Baghdaad, and he was a faqeeh"


And the saying of al-Haythamee (8/16), "and the likes of it is reported by Ahmad and at-Tabaraanee, and in it is Abd ar-Rahmaan bin Abee az-Zinaad and he is da'eef, and he has been declared trustworthy, and the remaining narrators of Ahmad are trustworthy".


I say: his saying "da'eef, and he has been declared trustworthy" is not good, because has determined the opinion that he is da'eef to be stronger than the opinion that he is trustworthy. And the truth is that he is in the middle and that he is hasan in hadeeth except when he contradicts (others), and this cannot be derived from his aforementioned saying. And Allaah knows best.


An important benefit:



When you know that the three verses, "whosoever does nor rule by what Allaah revealed then they are kaafir", "then they are dhaalim", "then they are faasiq" were revealed with regards to the Jews and their saying over his (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) judgement, "if he gives you what you want then agree to have him arbitrate, but if does not then beware and do not agree to have him arbitrate" - this saying which the Qur'aan points to before these verses, "they say: if you are given this then take it, but if you are not given this then beware."- when you understand this then it is not permissible to take these verses to refer to some of the rulers and judges of the Muslims who rule by other than what Allaah revealed in the earthly laws.


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


And the reason behind this is that kufr is of two types: kufr in belief and kufr in action, and the kufr in belief is linked to the heart, and the kufr in action is linked to the limbs. So the one whose actions are kufr due to their contradicting the Sharee'ah, and this kufr follows on from what has become established in his heart i.e. kufr in belief, then this is the kufr which Allaah will not forgive and this person will reside in the Fire forever. But if (these kufr actions) contradict what is established in his heart, then he is a believer in the Rule of his Lord, but he contradicts this with his actions. So his kufr is kufr of action only, and it is not kufr in belief. And he is under the Will of Allaah, if He Wills He will punish him, and if He Wills He will forgive him. And it is with this (second) type (of kufr) that some of the ahaadeeth are to be understood which generalize the term kufr for a Muslim who performs a sinful action. And it would be good to mention some:


1) "two things if done are kufr: abusing genealogies and wailing over the dead." Reported by Muslim

2) "Arguing over the Qur'aan is kufr."

3) "Abusing a Muslim is fisq, and killing him is kufr." Reported by Muslim

4)

5) "Speaking about the favours of Allaah is giving thanks (shukr), and leaving it is kufr"

6) "do not return to being kaafir after me by some of you hitting the necks of (killing) others." Agreed upon.


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


And ruling by other than the what Allaah revealed is not exempted from this principle, and what is narrated from the salaf supports this, and that is none other than their saying on the tafseer of this verse, "kufr less than kufr" as is authentically reported from the Commentator of the Qur'aan, ibn Abbaas, and then some of the Taabi'een and others learnt this from him. And it is necessary to mention some of them so that maybe they may illuminate the path ahead of those that have been misguided in this dangerous issue, and have taken the road of the Khawaarij who declared people to be kaafir due to their committing sins even though they may pray and fast!


1) ibn Jareer at-Tabaree narrates (10/355/12053) with a saheeh isnaad from ibn Abbaas that he said about the verse, "whosoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed then they are kaafir", "meaning kufr, but not kufr in Allaah and His Angels and Books and Messengers"


2) And in a narration from him about this verse, "it is not the kufr that they (i.e. the Khawaarij) believe, indeed it is not the kufr that ejects one from the religion, it is kufr less than kufr."


Narrated by al-Haakim (2/313) and he said "saheeh isnaad" and adh-Dhahabee agreed. And it would have been more deserving of them to say, "saheeh according to the conditions of the two Sheikhs (Bukhaaree and Muslim)" as the isnaad is like this. Then I saw that ibn Katheer said in his tafseer (6/163) from Haakim that he said, "saheeh according to the conditions of the two Sheikhs", so it is obvious that this statement is omitted in the printed edition of 'al-Mustadrak". And ibn Katheer also ascribes the narration, summarised, to ibn Abee Haatim.


3) And in another narration from him via the route of Alee bin Abu Talha from ibn Abbaas that he said, "the one who rejects what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, and the one who believes in it but does not rule by it is a dhaalim faasiq."

Reported by ibn Jareer (12063). I say: ibn Abee Talha did not hear from ibn Abbaas, but the narration is good as a witness.


