«وهو اسْمُ جِنس، يدخل فيه: الشيطان، والوثن، والكهان، والدرهم، والدينار، وغير ذلك»
“Ṭāghūt is a generic term that encompasses the devil, idols, soothsayers, money, and other such entities” [Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā (16/565)]
I say: if every ṭāghūt were considered a disbeliever, it would not be appropriate to describe inanimate objects as such.
3. Scholars have also used the term ṭāghūt to describe individuals guilty of…
Some of the notables have argued for the legitimacy of takfīr in this case by claiming that "the lawmaker becomes a ṭāghūt (tyrant) to whom people refer to for judgment instead of Allāh."
However, this argument is flawed, and its inaccuracy can be clarified from two angles:
The First Angle: The argument is founded on an incorrect premise, which is the notion that a ṭāghūt only refers to a disbeliever. The fallacy…
Some of the notables use this case as evidence for declaring one a disbeliever, arguing that creating such a law challenges one of Allāh's exclusive attributes—namely, legislation.
I say: The truth is that the matter requires further clarification because the one who creates these laws falls into one of two categories:
First: The individual undertakes the act and explicitly claims for himself the right to…
A ruler who invents rulings that contradict Sharī‘ah may be more culpable than a ruler who does not engage in such actions. However, the discussion here centers on disbelief, for which there is no evidence—regardless of whether the crime is more or less severe.
Description: This refers to a person ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed, with a ruling that they themselves have devised.
In other words, the individual invents the ruling/law, without believing it to be permissible (istiḥlāl), without rejecting (juḥūd) or denying (takdhīb) divine law, without preferring (tafḍhīl) or equating (musāwāh) the invented ruling with Allāh's law, and without attributing the…
You can see that an increase in sin (adultery) signifies an increase in inward corruption. However, whether this corruption reaches the level of disbelief that expels one from the fold of Islam has no
I conclude this discussion with a comment by Al-Albāni, may Allāh have mercy on him, concerning Allāh's statement:
﴿وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُوْلَئكَ هُمُ الْكَفِرُونَ﴾
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the disbelievers" [Al-Mā'idah 44]. He said:
«مَن آمن بشريعة الله تبارك وتعالى، وأنها صالحة لكل زمان ولكل مكان، ولكنه لا يحكم فعلاً بها؛ إما كُلًّا،…
Some of the notables have argued that takfīr is justified in this case, based on the doctrine of the necessary correlation between outward actions and inner beliefs as established by Ahlus-Sunnah.
However, this reasoning is flawed for two reasons:
1. It relies on evidence that does not support the intended conclusion.
2. It uses the very point under dispute as its evidence.
To elaborate, it should be stated that…
Some of the notables hold the view that a ruler who alters the Sharī’ah becomes a disbeliever if he alters it entirely. However, this argument is flawed because the textual evidence does not differentiate between altering a single ruling or several rulings, and disbelief cannot be attributed to something without clear evidence.
It is true that one who replaces the entire Sharī’ah may be more culpable than someone…
Whoever declares another to be a disbeliever on the basis of alteration would also be required to declare as disbelievers those whom the consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah does not consider disbelievers—namely, those who commit sins. This is because the sinner has replaced Allāh's judgment with another; that of desire and Shayṭān.
Ibn Ḥazm said: “Allāh the Exalted said:
﴿وَمَن لَّمْ يحكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولَئكَ…
Anyone who considers alteration to be an act of disbelief is consequently required to view every instance of ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed as an act of disbelief. However, this view contradicts the consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah, and the evidence for this contradiction is twofold:
1. The scholars have unanimously agreed that not every instance of ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed constitutes…
Abū Ḥayyān Al-Andalusi, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«واحتجت الخوارج بهذه الآية على أن كل من عصى الله تعالى فهو كافر، وقالوا: 'هي نص في كل من حكم بغير ما أنزل الله؛ فهو كافر، وكل من أذنب فقد حكم بغير ما أنزل الله؛ فوجب أن يكون كافراً'»
"The Khawārij used this Āyah as evidence that anyone who disobeys Allāh is a disbeliever. They claimed: 'This Āyah is a clear text that whoever rules by other than what Allāh has revealed is a disbeliever, and anyone who commits a sin…
Whoever considers "alteration" as an act of disbelief, must also regard mere abandonment of ruling by what Allāh has revealed as disbelief. This is because it is inconceivable for a person to be a ruler who abandons the divine law of Allāh and then sit among his people without ruling by anything at all. Therefore, the ruling on alteration is equivalent to the ruling on abandonment.
