Egyptian Islamic Group Not Ruling by Allah`s Laws Is Not Infidelity

[Xudeedi]

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Exclusively Publishes the latest book of the Egyptian Islamic Group `Governorship: A Shari`ah-Based View and Realistic Outlook`; Not Ruling by Allah`s Laws Is Not Infidelity; Rather, It is a Package of Sins and Acts of Disobedience”

 

This part of the book “Governorship: A Shari`ah-Based View and Realistic Outlook”, which Al-Sharq Al-Awsat publishes in installments, shows how going against rulers provides the excuse for foreign meddling in a country`s affairs one way or the other. It also shows that abstaining from branding rulers as infidels and preventing revolt against them brings them closer to religion and nurtures their amity for Islam and those who promote it.

 

The book shows that some verses of Allah`s book (Koran) did not receive the same share of attention which Islamic circles accorded to the three governorship verses that came in the al-Ma`idah sure. It stresses that these verses have had numerous interpretations and were the object of varying views. Although interpretations of these verses often swayed from one end to the opposite, each team adopted them as their major and most powerful proof.

 

The book shows that the menace resulting from failure to apply Allah`s judgment was different in each of the three verses. Hence, interpretations were numerous and very different. Anyone following the views of clerics and interpreters will find that they all revolved round one meaning. All those views joined forces to establish one fact; namely, failure to apply Allah`s judgment is not an act of infidelity.

 

The book affirms that fear that people may violate Allah`s canons must not lead us to issue exaggerated or harsh judgments that were not ordained by Allah, since both exaggeration and delinquency are disparaged. Unwarranted harshness is as detrimental to Shari`ah as delinquency and negligence.

 

The book points out that although the three verses that came in al-Ma`idah sure were the most distinct and definitive in terms of showing that it is an obligation to apply Allah`s judgment, these verses were not specifically meant for rulers or leaders. They were meant for Jews in general and for their scholars.

 

“Going against the rulers provides the excuse for meddling in the country`s affairs one way or the other. This meddling may happen gradually and indirectly and may unmask its grim face and ultimately develop into military occupation.

 

“Going against the rulers provides foreign armies with the excuse to interfere. It gives them footing in our land on the excuse of protecting minorities. The Darfour crisis is not far from us. Neither is the US bill on protecting ethnic and religious minorities. The numerous negative consequences of taking arms against rulers draw the attention of those who promote Allah`s words and urge them to take after the model of Allah`s messengers who had resolve and who displayed positive perseverance. This is the greatest ever strategic option whose great value and grandeur ought to be recognized by Islam workers.

 

“Refraining from branding rulers as infidels and preventing revolt against them bring them closer to religion and nurture their amity for Islam and those who promote it. It shows them that those who preach Allah`s path have no ambition in their power or their posts and that they mean them no harm. It shows them that their ultimate objective is to uphold the creed and attain prominence for Islam. If the rulers attain that goal themselves, they will be generously rewarded and will be accorded that great honor before anyone else. Not only will they assume a high status in this world, but they will also gain sublimity in this life and in the hereafter as well. But when fatwas brand Muslim rulers as infidels and incite the people to take arms against them, it is not unusual to see hatred on the part of these rulers, their aides, and large sectors of the people toward the sons of the Islamic movement and toward creed and those who work for it and promote it. (When that happens) You see all these people lying in wait for Da`wah, distrusting those who preach the word of God, looking down at the righteous with suspicion, and seeking to restrain them and avert the hazard of their preaching. Consequently, the voice of reason, logic, and tolerance dies down and is replaced by cruelty, violence, and harshness and all blessings are replaced by evils, affliction, and corruption. (In which case) Governments take liberties against the creed and embark on acts they would not have dared adopt or even talk about or approach before that.

 

“No verse in Allah`s book has ever gained more attention from the Islamic movement than the verses that talk about governorship in general, and the three verses that came in al-Ma`idah sure in particular. The verses are: “If any do fail to judge by what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers,” “if any fail to judge by what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) wrong-doers,” and “if any do fail to judge by what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” These three verses have been the object of so much debate and argument. The different factions of the Islamic movement have had numerous visions and interpretations of these verses, which have been the primary preoccupation of many of the sons of the Islamic movement in Egypt and the Arab world, and even the world at large, since 1960s.

 

“These three verses are most articulate when it comes to the issue of ruling by Allah`s revelation. They distinctly vilify and warn those who apply judgments other than those revealed by Allah. Therefore, these verses provide definitive indications that applying Allah`s revealed judgment is an obligation. Although they largely explain the judgment which Shari`ah hands down on the rulers who fail to apply Allah`s revealed judgment s and show the consequences of their acts-most serious of which is armed rebellion-- they do that in a non-definitive manner. Therefore, these verses are suppositional rather than definitive in terms of judging those who fail to apply Allah`s revealed judgments.

 

“These verses have been the subject of numerous views and interpretations. Although these interpretations often swayed from one end to the opposite, every team took them as their main and most powerful proof. It is no wonder that these verses received that much concentrated attention.

 

“The verses were revealed when a Jewish man committed adultery. The Jews went to Allah`s Messenger to consult him on the issue. When he asked them about the penalty Torah hands down on a free man who commits adultery, they held back Allah`s judgment, devised a judgment other than Allah`s, and falsely attributed it to Torah. They did not admit Allah`s judgment which they had in the Torah until God`s Messenger, may Allah`s prayers and peace be upon him, pushed them to the corner until they reluctantly admitted the stoning judgment.

 

“The Jews who were meant by these verses committed a number of serious violations, where each one is sufficient to warrant God`s wrath and punishment. Their sins may be summed up in the fact that they lied to Allah and attributed to Him what he did not say about the penalty of adultery. They changed Allah`s words and falsely alleged that what they personally invented was God`s penalty as stated in Torah. They lied to Allah`s Messenger, may God`s prayers and peace be upon him, and tried to deceive him by holding back God`s penalty. They denied the existence of the stoning penalty and denied that it was ordained in the Torah. They persisted in that denial for ages.

 

“They wanted to evade Allah`s judgment. Instead of referring to Torah and handing down its penalty on adulterates, they referred to the Prophet, may Allah`s prayers and peace be upon him, hoping to find with him a lighter penalty than the one stipulated by Torah. They wanted to strike two birds with one stone. On the one hand, they would evade the Torah`s stoning penalty and, on the other, they would use the prophet`s fatwa to argue with Allah on Doomsday and say that it was the fatwa of one of His prophets. The main reason why the Koran described them in the verse as “unbelievers” was their ingratitude and their outright denial of one of Allah`s judgments, and not just neglecting that penalty while admitting its existence. Contrary to what most Muslims think nowadays, these verses were specifically revealed in connection with an incident that involved a group of Jews and Jewish clerics. They were not basically meant for rulers.

 

“The menace resulting from failure to apply Allah`s revealed judgment was different in each verse--unbelievers, wrong-doers, and rebels. Each of these words has two meanings and can denote the biggest ever sin as well as the smallest act of disobedience that does not bring its perpetrator out of the circle of Islam. Consequently, interpretations were numerous and far apart. Some classify the application of judgments other than Allah`s as a sin that does not reach the extent of infidelity. Some apply it to those who fail to apply Allah`s judgment out of ingratitude or denial, some apply it to those who abandon God`s judgments completely, and others apply it to those who violate texts deliberately rather than out of ignorance or misunderstanding. Some apply it to the followers of other heavenly religions and others say that applying judgments other than Allah`s is sufficient to take a person out of his creed.

 

“Following the views of scholars and interpreters, one realizes that they all revolve round one meaning and join forces to establish one fact; namely that failure to apply Allah`s revealed judgments is not blasphemy. Rather, it is a set of sins and acts of disobedience. Although the person who does not apply Allah`s judgment commits a major sin and bears a grave guilt, his negligence alone does not bring him out of the circle of Islam. He is only faithless or infidel when he associates that negligence with another line of behavior that proves his infidelity, such as by denying or showing contempt to Allah`s judgment, declaring his rejection of that judgment, or opting to apply a judgment other than that which Allah ordained. But when he fails to rule by Allah`s judgment and, at the same time, recognizes that judgment and admits his negligence, then his act is deemed as a sin. The Koran uses the term unbeliever only to warn sinners of the harsh penalty warranted by their acts.

 

“Sunnis agree that one who neglects a religious obligation or commits a prohibited act is not blasphemous as long as he admits that duty and refrains from denying it, and as long as he does not deem that prohibited act as kosher. There is no dispute among scholars when it comes to that rule. Those who brand other people as infidels just because they neglect Allah`s revealed judgment are just like renegades, who labeled Muslims as infidels just because they committed sins or neglected a single ordained obligation. Ibn-Hazm, may God have mercy on his soul, said: `Ruling is an act. So, if a ruler denies Allah`s judgment, then he is unfaithful, even if he does not apply judgments other than those which Allah revealed. But if he only executes or gives orders to carry out a judgment that violates Allah`s judgment, without denying God`s judgment, then he is a sinner and not a renegade.`

 

“Hence, applying Allah`s revealed judgment is an act of Islam. Neglecting that act does not necessarily make a person an atheist. Even those who neglect all the acts of Islam can still be Muslims as long as they harbor faith deep in their hearts and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His prophet. However, one`s faith decreases by as many acts he neglects. As Ibn-Hazm says, one who neglects all the acts of Islam is a sinning believer who is lacking in faith, but he is not an atheist. By that rule, we can understand why interpreters agreed that the infidelity referred to in the three verses of al-Ma`idah Sura refers to minor infidelity and not the major infidelity that takes one out of Islam. They knew that applying by Allah`s revealed judgment, although a duty, was an act of Islam, and that neglecting that act is not enough reason to brand the sinner as infidel. Rather, it is reason to deem him as lacking in faith. If failure to apply Allah`s judgment were blasphemy, why does that rule not apply to all other Islamic duties, where everyone who neglects a duty becomes an atheist? Had that been the case, no Muslim on this earth would have remained within the circle of Islam. Those who hold that failure to apply Allah`s revealed judgment is a major infidelity contradict themselves unknowingly.

 

“Fear that some people might violate the rules of Islam should not lead us to make exaggerated judgments or punish the people by something which God Almighty had not ordained. Exaggeration and delinquency are equally disparaged. They are the two faces of one bad coin. Misplaced stringency is as detrimental to Shari`ah as delinquency. Scholars strive in all honesty and precision to show the truth to the people in the manner God Almighty intended it to be, without manipulating the rules and duties of Islam. Some people may resort to trickery and loose track of the right path. But there are many others whose hearts are filled with faith and who voluntarily submit to heavenly judgment.

 

“As to the relationship between failure to apply Allah`s judgment and apostasy or falling out of faith, we say that ruling by laws other than Allah`s may lead one to blasphemy and apostasy. But this is not only because one fails to apply Allah`s laws, but also because he associates that negligence of Allah`s judgment with the adoption of a deep heartfelt belief that deviates from Islam and provides outright proof of faithlessness, such as denying the Almighty`s judgment, ridiculing it, banning its execution, rejecting it, and opting for a different judgment. At that point, apostasy and infidelity may be attributed to these associated acts and not to the person`s failure to apply Allah`s judgment. This rule applies also to all other religious duties. One who neglects an Islamic duty is a sinner who may not be held infidel because of that negligence, unless he associates that with denial, tendency to do the forbidden, or any other act of infidelity that lets one fall out of faith. This rule applies equally to the ruler and the ruled.

 

“The three verses that came in al-Ma`idah Sura are the most explicit in terms of showing that applying Allah`s judgment is an obligation. The proof they provide to that obligation is definitive. However, the verses provide presumptive proof when it comes to judging failure to apply Allah`s judgment. This explains the debate that surrounded them in Islamic circles. Moreover, these verses were intended for a nation of Jews. However, in spite of the uniqueness of the occasion on which the verses were revealed, most scholars, if not all, agree that they apply to Muslims who do what the Jews did.

 

“The verses were not basically meant for rulers or leaders. They were meant for Jews and their scholars. They generally apply to all Muslims who do not apply Allah`s judgment, both the rulers and the ruled. They do not apply exclusively to rulers. Interpreters agree that applying Allah`s judgment is a work of the senses and that neglecting any of the works of the senses is not enough reason to brand one as infidel, although it is enough to decreases his faith as much as he neglects his duties. This has been the established belief of the upholders of the prophet`s tradition over the ages. Applying judgments other than Allah`s is viewed as major blasphemy only when it is associated with an act that is not condoned by Shari`ah or an act which denotes blasphemy, such as denying Allah`s judgment, ridiculing it, or opting for the prohibited. In which case, blasphemy is attributed to those things and not to the mere act of neglecting Allah`s judgment. Failing to apply Allah`s judgment alone is not enough reason to view any man as atheist.

