«فما كان من اللوازم يرضاه القائل بعد وضوحه له؛ فهو قَوْلُهُ، و ما لا يرضاه؛ فليس قَوْلَهُ، وإن كان متناقضاً...فأما إذا نفى هُوَ - اللُّزوم؛ لم يَجُز أَنْ يُضاف إليه اللازم بحال»
"What a speaker accepts as an implication, once it becomes clear to him, is considered their position, while what they do not accept is not considered their position, even if it results in contradiction... If someone denies the implication,…
Accusations and Implications Imposed by Opponents on Those Who Share the Views of Contemporary Scholars on the Issue
Some individuals direct accusations towards those who align with the views endorsed by the three contemporary scholars, may Allāh have mercy on them. Additionally, some attempt to impose certain negative implications on those who hold such views. These accusations and implications can be addressed…
"This is the interpretation of Ibn ’Abbās and the majority of the Companions regarding the Āyah: 'And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then it is those who are the disbelievers' [Al-
Ibn Bāz, may Allāh have mercy on him, stated:
«يكون كافراً كفراً أصغر، وظالماً ظلماً أصغر، وفاسقاً فسقاً أصغر؛ كما صح معنى ذلك عن ابن عباس، ومجاهد، وجماعة من السلف»
"It is considered minor kufr, minor dhulm, and minor fisq, as authentically reported from Ibn ’Abbas, Mujāhid, and a group of the Salaf." [Al-Fatāwā (6/250)].
Ibn 'Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«لكن لما كان هذا لا يُرضي هؤلاء…
The narration from Ibn ’Abbās, may Allāh be pleased with him, states:
«إنه ليس بالكفر الذي يذهبون إليه، إنه ليس كفراً ينقل عن الملة، كفر دون كفر»
"It is not the disbelief they think it is; it is not disbelief that takes one out of the fold of Islam. It is a lesser form of disbelief (kufr dūna kufr)." Scholars have consistently authenticated this narration and confirmed its attribution, with some even citing it as…
Some have claimed that Ibn Ṭāwūs's statement
«وليس كمن كفر بالله وملائكته وكتبه ورسله»
"it is not like the disbelief in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His Messengers" might refer to major disbelief (kufr akbar), but of a lesser degree than disbelief in Allah, His angels, His books, and His. Messengers.
This interpretation is incorrect for three reasons:
1. Disbelief (kufr) has varying degrees, which is a…
Some have interpreted the statement (of Ibn ’Abbās)
«هي به كفر»
"it is an act of disbelief" as referring to major disbelief (kufr akbar).
However, this interpretation is incorrect for four reasons:
1. The Prophet ﷺ used similar wording, and the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have unanimously agreed that it refers to minor disbelief (kufr aṣghar). This is evident in the ḥadīth:
((اثنتان في الناس هما بهم كُفْرٌ؛ الطعن…
Conformity of My Conclusions with the View of Ibn ’Abbās
It has been authentically reported from Ibn ’Abbas (may Allāh be pleased with him) that he interpreted the disbelief (kufr) mentioned in the Āyah, “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then it is those who are the disbelievers.” [Al-Mā'idah 5:44], as minor disbelief (kufr aṣghar), which does not take one out of the fold of Islam.(1) This is…
Conformity of My Conclusions with the Statements of the Companions of Ibn ’Abbās(1)
It has been confirmed(2) from two of his companions that the meaning of disbelief in the Āyah, “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then it is those who are the disbelievers.” [Al-Mā'idah 5:44], refers to minor disbelief (kufr aṣghar), and it is NOT known that anyone opposed them during their time.
Ṭāwūs, may…
Conformity of My Conclusions with the position of ’Abdullaṭīf ibn ’Abdurraḥmān ibn Ḥasan, endorsed by Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān, and the Practice of Scholars, as Passed Down from the Early Generations
’Abdullaṭīf ibn ’Abdurraḥmān ibn Ḥasan, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«وما ذكرتَه عن الأعراب؛ من الفرق بين من استحل الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله، ومن لم يستحل؛ فهو الذي عليه العمل، وإليه المرجع عند أهل العلم»
"What you…
Conformity of My Conclusions with the Stance of the Permanent Committee Chaired by Ibn Bāz
The First Fatwa
Question: When is it permissible to declare someone a disbeliever, and when is it not permissible? What is the type of disbelief mentioned in the Āyah: "And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers." [Al-Mā'idah 44]?
