> al-Boriqee Issue of making Takfir of Muslim Rulers

[salman]

Discussion on an important topic of our time: should we be making takfir of the Muslims rulers? The issue of iman and kufr is directly related to this topic; hence, it will also be discussed.

Personally, I do not advise average layperson (common folk) to dwell into this topic because it can be very confusing if you are not studying under a trustworthy sunni shaykh. So, it is better to say away from. People like myself who want to learn can resort to this type of discussion because they do not have access to a trustworthy sunni shaykh

Important Note: Keep the discussion clean (from now name calling - i.e., munafiq - and making takfir of others who disagree with our view), no big copy pastes (summarize the points in laymen's language) and no detailed ilmi talk. The purpose is to learn this subject and not get confused

akhee boriqee, as this topic is specifically directed to you, I want to you clarify few things and answer some questions. Given that I have very limited background on this topic, please use layman's language.

I am going to divide rulers into different categories:

1 - Ruler replacing complete shari'ah with secular laws (or any other kufr law)?

2 - Ruler replacing part of the shari'ah with some other law and consider it as better than shari'ah

3 - Ruler replacing part of the shari'ah with some other law but he does due to following his desires, bribe, to save his position, etc.

As far I understand, the Muslim rulers falling into first two categories has committed kufr al-akbar by ijmaa. As far the Muslim rulers among the last category, then they have committed kufr al-asghar (kufr doona kufr - lesser kufr). Correct?

We know imaan consists of 3 things: belief (in the heart), speech (of the tongue) and actions (of the limbs). Is the opposite (kufr akbar or asghar) also categorized in three forms, i.e., kufr akbar of belief?

When actions (of the limbs), for example, is part of imaan, why is it not one of the conditions of perfections or correctness of the imaan? I mean if the imaan is incomplete if you lack in any one of the three departments (beleif, speech, actions), then doesn't it by default mean that each one of them is a required condition for correctness of the imaan? How is this part related to the rulers?

I think that's all for now, Jazak Allah khayran

[salamfromrom]

Salam

I'm also looking forward to hearing educated opinions about this controversial issue. I have been curious about this for some time now.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salman

Discussion on an important topic of our time: should we be making takfir of the Muslims rulers? The issue of iman and kufr is directly related to this topic; hence, it will also be discussed.

al-Hamdulillah for your noble question and desire to learn. This is a discussion that may need some discussion about however there have been platforms that re too extreme in their rules. For example the IA are too heretical to even speak on the topic, and the multaqa for the most part shut down all discussion on the topic due to the fitnah it causes. Well since we are the moderators here, the atmosphere of it can be regulated thereby resulting in progressive arrival of the truth inshallah

Personally, I do not advise average layperson (common folk) to dwell into this topic because it can be very confusing if you are not studying under a trustworthy sunni shaykh. So, it is better to say away from. People like myself who want to learn can resort to this type of discussion because they do not have access to a trustworthy sunni shaykh

true.

Important Note: Keep the discussion clean (from now name calling - i.e., munafiq - and making takfir of others who disagree with our view), no big copy pastes (summarize the points in laymen's language) and no detailed ilmi talk. The purpose is to learn this subject and not get confused

that is a virtual impossibility for this topic. I will try to keep the discussion (on my part) from this ilmi talk, but overall, the complexity of the subject goes into detailed ilm.

akhee boriqee, as this topic is specifically directed to you, I want to you clarify few things and answer some questions. Given that I have very limited background on this topic, please use layman's language.

inshallah

I am going to divide rulers into different categories:

1 - Ruler replacing complete shari'ah with secular laws (or any other kufr law)?

2 - Ruler replacing part of the shari'ah with some other law and consider it as better than shari'ah

3 - Ruler replacing part of the shari'ah with some other law but he does due to following his desires, bribe, to save his position, etc.

Actually, I think there are 5 categories. What I will do inshallah is that I will post everything Muhammad ibn Ibraheem aali-shaykh stated on the five categories of rulers and in each one, he gives their ruling (kafir or not), out of the five, i think three of them are kuffar and two are not, but I have to go back to the text and transcribe it here for our benefit here inshallah.

As far I understand, the Muslim rulers falling into first two categories has committed kufr al-akbar by ijmaa. As far the Muslim rulers among the last category, then they have committed kufr al-asghar (kufr doona kufr - lesser kufr). Correct?

correct.

We know imaan consists of 3 things: belief (in the heart), speech (of the tongue) and actions (of the limbs). Is the opposite (kufr akbar or asghar) also categorized in three forms, i.e., kufr akbar of belief?

uhh. Don;t use akbar or asghar on emaan. In general we consider emaan as tasdeeq (affirmation or belief) in the heart, qawl (speech) and amaal (actions). LIKEWISE, kufr is in tasdeeq, qawl, and amal

Kufr that is akbar is the kufr that is in tasdeeq of the heart while kufr al-Asghar GENERALLY, yet not absolutely, is regarding speech and actions. That is why we don't consider someone a kaafir for stating or performing kufr even though we know that a statement and an action can render someone a kaafir.

