Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Bismillahi wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi sallallahu alayhi wasallam amma ba'd. 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 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 deen of Allah, as is the wajah (way). Our kids, and even ourselves, are being exposed to this kind of information on a daily, and if not daily, then at the very least weekly basis. 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 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 modern-day contemporary issues head-on by using the knowledge and 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 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. 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 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. As-salāmu ʿalaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. Welcome to another episode of The Hot Seat.
Today, wallahi, 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 on to 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 (disbelief)?
Al-ḥamdu li-llāhi rabbi al-‘ālamīn. Lahu al-ḥamdu al-ḥasan wa-l-thanā'u al-jamīl. Wa-shahadu an-lā ilāha illā Allāhu wahdahu lā sharīka lah. Yaqūlu l-ḥaqqa wa-huwa yahdi al-sabīl. Wa-shahadu an-nā Sayyidinā wa-nabiyyinā Muḥammad sallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-alá ālihi wa-aṣḥābihi wa-ttābi'inā lahu bi-iḥsāni ilā yawmi d-dīn. Amā baʿd.
The word al-kufr in the Arabic language is from the root word kafara. It comes from the measure of kafara, the verbal noun of kafara. That's what it means, and it has many meanings, but all of the meanings go back to al-satr wa-taghtiyah (concealing or covering). It is to conceal something, okay, and it’s to hide something. That’s why the scholars say the ayah where he says “kufar here are the ones that are being spoken about” refers to the kufar being the farmers. The farmers are kufar in the sense that they take the seed and place it into the earth and bury it, hiding it.
Also, the night is called kafir—al-laylu kafir. 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 shariah, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others have defined it. The best or most comprehensive definition will mean it’s dhiddu l-iman (the opposite of faith). So kufr is the opposite of iman, and so the person must then know what this means, because sometimes things are defined by their opposite. So, kufr is the opposite of iman.
And we hear in the Qur'an, and in the Sunnah, the question of whether it is easy for us to make takfir (to declare someone a disbeliever), as it comes up quite often. Does that give the impression that it’s quite an easy thing for us to do? Labeling a person a kafir is not a light issue; it’s a very serious, very heavy issue.
Imam al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that he said: If a person says to his brother, "Ya kafir," meaning, "Oh disbeliever," this kufr will return to one of the two.
Muslim narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Jundub, and the Messenger SAW said about a man—a worshipper who would always advise a brother of his. He would say to him, “Brother, stop what you’re doing, fear Allah, repent, and come back from your wrongdoings.” This sinner would continuously persist in his actions, and this truly annoyed the worshipper. So, the worshipper said, after seeing this man’s persistence, “By Allah, Allah is not going to forgive so-and-so.”
Then Allah said in response to the one who said, “Allah is not going to forgive so-and-so,” Allah said: "Who is the one speaking on My behalf? Who is saying that I won’t forgive so-and-so? I have forgiven so-and-so, and I have now nullified your deeds." What he said to him was: "By Allah, Allah will not 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 Alimam Shaukani in response to that question you asked.
Alimam Shaukani 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 Rahim Allah, he said no labelling a man to be a disbeliever by saying that he has left the fold of Al-Islam, expelling him from Al-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. Unless he has clear cut evidence, that evidence is as clear as what? It's more clearer than the sun. It 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 ﷺ where he said man qala li akhiyya kafir faqad ba'a biha ahaduhum adha 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 a'adhamu zaajirin wa akbaru wa a'idhin, it's 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.
