Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Bismillahi wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi salallahu alayhi wasallam amma ba'da Salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh Brothers and sisters, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you and to introduce you to a brand new show and a brand new podcast called The Hot Seat. To understand a little bit more about The Hot Seat, we first have to understand the context of the modern day world we find ourselves living in in the year 2019. It is a world in which perhaps there are more doubts, misconceptions and misinterpretations that are thrown around about the religion of Islam than in any other period of time in the history of mankind.
The internet is the number one source used by people globally to acquire information on any topic and it is riddled and full of false notions and erroneous ideologies about the Our kids, ourselves are being exposed to this kind of information on a daily and if not daily then at the very least weekly basis and whether we know it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not, it is having an effect on ourselves, our hearts, our minds and ultimately our understanding of this beautiful religion. To further complicate the problem, many of us find ourselves living in western societies where the governments and the social norms and pressures are constantly trying to redefine what is good and what is bad, what is accepted and what is rejected, what Islam is and is allowed to be and what Islam is never allowed to be. All of this, my brothers and sisters, ultimately leads to confusion, it leads to ignorance and if Allah permits, it can lead to misguidance.
The Hot Seat has therefore been designed with the permission of Allah alone to counter these kind of modern day contemporary issues head on by using the knowledge and the guidance of the Muslims of the past, the early generations of Muslims, the best of generations. There's not a single Muslim on the face of the planet today that would doubt the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala completed our religion for us over 1400 years ago and that that completed, holistic, perfect religion is just as applicable now in the year 2019 as it was back then. We truly do have classical solutions for contemporary problems.
However, this isn't your normal, average Islamic lecture series. First of all, it's not a lecture, it's a discussion between two parties, often opposing parties, in an attempt to reach the truth bi'idhnillah. And secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it's a unique, one-of-its-kind, interactive podcast where you, from the comfort of your own home, have the opportunity to vote for and to choose the topic we'll be discussing on the show.
You also have the chance to ask your own questions on these contemporary issues and to grill the speaker if you feel like he hasn't been grilled enough on the show itself. I'll be releasing details of how you can do both of those things at the end of this episode. But for now, without any further ado, let's get into this episode of The Hot Seat.
Welcome to another episode of The Hot Seat. Today, we have a very, very important topic to discuss. It's a heavyweight topic.
It's a very contemporary, modern-day issue that we're going through at this moment in time, and it's talking about the Muslim rulers. Are the Muslim rulers actually Muslim, or are they actually disbelievers? Before we get onto that, I think, as always, it's a good idea to start with some opening definitions. So why don't you start by defining what is kufr? What is disbelief? The word al-kufr in the Arabic language is aslu al-kufri min al-kafri.
It comes from the word kafr, and it's the measure of kafara, the verbal noun of kafara, the root word of kafara. That's what it means. And it has many meanings, but all of the meanings go back to al-satr wal-taghtiyah.
It is to conceal something. Okay. And it's to hide something.
That's why the scholars, they say the ayah where Allah Ta'ala, He says, kamatha lighaythin a'jaba al-kuffara nabatuh, kamatha lighaythin a'jaba al-kuffara. Kuffar here are the ones that are being spoken about here as the kuffar is the farmers. The farmers, they are kuffar, kuffar in the sense where they take the seed, and they place it into the earth, and they bury it.
So they hide it. They conceal it. Also, the night is called kafir, al-laylu kafirun.
The night is kafir because it conceals the light of the sun with the darkness. So it's called a kafir. So that's what it means originally in the Arabic language.
In terms of what it means in the sharia, Sheikh al-Islam al-Taymiyyah and others, they defined it. And the best or the most comprehensive definition will mean it's dhiddu al-iman. It's the opposite of al-iman.
So kuffar is the opposite of al-iman. And so the person will then have to know what iman is, because sometimes things are defined with its opposite. So kuffar is the opposite of al-iman.
And we hear in the Qur'an, in the sunnah, we hear things like Is it easy for us to make takfir, so to put this ruling of kuffar on someone? Because it comes up quite often in the Qur'an and the sunnah. Does that give the impression that it's quite an easy thing for us to do? And labeling a person a kafir is not a light issue. It's a very serious, very heavy issue.
For that reason, Imam al-Bukhari and Muslim, they narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that he said If a person says to his brother, if he says to him, this kuffar will come back to one of the two. So if a person labels his brother kafir, it will come back to one of the two. Also, Muslim narrated in his sahih on the authority of Jundub that the Messenger ﷺ, he said about a man, a story of a man.
This man was a worshipper. He used to worship Allah a lot. And he would always advise a brother of his.
He would always say to him, Brother, stop what you're doing. Fear Allah, repent and come back from your wrongdoings. And this sinner would consistently carry on doing it.
And he would do it and he would do it. So this really annoyed the worshipper. So the worshipper said to him, after seeing this man's persistent and he's continuous in his wrongdoings, he said, Wallahi, Allah is not going to forgive so and so.
Referring to the sinner. Then Allah said in response to the one who said, Allah is not going to give this man. Allah said to him, Who is the one who is speaking on my behalf? Who is saying that I'm not going to forgive so and so? I have forgiven so and so, and I have now nullified your deeds.
What he said to him right now is, He said, Allah is not going to forgive so and so. In other words, you're a disbeliever. Because the only one Allah doesn't forgive is the disbelievers.
So in other words, he said to him, you're a disbeliever. So it's very dangerous when it comes to labelling a person a kafir. I just want to read one powerful quote of Al-Imam Al-Shawqani, in response to that question you asked.
