> al-Boriqee Issue of making Takfir of Muslim Rulers

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by 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?

let us reverse the same question in order to understand it more better since the scholars have a principle which states that "the reality of a thing will become known by its opposite"

the question is

"if actions are a part of emaan and Muslims go against what Allah reveals (by disobeying Him through sins), then what does someone say about such a muslim"

The point of that question is to emphasis an unnoticed point that is brushed aside by many muslims. The ayaah that Allah uses in terms of ruling by other than His rule is

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

here, Allah says "wa MAN" i.e. WHOSOEVER.

Abdul-Salaam al-Burjiss gave a lecture regarding this topic and from it he gave tafseer on it and explained the topic briefly yet thoroughly and amongst those things which he stated is

“So the one who reflects on these great versus and looks at them in light of what the language of the Arabs and the language of the Quran necessitate and require, he will find that they are general in their application to two entities.

The first; that they are general for all Muslims; regardless of whatever they are rulers or those who are ruled over. So these versus include the overall ruler, the qaadi, the teacher, the owner of a house, the wife and so on. The evidence of this generality is taken from the verse itself and also from the narrations that have been reported from the salaf may Allah be pleased with them all in explanation of this verse. For the statements of the saying of Allah, the Sublime and the Most High; “And Whoever” gives evidence to the generality (meaning includes all people). And this particle “man” is one of the words that indicates generality in the view of the people of knowledge, since it is one of the nouns (ismu-shart) and so therefore it refers to all those being addressed.

And whoever restricts it to the ruler only has fallen into a very big error.

As for the generality of its application to the second entity, then that is its application to all of the rules and laws of Allah, the Most High and Sublime. Therefore, every ruling, whether it is small or large, is for Allah and is included in this verse, due to its generality.”

In this regard I am reminded by the statement of Imaam al-Albanee who said “if you establish the Islamic state in your heart, then it will be established in your life (societal).

Anyways, the point of this discussion is to educate us is that how are we going to have one criterion for the rulers and a totally different criterion for ourselves. This is why some of the shaykhs in Saudi use to say "The ummah are khawaarij towards the leaders, murjia towards themselves, .........."
actually they said alot more, but the first two statements is what is applicable to this discussion.

What this statement is saying is that when it comes to leaders, whenever an action is performed, we always (for the most part) crucify them with kufr, but when we likewise rule by other than Allah in our own daily life, we excuse ourselves and are never willing to rectify ourselves. It is as if the rulers have a shariah for their own selves where excuses CANNOT be made, and anyone who is not in authority has an entirely different shariah where the shariah of Muhammad applies whereby we do grant excuses to those who sin even if it is major. Likewise in terms of correction, whenever we see a muslim do wrong, we implement the sunnah by advising him in private, but whenever we feel like we need to advise the rulers, our advice is through the flame of our sword and open rebellion.

So back to that question. whatever answer is applicable to Muslims not in authority, then the same is also applicable to those in authority. Likewise, if the answer to that question against the muslims would imply such a person harboring kharijite tendencies, then how can someone be absolved of these tendencies merely on the basis that he is only applying it to the rulers, and not those who are ruled over.

Hence the statement "khawaarij with the rulers, murjia with themselves" instead of sunni-sunni on all accounts. We are strictly sunni on all accounts. Our way is that we don't implement the sunnah for ourselves to the exclusion of the rulers and completely invent an entirely new criterion for those in authority. The shariah of Allah is applicable on both the ruler and the ruled and the ruled hold no special privileges nor do the rulers. To each are his own rights that Islam legislated and nothing else except the tashree of Allah.

2. Now all of that was point one. Now point two would be more clear to you if we asked the same question in a different format

"if actions are a part of emaan and Muslims go against what Allah reveals (by innovating new ideas and practices into Islam and then claiming it i part of Islam), then what does someone say about such a muslim"

In this discussion here, Ibn Taymiyyah discusses elaborately regarding the mubadiloon (those who alter the rule of Allah) and he classified three types of people who are called mubadiloon.

the one who is a mubadil (the alterer) is he who can be a kaafir or not depending on his case. Allah me to give a modern day example

the original ash'aris who abided by the doctrine of Abu Hasan by unanimous agreement of the muslims for the most part are Muslims, they are not called kaafirs. YET they have altered the rulings of Allah, they altered the shariah of Allah and they are worse than the rulers because when the rulers do not jufge by Allah, they many times do not claim that what they rule by is from Allah, rather they know it is from their ownselves. So in actuality, innovators in Islam are worse in the eyes of Allah and the Muslims than rulers who rule by other than Allah. YET, are innovators kufar or are they muslims. being an innovator does not entail kufr unless the concept that is being innovated entails kufr that negates Islam. for the most part, sufis are not kuffar, yet they are mubadiloon because they have altered Islam and have openly ruled by other than the rule of Allah.

whatever ruling can be derived for such people is the same for those who are in authority. Likewise if deriving a ruling is multi-faceted for innovators due to the fact that it would depend on what the innovation is, then likewise declaring rulers kufar has also multi-faceted factors which depend on the state of the ruler himself.