Takfir is the right of Allah; it is Allah who places takfir on people. It is the Messenger ﷺ who can say, "This person is a kafir." And for this reason, Ibn al-Qayyim said, "Al-kufru haqqullahi thumma rasulihi bin nassi yathbutu la bi qawli fulani." [Kufr is the right of Allah and His Messenger; it can only be established through textual evidence, not by what my sheikh said, my imam said, or the statement of such and such. No matter how numerous or great the scholars or imams are, it doesn’t matter—this is not their right.] "Man kana rabbu al-'alameena wa abduhu qad kafarahu fadhaka dhul-kufrani." [Anyone whom Allah and His Messenger declare to be a kafir has indeed become one. This is kufr.] Kufr is like halal and haram. You and I can’t say "this is halal" or "this is haram" without evidence—textual evidence. As Allah says: "Qul innama harrama rabbi al-fawahisha ma dhahra minha wa ma batana wa al-ithma wa al-baghiya bi ghayri al-haq wa an tushriku billahi ma lam yunazzil bihi sultana wa an takulu 'ala Allahi ma la ta'alamun." [Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities—what is apparent of them and what is concealed—and sin, oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know."] So, what does that mean? It means speaking about Allah Ta'ala with no knowledge. That’s what I want from this verse. We can't come and say "this is halal, this is haram," and lie about Allah's religion. We must have evidence from the Qur’an. Understood?
Okay, understood. I think before we talk about the Muslim rulers, which will be the main focus of our discussion today, it’s important that we agree on certain principles before moving forward. So, the first question I have for you is: Is kufr just an issue of the heart? Do I have to disbelieve in Allah and the Day of Judgment, or can certain actions that I do also take me, or anyone else, outside the fold of Islam?
Brothers, I’ve looked at takfir from many different perspectives. Just like if I were to look at you, I can examine you from many different perspectives: your complexion, your height, your ethnicity, your gender. There are many different perspectives I can consider. Scholars have done the same with kufr; they’ve looked at it from various angles and realized that one way to understand kufr is by examining where it originates from—where it comes from.
Okay, I believe kufr can happen through speech and action, and also through belief. So actions by themselves can be kufr. Wait, let's pause here for a second. I believe in Allah, I believe in His Messenger, I believe in the Day of Judgment, I have all the beliefs of a Muslim. But because I do a certain action, you're saying that could render me 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 Qur’an: He talks about belief—those who believe and those who do righteous actions? Allah clearly separates belief from actions, and you're trying to bring them together. Why?
Belief can be kufr by itself. Yeah, I agree with that. I understand that. And speech can be kufr. Your mere action can be kufr. For example, it renders anything and everything in your heart invalid. If you insult the Messenger, you're a disbeliever. That action alone is enough to tell us you're a disbeliever—whether you were joking or not. It doesn't matter. Insulting the Messenger is kufr. Mocking the religion is kufr. You know the famous ayah: "Wa-idhā ja'ūkum līyufāriqūkum waḥyūkum wa-ānṣarūkum..." [And when they came to you, mocking the Prophet and the religion, they tried to make excuses, but Allah told them: Don't try to make excuses. You have now become disbelievers, you are labeled as disbelievers.] So the action itself is disbelief.
When it comes to kufr, they believe it occurs from the limbs, it occurs from speech, and it also occurs from a person's belief.
Okay, but what about the hadith I have in front of me where the Messenger ﷺ 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?" This is talking about if my belief in my heart is good, and 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 could render you a disbeliever. Aren’t you contradicting this?
You see, what we have to do when it comes to 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 abandon this one." The deviated groups, every one of them, took what was in favor of them and what they thought aligned with their beliefs. The Khawarij came and took the ayah: "Bala man kasaba sayyi’atan wa aḥāṭat bihī khatī’atu fa-ulā’ika aṣḥābu al-nār hum fīhā khālidūn." [But whoever has earned an evil deed and his sin has surrounded him, those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.] They said this ayah shows that if you do any sin, you're in Hellfire forever, not knowing that the sin referred to here is shirk.
Okay, the same thing applies when it comes to these evidences. Generally speaking, those who use these evidences to say that there's no kufr that can happen from their limbs are the Murji’ah, a deviated group that went against the belief of Ahl as-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: "Lā ta’tadhirū qad kafartum ba'da īmānikum" [Do not offer excuses. You have disbelieved after your belief]. 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, now, you're touching on it just now, and I want to explore it. I feel like I've given you a general answer, but let me give you a more detailed one.