Al-Imam Al-Shawqani, he said a statement that really deserves for a student of knowledge, for even a Muslim, to memorise or to learn, or even to keep it close to themselves in the course of their life. Because it's something that we find very common, people labelling people kuffar, kafir, disbeliever. This statement is really powerful.
He said to him, Al-Imam Al-Shawqani said, He said, He said, Rahim Allah, he said, no, labelling a man to be a disbeliever, by saying that he has left the fold of Islam, expelling him from Islam, and putting him under the fold of disbelief, it is not befitting for a Muslim to do this, who believes in Allah, and believes in the Day of Judgment. So now this is the principle now. That evidence is as clear as what? It's more clearer than the sun.
Okay. Can't have ambiguity, it can't be an issue of difference of opinion, it has to be something that is crystal clear. And then he brought the statement of the Prophet, where he said, the hadith that we just mentioned.
And then at the ending of his statement, he said, Rahim Allah, after bringing many narrations, and many evidence from the Prophet ﷺ, he said, Rahim Allah, and anything that has come in this regard, meaning the hadith that have warned against placing a person as a kafir, is, is one of the greatest, most serious hadiths, that give you a reminder regarding this issue, to go and place people as a kafir. Takfir is not my rights, your rights, or a scholar's rights. The takfir is the haq of Allah ﷻ. It's Allah ﷻ who places takfir on people.
It's the Messenger ﷺ who can say, this person is a kafir. وَلِذَٰلِكَ بِنُ الْقَيِّمِ He said, الْكُفْرُ حَقُّ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ رَسُولِهِ بِالنَّصِ يَثْبُتُ لَا بِقَوْلِ فُلَانِ مَنْ كَانَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ وَعَبْدُهُ قَدْ كَفَّرَهُ فَذَاكَذُ الْكُفْرَانِ Kufr is the right of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. It can only be established, kufr, by textual evidence. Not by my sheikh said, my imam said, لا بِقَوْلِ فُلَانِ Not the statement of a scholar.
Not the statement of an imam. However much they are in number, however large and great they are, it doesn't matter. They don't, that's not their rights.
مَنْ كَانَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ وَعَبْدُهُ Anyone Allah and His Messenger ﷺ placed him as a kafir, قَدْ كَفَرَهُ فَذَاكَذُ الْكُفْرَانِ This is kufr. Kufr is like halal and haram. You and I can't say, this is halal, or this is haram without what? Without evidence.
قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالْإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُ بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَن تَقُولُ عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعَلَمُونَ So, Sorry, what does that mean? That speaking about Allah Ta'ala with no knowledge, that's what I want from the ayah. We can't come and say this is halal, this is haram, lie about Allah's religion. We have to have evidence from the Qur'an and the surah.
Okay, understood. I think before we talk about the Muslim rulers, which will be the main crux of our discussion today, I think to have a fruitful discussion, it's important that we agree on some certain principles before we move on. So, the first question I have for you is, is kufr just an issue of the heart? Like, do I have to disbelieve in Allah, disbelieve in the Day of Judgment or can actions, certain actions that I do also take me or anybody else outside of the fold of Islam? Scholars have looked at takfir from many different perspectives.
Just like if I was to look at you, I can look at you from many different perspectives. I can look at you in terms of your complexion, I can look at you in terms of your height, I can look at you in terms of your ethnicity, I can look at you in terms of your gender. There's many different perspectives I can look at you at.
Scholars, they've done the same with kufr. They've looked at it from many different perspectives and they realize that kufr, from one of the ways of looking at it is, أَقْصَامُ الْكُفْرِ بِعْتِبَارِ بَوَعِثِ وَأَسْبَابِهِ Looking at takfir in terms of where it occurs from, I mean where it happens from. Okay.
Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah believe kufr can happen from قَوْل, speech, and عَمَل, action, and اَعْتِقَاد, a belief. Actions as well? So actions by itself can be kufr. So wait, let's pause here a second.
So I believe in Allah, I believe in his messenger, I believe in the Day of Judgment, I have all of the beliefs of a Muslim, but because I do a certain act, you're saying that could render me as a non-Muslim? Some actions, yes. I don't understand the correlation between an action and a belief. For example, doesn't Allah say throughout the Quran, أَلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ He talks about belief, those who believe and those who do righteous actions.
So Allah clearly separates belief from actions and you're trying to bring them together, why? So belief can be kufr by itself. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, I understand that.
And speech can be a kufr, and actions, your mere action can be a kufr. For example, صَبُّ النَّبِي ﷺ Insulting the messenger ﷺ, it renders any and everything in your heart. Your heart totally goes.
If you insult the messenger ﷺ, you're a disbeliever. That action alone is enough to tell us you're a disbeliever, whether you were joking or whether it doesn't matter. صَبُّ النَّبِي ﷺ Insulting the messenger ﷺ is kufr.
Mocking the religion is kufr. You know the famous ayah, لا تَعْتَذِرُوا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ Don't look for excuses. After they mocked the prophet ﷺ and they mocked the religion, they came to the prophet trying to look for excuse.
And they tried to look for a way out. And Allah said to them, لا تَعْتَذِرُوا Don't try to look for excuses. قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ You have now become disbelievers.
You're labeled as disbelievers. So the action itself is disbelief. So Ahlus Sunnah when it comes to kufr, where it occurs from, they believe it occurs from the limbs.
It occurs from speech. And it also occurs from a person's belief. Okay, what about the hadith that I have in front of me where the messenger ﷺ has said, No one will enter paradise in whose heart is an atom's weight of arrogance.
And no one will enter hell whose heart has an atom's weight of faith. So this is talking about if my belief, if my heart, my heart is good. It just has an atom's weight of faith.