I hope all of this brings a bit more clarity to you inshallah

PS: Whats your view on Muhammad al Maqdisi?

upon some khariji tendencies

any of those guys promoted on IA forums, all of them got problems, just delete the whole site from your computer's memory and your brains memory.

[abdulrahman al muhajir]

you really believe he has khariji tendancy?

[Qatada]

asalam alykum

Akh boriqee, that was a good response and cleared some doubts alhamdulilah :)

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by abdulrahman al muhajir

you really believe he has khariji tendancy?

look what he authored

Al-kawashif al-jaliyya fi kufr al-dawla al-Sa`udiyya (The Shameful Actions Manifest in the Saudi State's Disbelief).

it would be different if making this takfir for other rulers who have no shariah to show as a system of rule.

However, he may have pulled back from some of these khariji beliefs as there is iftiraaq in Jordan right now where some of the hard liner munafiqs have accused al-Maqdisi of striking a deal with the jordanian kuffar authorities. However, this fall back is most like due to his being released from jail.

currently, the schism among the munafiqs among kharijis has resulted in the Maqdisiyyah and the Zarqawiyyah as Maqdisi and Zarqawi had a slight dispute regarding the jihad in iraq where Zarqawi accused al-Maqdisi of virtually destroying the jihad altogether. This animosity is continually increasing.

If we were to ever get our khilafa back as a fadheela from Allah upon the hands of the muslims, the first step to ensuring its protection is to annialate all of these munafiqs from the face of the earth.

[salman]

Let me remind you all again that let us not jump to asking about individuals and focus on this issue. Many of our brothers and sisters have fallen into this trap when this should have been left left to scholars and students of knowledge. We would like to learn and discuss general ruling and not worry about individuals and which ruler is kafir and which person is a khawarij or murji.

Akhee boriqee raised a good point that some of us, who are too busy with defending or attacking the rulers, overlook our own state and obligations. In this regard, Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullah) gave a wonderful naseeha to shabab (youth); he said that many youngsters are too busy attacking the rulers and calling them kafir but they forget that these rulers are form us. So we need to busy ourselves with worrying about our own affairs, learning and islah so that we don't have these kinds of rulers.

In next post, I am going to quote the words of one of greats and beloved shaykh of our time, Abdul Aziz Ibrahim Ala Shaykh rahimahullah. He divided the rulers in different categories and explained the meaning of statement (kufr doona kufr) of scholar of the ummah, Abdullah ibn Abbas radiAllahu anho.

I will also quote statements of other contemporary scholars explaining shaykh's word, insha'Allah.

[salman]

One can download the whole risla of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim (rahimahullah) from Ruling by the Law. Below is an excerpt from this risla:

There is no true justice except the judgement of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] and judging by other than that is the true oppression, wrongdoing, misguidance, unbelief and iniquity and therefore Allah Ta’ala says thereafter:

And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn. [Surah al-Ma’idah (5): 44]

And whosoever does not judge by that which Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn. [Surah al-Ma’idah (5): 45]

And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn to Allâh. [Surah al-Ma’idah (5): 47]

So look how Allah Ta’ala records the kufr, oppression and inquity of those who govern by other than that which Allah reveals. And it is impossible for Allah, the Most Perfect, to call he who judges by other than that which Allah reveals a kaafir and for him to be not to be a kaafir – rather he is a kaafir – either being kufr of action or kufr of belief – and that which is reported from Ibn Abbas – radiAllahu anho – by way of Taawoos and others – in tafsir of this aayah shows that the ruler by other than that which Allah reveals is kafir either in belief – which takes him outside the religion – or in action, which does not take him outside the religion.

As far the first, kufr in belief, then it is of different types:

1. That the one judging by other than which Allah revealed denies the precedence of the judgment of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] - and that is the meaning of what is reported from Ibn Abbas [radiAllahu anho] - and is preferred by Ibn Jareer (at-Tabaree) - that it is rejecting the rule of the Shari'ah which Allah sent down and there is no difference amongst the scholar about this, since one of the well-known and agreed upon principles is that he who denies a fundamental part of the deen or a branch which is agreed upon, or denies a single letter of what the Prophet [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] is verified as having brought - then he is a kafir who has left Islam.

2. That the one ruling by other than that which Allah revealed does not deny the truth of the judgement of Allah and His Messenger, but he believes that the judgement of someone other than the Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] is better than the judgement and more complete and comprehensive for the needs of the people when they disagree and require judgement - either in general or in particular cases, such as those things occurring due to the modern age and changing conditions - and there is also no doubt that this is also kufr, as he has preferred the judgements of the creation which are merely the refuse of people's minds and dregs of their speculation to the judgement of the All-Wise, the Worthy of all praise.

The judgement of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] does not change in its substance along with changing times and development and new situations - as there is no new situation that occurs - except that its ruling is contained in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] either in the text explicitly or implicitly or to be derived therefrom, etc. - whether the people know or not - and what the scholars have said about the fatwaa changing according to changing times is not as those ignorant of the rules of Allah think - that they can be adapted to suit their purposes and support them - however possible by twisting the words from their intended meanings - however what is meant by the scholars is that whatever has been derived by scholars using the fundamentals of the Shari'ah and its intended aims and noble goals which are the class of that which Allah Ta'ala wishes and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam], and it is obvious that the 'law-orders' who lay down the man-made laws are far-removed from all of that and that they only say that which they themselves desire - whatever the case - is substantiated by what we observe.