Okay, fine, no problem. That hadith you brought, yeah, and other hadiths, what we have to understand is that insulting the Prophet ﷺ and insulting the religion renders what’s in your heart invalid. There’s nothing left anymore— all of that is gone. So, oh, okay, so that is actually in line with the hadith because there is a relation between the external and the internal.
But the person, this action alone has shown us and is indicated to us that there’s nothing in your heart. There can’t be anything left because of the relationship between the external and the internal. I'm not saying that kufr can never happen from the limbs, but it really happens from the heart. No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying it happens from the limbs. It happens from your limbs, and you’re considered a kafir because of what you did by insulting Allah ﷻ and His Messenger ﷺ.
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: "Have you not seen the one who takes his desires to be his god?" [Qur'an 25:43]. When somebody commits a sin, they usually do it out of desire. So, he’s committed shirk with Allah because he’s taking his desires as a lord besides Him. 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 because he’s taken his own whims and desires to legislate the permissibility of an action that wasn’t legislated by Allah and His Messenger. The same thing goes for the minor sin—why are you just restricting it to the major sin?
According to this, correct? So why are you saying this isn’t true?
You have to understand, you’re going to have to say that any person who goes against Allah and His Messenger, even once, has done shirk. According to this ayah, that doesn’t show that the ayah is talking about those people who have chosen to worship other than Allah. These are the ones who commit major kufr (kufr akbar).
Okay, and then those who have chosen to follow their desires—these are sinners. This is not something that has ever been disagreed upon. It’s a unanimously agreed-upon point: someone can become a kafir by taking other than Allah as their god. He becomes a kafir because he worships other than Allah. That’s one thing that needs to be understood. 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. He has followed his desires over Allah’s commandment. But it doesn’t make him a disbeliever; he’s disobeyed Allah and His Messenger, without a shadow of a doubt.
So what about the ayah? Sorry, just to give the English translation: Say, obey Allah and the Messenger; if they turn away, then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers. This is one of the forms of kufr, which is that the person fully turns away from Allah and His Messenger, both externally and internally, and doesn’t give any consideration to it. But this, which is partial abandonment of Allah’s religion, makes a person a kafir.
Okay, now what if the person considers what he’s doing permissible? For example, drinking alcohol is a major sin on its own. It doesn’t take someone outside of the fold of Islam—do we agree on that? What if the person actually believes drinking alcohol is permissible, that he is allowed to drink alcohol? Does he then become a kafir?
Yes, so you said that drinking alcohol is a major sin, and we've agreed that's a major sin. Then the person says that it’s halal for him, that there’s no problem. Beautiful that you mentioned that. To say that it's halal 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, yes, it’s halal for them, that becomes kufr akbar.
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? The continuation of this action and consistency doesn't necessarily make it halal. We can’t make a person a kafir simply because of the fact that they’ve been doing something for too long or are continuing 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 gone outside the fold?
Yes, shirk akbar, in general, takes a person outside the fold of Islam without doubt.
Okay, good. Now let’s 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.
You haven’t seen them all, but the majority of countries—let’s talk about the majority of countries you've seen. In many of these Muslim countries, alcohol is permissible, riba (interest-based banking) is permissible. Rather, the one who takes out an interest-based loan 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 Qur'an and Sunnah. You would agree with me on that.
Okay, then what about the ayah in Surah Al-Ma’idah where Allah says, "Whomever 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, now 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 Allah’s law only to the rulers. It’s like you're restricting it to them. Okay, go on. Carry on.
What I mean by that is, it’s not restricted only to the Muslim rulers. So who are you and I, and in what sense?
Okay, good. So the ayah says the word man here is general. And then matt again, which is in there as well, is a general term. Man means whoever. The ayah says whoever. Isn’t that what the translation says? Yes, whoever, so it’s anyone.
