Thursday, August 30, 2007

The definitive violation of the Shariah by the rulers of the Muslim world, Part. 1

The rulers of the Muslim world today rule by other than what Allah (swt) revealed, they abandon and violate Qat'i definitive Ahkam Shariah.

Some of these Qat'i areas include:

- Accepting the law of man whether that of a parliament, assembly or international law above the Shariah of Allah. Governments like Saudi Arabia who claim to rule by Islam are members of the United nations and accept its man made charter and laws above the Shariah of Allah (swt). This is a definitive prohibition.
- Allying with the Kuffar against the Muslims as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others have.
- Totally abondoning Jihad by considering themselves as non-expansionist nation states.

Accepting man made law above the Shariah of Allah (swt)

This is a clear cut prohibition due to the many verses in the Quran establishing the definitive sovereignty of Allah (swt).

There is a disagreement amongst the scholars whether people who do that become Kafir automatically or remain as Fasiq (open sinners) and Dhalim (oppressors). However all of them agree that it is a definitive prohibition.

Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud said: “The rulers who suspend the Islamic Sharee’ah and legislate other laws without being forced by anybody to do this, are mostly Kuffar, even if they fasted, prayed and performed Hajj and claimed to be Muslims. That is because they preferred the laws of kufr to the law of Islam. However, if they believe the Sharee’ah of Islam is the best law and they suspended it temporarily due to their own whim, they are transgressors and not disbelievers in this respect.” [The Da’wah to Islam, English translation, Revival Publications, Pg. 16]

Ibn Abeel-'Izz Al-Hanafi said: "Judging by other than what Allah has revealed could be kufr that expels one from the religion and could be a sin either a major sin or a minor one and it could be a symbolic kufr or minor kufr based on the two sayings and this all depends on the situation of the judge: So if he believes that judging by what allah has revealed is not obligatory or that he has the option in this or if he dishonours it(The judgement of Allah) while being certain that it is the judgement of Allah then this is major kufr and if he believes in the obligation of judging by what allah has revealed in this instance but turns away from it while recognizing that he deserves to be punished then he is a sinner and is to be referred to as a disbeliever symbolically or upon minor disbelief" (Sharh At-Tahaawiyyah, pg. 324)

Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullaah) said, “Its known by necessity from the religion of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims, that he who permits the following of a religion other than the religion of Islaam or following a law other than the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (Sallallaahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam), then he is a Kaafir.” (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 28/524)

And he similarly says, “The Sharee'ah revealed from Allaah (Ta’aalaa), which is the Qur’aan and Sunnah that Allaah sent His Messenger with, no one from the creation is allowed to leave it. And no one leaves it but a Kaafir.” (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 11/262)

And he says, “Whenever a person legalizes what is illegal by consensus or illegalizes what is legal by consensus or replaces the Sharee'ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kaafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.” (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 3/267)

Ibn Katheer (Rahimahullaah) says “So whoever leaves the clearcut Law revealed to Muhammad bin ‘Abdillaah the final of the Prophets, and refers to other sources for judgment, such as abrogated laws, then he is a Kaafir.” (al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 13/119)

Sheikh Abul Faraj Jamaal ud-Din `Abdur-Rahmaan ibn alJawzi alBaghdaadi alHanbali رحمه الله510-597 AH/1116-1201 AD, gives stern warning to those who should play with the Shari`a, or even fail to rule by it,

“Whoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, doing juhud (denial) to it, and he knows that Allah sent it down, just as the Jews did, then he is a kaafir. And it is related from Talha that Ibn `Abbas said, ‘Whoever did juhud (denial) to what Allah sent down, then he has become kaafir, but if he admits to it, then he is an oppressor, a rebellious sinner.”

Al `Allamah Shihaab ud-Din al Alusi رحمه الله [229] had the following to say,

“There is no dispute in the kufr of anyone who doesn’t have the certainty to judge by what Allah sent down, and moreover the general design for the denial of faith for anyone not judging by what Allah sent down is of one class. Thus there is no doubt or suspicion that the one who doesn’t judge in one matter or thing by what Allah sent down, then he is not one of certainty in the revelation and there is no dispute in his kufr.” [Tafsir Ruh alMa`aani, V.]