3. That he does not regard it as being better than the judgement of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] but believes it to be equivalent - so he is as the previous two types - being a kaafir who has left Islam, since he has put the creation on the same level as to the Creator, and contradicted and wilfully opposed Allah's saying that there is nothing at all like Him: "There is nothing whatever like unto Him" [Surah al-Shoora (42):11].

Which is repeated in other aayahs - which show that Allah alone is perfect and not like anything of creation, neither in His Self, His Attributes or His Actions, nor in judging between the people in that about which they dispute.

4. That he does not consider the judgment of the one who judges by other than that which Allah reveals to be like the judgement of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam], not to speak of preferring it thereto, but he believes that it is permissible to give judgement which goes against the judgement of Allah and His Messenger. This is one just like the previous one since he makes permissible that that which is forbidden in the clear authentic texts about which there is no doubt.

5. That is the greater, more comprehensive and obvious form of stubborn rejection to the Shari'ah and haughty rejection of its rulings and showing dissent of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam], and challenging the courts of Islamic Law, it its setting-up, maintenance, provisions, foundations and its branches, form, types, its judgment and compulsion, references and sources. So just as the Shari'ah courts have references upon which they depend - all depending upon Allah's Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] - then in the same way the law-courts of the man-made laws have their sources: laws patched together from many different law systems, like French laws, American laws, British laws, etc., and from the system of innovators who claim allegiance to the Shari'ah, etc.

So these law-courts are now present in many Muslim lands, complete and established, with open doors and the people of the flock thereto in throngs; their judges give judgements going against the judgements of the Book and Sunnah - according to their own laws and making these pronouncements binding and agreeing thereto and making them unalterable, so what kufr is greater than this, and what can be greater contradiction of the testification that Muhammad [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] is the Messenger of Allah.

The proofs for all that have stated are clear and well-known, and are too many to mention here, so O people of intelligence and wisdom, how can you be pleased to accept the laws of men like yourselves and the thoughts of similar people to yourselves or lesser than you - who are open to error - rather their errors outweigh what they get right - rather there is nothing in their judgements that is correct except that which is taken from the judgements of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam], whether in letter or derived therefrom. How can you leave them to judge about yourselves, your blood, your skins, your dignity and families, wives and offspring, wealth and the rest of your rights - whilst they leave and reject judgement according to the judgements of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] - which is free from error - nor can it be approached by falsity from in front or behind - a revelation from All-Wise, the One worthy of all praise.

The submission of the people to and their compliance with the ruler of their Lord is only submission and complacence to the ruler of he One who created them that they should worship Him - and so just as the creation do no prostrate except to Allah and do no worship except Him, not worshipping anything created - so similarly it is bidding that they do not comply, surrender and submit except to the judgement of the All-Wise, the All-Knowing, Worth of all praise, the Most Compassionate and Most Merciful - not submitting to the judgement of the created-being, the oppressive and ignorant - who is destroyed by doubts, desires and uncertainty - and whose hearts are taken over by forgetfulness, harshness and ignorance.

Therefore the wise people must consider themselves above that as it merely enslaves them and causes them to be ruled by vain desires and selfish interests, errors and mistakes, beside being kufr - according to Allah Ta'ala's saying:

And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn [Surah Al-Ma'idah (5): 44]

6. That which many of the heads of the bedouin and tribes of the desert, etc., judge by - that which they pick up from their fathers and predecessors and their customs which they inherit - judging thereby and using it to solve disputers - remaining from the times of jaahliyyah and putting aside and rejecting the judgement of Allah and His Messenger [sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam] - and there is no movement and no power except with (the will of) Allah.

As for the second type of kufr of the one who judges by other than that which Allah reveals - and it is that which does not take a person out from Islam - then as has preceded the tarsier of Ibn Abbas - radiAllahu anho - to Allah's saying: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn" [Surah Al-Ma'idah (5): 44] comprehends this class - in his - radiAllahu anho - saying: "A kufr less than kufr" and his saying also: "It is not the kufr that you think".

This is regarding a man who was promoted to judge in the matter by other than Allah's revelation by his own desires - whilst believing that the judgement of Allah and His Messenger is the truth, and knowing himself to be in the wrong an having left the true guidance.

This even though it does not take him outside of Islam - then still it is a great sin and one of the worst of the greater sins, like fornication, drinking alcohol, stealing and taking false-oath, etc., as a sing which Allah calls kufr in His books is greater than any sin which He does not describe as being kufr.

and Allah knows best

[salman]

A brief summary and tafsir on this issue by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan (May Allah preserve him) while explaining the ayah "And He who does not rule by what Allah has revealed it is they who are the unbelievers" [Surah Al-Ma'idah (5): 44]:

This Ayah signifies that ruling by laws other than those revealed by Allah constitutes infidelity. This type of infidelity is either major which entails apostasy, or minor which does not constitute apostasy depending on the ruler's attitude. If he believes that the laws of Allah are not binding, and that he has a choice, or he took them lightly, or believed that man made laws are better than the Divine laws, because the former are not suitable for this time and age, or if he wants to satisfy the infidels and hypocrites by so doing, then he commits major infidelity. But if he believes that the laws of Allah are binding and knows the respective laws are relevant to the case he is handling, and yet he opted to rule by otherwise, recognizing that his deed is wrong, and would be subject to punishment, then such a ruler is disobedient who has committed minor Kufr or disbelief. But if he was ignorant of the respective Divine law and tried his best and utmost seeking it, but missed it, he would have committed an error, but he would be rewarded for exerting the effort to reach the proper judgment and, whose error would be forgiven. [At Tahawiyah p.363 364]

This applies to cases that concern individuals, but ruling on cases that concern the public is a different case. Shaikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "If the ruler was religious and yet ruled ignorantly without knowledge, he would end up in Hell Fire. But if he is aware of the Divine laws and yet he ruled by other than the truth of which he is aware, he would belong to the people of Hell Fire. And if he rules unjustly and without knowledge, he would be more deserving of Fire. This in case he judges in a case of an individual, but if he judges in a case which concerns the public, and altered the truth into falsehood, and the falsehood into truth, the Sunnah into Bid'ah, or the Bid'ah into Sunnah, and the good into evil and the evil into good, and opposes the commands of Allah and His Messenger and commands what Allah and his Messenger forbid, then this is another type to be judged by Allah, the Rubh of the Worlds, and the God of the Messengers, the Proprietor of the Day of Requital, to Whom belongs all the praise in the beginning and the end. [Majmoo' al Fatawa, p. 388]

Shaykh then quotes Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim (rahimahullah):

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem asserted: "As for that which is described as lesser infidelity, it is when he refers the dispute to other than the Book of Allah knowing that he is disobeying Allah by doing so, and that the ruling of Allah is the truth, and He does it once. Such a person would not be committing major infidelity. As for those who legislate laws and make others obey them, this constitutes infidelity, even if they claim that they made a mistake, and that the laws of Allah are more just; such is considered as an infidelity which entails apostasy".

Shaykh (Al-Fawzaan) continues on to explain the above statement:

By asserting this Sheikh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem, may Allah grant him His Mercy, made distinction between the partial ruling of no recurrence, and between the general ruling which is used as reference to all judgments or most of them, and he decided that such infidelity constitutes absolute apostasy.

Shaykh finally refuted those who say that this case requires that the rulers must have the belief of istihlal:

That is because he who discards the Islamic Shar'iah and replaces it with man made laws, this is a proof that he considers the man made laws as more appropriate and better than the Shar'iah, which is beyond doubt major infidelity which constitutes apostasy and contradicts Tawheed (the belief in the Oneness of Allah).

~~ Source ~~

So what I understood from (above) statements of the scholars is that kufr doona kufr (lesser kufr) applicable only in the case when people are completely ruled by the Shari'ah but the judge or ruler bases its judgment outside of Shari'ah in few individual cases while he knows that ruling by Shari'ah is obligatory and he is sinning. The lesser kufr is not applicable to cases like ruling by Shari'ah is not the asl or people are ruled by mix of Shari'ah and man-made laws or people are generally ruled by man-made laws.

and Allah knows best

and Allah knows best

[al-boriqee]

I want to put the arabic here as a complimentary to the risalah of Ibn Ibraheem rahimahullah

__________________________________________________ ___



يقول الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم رحمه الله:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه.

إنّ من الكفر الأكبر المستبين، تنزيل القانون اللعين، منزلة ما نزل به الروح الأمين، على قلب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، ليكون من المنذرين، بلسان عربي مبين، في الحكم به بين العالمين، والرّدِّ إليه عند تنازع المتنازعين، مناقضة ومعاندة لقول الله عزّ وجلّ: {فإنْ تنازعتُم في شيءٍ فرُدّوه إلى اللهِ والرسولِ إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خيرٌ وأحسنُ تأويلاً}.

وقد نفى الله سبحانه وتعالى الإيمان عمن لم يُحَكِّموا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فيما شجر بينهم، نفيا مؤكدا بتكرار أداة النفي وبالقسم، قال تعالى: {فلا وربِّك لا يؤمنون حتى يُحكِّموك فيما شَجَر بينهم ثم لا يجدوا في أنفسهم حرجًا ممّا قضيتَ ويُسَلِّموا تسليمًا}.

ولم يكتف تعالى وتقدس منهم بمجرد التحكيم للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، حتى يضيفوا إلى ذلك عدم وجود شيء من الحرج في نفوسهم، بقوله جل شأنه: {ثم لا يجدوا في أنفسهم حرجا ممّا قضيت}. والحرج: الضيق. بل لا بدّ من اتساع صدورهم لذلك وسلامتها من القلق والاضطراب.

ولم يكتف تعالى أيضا هنا بهذين الأمرين، حتى يضموا إليهما التسليم: وهو كمال الانقياد لحكمه صلى الله عليه وسلم، بحيث يتخلّون ها هنا من أي تعلق للنفس بهذا الشيء، ويسلموا ذلك إلى الحكم الحق أتمّ تسليم، ولهذا أكّد ذلك بالمصدر المؤكّد، وهو قوله جلّ شأنه: {تسليمًا} المبيّن أنه لا يُكتفى ها هنا بالتسليم.. بل لا بدّ من التسليم المطلق.