So great scholars like Ibn Hazm and Imam [ibn] Taymiyyah mentioned that ruling by other than what Allah has sent down also refers to your own actions. So what you’re referring to is that Ibn Hazm, in his book, says 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 apparent. The apparent definition of ruling is to set legislation, to set laws. Then there might be an interpreted meaning, which could be to commit a sin or something like this. Why are you trying to go towards the meaning and leaving the apparent meaning, which is actually to say that it’s everything because of the ayah?
What does that mean? Sorry, 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, Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, referred to burying these young girls alive. Allah referred to it as an "evil ruling" they were doing. So, the word hukm (ruling) there also refers to their own wrongdoings. You see my point?
Okay, so you can't now restrict it to that meaning. Plus, when we see a term in the Qur'an, we have to use other verses from the Qur'an to understand it. So the word hukm is not restricted to just judging between two people. It’s also referring to your own actions.
That’s number one. Number two: let’s use the example that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah used. Ibn Taymiyyah used the example of 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. He’s judged by other than what Allah has sent down.
So, the issue of restricting it to the leader is the first mistake that many people fall into.
Okay, but do you understand, using your common sense at the very least, that there’s a difference between someone judging between the handwriting of two children and someone legislating in an entire country that riba (usury) is halal, that riba is not a sin, or that it’s fine to drink alcohol? You’ve got to understand that there’s a difference between the two. 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 that this sin is bigger than that sin. It’s true because the number of people who are coming under it is more in number. The people who are being oppressed are more in number. There’s no denying the fact that this sin is bigger than this sin, but that doesn’t automatically make it kufr.
Okay, so you’re in agreement with this ayah. Both of them are still sins.
Now, another question, 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 meaning? Do you want to say that kufr is major?
Yes. This is the belief of the Khawarij. The reason why I say this is the belief of the Khawarij is because I’ve just proved to you that your own actions are what the hukm is.
Okay, so anyone who does a major sin, according to you, has to be a kafir then, because you took the ayah at its apparent meaning. So, what is it then?
If it’s Allah saying so, we say that what Ibn Abbas said, meaning it’s kufr before the major kufr. Is that actually authentically attributed to Ibn Abbas.
Ibn Abbas is authentically transmitted to him, the sanad for that hadith is he narrates in his tafsir. He brings who he heard it from and also who both of them heard from. No one has weakened the sanad over 40 scholars authenticated it. He said the ones whose hearts are sick are the ones who go and try to weaken it. This had ayah. The only person who has taken it for its apparent meaning and said it's kufr, 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 that ruling by other than what Allah sent down is a major sin. Consensus. There's no difference of opinion. I've got a consensus that says it's kufr. I'm gonna come to you right now. Okay, no problem, I'll give you mine. Okay, I'll give you mine, insha’Allah.
The first consensus is Ala anna aljawrah. He says in his kitab al-tamheed, volume 16, page 358, he says: "Ajma'a al-ulama" — the scholars are unanimously in agreement that to be oppressive in your leading, I mean other than what Allah sent down, in your ruling, he said it is from the major sins, of course, the deliberately does it. The one who deliberately does it and he's aware of what he's doing. Ignorance is of course his excuse. So we have this consensus. Even Abdul Baraz says this is a major sin.
Okay, so the ijma’ that I’m gonna bring you is first of all a statement for Ibn Taymiyyah, and this is found in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, volume number 28, page number 524, where he says: “It is known by necessity from the deen of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims” — that’s the ijma’ — “that he who permits the following of a religion other than the religion of Islam or following a law other than the sharia of Muhammad ﷺ, then he is a kafir and it is like the kufr of the one who believes in some of the book and disbelieves in some of the book.” So, if you look at the statement Shaykh al-Islam Taymiyyah says in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, he used the word sawagha — what does that mean? It means to permit, to make halal, just like the rulers are making.
Okay, let me say something. I feel like this is very important that we say this. Okay, fine. It comes in nine forms. Six of them are kufr akbar by consensus, there’s no difference of opinion, and three of them are 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 outward. He’s a kafir.