I won't enter the hellfire. I won't be a disbeliever in other words. But you're saying that your heart could be good.
But your actions render you a disbeliever. Aren't you contradicting this hadith? You see what we have to do when it comes to the textual evidence, the Qur'an and the Sunnah, is that we have to bring them all together. We can't cherry pick and say, we want to take this one and we want to abandon this one and we want to take this one.
The deviated groups, every one of them, they took what was in favor of them. What they thought was in line with their belief. The khawarij came and they took the ayah, bala man kasaba sayyi'atah wa ataq gua qati'atuh, faulayik ashabun naarihum feehaa qaliduhn Anyone who does a sin.
Anyone who doesn't sin. What does the ayah say? bala man kasaba sayyi'atah wa ataq gua qati'atuh faulayk ashabun naarihum feeháa qaliduhn So they said this ayah shows that if you do anything that you're in the hellfire forever. Not knowing that the sin that's being referred to here is shirk.
Okay, okay. The same thing when it comes to these evidence. Generally speaking, those who use those evidences who use those evidences to say that there is no kufr that can happen from their limbs are the murji'ah, the deviated group that went against the belief of Ahlus Sunnah.
So we have to bring all of those textual evidences together. I just gave you an evidence right now, I clearly gave you an evidence which is لا تعتذروا قد كفرتم بعد إيمانكم Don't look for excuses after they insulted the Prophet, after they mocked the religion. Allah said don't look for excuses, you are disbelievers.
So we have to bring all of those textual evidences together. Okay, you touched on it just now and I want to explore it a little bit. I just feel like I've given you a general answer, let me give you a more detailed answer.
That hadith that you brought and other hadiths, what we have to understand is that سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم insulted the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and insulted the religion, it renders what's in your heart. There's nothing, there's no must, there's nothing left anymore. All of that is gone.
So that is actually in line with the hadith because there is no... There is a relation between the external and the internal. But the person, this action alone has shown us and has indicated to us that there's nothing in your heart. So there can't be nothing left because of the relationship between the external and the internal.
I'm not saying that the kufr can never happen from the limbs, but it really happened from the heart. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it happened from the limbs.
Okay, it happened from your limbs and you're kafir because of what you did by insulting Allah عز و جل and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Okay, fine. You just mentioned the belief of the khawarij and I want to explore that in a little bit more detail.
You said that they consider someone who commits major sins to leave the fold of Islam. Why is this not correct? Doesn't Allah say in the Qur'an أَفَرَأَيْتَ مِنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَٰهَهُ هَوَىٰ Have you not seen the one who takes his desires to be his God? When somebody commits a sin, they usually do it out of desire. So he's committed shirk with Allah because he's taking it as a lord besides him.
The ayah أَفَرَأَيْتَ مِنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَٰهَهُ هَوَٰهُ doesn't necessarily show he's a kafir. But what it means here is that the innovator, for example, would then fall under that hadith. Why? How? Because he's taken his own whims and desires as to legislate the permissibility of an action that wasn't legislated by Allah and His Messenger.
The same thing, the minor sin will fall under that. Why are you just restricting it to the major sin in the ayah? Yeah, according to this ayah, correct. Why are you saying this isn't true? So you have to understand, you're going to have to say any person who goes against Allah and His Messenger even once has done shirk.
According to this ayah? The ayah doesn't show that. The ayah shows those people who have chosen to worship other than Allah, then this is kufr akbar. Okay? And then those who have chosen to follow their desires, that they are sinners.
This is not a مسألة أهل السنة ever differ upon. It's a مسألة إجمع مقرر. It's a unanimously agreed upon.
Someone can become a kafir by taking other than Allah and he becomes a kafir because he worshipped other than Allah. That's one thing that needs to be understood. But the other flip side which is if a person does a sin and he goes against Allah's command, without a shadow of a doubt he has gone against Allah's way and that which Allah has sanctioned and he has followed his desires over Allah's commandment, but it doesn't make him a disbeliever.
But he's disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. Oh, without a shadow of a doubt. So what about the ayah قُلْ أَعْطِيُ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْكَافِرِينَ The one who, sorry, just to give the English translation, say obey Allah and the Messenger.
If they turn away, i.e. they do not obey Allah and His Messenger, then indeed Allah does not like the disbelievers. This is a person who does إعراض كُلِّ. It's one of the forms of kufr, which is that a person fully turns away from Allah and His Messenger externally and internally and doesn't give any consideration to it.
But the إعراض الجُزئي, which is partial abandonment of Allah's religion, that makes a person a kafir. Okay. What if the person considers what he's doing is permissible? For example, drinking alcohol is a major sin.
On its own, it doesn't take someone outside the fold of Islam. Do we agree on that? What if the person actually believes drinking alcohol is permissible? I'm allowed to drink alcohol. Does he then become a kafir? Yeah.
So you said that drinking alcohol is a major sin. We've agreed that it's a major sin. Then the person says that it's halal for me.
There's no problem. And beautiful that you mentioned that. To say that it's… Sorry.
For the person to drink alcohol is not making it halal for themselves. What's making it halal for themselves is that they believe it's halal for them. If they say that, yeah.
So it's good that you mentioned the word belief. إعتقاد حل الشيء It's that the person believes this is halal for them. Yeah, that becomes كفر أكبر.
That becomes كفر. So what if someone has been doing that their entire life? Isn't this then an indication that they actually believe it's permissible for them? Continuation of this action and consistency, it doesn't make it استحلال necessarily. We can't make a person كافر because of مجرد الفعل.