وتأمل ما في الآية الأولى، وهي قوله تعالى: {فإنْ تنازعتم في شيء فردُّوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خيرٌ وأحسنُ تأويلاً..} كيف ذكر النّكِرة، وهي قوله: {شيء} في سياق الشرط، وهو قوله جلّ شأنه: {فإنْ تنازعتم} المفيد العمومَ فيما يُتصوّر التنازع فيه جنسا وقدرًا.

ثم تأمل كيف جعل ذلك شرطا في حصول الإيمان بالله واليوم الآخر، بقوله: {إنْ كُنتُم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر}، ثم قال جل شأنه: {ذلك خيرٌ}. فشيء يُطلقِ اللهُ عليه أنه خير، لا يتطرّق إليه شرّ أبدا، بل هو خيرٌ محضٌ عاجلا وآجلاً.

ثم قال: {وأحسن تأويلاً}. أي: عاقبةً في الدنيا والآخرة، فيفيد أنّ الردَّ إلى غير الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، عند التنازع شرٌّ محضٌ، وأسوأ عاقبة في الدنيا والآخرة عكس ما يقوله المنافقون: {إنْ أَرَدْنا إلآَّ إحْسانًا وتَوْفيقًا}. وقولهم: إنّما نحنُ مُصلِحون. ولهذا ردّ اللهُ عليهم قائلا: {ألاَ إنّهم هُمُ المُفْسِدون ولكن لا يَشْعُرون}.

وعكس ما عليه القانونيون من حكمهم على القانون بحاجة العالم (بل ضرورتهم) إلى التحاكم إليه، وهذا سوء ظن صِرْفٍ بما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، ومحضُ استنقاص لبيان الله ورسوله، والحكم عليه بعدم الكفاية للناس عند التنازع، وسوء العاقبة في الدنيا والآخرة إن هذا لازمٌ لهم.

وتأمّل أيضا ما في الآية الثانية من العموم، وذلك في قوله تعالى: {فيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُم}. فإنّ اسم الموصول مع صِلته مع صيغ العموم عند الأصوليين وغيرهم، وذلك العمومُ والشمولُ هو من ناحية الأجناس والأنواع، كما أنه من ناحية القدْر، فلا فرقَ هنا بين نوع ونوع، كما أنّه لا فرق بين القليل والكثير، وقد نفى اللهُ الإيمانَ عن مَن أراد التحاكم إلى غير ما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، من المنافقين، كما قال تعالى: {أَلمْ تَرَ إلى الذينَ يَزْعُمونَ أنّهم آمنوا بما أُنْزِلَ إليكَ وما أُنزلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُريدونَ أنْ.يَتَحاكَموا إلى الطاغوتِ وقدْ أُمِروا أنْ يكفُروا به ويُريدُ الشيطانُ أنْ يُضلّهم ضلالا بعيدًا}.

فإنّ قوله عز وجل: "يَزْعُمون" تكذيب لهم فيما ادّعوه من الإيمان، فإنه لا يجتمع التحاكم إلى غير ما جاء به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مع الإيمان في قلب عبدٍ أصلاً، بل أحدهما ينافي الآخر، والطاغوت مشتق من الطغيان، وهو: مجاوزة الحدّ.

فكلُّ مَن حَكَمَ بغير ما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو حاكَمَ إلى غير ما جاء به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقد حَكَمَ بالطاغوت وحاكم إليه.

وذلك أنّه مِن حقِّ كل أحدٍ أن يكون حاكمًا بما جاء به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقط لا بخلافه، كما أنّ من حقِّ كل أحدٍ أن يُحاكِمَ إلى ما جاء به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.. فمَن حَكَمَ بخلافه أو حاكم إلى خلافه فقد طغى، وجاوز حدّه، حُكْمًا أو تحكيما، فصار بذلك طاغوتا لتجاوزه حده.

وتأمل قوله عز وجل: {وقدْ أُمِروا أنْ يكفُروا به} تعرف منه معاندة القانونيين، وإرادتهم خلاف مراد الله منهم حول هذا الصدد، فالمراد منهم شرعًا والذي تعبّدوا به هو: الكفر بالطاغوت لا تحكيمه.. {فبدَّل الذينَ ظَلموا قولاَ غيرَ الذي قيلَ لهُم}.

ثم تأمل قوله: {ويُريدُ الشيطانُ أنْ يُضلّهُم} كيف دلَّ على أنّ ذلك ضلالٌ، وهؤلاء القانونيون يرونه من الهدى، كما دلّت الآية على أنّه من إرادة الشيطان، عكس ما يتصور القانونيون من بُعدهم من الشيطان، وأنّ فيه مصلحة الإنسان، فتكون على زعمهم مرادات الشيطان هي صلاح الإنسان، ومراد الرحمن وما بُعث به سيدُ ولد عدنان معزولا من هذا الوصف، ومُنحىً عن هذا الشأن وقد قال تعالى منكرا على هذا الضرب من الناس، ومقررا ابتغاءهم أحكام الجاهلية، وموضحا أنه لا حُكم أحسن من حُكمه: {أَفَحُكمَ الجاهليةِ يَبْغونَ ومَنْ أحسنُ مِن اللهِ حُكمًا لِقومٍ يُوقِنون}.