Okay, number two, he rejects it from the heart and externally rejects it as well. He’s a kafir.
Okay, number three, he makes it halal, which is to say this is halal, which is to say this, he has to say it, he’s doing, he’s not enough.
What’s the why? What’s the evidence for the condition of having to say it? You tell me that. You just use right now, he said, "Rahim Allah," a statement like that, meaning in English, he believes it in his heart, and then he affirms it with his tongue.
Okay, I’m gonna come to a very, very good point, insha’Allah. So istihlal is to believe it in your heart and to vocalize it. Okay, the person vocalizes it and says, "This is halal, man," what’s the problem? This is nothing wrong with it. How much am I mentioned? Four, right? Three maybe. Juhud, takdeeb, istihlal, yeah, and the fourth one here is, he goes, it’s better than the law of Allah.
Okay, number six is he attributes this ruling to the religion of Allah Azawajal to be six, which are okay, there's no difference of opinion. The one that you just mentioned to me falls under istihlal, right? So, not to mention the context of that statement of Shaykh al-Islam, which is actually in the context of the Tatars. He was talking to them about so—but why can’t that apply to the modern-day world? The Tatars were different in the way they ruled. They believed Yassir was the god they were worshipping and their leader. They saw him as an ilah, that he’s a god, they worshipped him. So that's very important that you take this quote of the Shaykh, rahimahullah ta'ala, and understand it correctly. You haven’t yet proven me otherwise in my view of him, and Abd al-Bar, rahimahullah ta'ala, which is that the consensus is ruling by other than what Allah sent down is a major sin. If you say it's not a major sin, then you are saying anyone who does a major sin is a kafir. No, not necessarily this. Let me bring another statement, this time of Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah. And he says — and again I know you're going to say that this is in the context of the Tatars because it is — but 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 permit 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 a sharia issue, we’re not talking about worldly issues.
Okay, fine. Let me bring the statement: "So whoever leaves the clear sharia, which was revealed to Muhammad ibn Abdullah, the seal of the prophets, and takes the hukum, takes a ruling to other than it, from the laws of the kufr, which are abrogated, he has disbelieved." Okay, he doesn’t mention anything about believing it’s permissible or rejecting, yet he doesn’t mention any of these conditions that you mentioned.
Okay, so what about the one who takes the hukum of yes, the yes, the law of 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 ismah of the Muslims.
So why do you want to underline "puts it before it"? I believe it’s kufr, but again, it’s giving virtue over it.
Okay, well, again, it comes under the six I mentioned. He says this is this takes precedence over the law of Allah, and he's a kafir for that. You see, these fatwas of these ulama need to be understood. They can’t be cherry-picked. My statement of Ibn Abdul Bar shows that in and within itself, it's a kabira. The scholars are unanimously in agreement that to be oppressive in your ruling, to rule by other than what Allah has sent, basically he said that it is from the major sins, the one who does it deliberately and has the knowledge of what he's doing.
Okay, so if we don’t agree on that point, then our discussion would generally not go the right way.
Ruling by other than what Allah sent down has to be seen as a major sin. Anyone who says, keep this in mind, anyone who says that ruling by other than what Allah sent down, unrestrictedly, is kufr akbar—then this is the madhab of one scholar from Ahlus Sunnah. I challenge anyone to bring me one scholar who said ruling by other than what Allah sent down, unrestrictedly like that, is kufr akbar. I dare anyone to bring me one scholar who said it.
Okay, let me take up that issue of the dare. Sheikh Ibn Baaz, in his treatise refuting Arab nationalism on page 39, said: "Those who set laws that contradict the Qur'an..." and he said about that, "and that is great corruption, clear kufr, and clear apostasy." Sheikh Ibn Baaz’s fatwa is one of the most well-known fatwas when it comes to ruling by other than what Allah sent down, meaning it is well-established and recognized.