Because of a mere fact of doing something for too long or continuation of it. Okay, fine. The final principle I want us to agree upon before we move on to the issue of the rulers is the issue of shirk.
Shirk obviously is a specific action that has a specific ruling. Do you agree with me that if somebody commits shirk, they leave the fold of Islam? Without any excuse, that's it. They've just gone outside the fold of Islam.
Yeah, shirk أكبر in general takes a person out of the fold of Islam. لا شك ولا ريض. Without a doubt.
Okay, good. Let's now talk about the issue of the rulers, the Muslim rulers. Before we move on, do you agree that in most of the Muslim countries, if not all of them, the rulers are not ruling by the sharia, in its totality, the law of Allah? I can't talk about that because I haven't observed all countries.
So the majority of the countries, let's talk about the majority of the countries, you've seen that in many of these Muslim countries, alcohol is permissible. Riba, interest-based banks is permissible. Rather, the one who takes out an interest-based loan, he is punished if he doesn't pay the interest in the courts that they've set up.
This is obviously ruling by other than the Quran and Sunnah. You would agree with me on that? That is true. Okay.
Then what about the ayah in Surah Al-Ma'idah where Allah says, وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ Whoever does not rule by what Allah has sent down, then they are the disbelievers. Surely this then applies to the Muslim rulers that we just agreed are not ruling by what Allah sent down? Okay, let's agree on some points. Number one, you kept mentioning the concept of the rulers and the rulers and the rulers.
As though you restrict the issue of ruling by other than what Allah sent down only on the rulers. It's like you're restricting it only to them. Okay, go on, carry on.
What I mean by that is, وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ It's not restricted only to the Muslim rulers. So who else does it apply to? You and I. In what sense? Okay, good. So the ayah says, وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ The word man here is general.
And then ma' again, which is in there as well, is a general term. So man, it means whoever. The ayah says whoever.
Isn't that what the translation says? Yes, whoever. Whoever. So it's anyone.
So great scholars like Ibn Hazm and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, they mentioned that ruling by other than what Allah sent down also refers to your own actions. So what you're referring to is like Ibn Hazm in his book Al-Fisul, when he says من فعل فقد حكم Whoever does an action, then he is ruled. This is what you're talking about now.
Okay, but you'd agree with me that certain terms in the Arabic language have a definition that is Zahir, that is apparent. And the apparent definition of ruling is to set legislation, set laws. Then there might be a Mu'awwil definition, which is like an interpreted meaning, which might be to commit a sin or something like this.
Why are you trying to go towards the Mu'awwil meaning and leaving the Zahir, leaving the apparent? The Zahir is actually to say that it's everything. Because of the ayah وَإِذَا بُشِرَ أَحَدُونَ بِالْأُنْثَ أَضَلَّ وَجْهُهُمُ مُسْوَدًا وَهُوَ كَظِيمٌ يَتَوَارَى مِنَ الْقَوْمِ مِن سُوءٍ مَا بُشِرَ بِهِ أَيُمْسِكُوا عَلَى هُونٍ أَمْ يَدُسُّهُ فِي الْتُرَابِ أَلَا سَأَمَا يَحْكُمُونَ What does that mean, Zahir? Allah is referring to the pre-Islamic era where they buried the girls alive. They buried the girls alive.
When they buried the girls alive, Allah Azza wa Jalla referred to their action of burying these young girls alive. Allah said refer to it as أَلَا سَأَمَا يَحْكُمُونَ What an evil ruling they were doing. حُكُم So the word حُكُم is their own wrongdoings was referred to it as well.
You see my point? So you can't now restrict it to that meaning. And plus when we see a term in the Qur'an, we have to use other verses from the Qur'an to prove it. So the word حُكُم is not restricted to just judging between two people.
It's also referring to your own actions. Okay. That's number one.
Number two. Let's use the example Sheikh Al-Islam Taymiyyah used. Ibn Taymiyyah used the example of مَنْ حَكَمَ بَيْنَ اثْنَيْنِ Anyone who judges between two children, they come to him and they say uncle, uncle, whose handwriting is better? And he goes unjustly because he's related to one of them.
So the one he's related to, he says your handwriting is better over the other one. فَقَدْ حَكَمَ بِغَيْرِ مَا انزَلَ اللَّهِ He's judged by other than what Allah sent down. So the issue of حُكُم بغير ما انزلَ الله restricting it to the leader is the first mistake many people fall into.
Okay, but do you understand? Using your common sense at the very least, do you understand that there is a difference between someone judging between the handwriting of two children and someone legislating in an entire country that riba is halal, riba is not a sin, it's fine, you can drink alcohol. You've got to understand there's a difference between the two. Yes, the sins are not the same.
The sins can always be different, but it's still a sin. You can't take it to kufr. You're right in the sense of saying this sin is bigger than this sin.
It's true. Because the number of people who are coming under it is more in number. The people he's oppressing is more in number.
There's no denying the fact that this sin is bigger than this sin. What you're talking about is ta'thim and ta'thim. Sin and sin.
Because it's large in number, now it automatically becomes kufr. It's a fallacy. So you're saying according to this ayah, both of them are still sins.
Another point I want to bring out, the ayah that you just quoted. Are you saying that you're taking the ayah for its apparent, that you want to say kufr is major? Yes. This is the belief of the qawarij.
The reason why I say this is the belief of the qawarij is because I just proved to you that your own action is what? Hukum. Anyone who does major sin to you has to be a kafir. Because you took the ayah and it's apparent.
So what is it then? Allah says, So we say that what Ibn Abbas said, Ibn Abbas said he said, Meaning? It's a kufr before the major kufr. Is that actually authentically attributed to Ibn Abbas or is it a statement of ta'wuz? Ibn Abbas is authentically transmitted to him. The sanad for that hadith is Ibn Jalil At-Tabari narrates it in his tafsir.
He brings Hannadi Ibn Sarri, who he heard it from, and also Ibn Waqi' who both of them heard from, Al-Waqi' and then Sufyan, Ma'mar Ibn Rashid, Abdullah Ibn Ta'wuz, Ibn Ta'wuz Ibn Kaysan, and Abdullah Ibn Abbas. Sanad here is, No one weakened the sanad. Over 40 scholars authenticated it.
Ibn Uthaymeen said the ones whose hearts are sick are the ones who go and try to weaken it. Ibn Uthaymeen clearly said that. This hadaya, the only person who has taken it for it's apparent and said it's kufr, Akbar are the khawarij, they're the only ones who said it.
They're the only ones who said it. I just want to bring you a consensus. Okay.
A consensus. Ijma' That ruling by other than what Allah sent down is a major sin. Consensus, there's no difference between them.
I've got a consensus that says it's kufr. I'm going to come to it right now. Okay, no problem.
You give me yours first and I'll give you mine. Okay, I'll give you mine inshallah. The first consensus is Ibn Abdel Barra.
He says, Ibn Abdel Barra, he says in his Kitab al-Tamheed, the 16th volume, page 358. He says, The scholars are unanimously in agreement. What? To be oppressive in your leading, other than what Allah sent down.
Yeah. In your ruling, he said, It is from the major sins. Of course, the one who deliberately does it.
The one who deliberately does it. And he's aware of what he's doing. Ignorance, of course, is an excuse.
So we have this consensus. Ibn Abdel Barra says this is a major sin. Okay, so the Ijma' that I'm going to bring you is, first of all, a statement from Ibn Taymiyyah.
And this is found in Majmu' al-Fatawa, volume number 28, page number 524. Where he says, So if you look at the statement Shaykh Al-Islam Taymiyyah says in Majmu' al-Fatawa, He used the word, What does that mean? It means to permit, to make halal. You used the English translation as the word permit.
Yes. This issue of istihlal is kufr to me. Sorry, what do you mean by istihlal? Let's look at what Shaykh Al-Islam Taymiyyah himself said about istihlal.
Okay. What does that mean in English? Istihlal is to make something halal. Just like the rulers are making riba halal.
Okay, let me say something. I feel like this is very important that we say this. Okay, fine.
Okay. Six of them are kufr akbar, by consensus. There is no difference of opinion.
And three of them are there. There is a difference of opinion. The sixth kufr akbar is if the ruler has juhud.
Juhud means he believes in his heart that this is the rule of Allah. But he rejects it from the outer. He is a kafir.
Okay. Number two. He rejects it from the heart and externally rejects it as well.
He is a kafir. Okay. Number three.
He makes it halal. Which is to say this is halal. Which is to say this is halal.
He has to say it. His doing is not enough. What is the evidence for the condition of having to say it? The Ibn Taymiyyah that you just used right now.
He says, A statement like that. Meaning in English? He believes it in his heart and then he affirms it with his tongue. Okay.
I'm going to come to a very good point inshaAllah. So istihlal is to believe it in your heart. And to verbalize it.
Okay. The person vocalizes it. And says this is halal.
What's the problem? There's nothing wrong with it. How much have I mentioned? Four right? Three maybe. Yeah.
And the fourth one now is He goes it's better than the law of Allah. He gives precedence to this one. Okay.
Number five. He makes it equal to the rule of Allah. Okay.
Number six is He attributes this ruling to the religion of Allah Azza wa Jalla. These six are There's no difference of opinion. Okay.
The one that you just mentioned to me, it falls under istihlal. Right. Not to mention the context of that statement of Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is actually in the context of the Tatar he was talking about.
But why can't that apply to the modern day world? The Tatar were different in the way they ruled. They believed Yasir was the god. The man that they were worshipping And their leader, they saw him as an ilah.
That he's a They worshipped him. So that's very important. That you take this fatwa of the Sheikh Rahimahullah Ta'ala And you what? You understand it correctly.
I haven't still been proven otherwise In my fatwa of Ibn Abdulbar Rahimahullah Ta'ala Which is that the consensus is Ruling by other than what Allah has sent down is a major sin. If you say it's not a major sin Then you are saying anyone Who does a sin, major sin He's a kafir. No, not necessarily.
Let me bring another statement. This time of Ibn Kathir In Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah And he says And again I know you're going to say This is in the context of the Tatar Because it is But I'm still I still don't understand Why we can't take the generality of the statement And he doesn't mention anything about permitting Because really when you look at the word permits I know in the English language anyway It could mean permits as in believe in your heart That it's permissible Or it could mean making a law That is making it permissible. Do you get what I'm saying? We're talking about Shari'a issues We're not talking about worldly issues.
Okay fine, let me bring the statement of Ibn Kathir. So whoever leaves the clear Shari'ah Which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn Abdillah The Seal of the Prophets And takes the hukum, takes the ruling To other than it from the laws of the kafir Which are abrogated He has disbelieved. He doesn't mention anything about Believing it's permissible Rejecting it He doesn't mention any of these conditions That you mentioned.
So what about the one who takes the hukum To the yasiq The law of the Tatar Like you mentioned And puts it before it. Underline that word for me. Okay, puts it before it.
Whoever does that He is disbelieved by the ijma' of the Muslims So why do you want to underline Puts it before it? I believe it's Kufr Akbar Again it's tafdheel It's given virtue over it. Okay Again it comes under the six that I mentioned He says this is This takes precedence over the law of Allah He's a kafir for that. You see these fatawa of these ulama They need to be understood.