فتأمل هذه الآية الكريمة وكيف دلّت على أنّ قِسمة الحكم ثنائية، وأنّه ليس بعد حكم الله تعالى إلاّ حُكم الجاهلية، شاءوا أمْ أبوا، بل هم أسوأ منهم حالاً، وأكذب منهم مقالاً، ذلك أنّ أهل الجاهلية لا تناقُضَ لديهم حول هذا الصدد.


وأما القانونيون فمتناقضون، حيث يزعمون الإيمان بما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ويناقضون ويريدون أنْ يتّخذوا بين ذلك سبيلاً، وقد قال الله تعالى في أمثال هؤلاء: {أُولئكَ هُمُ الكافرونَ حَقَّا وأَعْتدنا للكافرينَ عذابًا مُهينًا}.

ثم انظر كيف ردّت هذه الآية الكريمة على القانونيين ما زعموه من حُسن زبالة أذهانهم، ونحاتة أفكارهم، بقوله عزّ وجلّ: {ومَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللهِ حُكْمًا لِقوْمٍ يُوقِنون}.

قال الحافظ ابن كثير في تفسير هذه الآية: (ينكر اللهُ على من خرج من حكم الله المُحْكم المشتمل على كل خير، الناهي عن كل شرّ، وعَدَلَ إلى ما سواه من الآراء والأهواء والاصطلاحات، التي وضعها الرجال بلا مستند من شريعة الله، كما كان أهل الجاهلية يحكمون به من الضلالات والجهالات، مما يضعونها بآرائهم وأهوائهم، وكما يحكم به التتارُ من السياسات الملكية المأخوذة عن مَلِكهم "جنكيز خان" الذي وضع لهم كتابًا مجموعًا من أحكامٍ قد اقتبسها من شرائع شتى، من اليهودية، والنصرانية، والملة الإسلامية، وغيرها وفيها كثير من الأحكام أخذها من مجرد نظره وهواه، فصارت في بَنيهِ شرعا مُتّبعا يقدِّمونها على الحكم بكتاب الله وسنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فمن فعل ذلك فهو كافرٌ يجب قتاله حتى يرجعَ إلى حكم الله ورسوله، فلا يُحَكِّم سواه في قليل ولا كثير. قال تعالى: {أَفَحُكْمَ الجاهليةِ يَبْغون}. أي: يبتغون ويريدون، وعن حكم الله يعدلون. {ومَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللهِ حُكْمًا لِقَوْمٍ يوقِنونَ}. أي: ومن أعدل من الله في حكمه، لِمَن عَقَل عن الله شرعه وآمن به وأيقن، وعلِم أنّ الله أحكمُ الحاكمين، وأرحمُ بخلقه من الوالدة بولدها، فإنه تعالى هو العالم بكل شيء القادر على كل شيء، العادل في كل شيء) انتهى قول الحافظ ابن كثير.

وقد قال عزّ شأنه قبل ذلك مخاطبا نبيه محمدًا صلى الله عليه وسلم: {وأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنهُم بما أنزل اللهُ ولا تَتَّبِعْ أهْواءهُم عَمّا جاءَك مِن الحقّ}.

وقال تعالى: {وأنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنهُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللهُ ولا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْواءَهُمْ واحْذَرْهُم أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ إليك}.

وقال تعالى مُخيرا نبيه محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم، بين الحُكم بين اليهود والإعراض عنهم إنْ جاءُوه لذلك: {فَإنْ جاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُم أوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وإنْ تَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ فَلَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ شَيْئاً وإنْ حَكَمْتَ فاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالقِسْطِ إنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ المُقْسِطينَ}. والقسط هو: العدل، ولا عدل حقا إلاّ حُكم الله ورسوله، والحكم بخلافه هو الجور، والظلم، والضلال، والكفر، والفسوق، ولهذا قال تعالى بعد ذلك: {ومَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الكافِرون} {ومَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الظالِمُون} {ومَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الفاسِقون}.

فانظر كيف سجّل تعالى على الحاكمين بغير ما أنزل اللهُ الكفرَ والظلمَ والفسوقَ، ومِن الممتنع أنْ يُسمِّي اللهُ سبحانه الحاكمَ بغير ما أنزل اللهُ كافرًا ولا يكون كافرًا، بل كافرٌ مطلقًا، إمّا كفر عمل وإما كفر اعتقاد، وما جاء عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما في تفسير هذه الآية من رواية طاووس وغيره يدلُّ أنّ الحاكم بغير ما أنزل اللهُ كافرٌ إمّا كفرُ اعتقادٍ ناقلٌ عن الملّة، وإمّا كفرُ عملٍ لا ينقلُ عن الملّة.




أمّا الأول: وهو كفر الاعتقاد فهو أنواع:

أحدها:

أن يجحد الحاكمُ بغير ما أنزل الله أحقيّة حُكمِ الله ورسوله وهو معنى ما رُوي عن ابن عباس، واختاره ابن جرير أنّ ذلك هو جحودُ ما أنزل اللهُ من الحُكم الشرعي، وهذا ما لا نزاع فيه بين أهل العلم، فإنّ الأصول المتقررة المتّفق عليها بينهم أنّ مَنْ جَحَدَ أصلاً من أصول الدين أو فرعًا مُجمعًا عليه، أو أنكر حرفًا مما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، قطعيًّا، فإنّه كافرًا الكفرَ الناقل عن الملّة.