In other words, we generally do not make takfir except by due right of the beliefs that the heart contains in a person. HOWEVER, this is not absolute. This is why Imaam an-Nawawee stated that apostasy can occur either through a statement, an action, or a belief, or a doubt. In other words, there are certain actions and speech, that if it is performed, it renders one a kaafir. What some of the scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen reasoned was that when someone performs these deeds, the mere performance of them is attestation in and of itself that the person has no emaan in his heart. On this point, Abu Zubayr virtually called Ibn Uthaymeen of having irjaa but he is refuted because in reality, the intrinsic reality of belief or kufr of a person ultimately is determined by the state of a person's heart. In other words, of the khawaarij were to assume that inherent and open kufr of apostasy can occur outside the heart, then likewise under the asl of "everything is known by its opposite" then likewise they have to be willing to say that a person can become a believer intrinsically outside of the heart. In other words, if you claim it is irj'aa to hold that actions or speech that negate Islam on account of the absence of eman in the heart, then likewise you by default have to disbelieve in the concept of nifaaq. You cannot adopt the fact that someone can become a kaafir outside of what rest in the heart and at the same time not believe that a person can become a believer through another route other than through the heart.

Basically, we, the people of the sunnah hold, regarding the "reality" of a person, is that a person can never become a believer except through the heart. To reject this is to reject the concept of nifaaq in Islam. LIKEWISE, a person can never be a kaafir except through the heart. NOW, deeds and actions all affect the state of the heart WHICH IS WHY deeds and actions, if done in kufr can make someone a kaafir, and likewise, through the works of emaan, one can turn out to be a believer.

When actions (of the limbs), for example, is part of imaan, why is it not one of the conditions of perfections or correctness of the imaan?

You see, this question in and o itself demands an ilmi response. I'll try to keep it as easy as I can inshallah

historical outlook
the problem with this discussion is that in reality, the classification of jinz amal (the category of all deeds) was born out of the innovative intellectual conceptions of the group known as the m'utazilah.

In short, the murjia amongst the ash'aris conceded to the view that actions as a whole (jinz amal) are shart kamaal (condition for emaans completeness or perfection) whereas the medieval hanbalis took the stance that actions were shart sihaah (condition for emaans correctness)

Even though I concede more to the hanbali position, in reality, there is no absolute on either side, because the framework which the arguments were surrounded were not only innovated, but because of their innovated nature, it became rigid.

what I see on this topic from what I have read from a birds eye view, is that the entire category of deeds (jinz amaal) overall are shart sihaah, however, actions, as Ibn taymiyyah, Imaam at-Tabari, and Ibn Mandah explained intellectually (which I will bring forth their statements. NOTE: Abu Zubayr called me a heretic ash'ari in emaan for quoting their words) have both an asl (foundation) and a farr (branch).

In many cases, actions are kamaal, meaning that they perfection and make eman complete. for example, just because you do not perform adkhar after salah does not render you a kaafir. However, if you simple refuse to make salah with no excuse, then you are a kaafir. This is because while most actions are not integral to the validity of emaan, some actions are, which is why Imaam an-Nawawee classified that apostasy can occur through either a statement, an action, a belief, or a doubt.

I mean if the imaan is incomplete if you lack in any one of the three departments (beleif, speech, actions), then doesn't it by default mean that each one of them is a required condition for correctness of the imaan? How is this part related to the rulers?

and this is why i do not consider the scope of the medieval discussion the end of all arguments becaue there are so many loopholes when you get into ilmu-kalaam. We have to realize that this debate on shart sihaah and shart kamaal was born out of ilmu-kalaam.

firstly, you are right, each one of them is required for the correctness of emaan, However, not all actions are or fall under the category of asl (foundational), for example, the shahada is conditional and foundational to Islam. To deny its statement is kufr al-akbar. But to not make a supplication after salah is not conditional to one's faith whereby if he does not perform it, they become a kaafir.

as for it being related to the rulers, i their deeds are done that entails kufr al-bawah (clear cut kufr) then it afects their eman by negating it. If their actions are less than kufr al-bawah and fall into topics where there can be some kind of t'awil given on the topic, then their eman cannot be negated. Ibn Jibreen explained this quite well.