Al `Allamah, the Sheikh of the scholars of tafsir, Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari رحمه الله, made these glowing comments,

“And whoever conceals the judgment of Allah which he sent in His book and He made it the legislation between His slaves, then he hid it and judged by other than it, he has the likeness of the judgment of the Jews in the case of the committers of adultery….and their hiding of the verse stoning…and Allah has already equalised between all of them in the judgment on them in the Torah,

و من لم يحكم بما انزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون

(‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, then they are Kaafirun’) [Surat al-Ma’ida, ayah 44]

The Great `Aalim continues on in another place,

“They are those who do not judge by what Allah sent down in his book, but they replace, change and deform His judgment. They hide the truth, which he sent in His book. [Tafsir at-Tabari, V. 4, p.591-592]

The great Sheikh ul Islam, the head over all the judges in the Shari`a courts of Egypt, Imaam Badr ud-Din al`Ayni رحمه الله clarified the issue for all those to read and learn from,

“Whoever changed the Shari`a of the Prophets and made his own Shari`a, his Shari`a is baatil. It is Haraam to follow these people,

أم لهم شركآء شرعوا لهم من الدين ما لم يأذن به الله و لو لا كلمة الفصل لقضى بينهم و إن الظالمين لهم عذاب اليم

‘Or do they have partners for them legislating a religion that Allah did not give permission for at all?! Had it not been for the word of decision and decree, the matter between them would have been judged. And truly, for the oppressors is a torturous punishment.’ [Surat ush-Shura, ayah 21]

“Due to this, the Jews and Christians became kuffar. They hold tight to their changed Shari`a and Allah made it obligatory on humankind to follow the Shari`a of Muhammad (saw)" [`Umdat ulQaari, V. 24, p. 81]

To be continued...


Optimist said...


what of those who argue, based on references to classical scholars that dar ul islam can be a state where muslims pray and are safe- thus saudi arbia is dar ul islam?- is this classification valid?

a quick reply, if possible would be welcomed.

Anonymous said...

1) The context in which some scholars discussed dar al islam was when the state already existed. The statement of scholars is not a daleel from which we can extrapolate opinions for todays reality, we have to look at the evidence and the arguments based on evidence.

2) Even if people like Mawardi said dar al islam is wherever people can practise the deen. It is agreed that there isn't a Qat'i definition of dar al islam, however what is Qat'i is that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is prohibited. So mawardi's definition then becomes irrelevant as it would only in reality be an issue of semantics, it would just be a label with no real use - as what is accepted by everyone is ruling by kufr is a munkar. So the rulers today are doing a munkar which must be removed.

3) Some 'scholars' today even say that Britain is Dar al-Islam - does it mean that Britain rules by Islam? Of course not, for the sake of argument if we use Dar al-Islam in this meaning then we would have to sub-classify:

a) Dar al-Islam type 1: Where Islam is not implemented but where Muslims can practice the Deen.

b) Dar al-Islam type 2: Where the rulers are Muslims and violate definite ahkam Shariah such as accepting man-made law above the Shariah of Allah (swt) - thus rule by kufr (whether it is kufr asghar i.e. lesser or kufr akbar i.e. greater type which renders someone non-Muslim is an area of debate amongst the scholars). The rulers may implement some parts of Islam but as they implement munkar, they must be corrected to either ruling completely by Islam or removed according to a legitimate ijtihad.

c) Dar al-Islam type 3: A Khilafah, where Islam is implemented.

It is clear that all the classical scholars including Mawardi hold that only type 3 is legitimate.

So you can see the issue is just one of semantics as NO CLASSICAL SCHOLAR EVER SAID THAT YOU GIVE SOVEREIGNTY TO MAN MADE LAW ABOVE THE LAW OF ALLAH (SWT) like all the governments in the Muslim world today do.

Anonymous said...

For more questions & answers on this topic check:

Ummah Islamic said...

Salam alaikum

where is the next part of this article ?