الثاني:

أنْ لا يجحد الحاكم بغير ما أنزل الله كونَ حُكم اللهِ ورسولِهِ حقًّا. لكن اعتقد أنّ حُكم غير الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم أحسنُ من حُكمه، وأتمّ وأشمل... لما يحتاجه الناسُ من الحُكم بينهم عند التنازع، إمّا مُطلقا أو بالنسبة إلى ما استجدّ من الحوادث، التي نشأت عن تطوّر الزمان وتغير الأحوال، وهذا أيضًا لا ريب أنه كافرٌ، لتفضيله أحكامَ المخلوقين التي هي محضُ زبالةِ الأذهان، وصرْفُ حُثالة الأفكار، على حُكم الحكيم الحميد.

وحُكمُ اللهِ ورسولِه لا يختلف في ذاته باختلاف الأزمان، وتطور الأحوال، وتجدّد الحوادث، فإنّه ما من قضية كائنة ما كانت إلاّ وحُكمها في كتاب الله تعالى، وسنة رسوله، صلى الله عليه وسلم، نصًّا أو ظاهرًا أو استنباطًا أو غير ذلك، عَلِمَ ذلك مَن علمه، وجَهِلَه مَن جهله.

وليس معنى ما ذكره العلماء من تغيّر الفتوى بتغير الأحوال ما ظنّه مَن قلَّ نصيبُه أو عدم من معرفة مدارك الأحكام وعِلَلها، حيث ظنّوا أنّ معنى ذلك بحسب ما يُلائم إرادتهم الشهوانية البهيمية، وأغراضهم الدنيوية وتصوّراتهم الخاطئة الوبية.

ولهذا تجدُهم يحامون عليها، ويجعلون النصوص تابعة لها منقادة إليها، مهما أمكنهم فيحرفون لذلك الكَلِم عن مواضعه.

وحينئذٍ معنى تغيُّر الفتوى بتغير الأحوال والأزمان مراد العلماء منه: ما كان مُستصحبه فيه الأصول الشرعية، والعلل المرعية، والمصالح التي جِنْسُها مرادٌ لله تعالى ورسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم. ومن المعلوم أنّ أرباب القوانين الوضعية عن ذلك بمعزل، وأنهم لا يقولون إلاّ على ما يلائم مراداتهم، كائنة ما كانت، والواقع أصدقُ شاهدٍ.

الثالث:

أنْ لا يعتقد كونَه أحسن من حُكم الله ورسوله، لكن اعتقد أنه مثله، فهذا كالنوعين الذين قبله، في كونه كافرًا الكفرَ الناقل عن الملّة، لما يقتضيه ذلك من تسوية المخلوق بالخالق والمناقضة والمعاندة لقوله عزّ وجلّ: {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْء}. ونحوها من الآيات الكريمة، الدالّة على تفرُّدِ الربّ بالكمال، وتنزيهه عن ممثالة المخلوقين، في الذات والصفات والأفعال والحُكم بين الناس فيما يتنازعون فيه.

الرابع:

أنْ لا يعتقد كون حُكم الحاكم بغير ما أنزل الله مماثلاً لحكم الله ورسوله، فضلاً عن أنْ يعتقدَ كونه أحسن منه، لكن اعتقد جواز الحُكم بما يخالف حُكم الله ورسوله، فهذا كالذي قبله يصدُقُ عليه ما يصدق عليه، لاعتقاده جوازَ ما علم بالنصوص الصحيحة الصريحة القاطعة تحريمه.

الخامس:

وهو أعظمها وأشملها وأظهرها معاندة للشرع، ومكابرة لأحكامه، ومشاقّة لله ورسوله، ومضاهاة بالمحاكم الشرعية، إعدادا وإمدادا وإرصادا وتأصيلا، وتفريعا وتشكيلا وتنويعا وحكما وإلزاما، ومراجع ومستندات.

فكما أنّ للمحاكم الشرعية مراجعَ مستمدّات، مرجعها كلُّها إلى كتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم.

فلهذه المحاكم مراجعٌ، هي: القانون المُلفّق من شرائعَ شتى، وقوانين كثيرة، كالقانون الفرنسي، والقانون الأمريكي، والقانون البريطاني، وغيرها من القوانين، ومن مذاهب بعض البدعيين المنتسبين إلى الشريعة وغير ذلك.

فهذه المحاكم في كثير من أمصار الإسلام مهيّأة مكملة، مفتوحةُ الأبواب، والناس إليها أسرابٌ إثْر أسراب، يحكُمُ حُكّامُها بينهم بما يخالف حُكم السُنّة والكتاب، من أحكام ذلك القانون، وتُلزمهم به، وتُقِرُّهم عليه، وتُحتِّمُه عليهم.. فأيُّ كُفر فوق هذا الكفر، وأيُّ مناقضة للشهادة بأنّ محمدًا رسولُ اللهِ بعد هذه المناقضة.