Al-Alaamah al-Faqih Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdillah ibn Jibreen rahimahullah stated
“It is known that al-kufr al-bawah (clear kufr, evident) is an open and outward mater, such as when the ruler actually abolishes the teachings of Islam or we see him, for example, destroying masaajid or he fights the people in the masaajid or he abolishes the shari’ah courts or the religious lessons or we see him burning copies of the quraan or that he orders them to be burnt and he promotes and assist the books of misguidance, the books of the nasaara and the likes of them, and he spreads them and makes reading them to be binding or we see him erecting things that are worshiped besides Allah like idols and the likes. This is the clear and evident kufr.
As for the matters in which ijtihaad enters into, then we have alluded to one of these types last night. And this is what the majority of the rulers are upon, from that which is called “judgment by the secular laws”, such as these, overwhelmingly, the affair pertaining to them is that they consider benefit in them, but they did not abolish the shari’ah with absolute abolishment, such that they do not judge with anything from it at all. Since Allah said ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then they are the kaafireen’, so the likes of these, when they have this angle of approach, then we do not speak of their kufr, but we consider them to be in error, in this ijtihaad which involves changing something from the legislation, even if it was by the path of ijtihaad. So for example, their permitting zinaa (in action, not just belief) when it is with the consent of both parties, and like their abandonment, or the abolition of the hudood, the punishment for stealing, or the punishment of slander, or the punishment of drinking alcohol, or permitting alcohol and announcing the selling of alcohol and whatever resembles that. Then there is no doubt that this is great sin, however their could be, for example, excuses for them, those in which they consider themselves to be justified. So for example, they excuse themselves from this by saying that in their land they have the people who are not muslim, and so being harsh on them will provoke them to leave. So when they have an angle of approach, then Allah will reckon them, but, in any case, there is no doubt that if we judged by the shar’iah and implemented it’s teachings, there would be sufficiency in this and much good.”

[salman]

Jazak Allah khayran habibi

I am going to print this out and go over it like 10 times to digest it completely and then post my questions

I know this topic is going to involve detail ilmi talk and that is fine but I do not want you to post long copy pastes, insha'Allah. Just explain it to us in simple terms or summarize what the ulama has said. wa barak Allahu feeka

[salman]

here is a clip on this subject by Shaykh Uthamyeen (rahimahullah):

YouTube- Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen - The Disbelief Of One Who Rules By Other Than Allah's Law [Translated]

YouTube- Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen - The Disbelief Of One Who Rules By Other Than Allah's Law [Translated]

akh boriqee, if I understood shaykh's statement correctly, he is talking about the rulers, who reaplce the complete Shar'iah with man-made laws, correct? But then he touched on the issue of picking and choosing due to following your nafs. Can you explain this part a bit, Jazak Allah khayran

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

I am going to divide rulers into different categories:

1 - Ruler replacing complete shari'ah with secular laws (or any other kufr law)?

2 - Ruler replacing part of the shari'ah with some other law and consider it as better than shari'ah

3 - Ruler replacing part of the shari'ah with some other law but he does due to following his desires, bribe, to save his position, etc.

As far I understand, the Muslim rulers falling into first two categories has committed kufr al-akbar by ijmaa. As far the Muslim rulers among the last category, then they have committed kufr al-asghar (kufr doona kufr - lesser kufr). Correct?

Salam,

Logically speaking this could be corret. In an Islamic country the affairs will be decided by mutual consultation and Islamic state shall not be ruled by a dictator type ruler. Therefore the responsibility will be collective. Declaring a ruler a Kuffar or Kufr doona Kufr is not the way to deal with the situation. A Muslim can not simply say so and so ruler is a kuffar and sits at home. And getting into a dispute, whether so and so person could be called a Kaafir, will be the worst thing to do. Quran exhorts us to continuously strive to do good deeds and to make strong efforts to improve ourselves. We are encouraged to do good and to oppose evil.

“This is because Allah will not change the condition of any people unless they themselves change" (8:53)

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salman

here is a clip on this subject by Shaykh Uthamyeen (rahimahullah):

YouTube - Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen - The Disbelief Of One Who Rules By Other Than Allah's Law [Translated]

akh boriqee, if I understood shaykh's statement correctly, he is talking about the rulers, who reaplce the complete Shar'iah with man-made laws, correct? But then he touched on the issue of picking and choosing due to following your nafs. Can you explain this part a bit, Jazak Allah khayran

what the shayh was talking about akhee is with regard to the one who completely subdues the shariah to his own reasoning. That is different from one who makes the shariah the asl but sometimes due to desire, he gears off track. Basically in the example of the shaykh above, even though he is talking about the person off desires, this specific person has made his entire theological framework on the premise that the whole of the deen should be in accordance to his own desires, which is basically in essence a tabdeel of the entire shariah.

this is why major progressive reformists are completely out the fold of Islam like parwez, Ghamidi, and others. Even if they are not in the position of leadership, they by default have already made tabdeel of the shariah in their minds.

I hope my speech was clear

[salman]

here is another one for you to explain akhee: Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed

[al-boriqee]

Most of what he said is correct but there are a couple of points of exageration which I will try to clarify that is not absolute which the fatwa made it seem absolute.

Secondly after I post the statements of ibn ibraheem rahimahullah i think the matter would be more clear inshallah, it's just that I'm busy till after Ramadhan

asalamu alaikum

[Qatada]

asalam alykum

Akhi, if actions are a part of eman and rulers rule by other than the rule of Allah, then what does someone say about the rulers?


PS: Whats your view on Muhammad al Maqdisi?