4) Then he (ibn Jareer) reports (12048-12051) from Ataa bin Abee Rabaah about the three verses, "kufr less than kufr, fisq less than fisq, dhulm less than dhulm." And it's isnaad is saheeh.


5) Then he reports (12052) from Sa'eed al-Makki from Tawoos about the verse, "it is not the kufr that ejects one from the religion"


And it's isnaad is saheeh. And this Sa'eed is ibn Ziyaad ash-Shaybaanee al-Makki, and ibn Ma'een and al-Ijlee and ibn Hibbaan and others declared him trustworthy, and a group narrate from him.


6) And he reported (12025, 12026) via two routes of narration from 'Imraan bin Hadeer who said a group of people from the Banee Umru bin Sadus [and in another narration: a group from the Ibaadiyyah] came to Abu Mazliz (he is from the great trustworthy taabi'een, and his name is Laahiq bin Humaid al-Basree) and said: "do you see the saying of Allaah 'the one who does not rule by what Allaah reveals then they are kaafir' is this the truth?" He replied, "yes." They said: " 'the one who does not rule by what Allaah revealed then they are dhaalim' is this the truth?" He replied, "yes." They said, " 'the one who does not rule by what Allaah revealed then they are faasiq' is this the truth?" He replied, "yes." So they said, "O Abu Majliz do these (rulers) rule by what Allaah revealed?" He replied, "this is the religion that they hold to and they call to, so if they leave anything from it they know that they have fallen into sin." They said, "no by Allaah, but you are afraid and worried." He said, "you are more deserving of this (description) than me! I do not see this, but you do yet you do not forbid (them from) it. But these verses were revealed with regards to the Jews and Christians and the People of Shirk." And it's isnaad is saheeh.


And the scholars differed over the explanation of the kufr that is mentioned in the first verse, having five different opinions which ibn Jareer narrates (10/346-357) with their chains of narration to their proponents. Then he concludes by saying (10/358),


"and the most correct saying of all of these according to me is the saying of the one who says: these verse were revealed with regards to the kuffaar of the People of the Book due to the verses before and after them, and they are the people who are meant in them, and the context of these verses is about them. So it is most deserving that the narrative be about them.


So if someone were to say: indeed Allaah generalised the narrative to all who do not rule by what Allaah revealed, so how can you specify it?


It is said (in reply): Indeed Allaah generalized the narrative to all those who reject the Ruling of Allaah that is laid out in His Book. So He informed us about them that they, by their leaving the Ruling - by way of what they left - are kaafir. And this is the saying on all who do not rule by what Allaah revealed, rejecting it - that he is a kaafir as said by ibn Abbaas. Because his rejecting the ruling of Allaah after he knows it to have been revealed in His Book is the same as his rejecting the Prophethood of the Prophet after he knows him to be a Prophet."


In conclusion: the verse was revealed with regards to the Jews who rejected what Allaah had revealed, so the one who associates with them in this rejection, then he is a kaafir, with kufr in belief. And the one who does not associate with them in this rejection then his kufr is in action, because he has performed an action of theirs. And he is a sinful criminal (mujrim aathim), but he is not ejected from the religion due to this as has preceded from ibn Abbaas (RA). And al-Imaam Abu Ubaid al-Qaasim bin Sallaam explained this and increased upon this explanation in 'Kitaab al-Eemaan', chapter "leaving faith due to sin" (pg. 84- 96 with my tahqeeq), so the one desiring further research should refer to this.


After writing what has preceded I saw ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, saying in the explanation of the verse in his 'Majmoo al-Fataawaa' (3/268), "meaning he regards it permissible to rule by other that what Allaah revealed."

Then he mentioned (7/254) that Imaam Ahmad was questioned about the kufr mentioned in the verse and he replied, "a kufr which does not eject from faith, like having faith in some of it (?), and likewise with kufr. Until there comes a matter over which there is no difference over."


And he (ibn Taymiyyah) said (7/312), "so when there is the saying of the salaf that man can have faith and hypocrisy in him, then likewise is their saying that he can have faith and kufr (in him). But not the kufr that ejects one from the religion, as was said by ibn Abbaas and his companions over His saying, "the one who does not rule by what Allaah revealed then they are kaafir." They said: kufr that does not eject one from the religion. And Imaam Ahmad and other Imaams of the Sunnah followed them in this."


The wording of at-Tabaraanee has, "And the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) did not overcome them or …. On that day as he was in a peace treaty"


Silsilah as-Saheehah (vol 6. no.2552) of Shaykh Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee