Refuting the Qitālī Manhaj
Refuting the Qitālī Manhaj
Bismillāhi al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm
If anyone wishes to discuss these topics or anything presented in the article, they are welcome to do so with the admins of this server (or just ask to discuss with the author privately)
And if they want to read this article purely in Arabic, they can do so here
Allāh said:
{Say, [O Muḥammad], "Shall we inform you of the greatest losers as to [their] deeds? [They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work."} [Al-Kahf 18:103-104]
This article should serve as a refutation of several key principles and views many people are gravely mistaken in, which are used by the so called "Islāmic state" Dāʿish, al-Qāʿidah, and various other Khārijī groups to justify their senseless takfīr and murder of Muslims all over the world
In the first part of the article I'd like to clarify some basic creedal and linguistic foundations that get completely ignored by the modern Khawārij
In the second part I plan to go over the topic of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed and legislating man-made laws, as well as the topic of seeking judgement from man-made laws, secular courts and non-Muslims in general (what is referred to as al-taḥākum ilā al-Ṭāghūt - seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt)
And finally, in the third part I plan to cover various issues where the Salaf and Khalaf's position is even clearer, those being spying, aiding or allying with non-Muslims against Muslims, selling them weapons that will be used against Muslims, joining their armies, as well as building non-Muslim places of worship such as churches, or wearing a cross, etc
Part One
Firstly, it is important to establish a few foundations that will be relevant for all of these topics
The first of which being that a scholar's statement is not proof in it of itself, and that Ahl al-Sunnah only rely on the Qurʾān and Sunnah upon the understanding of the Salaf as proof, and nothing beyond that
So spamming random quotes of random Saudi, Najdī or any other group of scholars allegedly agreeing with you on a topic is not "proof", nor does one become a Murjiʾī for disagreeing with their alleged view, just like one doesn't become a Murjiʾī if he disagrees with Abū al-Faraj al-Shīrazī's view that whoever curses Yazīd is a Kāfir, or with the various Ḥanafī scholars who held that all Shāfiʿīs are Kuffār or innovators, etc.
And in reality, the vast majority of the time even those scholars from the Khalaf do not actually agree with them, and the Khawārij merely rely on taking these quotes out of context and on their audience's lack of understanding of the Arabic language
Ironically, many of the very same people that they quote explicitly disagree with them on a hundred other issues and would label them as Khawārij if they met them!
And even in the best case scenario for these Khawārij, finding someone who agrees with them would at most mean that there is a difference of opinion on the issue - and again, not that it is an issue of ʾIjmāʿ where the one who opposes it is an innovator or a Kāfir
But in reality this is not the case and there is no valid difference of opinion on any of these topics.
In fact, the one who opposes the Qurʾān, Sunnah and ʾIjmāʿ of the Salaf - which all confirm the Islām of those who rule by or seek judgement from other than what Allāh revealed, spy for the Kuffār against the Muslims and other such issues - is a Khārijī and an apostate from the Dīn of Islām, no matter how famous he is or how many books he wrote
Now on the other end of the spectrum, some people have labeled me a Jahmī for quoting the likes of Ibn Ḥazm and al-Nawawī in this article, saying "how dare you use these Jahmīs as proof for your Irjāʾ!!"
So I just want to clarify that whoever I quote after the Salaf, I merely quote as supporting a position that is already established from the Qurʾān, Sunnah and Salaf, and to show that even the scholars many of the Khawārij praise and claim to share the Manhaj of don't agree with them
And regarding the takfīr of the Khawārij, this is a famous issue of dispute where many scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah took the view that they are all Kuffār, based what al-Bukhārī narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 9, p. 16), in the chapter “Killing the Khawārij and the heretics after establishing the proof against them”:
ʿUmar ibn Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth narrated to us, my father narrated to us, al-Aʿmash narrated to us, Khaythamah narrated to us, Suwayd ibn Ghaflah narrated to us, who said: ʿAlī said: “If I narrate to you a ḥadīth from the Messenger of Allāh, then by Allāh, for me to fall from the sky is more beloved to me than that I should lie about him. But if I narrate to you something concerning what is between me and you, then war is deception. And I heard the Messenger of Allāh say: ‘There will emerge a people at the end of time, young in age and foolish in understanding. They will speak from the best speech of creation. Their faith will not pass beyond their throats. They will pass out of the religion as the arrow passes out of the prey. So wherever you encounter them, kill them, for in killing them there is a reward for the one who kills them on the Day of Resurrection.’”
Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām said in Gharīb al-Ḥadīth (vol. 1, p. 266):
The interpretation of the marfūʿ ḥadīth is that the Khawārij pass out of the religion as that arrow passes out of the prey, meaning: when it enters it and then exits from it, nothing of it remains attached to it. Likewise is the entry of these people into Islām and then their exit from it: they did not hold on to anything of it.
And Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī said in al-Nawādir wa al-Ziyādāt (vol. 14, p. 544):
Ibn Ḥabīb held the view that the Khawārij who takfīred people over sins are Kuffār, and that whoever among them is manifest should be asked to repent for several days and imprisoned for that - whether they have risen in rebellion or not - if they openly profess that...
...(He said:) They are Kuffār due to this Bidʿah of theirs, because they named the fornicator, the thief, and those like them among the people of sins as Kuffār, while Allāh prescribed amputation for the one who steals and the ḥadd for the one who commits fornication. If he were a Kāfir, then killing would have been due upon him for that, and He commanded killing concerning them. And He said regarding the killer: {But whoever is pardoned by his brother in any way…} - He would not have made him a brother to him if he were a Kāfir. And whoever rejects this from the Book of Allāh is a stubborn Kāfir.
And his argument for the Khawārij's Kufr applies to the modern Khawārij as well, as many of them insist that those who rule by other than what Allāh revealed are Kuffār while the Prophet ﷺ affirmed their Islām and obligated the Muslims to obey them, and they insist that those who seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt are Kuffār while Allāh commanded us to turn away from them and admonish them instead of killing them, and they insist that those who spy for the enemy against the Muslims are Kuffār while the Prophet ﷺ and the entire Salaf unanimously affirmed their Islām, and viewed that they are at most deserving of taʿzīr
And Ibn Ḥajar said in Fatḥ al-Bārī (vol. 12, p. 299):
...To that al-Bukhārī alluded in the chapter heading by the Āyah mentioned therein, and he used it as evidence for those who held the view of takfīring the Khawārij. This is also implied by al-Bukhārī’s practice, since he paired them with the heretics and separated them from the interpreters by a distinct chapter heading. This was explicitly stated by al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī in his commentary on al-Tirmidhī, where he said: the correct view is that they are Kuffār, due to his ﷺ saying “They pass out of Islām,” and due to his saying, “I will surely kill them with the killing of ʿĀd,” and in another wording, “Thamūd” - and each of these was destroyed only by Kufr, and due to his saying, “They are the worst of creation,” and none is described as such except Kuffār, and due to his saying, “They are the most hateful of creation to Allāh Most High”, and due to their judging everyone who opposed their belief with Kufr and as abiding eternally in the Fire - so they were more deserving of the name than them…
I say: among those who inclined toward part of this discussion is al-Ṭabarī in his Tahdhīb. After narrating the aḥādīth of the chapter, he said: in it is a refutation of the statement of those who say that no one from the People of the Qiblah exits Islām after having deserved its ruling unless he intends to exit from it knowingly, for that is invalidated by his statement in the ḥadīth: ‘They speak the truth and recite the Qurʾān and pass out of Islām, and they do not hold on to anything of it.’ And it is known that they only committed Istiḥlāl of the blood and wealth of the Muslims due to an error on their part in what they interpreted from the Āyāt of the Qurʾān contrary to their intended meaning. Then he narrated with an authentic chain from Ibn ʿAbbās and mentioned regarding the Khawārij and what they encounter when reciting the Qurʾān, saying: ‘They believe in its clear verses and perish at its ambiguous ones.’ The mentioned view is also supported by the command to kill them, along with what has preceded from the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd: ‘The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except in one of three cases’ - and among them - ‘the one who abandons his religion and separates from the community.’
And al-Qurṭubī said in al-Mufhim: the view of takfīring them is supported by the parable mentioned in the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd - meaning the one that comes in the following chapter - since its apparent intent is that they exited Islām and did not hold on to anything of it, just as the arrow exits the prey due to its speed and the strength of the one who shot it, such that nothing of the prey remains attached to it.
And there are two narrations from Aḥmad regarding their takfīr or lack thereof
As Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (vol. 3, p. 446):
...and they are two narrations from Aḥmad, like the two narrations from him concerning the takfīr of the Khawārij.
Though what seems more apparent from him is withholding judgement and neither affirming nor negating their Islām, as Abū Bakr bin al-Khallāl said in al-Sunnah (vol. 1, p. 146):
Muḥammad bin Abī Hārūn informed me that Isḥāq narrated to them that Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal) was asked about the Ḥarūriyyah and the Māriqah, are they to be takfīred? He said: ‘Spare me from this, and say concerning them what has come in the ḥadīth.’
Another important foundation for the rest of this article is that Ahl al-Sunnah do not make takfīr based on linguistic similarities, and it doesn't constitute a proof in the religion
Meaning, just because one action shares the name of another action - be it Kufr, Shirk, Nifāq, Istiḥlāl, Taḥrīm, Juḥūd, Tabdīl, Dīn, Bidʿah - or any other term, that does not necessitate it sharing the ruling of that action unless there is an explicit reason for it to do so
So for example, linguistically "making the ḥalāl ḥarām/Taḥrīm" can mean both claiming that Allāh has made something ḥarām/that it is ḥarām in the religion, or just physically prohibiting or preventing something, and any time you prohibit yourself or someone else from doing an action you are "making it ḥarām" in the linguistic sense
But despite sharing the same title Ahl al-Sunnah only consider the former Kufr, while considering the latter a sin, because one entails lying upon Allāh while the other doesn't
A good example of this would be what Allāh mentioned in the Qurʾān: {O you who believe, do not make the good things that Allāh has made ḥalāl for you ḥarām}
As it is reported that it revealed regarding some of the Saḥāba who wished to permanently prevent themselves from marriage, eating meat and the likes, and while this was condemned, they clearly did not share the ruling of the one who claims that Allāh has made those things ḥarām
And that story actually destroys the entire worldview of the Khawārij from multiple angles, and I will go into it in more detail later on
Another great example of this would be the story of the Prophet ﷺ being convinced by some of his wives to avoid drinking honey with Ḥafṣah or Zaynab, wherein Sawdah lemented that by convincing him to avoid it they "made it ḥarām for him", but since they did not lie about Allāh by actually claiming or believing that the act itself is ḥarām in the religion, and only attempted to prevent it from taking place, this was clearly not Kufr from them
This was mentioned by al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 7, p. 44):
...On the authority of ʿĀʾishah that she said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ loved honey and sweet things. And when he returned from the ʿaṣr prayer, he would enter upon his wives, and he would draw close to one of them. He entered upon Ḥafṣah bint ʿUmar and stayed longer than he usually stayed. I became jealous and asked about that, and it was said to me: a woman from her people gifted her a skin of honey, and she gave the Prophet ﷺ a drink from it.
So I said: By Allāh, we will devise a plan for him. I said to Sawdah bint Zamʿah: ‘He will draw close to you, and when he draws close to you, say to him: Have you eaten maghāfīr?’ He will say to you: No. Then say to him: What is this smell I find from you? He will say to you: Ḥafṣah gave me a drink of honey. So say to him: Perhaps its bees grazed on ʿurfut. And I will say the same, and you, O Ṣafiyyah, say that as well.’
Sawdah said: ‘By Allāh, as soon as he stood at the door, I wanted to hasten to say to him what you commanded me, out of fear of you.’ When he drew close to her, Sawdah said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, have you eaten maghāfīr?’ He said: ‘No.’ She said: ‘Then what is this smell I find from you?’ He said: ‘Ḥafṣah gave me a drink of honey.’ She said: ‘Perhaps its bees grazed on ʿurfut.’
When he turned to me, I said to him something similar. When he turned to Ṣafiyyah, she said the same. When he turned to Ḥafṣah, she said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, shall I give you some of it to drink?’ He said: ‘I have no need of it.’
Sawdah said: ‘By Allāh, we have made it ḥarām for him (ḥaramnāh).’
I said to her: ‘Be quiet.’
And another example of this is the famous ḥadīth of ʿUmar, where he declares the Tarāwīḥ prayer to be an "excellent Bidʿah", without taking the same ruling as the Bidʿah in the religion that the Prophet ﷺ condemned as misguidance, as al-Bukhārī narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 3, p. 45):
...On the authority of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAbd al-Qārī that he said: I went out with ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb one night in Ramaḍān to the mosque, and the people were scattered groups: a man praying by himself, and a man praying while a group prays with his prayer. ʿUmar said: ‘Indeed, I see that if I were to gather these behind one reciter, it would be better.’ Then he resolved and gathered them behind Ubayy ibn Kaʿb. Then I went out with him another night while the people were praying with the prayer of their reciter. ʿUmar said: ‘What an excellent Bidʿah this is, but that which they sleep through is better than that which they stand for’ - meaning the latter part of the night - while the people used to stand in its early part.
And Ibn Rajab said in Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa al-Ḥikam (p. 597):
As for what has occurred in the speech of the Salaf regarding deeming some bidʿahs good, that is only with respect to linguistic bidʿahs, not Sharʿī ones. Among that is the statement of ʿUmar...