وذِكْرُ أدلّة جميع ما قدّمنا على وجه البسْطِ معلومةٌ معروفة، لا يحتمل ذكرها هذا الموضوع.

فيا معشر العُقلاء! ويا جماعات الأذكياء وأولي النُهى!

كيف ترضون أنْ تجري عليكم أحكامُ أمثالكم، وأفكارُ أشباهكم، أو مَن هم دونكم، مِمّن يجوز عليهم الخطأ، بل خطأهم أكثرُ من صوابهم بكثير، بل لا صواب في حُكمهم إلاّ ما هو مُستمدٌّ من حُكم اللهِ ورسولهِ، نصًّا أو استنباطًا؟!!

تَدَعونهم يحكمون في أنفسكم ودمائكم وأبشاركم، وأعراضكم وفي أهاليكم من أزواجكم وذراريكم، وفي أموالكم وسائر حقوقكم!! ويتركون ويرفضون أن يحكموا فيكم بحُكم الله ورسوله، الذي لا يتطرّق إليه الخطأ، ولا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد!!

وخُضوع الناس ورضوخهم لحكم ربِّهم خضوعٌ ورضوخٌ لِحُكم مَنْ خلقهم تعالى ليعبدوه.. فكما لا يسجدُ الخلقُ إلاّ للهِ، ولا يعبدونَ إلاّ إياه ولا يعبدون المخلوق، فكذلك يجب أن لا يرضخوا ولا يخضعوا أو ينقادوا إلاّ لحُكم الحكيم العليم الحميد، الرءوف الرحيم، دون حُكم المخلوق، الظلوم الجهول، الذي أهلكته الشكوكُ والشهواتُ والشبهات، واستولت على قلوبهم الغفلة والقسوة والظلمات.

فيجب على العُقلاء أن يربأوا بنفوسهم عنه، لما فيه من الاستعباد لهم، والتحكم فيهم بالأهواء والأغراض، والأغلاط والأخطاء، فضلاً عن كونه كفرًا بنصِّ قوله تعالى: {ومَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللهُ فأُولئكَ هُمُ الكافِرونَ}.

السادس:

ما يحكُم به كثيرٌ من رؤساء العشائر، والقبائل من البوادي ونحوهم، من حكايات آبائهم وأجدادهم، وعاداتهم التي يسمُّونها "سلومهم"، يتوارثون ذلك منهم، ويحكمون به ويحُضُّون على التحاكم إليه عند النزاع، بقاءاً على أحكام الجاهلية، وإعراضًا ورغبةً عن حُكم الله ورسوله، فلا حول ولا قوة إلاّ بالله.

وأمّا القسم الثاني:

من قسمي كُفر الحاكم بما انزل الله، وهو الذي لا يُخرجُ من الملة.

فقد تقدّم أنّ تفسير ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما لقول الله عزّ وجلّ: {ومَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أنْزَلَ اللهُ فَاُولئكَ هُمُ الكافِرونَ}. قد شمل ذلك القسم، وذلك في قوله رضي الله عنه في الآية: "كُفر دون كفر"، وقوله أيضًا: "ليس بالكفر الذي تذهبون إليه".

وذلك أنْ تَحْمِلَهُ شهوتُه وهواهُ على الحُكم في القضية بغير ما أنزل الله، مع اعتقاده أنّ حُكم الله ورسوله هو الحقّ، واعترافه على نفسه بالخطأ ومجانبة الهدى.

وهذا وإنْ لم يُخرِجْه كُفْرُه عن الملّة، فإنه معصية عُظمى أكبرُ من الكبائر، كالزنا وشُرب الخمر، والسّرِقة واليمين الغموس، وغيرها..

إنّ معصية ً سمّاها اللهُ في كتابه كفرًا، أعظمُ من معصية لم يُسمِّها كُفرًا.

نسأل الله أنْ يجمع المسلمين على التحاكم إلى كتابه، انقيادا ورضاءً، إنّه وليُّ ذلك والقادر عليه.

تمّت
ولله الحمد
__________________________________________________ __________

Also another treatise that I personally believe was excellent and went into more detail is the risalaah of "al-Hukmu bi-ghayri ma Anzalallah".

Both of these Imaams were the Imaams of the Sunnah before Bin Baz and Uthaymeen and were contemporaries of al-Albanee rahimahulah along with other major scholars like Faalih ar-Roomee, Abdur-Rahman bin Naasir as-S'adi, Hamaad al-Ansaaree, Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeeti.

[Abd al-Muhsin al Hindy]

AsSalaamu alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barkaatuhu,

Visit :
** Link removed - deviant site **

Also, visit :
** Link removed - deviant site **

Learn about the Takfiris their false claims and read their refutations...etc. InshaAllah they will benefit .
AsSalaamu alaykum.

[Idris]

I don´t like to label someone as a Takfiri because as we all know Takfir is from our Deen and if we begin to label some groups of being Takfiris maybe then other muslims (with not strong `Ilm) would stay away from making Takfir at all.

We see it here in germany that some young muslims do not even make Takfir on the christians, jews and atheists etc. ...

This people that we call "Takfiri" are in reality Ghulaatu t-Takfir.

wa Allahu a`lam.


sorry for my bad english, it´s not my native language.