Those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed.

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem

Question:

...

Allah (swt) says: “Those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are disbelievers.”[5-44] hence, this is the verdict of Allah on those who rule by other than what He (swt) revealed stipulating that they are Kuffar. He (swt) does not refer to the doctrinal aspect; He (swt) rather issues the rule and does not restrict it. Hence, on what basis does the Party say that those who rule by other than what Allah has revealed do not become Kuffar unless they believe in what they do?

Answer:

This ayah and the other two ayat: “Those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are transgressors” and “Those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are rebels”, were revealed on the Kuffar and not the Muslims. However, since the arabic pronoun “mann” -meaning ‘who’ – denotes generality, and since it is an expression of generality, in addition to the fact that the ayah ends with an indication of generality, this proves that the Muslims are also included; thus the ayah addresses them as well. It is therefore not typically part of the Sharia’h of our ancestors because if a passage of the Qur’an addresses those who came before us, but also accompanied by a Qarinah (conjunction) indicating that it is for us, in this case it will be for us the Muslims just like it was for our ancestors; it is part of our Shari’ah and it applies to the Muslims as well as the Kuffar.

However, the fact that the Muslim who rules by other than what Allah has revealed does not become Kafir unless he believes in what he does is corroborated by several Qarinah(s) indicating that what turns him into a Kafir is the belief in other than what Allah has revealed and not the mere ruling. First, the three ayat were revealed following one single event; thus, Allah (swt)’s saying “rebels and wrongdoers” acts as a Qarinah indicating that His saying “disbelievers” is in reference to those who believe in Kufr. The topic is the same, namely ruling by other than what Allah has revealed but the attributes are various, namely Kufr, rebellion and wrongdoing. Hence, each one of the three descriptions represents without a doubt a different situation, and this situation is then described accordingly. Believing is a situation, which if coupled with the ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, the ruler would be Kafir; if the situation were not present, he would be either a rebel or a wrongdoer. If he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed but not believing in it and if he gave each one his due, he would be a rebel because he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed, but he would not be a Kafir or a wrongdoer. If he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed without believing in what he ruled by and without giving people their due rights, he would then be a rebel and a wrongdoer; a rebel for committing the sin of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and a wrongdoer because he infringed the rights of the people. Hence, the variety of attributes in one topic acts as a Qarinah indicating that Allah’s saying “they are the disbelievers” means if they believed in it. This is similar to the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) on the forsaker of Salat in which he said: “He who forsakes it becomes a Kafir.” Despite this, the neglecter of Salat does not become a Kafir unless he forsakes it and he does not believe that it is obligatory.

Second, the three ayat were revealed on the Kuffar and came after describing their Kufr; hence, the generalisation would apply to the like of them not to all people, because the Shari’ah principle of “the precept is in the generality of the expression and not in the specifics of the cause” is confined to the topic upon which it was revealed and does not extend to the generality of everything it may apply to. The topic in this context is the Kuffar rejecting what was revealed to them and not ruling according to it; thus they rejected what was revealed to them. The fact that they rejected what was revealed to them and ruled by other than what Allah revealed while believing in what they ruled by, they became consequently Kuffar. Hence, those who rule not by what Allah has revealed and they reject it as well are Kuffar. It would be wrong to claim that the topic in this context is related to ruling by other than what Allah has revealed because this contradicts the event on which the ayah was revealed. The ayah was revealed regarding the Jews’ rejection of stoning the adulterer and their ruling by other than that, which was lashing. Hence, the topic consists of two issues: First, rejecting of what Allah (swt) revealed to them because they deemed unsuitable; second: ruling by other than what Allah has revealed; thus, the rejection was a fundamental condition in deeming them Kuffar for ruling by other than what Allah has revealed.

Third: ruling is an action and not an Aqeedah matter. If the action contradicted what Allah (swt) has commanded, it would be a sin and not Kufr, unless the action itself is Kufr; the action could either be according to what Allah has ordered in terms of rules or contrary to what He has ordered in terms of Aqeedah; thus, if it were contrary to what Allah (swt) ordered in terms of rules, it would be a sin and not Kufr, unless there is a conclusive text that is decisive in meaning proving that it is Kufr. For instance, we have been ordered to obey our parents but the order does not include an order to believe; thus, if one were to disobey his parents he would be sinful and not Kafir. However, we have been ordered to believe in the “Sujud” (prostrating) to Allah and we have been ordered to act accordingly on the basis of that belief. Consequently, if a Muslim prostrated to a statue or if he prayed in the church, he would become Kafir because “there is no god but Allah”, in which we have been ordered to believe i.e. there is none worshipped but Allah; thus, performing other than this would be Kufr.

However, if a Muslim neglected an action of Salat, such as al-Qunut, he would not be sinful and if he neglected the prostration, his prayer would be invalid. Hence, contradicting the commands of Allah (swt) would not be Kufr unless the contradiction is coupled with the belief that the commands are allegedly invalid or with the rejection of these commands. The Legislator has commanded the doctrines and has also commanded the actions; the rule of those who contradict the order to believe differs from the rule of those who contradict the order to perform an action. Since, the ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is contradictory to the command to perform an action, and not contradictory to the command to believe, it is therefore deemed a sin and not Kufr.

The reality of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is that it is not an action of Kufr for two reasons: Shari’ah has not described it as Kufr; thus it cannot be deemed as an action of Kufr; this is corroborated by the fact that Mu’awiyah took the pledge of allegiance for Yazid through coercion under the gaze and within earshot of the Sahaba; it was a rule by other than what Allah has revealed and yet, we do not know of anyone claiming that Mu’awiyah became Kafir. Secondly, the rule by other than what Allah has revealed is not a branch of Aqeedah such as the prostrating to a statue or the prayer with the Christians; thus it is not a Kufr action; it is of the type of contradicting what Allah has ordered not the type of what Allah has ordered us to believe in. For instance, if a ruler were biased towards one of his relatives who committed theft and sentenced him to a prison term instead of cutting his hand off, he would be sinful and not a Kafir; whereas if he sentenced a thief to a prison term and not cut his hand because he rejects the rule of cutting the hand and because he believes that cutting the hand is wrong and the prison term is sound, he would be Kafir. Hence, both the rulers ruled by other than what Allah has revealed and both rules amounted to ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, and yet there is a difference between them: the former is sinful and the latter is Kafir. The difference between them lies in the Aqeedah issue; if the ruling by other than what Allah has revealed were an act of Kufr, the verdict on both rulers would be the same. Hence, ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is not deemed an act of Kufr but rather an action like any other which is deemed a sin