Answer: Regarding your question, "When…
Conformity of My Conclusions with the Views of the Three Contemporary Scholars
The conclusions I have reached in this book are consistent with the fatwas of the three contemporary scholars—’Abdul ’Azīz ibn ’Abdullāh Ibn Bāz, Muḥammad Nāṣir Ad-Dīn Al-Albāni, and Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ Ibn ’Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy on them.
As for Al-Albāni, may Allāh have mercy on him, he stated that judging by laws other than…
Areas of Disagreement Regarding the Previous Discussion
Disagreement concerning the nine cases I have outlined has occurred in four specific areas:
1. Definition of Substitution: The correct view is that substitution occurs only if one explicitly attributes these laws to the religion.
2. Assessment of Certain Cases of Alteration (Case Seven): There is a disagreement about whether alterating an entire legal system…
Complementary Issues
There are eight Chapters (under this section)
Chapter One
Summary of the Issue of Ruling by Other than What Allāh Has Revealed
First: A ruler who rules by other than what Allāh has revealed does not fall into major disbelief unless:
1. They explicitly claim the permissibility, denial, rejection, preference, or equality of such judgments.
2. They attribute these judgments to the religion…
Despite being one of the most debated issues among students of knowledge, the three contemporary scholars—Ibn Bāz, Al-Albāni, and Ibn ’Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy on them—were in agreement that it should not be considered an act of disbelief (see the following section).
Some argue that the phenomenon of general legislation only emerged in recent times, and they argue based on this that: (a) it is incorrect to refrain from declaring takfīr (as there are no definitive evidences regarding this matter), and (b) the early scholars did not declare takfīr on anyone for this same reason.
This argument is flawed for two reasons:
First: It would lead to the conclusion that no evidence can…
Ibn ’Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy on him, initially issued a fatwa endorsing takfīr in this case, but he later retracted it. The details are as follows:
The Earlier Fatwa:
He, may Allāh have mercy on him, stated:
« ... ومِن هؤلاء: مَن يضعون للناس تشريعات تخالف التشريعات الإسلامية، لتكون منهاجاً يسير الناسُ عليه، فإنهم لم يضعُوا تلك التشريعات المخالفة للشريعة الإسلامية؛ إلا وهم يعتقدون أنها أصْلَحُ وأَنْفَعُ…
Some have argued for takfīr in this case based on the ḥadīth concerning the darkening of the faces of the Jews. As mentioned earlier on page #, Allāh revealed Āyāt regarding them, as transmitted in Sahih Muslim (4415): "O Messenger, do not let those who hasten into disbelief grieve you," up to His statement: "And if you are given this, take it}" [Sūrah Al-Mā'idah 41], and His words: "And whoever does not judge by…
The fourth point: This reasoning would lead to declaring takfīr on those whom the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah unanimously agree should not be excommunicated, such as someone who legislates a sin that is
Some of the notables have argued for takfīr in this case by means of implication (Al-lāzim), suggesting that they have not substituted Allāh's judgment with their own, nor declared their own judgment as a general rule for those under them to follow, except with the belief that it is more beneficial and appropriate than Allāh's judgment.
However, this argument can be challenged on four grounds:
First: Scholars…
While it is true that a person who issues a general ruling or imposes an obligation on others under them may be more culpable than one who does not do so, the subject of discussion is disbelief, for which there is no evidence - regardless which of the two is more grievous.
Description: This refers to a ruler implementing laws other than those prescribed by Allāh and enforcing these laws universally on everyone under their authority.
In other words, the ruler changes Allāh’s commands with other laws and mandates that everyone under their jurisdiction follow these laws, without doing istiḥlāl, rejecting, denying, preferring, equating, or attributing their legislation to the religion of…
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…
«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…