They can't be cherry-picked. My statement of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr shows that in and within itself, it is a major sin (كبيرة من الكبائر – kabīrah min al-kabāʾir). He said: The scholars are unanimously in agreement that to be oppressive in your ruling – to rule by other than what Allah has sent down (بغير ما أنزل الله – bighayri mā anzala Allāh) – is from the major sins, for the one who does it deliberately and has knowledge of what he’s doing.
Okay? So if we don’t agree on that point, then our discussion generally won’t go the right way.
Ruling by other than what Allah has sent down (الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله) has to be seen as a major sin.
Anyone who says – keep this in mind – anyone who says ruling by other than what Allah has sent down, generally and in detail (جملة وتفصيلا – jumlatan wa tafṣīlan), unrestrictedly, is major disbelief (كفر أكبر – kufr akbar), then this is the methodology of the Khawārij (مذهب الخوارج – madhhab al-Khawārij). No scholar (عالم – ʿālim) from Ahl al-Sunnah (أهل السنة) ever said that. I challenge anyone to bring me one scholar who said that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, unrestrictedly like that, is kufr akbar. I dare anyone to bring me one scholar who said it.
Okay, let me take up that issue right there.
Shaykh Ibn Bāz, in his treatise refuting Arab nationalism – on page 39 – he said: Those who set laws that contradict the Qur’an, he said about that: This is great corruption, clear disbelief, and clear apostasy (كفر بيّن وردّة بيّنة – kufr bayyin wa riddah bayyinah).
Shaykh Ibn Bāz’s fatwa is one of the most well-known (معروف – maʿrūf) fatāwā on ruling by other than what Allah has sent down. Everyone knows that. That’s his view. It’s well known. It’s in his collected fatāwā (مجموع الفتاوى – majmūʿ al-fatāwā). May Allah have vast mercy on him (رحمه الله رحمة واسعة – raḥimahu Allāh raḥmatan wāsiʿah).
Again, I do want to say something to you though. The scholars are not the ones who do takfīr (تكفير – declaring someone a disbeliever). I remember I said at the beginning:
الكفر حق الله ثم رسوله، بالناس يثبت، لا بقول فلان Disbelief is the right of Allah and then His Messenger – it is confirmed through the people (evidence), not by the statement of so-and-so.
من كان رب العالمين وعبده قد كفره، فقد كفر Whoever Allah – the Lord of the worlds – and His slave (i.e., the Prophet ﷺ) have declared to be a disbeliever, then he is a disbeliever.
Only Allah and His Messenger can make takfīr.
Ruling by other than what Allah sent down (الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله) – it’s a major sin. By consensus. There’s no difference of opinion.
All those fatwas – they’re misunderstood. They’re cut, they’re played around with. Clearly (صراحةً – ṣarāḥatan) – I’ll be very honest with you.
The fatwa of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr is not the only one. Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qurṭubī mentions the same in his book al-Mufhim. Ibn ʿAshkārī, in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, also says: Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is a major sin – unless it comes with one of the six cases you mentioned. Those six – there's consensus – that they’re disbelief (كفر – kufr). So there’s an exception. These three (that we’ll discuss) need evidence.
Okay, let’s talk about those six then. Let’s focus our conversation on those six. Because we both agree that if the ruler falls into one of these six, then he leaves the fold of Islam. Good.
The first one you mentioned is al-juhūd (الجحود – denial). What was the definition of this one again?
Al-juhūd means: أن يظهر ما لا يبطن في قلبه – that he shows outwardly what he does not believe in his heart. Like Iblīs, sorry, like Firʿawn (Pharaoh).
وجحدوا بها واستيقنتها أنفسهم ظلماً وعلوّاً They denied them, while their souls were convinced of them – out of injustice and arrogance. (Qur’an 27:14)
Firʿawn was claiming that he was the supreme lord, but Allah told us he was lying – he didn’t believe that in his heart.
Okay, great. So the person, in his heart, believes that the laws of Allah are correct, and they’re superior, etc. But apparently, when he’s ruling over his nation, he’s setting laws that are other than Allah’s.
This is exactly what the rulers are doing.
No – I said to you, that’s my point. Al-juhūd means: I don’t believe in the rule of Allah. I reject it (ينكرها – yunkiruhā).
In his heart?
No, not in his heart. Jahada – جحد – is not doing it from the heart. He’s doing it openly to the people.
Okay, but the difference between al-taʿẓīm (التعظيم – veneration) and al-juhūd (denial) is – you can’t tell the heart, right? Because you can only see what’s apparent.
So al-taʿẓīm and al-juhūd are the same from the angle of how he looks from the outside.
So you’re saying that the person has to – regardless of what he believes in his heart – he has to openly say I reject the rules of Allah? That’s what you're saying?
Number one – okay, fine. Or – he sees it to be ḥalāl (حلال – permissible). Because remember, to me, ruling by other than what Allah sent down is a major sin (كبيرة – kabīrah). Exactly.
So what you have to understand is: if the action is disbelief (كفر – kufr) in and of itself, this action is kufr – insulting Allah and His Messenger ﷺ – we don’t ask you: Did you see it as ḥalāl or not? Because we don’t need that. The action is kufr in itself – that’s it. You’ve left the religion.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense.
We agreed on one of those principles at the start – so if an action is kufr in and of itself, it doesn’t require istihlāl (استحلال – deeming it permissible), juhūd (denial), or taʿẓīm (veneration). No – we don’t ask you for that.