I say: Declaring someone a…
There is a difference between "substitution" and "alteration," as is evident from the previous discussion. This difference can be summarised in two aspects:
1. In terms of the nature of the issue: The one who substitutes claims that what they have introduced is the ruling of Allāh, whereas the one who alters does not make such a claim.
2. In terms of the ruling on the issue: The one who substitutes is considered a…
Description: This refers to someone ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed, independent of any of the previous cases; meaning: one replaces the ruling of Allāh with that of another, without Istiḥlāl (legalising), Juḥud (rejecting), Takdhīb (denying), Tafdhīl (preferring), Musāwāh (equating), or attributing this ruling to the religion of Allāh.
Ruling: This constitutes minor disbelief (i.e. it does not remove…
Some who disagree with the depiction of substitution have cited the statement of Al-Bukhāri regarding the War of Apostasy:
«فلم يلتفت أبو بكر إلى مشورة إذ كان عنده حكم رسول الله ﷺ في الذين فرقوا بين الصلاة والزكاة وأرادوا تبديل الدين»
"Abu Bakr paid no heed to any counsel, as he had the ruling of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ regarding those who differentiated between prayer and zakat and sought to alter the religion"…
Some of the notable objected to the description of substitution as previously outlined (p. #, #), arguing that such a form of substitution does not exist.
This objection dismissed for two reasons:
First: While the claim that it does not exist today may have some validity, the assertion that it has never existed at all is incorrect. Historical evidence shows that the Jews, for instance, substituted the punishment…
It is erroneous to assume that substituting a ruling does not necessitate attributing the new ruling to the religion.
This is further clarified from four perspectives:
The First: Ibn Al-’Arabi stated—as endorsed by Ash-Shinqīṭi, who quoted it from Al-Qurṭubi:
«إنْ حَكَمَ بما عنده على أنه من عند الله؛ فهو تبديل له؛ يوجب الكفر»
“If one issues a judgment according to their own view, believing it to be from Allāh,…
In this case, the ruler is deemed a disbeliever even if they substitute a single ruling or do so only once; the number is irrelevant. This is because the consensus is not conditioned by such a limitation, and it is not valid to restrict an evidence without evidence.
In this case, the disbelief is connected to the state of Juḥūd/denial; for attributing one's own judgment to that of Allāh Almighty involves denying the divine judgment that has been disregarded.
Description: This refers to ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed and then claiming that this represents Allāh's ruling.
Ruling: There is unanimous agreement that this constitutes major disbelief.
The evidence for this is the consensus.
Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«والإنسان متى حلل الحرام المجمع عليه، أو حرم الحلال المجمع عليه، أو بدل الشرع المجمع عليه؛ كان كافراً مرتداً باتفاق…
Scholars may refer to some sinners as equating obedience to Shayṭān with obedience to Allāh, based on their actions, even if these actions are not accompanied by an inner belief. However, they do not declare these individuals as disbelievers. This usage is an expanded form of expression and is not meant to imply disbelief; therefore, this cannot be used as grounds for declaring someone a disbeliever.
Circumstantial evidence has no bearing on determining whether a person has fallen into Al-Mustāwāh/equality (refer to the discussion on "istiḥlāl": p. #).
At-Musāwāh/equality is a matter of the heart; its essence is to believe that two things are equal.
I say: since this is a matter related to the heart, it can only be recognised when a person explicitly reveals what is in their heart (refer to the discussion on "Istiḥlāl" : pp. #, #, #).
In this case, a person is considered a disbeliever even if they do not rule by other than what Allāh has revealed, as long as they believe that the judgment of others is equal to Allāh's judgment.
Description: This refers to a person ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed, believing it to be equal to Allāh's judgment.
Ruling: There is unanimous agreement that this constitutes major disbelief.
The evidence for this is the fact that the one who holds this belief denies the statement of Allāh Almighty:
{وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللهِ حُكَمًا لِقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ}
"And who is better than Allāh in judgment for…