Sheikh Ibn Baaz had a discussion with another great scholar, and it’s documented, even recorded, and I have the transcription of it. They discussed the issue of ruling by other than what Allah sent down. Sheikh Ibn Baaz believed all of the nine forms I mentioned, but I haven't mentioned the other three, which are al-takneen and al-istibdal. These three — remember, six I said were kufr akbar and three there is a difference of opinion.
Okay, there is no unanimous agreement. The first one is al-takneen. Al-takneen actually means that this individual, he initiated, he made the ruling, he created this ruling, and then he rules by it. He formalized it, he set the rules. That’s takneen. Then we have al-tashri' which is when he changes the rule of Allah and the constitution, making it into a man-made law and forces the people to follow it. That’s called tashri'. Lastly, al-istibdal, which is to just change the rule of Allah with any other ruling.
So these three — there’s no point in us discussing them because there’s a difference of opinion on them. These three, Ibn Baaz said, they’re not kufr akbar. They’re not kufr akbar. His fatwa is well-known, and no one argues that this is not Ibn Baaz’s fatwa. Everyone knows that this is his view, rahimahullah. It’s well known, it’s in his Majmu' al-Fatawa, rahimahullah, rahmatan wasi'ah.
Again, I do want to say something to you though. The scholars are not the ones who do takfeer. I remember it being said in the beginning: "Al-kufr haqqullahi thumma rasulihi bi-anna yathbutu la biqawli fulani man kana rabbul alameena wa abduhu qad kafarahu fadhakathu al-kufrani". Only Allah and His Messenger can make takfeer.
Individuals can’t. Ruling by other than what Allah sent down, Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, is a major sin. It’s by consensus; there’s no difference of opinion. All those fatwas, they’re misunderstood, they’re played around with, sarahatan. I’ll be very honest with you: the fatwa of Ibn Abdul Bar was not the only one who transmitted it. Abul Abbas mentioned the same as well in his book, that ruling by other than what Allah sent down is a major sin.
Okay, unless it comes with one of those six that you mentioned — those six, there’s a consensus that is called for, there’s an exception. These three 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, what was the definition of this one again?
Al-juhud means that he shows apparent rejection, that which he doesn’t believe in his heart, like he believes sorry, like Pharaoh 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 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. Juhud means I don't believe in the rule of Allah; I reject it in my heart, not in his heart. We don’t know what’s in his heart. Juhud is not doing it from his heart; he’s doing it outwardly to the people. The difference between al-takneen and al-juhud is that you can’t tell what's in the heart, right? So, al-takneen and al-juhud are the same from the angle of how it looks outwardly.
So you’re saying that the person has to, regardless of what he believes in his heart, openly say, "I reject the rules of Allah." That’s what you’re saying? Number one, okay, fine.
Oh, he sees it to be halal. Because remember, to me, ruling by other than what Allah sent down is a major sin. Exactly. A major sin. You don’t become a kafir just by doing it unless you come into one of these six conditions.
Okay, let's explore the second condition. Do we not have a principle in the religion that we judge by what is apparent? So if, apparently, this ruler is allowing riba, allowing alcohol, does he not believe that in his heart? It’s a sin. From the apparent, he’s a sinner. But the apparent does — Ibn al-Qayyim said that the vessel sweats what is inside, showing that he’s a sinner. You mentioned this a couple of weeks ago. So, does that mean he's a sinner? Yeah, showing that he believes it’s permissible if he's making it permissible for the people.
Juhud, what we have to understand is if the action is kufr in and of itself, this action is kufr. Like insulting Allah and His Messenger, we don’t ask you, "Did you mean it?" Because we don’t need that. The action itself is kufr. That’s it, you've left the religion. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense.
We agreed with one of those principles at the start. So if our action is kufr in and of itself, it doesn't require asking about intent. No, it doesn’t. We don’t need to ask you for that. We know the action itself is kufr. It's not the same as ruling by other than what Allah sent down, which is like drinking khamr or committing zina. As in the sense that they are all major sins. Zina doesn’t become halal for the person doing it just because they’ve been doing it for 30 or 40 years. It doesn’t make her a kafir because of that. It’s a major sin. That is what many people tend to not understand.