We don’t.
No.
The action itself is kufr.
It’s not like not praying.
Just like ruling by other than what Allah has sent down – it’s like drinking alcohol (الخمر – al-khamr), like committing adultery (الزنا – az-zinā). In the sense that they are all major sins (كبائر – kabāʾir).
Zinā doesn’t become ḥalāl for the person doing it all their life. She’s got a boyfriend for 30 years or 40 years – it doesn’t make her a disbeliever (كافرة – kāfirah) because of that. It’s a major sin.
That’s what many people tend not to understand.
And the sad thing is – and I have to mention this – the argument from some of the people who say otherwise is this:
They say: I agree with you Abdurrahman.
If they were here, some of them would say: I agree with you. I agree that ruling by other than what Allah has sent down is a major sin. I agree with you.
But – I don’t believe and I don’t agree that juhūd, istibdāl, taʿẓīm, etc. – they are independent and are disbelief in and of themselves.
That’s what some of the groups argue.
Okay.
You see my point?
Yeah, yeah – I see.
I say to them: This – it’s playing with people’s minds.
How is that?
The Sharia never distinguishes between things that are the same. It doesn't give them two different rulings. All three of them are ruling by other than what Allah sent down. The only real difference is that the quantity has changed now.
Yeah, I see. And no one does takfīr (declaring someone a disbeliever) based on quantity or amount.
Okay, fine. Is refusing to pay zakāt (obligatory charity) an act of kufr (disbelief), or is it a major sin?
Ahl al-Sunnah (mainstream Sunni scholars) have differed on that issue. There is a difference of opinion. Imām Muḥammad, in one of his riwāyāt (narrations) and views he held, said that anyone who refuses to pay zakāt or doesn’t pay zakāt is a kāfir (disbeliever).
Okay, but there's also the opinion that it's just a major sin.
Which is the strongest now?
That's the opinion you believe?
So then why did Abū Bakr fight the people who refused to pay zakāt and call them apostates, taking them outside the religion of Islam, if it's not an act of kufr? And if they themselves never said that this is permissible — “I don't have to pay the zakāt” — it was just an action of theirs?
No, they did takdhīb (denial) of it. This is the view of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah. They did takdhīb — they disbelieved in it. The ones who refused to pay the zakāt said, “We're not going to pay it to you, Abū Bakr.”
That’s mentioned in the books?
Of course. They didn’t just not pay the zakāt — something else followed it. They did juhūd (rejection) of the ruling. They rejected this ruling. So they openly said, “We don’t believe that we have to pay. We only used to give this to the Prophet ﷺ. We're not going to give it to anyone after the Prophet.”
They rejected the ruling. They came with the rejection of the ruling. And then he said his famous statement:
"Wallāhi (By Allah), if they refuse to give me an ‘iqāl (a rope used for the camel) that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, I would fight them until they give it back to me."
Plus, you mentioned the āyah (verse). Every time the word kufr appears in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, does it always mean major kufr?
No.
You're going to say no, it doesn't.
I mean, of course — I'm not just saying that, it’s from the Sunnah. We have the Prophet ﷺ saying:
“Insulting the Muslim is transgression, and killing him is kufr.”
Okay. The Prophet ﷺ also said in another ḥadīth:
“Do not become disbelievers after me by killing one another.”
And we know that killing is not kufr, because Allah said:
"And if two groups of the believers fight each other…"
Yeah, but the Prophet ﷺ referred to them as kāfir — as disbelievers.
So kufr is not always major. It can be minor as well.
Yeah, but I believe that's supposedly a weak argument. Because kufr, when it comes as the word kufr, we can have a discussion about whether it's major or minor. But when Allah says they are disbelievers, He’s not saying they fell into kufr — He’s saying they are disbelievers.
Ibn ʿAbbās — he’s more knowledgeable than you in the āyah, correct?
Yeah, I agree.
I just showed that it wasn’t only Ibn ʿAbbās who said it. His student Ṭāwūs said it. His other student said it. These are the great students of Ibn ʿAbbās who said this. We have Ṭāwūs who said this. We have Ibn ʿAbbās — it was authentically transmitted from him. We have ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ — those are the three.
Sorry — as you know, in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Shaykh al-Islām said: When it comes to the tafsīr (exegesis) of the Qur’ān, the most knowledgeable people are the students of Ibn ʿAbbās. There's no one like them. They’re the most knowledgeable — like ʿIkrimah, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Abū al-Shaʿthā’, Mujāhid, ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Ṭāwūs. These are the students. Abū ʿĀliyah. These are the students of Ibn ʿAbbās. They are the most knowledgeable in tafsīr.
We have two of the students of Ibn ʿAbbās saying this authentically. We have Ibn ʿAbbās himself saying this.
Okay, let me ask you a very sincere question. Be honest with yourself — be completely honest with yourself here. Do you genuinely believe that these so-called Muslim rulers actually want what is best for their country, what is best for their people?
I can’t speak on that, because I would have to know what’s in their hearts and their chests — honestly. And I don’t want to come to the Day of Judgment with any Muslim and speak for what’s in his heart and what he intended by it. And just because of their actions, I can’t necessitate that from their heart. Because this is a belief that the scholars spoke about, which is:
"Lāzim al-madhhab laysa bilāzim ḥattā yaltazim bihi ṣāḥibuhu" (The necessary consequence of a belief is not to be attributed to someone unless he himself commits to it.)
Just because someone’s statement looks a particular way or seems a particular way, you can’t necessitate from that that this is their belief.