 

“One of the signs of major infidelity in applying judgments other than Allah`s is for one to deny the obligation to apply Allah`s judgment, regardless of whether the person is a ruler or ruled, and to ridicule, reject, and refuse to comply with God`s judgment, use improper names to describe it, prefer to resort to other judgments, and to see no distinction between Allah`s definitive judgments and other judgments. When one assumes that attitude, he legitimizes his own negligence of Allah`s judgment. It does not make a difference here whether the person is a ruler or ruled. But all these things are far from a true Muslim.

 

“Saying that negligence to apply Allah`s judgment does not qualify as major infidelity does not mean that we downplay the importance of Muslim obligation to apply Allah`s judgment or underestimate any of the parts of Islamic Shari`ah. No faithful man who realizes the grandeur of Allah and the greatness of his divine Shari`ah can do that. It is Shari`ah which sheltered the Islamic nation over the ages. Neglecting Allah`s laws is undoubtedly a grave sin. But sins have different degrees. A guilt which Allah deems as an act of atheism in His book is undoubtedly more serious than a sin which the Koran did not classify as atheism. A frequently repeated sin is graver and more effective than a rarely committed sin. As much as gazing is the messenger of adultery, sinning is the messenger of atheism. So, let every Muslim try to apply Allah`s judgment in all his affairs and seek to learn His judgment in everything, big and small. If this is the obligation of Muslims in general, then it is a bigger obligation for those who are in charge of Muslim affairs, since they carry a heavy burden for which they will be brought to account on the day where an infant`s hair turns grey; a day when God Almighty brings every pastor to account for his subjects.

 

(Description of Source: London Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic -- Influential Saudi-owned London daily providing independent coverage of Arab and international issues; editorials reflect official Saudi views on foreign policy)

[Xudeedi]

Very Interesting analysis

[Saddiiq]

The verses were not basically meant for rulers or leaders. They were meant for Jews and their scholars. They generally apply to all Muslims who do not apply Allah`s judgment, both the rulers and the ruled.

The general point the author is making is that, Islamically there is really no difference in the responsibilities of the ruler of a land and the responsibilities of the ruled. But of course Quran differentiates between the two. The word yahkum (yaxkum) means to make a ruling/judgement. It is an action of authority and is only attributed to someone in a position of authority, ie. 1 of Allahs name is al-Hakim (the ruler). When Allah says "wa man lam yaxkum bi maa anzal Allah fa Uwlaa'ika hum al Kaafirun" (those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, indeed they are the disbelievers) it obviously directed to those in the position of authority to rule. On top of that it mentions in the same ayah the authority figures among bani israel (the Rabi's). Secondly, Allah didn't say "jews who do not rule by what Allah revealed". It's speaking generally about any ruler. Time after time in the Quran we find that Allah mentions bani Israel simply as an example, but is talking to Muslims. So to say Allah is talking to the jews is just negligent.

 

 

The verses are: “If any do fail to judge by what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers"

Allah didn't say "they are no better than disbelievers", Allah said, "they are indeed THE disbelievers" AWLAA'IKA HUM AL-KAAFIRUN. There is no basis for deflecting the title unless one has other intentions.

 

 

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Exclusively Publishes the latest book of the Egyptian Islamic Group..

When somebody comes out of prison with the opposite view of what they had when they went in, you have to ask yourself what happened inside the prison. Some sort of re-education. But we all know the only re-education program in egyptian jails is to stick things in your butt until you change your mind.

[Shaakirullaah]

Judging or ruling according to other than what Allah has revealed is contrary to faith and Tawheed, which are Allah’s rights.

It may be counted as kufr akbar (greater kufr) or kufr asghar (lesser kufr) according to circumstances.

Kufr akbar will make a person no longer a Muslim in cases such as the following:

 

1. If he issues laws and regulations other than those revealed by Allah, because the right to issue laws belongs to Allah alone, Who has no partner, and whoever “competes” with Him in a matter which is His alone is a mushrik, because Allah says:

 

“Or have they partners with Allah (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion which Allah has not allowed?”