And the sad thing is, I have to mention the argument of some people who say that. They say, "I agree with you, Abdulrahman. If they were here, some of them would have said, 'I agree with you, hey, would you agree with me?' They all say ruling by other than what Allah sent down is what? It’s a major sin, and I agree with you."
They will say, "I agree with you," but I don’t believe, and I don’t agree that they fall under kufr. They are independent, they are kufr by themselves. That’s what some of the groups argue. You see my point?
Yeah, I see.
I say to them, "This is playing with the people's brains and minds." How is that? The Shari'ah never distinguishes between similar things. It doesn’t give them two different rulings. All three of them — ruling by other than what Allah sent down, drinking khamr, committing zina — are all major sins. The only real difference is the quantity has changed now.
Yeah, I see. And no one does takfeer based on quantity or amount.
Okay, fine. Is refusing to pay the zakah an act of kufr or is it a major sin? Ahl al-Sunnah have differed on that issue. There is a difference of opinion. Imam Ahmad, in one of his riwayat (reports), held the view that anyone who refused to pay zakah or doesn’t pay zakah is a kafir. But there’s also the opinion that it’s just a major sin, which is the stronger opinion. Do you believe that?
So then why did Abu Bakr fight the people who refused to pay zakah 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, and they just didn’t pay the zakah, wasn’t it just an action of theirs?
No, they did disbelieve. They disbelieved in it. The ones who refused to pay the zakah, they said, "We’re not going to pay to you, Abu Bakr." That’s mentioned in the books. Of course, they didn’t just not pay the zakah; something else followed up with it. They rejected the ruling. They came with the rejection of the ruling. Then he said his famous statement, which is, "By Allah, if they refuse to give me an iqal (the rope they use for the camel), I would fight with them until they give it back to me."
Plus, you mentioned the ayah — every time the word kufr comes in the Qur'an and the Sunnah it always mean major kufr? Yeah, no, you're going to say no, it doesn't. I mean, of course, I'm not just saying it's not Sunnah. We have the Prophet ﷺ saying insulting a Muslim is transgression and killing him is disbelief. Okay, the Prophet ﷺ said, "Don't become disbelievers after me by killing one another," and we know killing is not kufr because Allah said, "Two groups of the believers fight one another." But the Prophet ﷺ referred to them as kuffār. So, kufr is not always major; it can be minor as well.
Yeah, but I would, um, I believe that's supposed to be a weak argument because kufr, when it comes as a word, we can have a discussion whether it's major or minor, but when Allah says they are disbelievers, He's not saying they have fallen into kufr, He's saying they’re disbelievers. He's more knowledgeable than you in the ayah, correct?
Yeah, I just showed that it wasn't only him who said it. Okay, his student said it, his other student said it, the others, you know, these are the great, great students of Ibn Abbas who said this. We have Tawus who said this, we have Ibn Abbas, which is authentically transmitted from him. We have those in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said, when it came to the tafsīr of the Qur'an, the most knowledgeable people of the tafsīr of the Qur'an are the students of Ibn Abbas. There's no one like them. They're the most knowledgeable, like Ikrimah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Abu al-Sha’tha, Mujahid, Atā ibn Abu Rabah, Tawus. These are the students of Ibn Abbas. They're the most knowledgeable in tafsīr. We have two of the students of Ibn Abbas saying this, authentically transmitted from them. We have Ibn Abbas himself saying this, rahimahullāh wa ta'ala.