Some rulers, as Ibn ʿUthaymīn said, have pressure on them. There’s pressure being put on them, and this is why they're doing it. Others may have a bad intent — to destroy Islam. All of them — it’s a possibility. But I can’t speak and say which of those it is, just like I can’t say it for any other Muslim. I can’t speak about his intention. I don’t know what’s in their hearts.
Okay. I want to now move the discussion to another part. One of the principles we agreed on at the start is that if somebody commits shirk (associating partners with Allah), they leave the fold of Islam — without any excuse of istihlāl (declaring the forbidden as permissible), juhūd (denial), or these kinds of excuses that you mentioned. We don’t need to establish these kinds of excuses.
My argument now is that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is shirk. Allah says in the Qur’ān:
"Inna al-ḥukmu illā lillāh" (Indeed, the ruling is only for Allah.)
So surely this shows that if somebody rules by other than what Allah has sent down, it’s a form of shirk.
What about if somebody creates like Allah? Is that not only Allah’s action?
What do you mean — like creating something from scratch?
The ruling is from the actions of Allah, right?
Yes, no doubt.
What about creating? Creating from scratch is only for Allah.
No, but creating in general is an action of Allah, right?
Yeah. Creating in general is an action of Allah.
Yeah. And ruling is also the action of Allah, right?
Ruling is a right that is given to Allah alone.
Yes, subḥānAllāh (Glory be to Allah), without a doubt. All rulings are for Him. SubḥānAllāh.
Where would you place the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ where he said:
"The most severely punished people on the Day of Judgment are those who try to create like the creation of Allah."
Meaning, the ones who do pictures — who create like the creation of Allah.
So it sounds like shirk.
So you're going to say the ones who draw pictures are kuffār (disbelievers)?
No.
Okay.
Okay. To wrap up this particular episode, why don't we summarize some of the important concepts?
For example, where did this issue—this methodology of making takfīr (تكفير – declaring someone a disbeliever) of the Muslim rulers and taking them outside the fold of Islam—originate from?
It came from a group known as the Khawārij (الخوارج).
And that is why Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية), may Allah have mercy on him, said that they were the first ones to separate the Muslim community from the people of bid‘ah (بدعة – religious innovation). The Khawārij were the first group that left Ahl al-Sunnah (أهل السنة – the people of the Sunnah), who left the way of the Messenger ﷺ. They were the first group. Number one. First group.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah also said elsewhere:
“The Khawārij are the first ones who declared Muslims disbelievers based on sins, and they also made takfīr of anyone who opposed them in their innovation, and they permitted his blood and his wealth.”
And that is why Khallāl (خلّال) mentioned that Imām Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
“Tell me about the rebellion of Ibn Ismā‘īl al-Kirmānī (ابن إسماعيل الكرماني).” Imām Ahmad said: “The Khawārij are a very evil people. I do not know any people on this earth more evil than them.”
Imām Ahmad said this.
There have come many narrations (أحاديث) regarding them from the Prophet ﷺ. It has reached mutawātir (متواتر – mass-transmitted) level.
They made takfīr of the Muslims based on major sins.
Ahl al-Sunnah believe that when it comes to major sins, they decrease your īmān (إيمان – faith), but do not take you out of the fold of Islam.
The poet said:
"If He forgives him, and if He punishes him – disbelief is greater."
❗ Dangers of This Methodology in the Modern World:
The person eventually comes to believe in the permissibility of the blood of everybody who goes against them, and then their wealth – they take it.
This is exactly what we see ISIS and their likes doing to the Muslims today. They took الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله (al-ḥukm bighayri mā anzala Allah – ruling by other than what Allah has revealed), and made it kufr (كفر – disbelief), kufr akbar (كفر أكبر – major disbelief).
Then, they started labeling every and any leader as a kāfir (كافر – disbeliever), and they simply followed the path of their forefathers – the Khawārij.
📌 Final Advice:
Just to wrap up this episode — what is your final piece of advice to those who may be inclined toward this kind of methodology?
My advice to them is: These are very big and dangerous issues when it comes to labeling people with kufr (disbelief), calling someone a kāfir (disbeliever), and saying someone is outside the religion. Learn the religion. Ignorance is the greatest enemy that Iblīs (إبليس – Satan) uses against the people.
Educate yourself. Learn it. Books have been written about this.
I honestly encourage you — one book, if you can buy — anyone who reads Arabic, if you can buy that one book, it’s written about takfīr, by Shaykh ‘Iṣām al-Sinānī (الشيخ عصام السناني).
And it has the taqdīm (تقديم – introduction/preface) and praise (thana’ - ثناء) of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān (الشيخ صالح الفوزان) on it.
Anybody who can buy that book by Shaykh ‘Iṣām al-Sinānī, with the praise of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān — they will benefit a lot from it.
It has all of what we mentioned, and much more. A detailed discussion. It’s one of the best books written in this regard.
What’s the name of the book?
I think it’s called التحرير في التكفير – al-Taḥrīr fī al-Takfīr ("Clarification on the Issue of Takfīr") — or something along those lines.
It’s been a very, very interesting episode.
Until next time, I hope you enjoyed and benefited from that discussion.
Please do share it with your friends and family members if you feel like they might benefit too.
And don’t forget to hit that subscribe button below so you’re notified of any new episodes.
Check out www.thehotseatpodcast.com – that’s thehotseatpodcast.com.
On there, you’ll find a little bit more information about the podcast, and you’ll also have the chance to vote for which topic you’d like to see discussed on the show.
You can also ask questions on the website to the speaker himself about these contemporary modern-day issues.
Until next time, Fī amānillāh (في أمان الله – in the protection of Allah), Wassalāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh (والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته – may the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you).