(al-Shooraa, 21)

 

2. If the one who rules by other than that which Allah has revealed denies the right of Allah and His Prophet to rule, as is mentioned in Ibn 'Abbaas’s comment on the aayah:

 

“. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.”

(al-Maa’idah, 44)

 

Ibn 'Abbaas said: “Whoever rejects what Allah has revealed is a kaafir.”

 

3. If he prefers the rule of falsehood to the rule of Allah, whether this is in absolute terms or just in a few matters.

Allah says:

 

“Do they then seek the judgement of jaahiliyyah? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith?”

(al-Maa’idah, 50)

 

4. If he regards the rule of Allah and the rule of falsehood as equal.

Allah says:

 

“. . . Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).”

(al-Baqarah, 22)

 

5. If he thinks that it is permissible to rule by something that contradicts the rule of Allah and His Messenger, or he believes that it is not obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed, or that the matter is optional.

This is kufr which is contradictory to faith. Allah revealed:

 

“O Messenger! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: ‘We believe’ with their mouths but their hearts have no faith. And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies - listen to others who have not come to you; they say, ‘If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!’ . . .”

(al-Maa’idah, 41)

 

He says: “Go to Muhammad (salAllahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and if he tells you that the ruling is lashes, accept it, but if he commands stoning, ignore what he says. Then Allah revealed:

 

“. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon (disbelievers)”

(al-Maa’idah, 44)

 

6. If he does not rule according to what Allah has revealed out of stubbornness and arrogance, he is a kaafir and has left islam, even if he does not deny the rule of Allah.

Stubbornness and arrogance may mean negligence and turning away, as Allah says:

 

“Have you seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taaghoot (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaytaan wishes to lead them astray. And when it is said to them: ‘Come to what Allah has sent down and to the Messenger,’ see they hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad) with aversion.”

(al-Nisaa’, 60-61)

 

By examining this topic from different angels, it becomes clear that what is counted as kufr akbar are some of the following examples:

 

- Abolishing shari'ah as the law governing a country, as Mustafa Kemal (“Ataturk”) did in Turkey,

as he abolished the book Majallah al-Ahkaam al-'Adliyyah which was based on the Hanafi madhhab, and replaced it with man-made laws.

- Abolishing shari'ah courts.

- Imposing man-made laws, such as Italian, French, German law, etc., to judge between the people,

or mixing these laws and Shari'ah, as Genghis Khan did in his book al-Yaasiq, which combined laws from different sources;

the scholars ruled that he was a kaafir.

- Confining the role of shari'ah courts to so-called “civil” matters, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.

- Setting up non-shari'ah courts.

- Discussing shari'ah in parliament and voting on it; this indicates that implementing shari'ah is conditional upon a majority vote.

- Making shari'ah a secondary or main source, along with other sources of law.

Even when they say that shari'ah is the primary source of legislation, this is still kufr akbar, because it means that they are allowing the adoption of laws from other sources too.

- Stating in the clauses of legislation that reference may be made to international law, or stating in treaties that

in the case of dispute, the matter may be referred to such-and-such non-Islamic court.

- Criticizing shari'ah in public or in private, such as saying that it is rigid, incomplete or backward,

or suggesting that it is incompatible with our times, or expressing admiration for non-Islamic laws.

 

With regard to the question of when ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufr asghar, which does not exclude a person from the ummah of Islam:

the answer is that this may be the case when a ruler or judge passes judgement according to other than what Allah revealed out of disobedience or on a whim, or as a favour to someone, or because he was bribed, etc.

although he believes that it is obligatory to judge according to what Allah has revealed, and that what he has done is a sinful and haraam deed.

 

As regards the one who is governed by a non-Islamic law, if he refers to it out of choice, then he is a kaafir whose kufr akbar means that he has left islam. But if he has no choice but to refer to this law, and does so reluctantly, then he is not a kaafir, because if he had been able to resort to shari'ah, he would have done so, and he believes that this non-Islamic law is false.

 

And lastly this:

Even those who neglect all the acts of Islam can still be Muslims as long as they harbor faith deep in their hearts and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His prophet.

is the madhab of the murjia.

[Fabregas_Bruv]

^^ sheikh blad, give the source next time.