Okay, so let me ask you a very sincere question. Be 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 chest. I would have to, honestly, and I don’t want to come the Day of Judgment with any Muslim and speak for what's in his heart and what he intended by it. Just because of their actions, I can't necessitate that from their heart. This is a belief that the scholars spoke about, which is just because someone's statement looks a particular way or seems a particular way, you can’t necessitate from there that this is the ruler's intention. Ibn Uthaymeen, as he said, they have pressure on them, they have pressure being put on them, and this is why they're doing it. Others may have a bad intent to destroy Islam; they could all have this possibility. But I can't speak and say whichever 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 onto another part, which is one of the principles we agreed at the start: if somebody commits shirk, they leave the fold of Islam without any excuse of 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 Allah is shirk. Allah says in the Qur'an that 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? Isn't creating something from the ruling of all actions of Allah?
Right? Yes, no doubt.
What about creating, creating from scratch is only for Allah?
No, but creating generally is the 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, subhanahu wa ta'ala, without a doubt. Rulings are for Him subhanahu wa ta'ala.
Where would you take the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he said, meaning the ones who have the severest punishment on the Day of Judgment are those who do pictures, who create like the creation of Allah? So, sounds like shirk. So, you're going to say the ones who draw pictures of kuffār? No.
Okay, okay, let's wrap up this particular episode. Why don't we summarize some of the important concepts? For example, where did this issue in this methodology of making takfīr—taking the Muslim rulers outside of the fold of Islam—come from?
Where did this originate from? It came from a group known as the Khawārij. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullāh said the first group that left the Ahl al-Sunnah, who left the way of the Messenger ﷺ, the first group was the Khawārij. First group. And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in another place, he said they're the first ones who place disbelief (kufr) on the Muslims based on sins, and they also place takfīr on anyone who opposes them in their innovation, and they permit his blood and his wealth. The Khawārij are very evil people, people more evil than them. And Imam Ahmad saying this, wa qāl Imam Ahmad wanted to say, "There have come regarding them many narrations from the Prophet ﷺ, it's reached a multitude of narrations. They've made takfīr of the Muslims based on major sins." Ahl al-Sunnah believe, when it comes to major sins, that it decreases your īmān but it doesn't take you out of the fold of Islam. The person who commits a major sin is a criminal. It reduces his īmān. We're fearing for him, we're scared that he might end up in the Hellfire. That's a reality. To say that a major sin becomes kufr akbar is dangerous because you're ruling by other than what Allah has sent down.
What are some of the dangers of this methodology? Well, particularly in the modern world, are the Khawārij just a historical group that existed in the past? What are some of the dangers of this methodology in the modern world? The dangers of this methodology, as I just mentioned in his statement, are that they then permit the people's blood because they say you're a kāfir, and then they permit your wealth as well. And then your wife is no longer with you, and then they don't—you know, a lot of things come from it. Bloodshed, massacre, killing—all of that comes from their belief. It doesn't just stay as a concept that is discussed in the masjid or it's discussed in a circle. It actually becomes a very dangerous concept where the person later places permissibility on the blood of everybody who goes against him, and then their wealth. He will take it. And it's exactly what we see ISIS and their likes doing to the Muslims today, which is they took it as what? And so then they started to label every and any leader to be a kāfir, and they just took the path of their forefathers, the Khawārij.
Okay, what is your final piece of advice, just to wrap up this episode, to those who may be inclined to this kind of methodology? Well, my advice to them is these are very big issues, very dangerous issues when it comes to labeling people kuffār and kāfir and disbelievers. Learn the religion. Ignorance is the greatest enemy that Iblīs uses against the people. Educate yourself, learn it. Books have been written about it. I honestly encourage you, one book, if you could buy—anyone who reads the Arabic language, if you can buy that one book, it’s written about takfīr, and it's written by Shaykh Isam al-Sinani. And he has the taqdīm and the praise of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan on it. Anybody who can buy that book of Shaykh Isam al-Sinani with the appraisal of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, they will benefit from it a lot. It has all of this which we mentioned and much more detailed discussion in there. One of the best books that are written in this regard.
What's the name of the book? Sorry, I think it's called al-Tahrīr fī al-Takfīr or something like that.
Okay, 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.
