The Fourth Issue

Although this particular matter is one of the most debated among students of knowledge, the three contemporary scholars—Ibn Bāz, Al-Albāni, and Ibn ’Uthaymin, may Allāh have mercy on them—were agreed on not declaring takfīr in such a case. Ibn Bāz, may Allāh have mercy on him, said: «فإذا سَنَّ قانوناً يتضمن أنه لا حَدَّ على الزاني، أو لا حَدَّ على السارق..: فهذا قانون باطل، وإذا استحله الوالي كَفَر» "If a ruler enacts a law stating that there is no punishment for the adulterer or the thief, such a law is invalid. If the ruler deems it permissible, he falls into disbelief." [Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā (7/124)]. See also Al-Albāni’s statement on NOT declaring Takfīr on someone who enacts a law unless he considers it permissible ['Silsilat Al-Huda wan-Nūr', Tape 849, Minute 72]. Ibn ’Uthaymin, may Allāh have mercy on him, said: «الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله ليس بكفر مخرج عن الملة، لكنه كفر عَمَلِي [أصغر] ؛ لأن الحاكم بذلك خرج عن الطريق الصحيح ولا يُفرَّقُ في ذلك بين الرجل الذي يأخذ قانوناً وضعياً من قبل غيره ويُحكمه في دولته، وبين من ينشيء قانوناً ويضع هذا القانون الوضعي؛ إذ المُهِمُّ هو: هل هذا القانون يُخالف القانون السماوي؟ أم لا؟» "Ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed does not constitute disbelief that removes one from the fold of Islam; rather, it is a practical disbelief (Kufr ’amali - i.e. Minor kufr), as the ruler -by doing so- deviates from the correct path. There is no difference between a person who adopts a man-made law from another source and implements it in his state, and someone who creates and enacts such a law himself. What matters is whether the law contradicts divine law or not (1)." [Fitnat At-Takfīr, p. 25]. ___ (1) What he means, may Allāh have mercy on him, is that the critical factor is whether the law contradicts or conforms to Sharī‘ah, regardless of whether the law was created by the ruler himself or adopted from another source.