And there are many more such examples
And all the scholars agree with this, as they defined the Istiḥlāl that takes one out of the religion as the belief - not action - that something is ḥalāl, and defined the Juḥūd that takes one out of the religion as denial of something Allāh revealed with your tongue - not limbs
As Ibn Qutaybah said in Gharīb al-Qurʾān (p. 27):
And al-jaḥd linguistically is: your denial (ʾinkār) with your tongue of that which your soul is certain of
And Ibn Manẓūr said in Lisān al-ʿArab (vol. 3, p. 106):
Jaḥada: al-jaḥd and al-juḥūd are the opposite of acknowledgment, like denial and recognition. Jaḥada-hu yajḥadu-hu jaḥdan wa juḥūdan. Al-Jawharī: al-juḥūd is denial along with knowledge. He denied him his right, and denied his due.
Al-Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī said in al-Mufradāt fī Gharīb al-Qurʾān (p. 663):
As for al-juḥūd, it is said regarding what is denied by the tongue while not denied by the heart.
Al-Baghawī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 64):
The kufr of juḥūd is: that one knows Allāh the Exalted in his heart but does not affirm it with his tongue.
Ibn al-Qayyim said in his book al-Ṣalāh (p. 88):
There is another principle here: Kufr is of two types: Kufr ʿamal (action), and Kufr of juḥūd and ʿinād
As for kufr of juḥūd, it is to disbelieve in what one knows the Messenger came with from Allāh, out of juḥūd and ʿinād, from the Names of the Lord, His Attributes, His Actions, and His Rulings.
This type of kufr is entirely contrary to īmān.As for kufr of ʿamal, it is divided into that which negates īmān (meaning, makes one a Kāfir), and that which does not negate it.
So prostrating to an idol, showing contempt for the Muṣḥaf, killing a Prophet, and reviling him - all of these negate īmān.As for ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed and abandoning prayer, then these are certainly from the kufr of ʿamal...
Notice how he explicitly separates juḥūd from ʿamal (action), and even more specifically from the action of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed!
And likewise with istiḥlāl, as Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighāthat al-Lahfān fī Maṣāyid al-Shayṭān (vol. 1, p. 346):
And the one who makes istiḥlāl of something is the one who does it believing in its permissibility.
So, the Aṣl when someone refers to juḥūd and istiḥlāl is that they are referring to one's denial with their tongue, or belief in their heart that something is permissible, until evidence is shown that they refer to something else while using those terms
And I will go into further details regarding the other terms and how the Khawārij misuse them later on in the article
Part Two
In this part I will go over the various proofs and argument the Khawārij use to takfīr the one who legislates or rules with man-made laws, and the one who seeks judgement from the Ṭāghūt
For man-made laws, I will cover the following Āyāt:
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
{Is it the judgment of Jāhiliyyah ˹pre-Islamic ignorance˺ that they seek?}
And
{Judgement is only for Allāh. He has commanded that you worship no one except Him.}
{They do not have any protector besides Him, and He doesn't share His judgement with anyone.}
And
{Do not eat of what is not slaughtered in Allāh’s Name. For that would certainly be ˹an act of˺ disobedience. Surely the devils whisper to their ˹human˺ associates to argue with you. And if you obey them, indeed you would be polytheists.}
{They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allāh, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God.}
And
{Or do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion that which Allāh did not permit?}
{He could not have taken his brother within the religion (Dīn) of the king except that Allāh willed}
As well as the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ about the man who married his father's wife
And their analogy with the takfīr of the withholders of zakāh and prayer
And the report of Ibn Masʿūd regarding bribery
And their argument that the one who rules by other than what Allāh revealed, or the one whom judgement is sought from besides Allāh is called a Ṭāghūt
And the supposed ʾIjmāʿ of Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh, and various other misused quotes from scholars of the Khalaf
As well as present various quotes from the Salaf and Khalaf regarding the one who rules with or acts upon abrogated laws or laws of other religions
For seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt, I will cover the Āyāt:
{Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muḥammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, while they were commanded to disbelieve in it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray. - And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allāh has revealed and to the Messenger," you see the Munāfiqīn turning away from you in aversion. - So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allāh, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation." - Those are the ones of whom Allāh knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching [i.e., effective] word. - And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allāh. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muḥammad], and asked forgiveness of Allāh and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allāh Accepting of Repentance and Merciful.}
And
{But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.}
And the Khawārij's argument that Allāh "negated the claim to īmān" of those who seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, and declared them to be Munāfiqīn, and declared that they have not disbelieved in the Ṭāghūt and therefore did not believe in Allāh
And the story of ʿUmar (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) and the Munāfiq
As well as present various quotes from the Salaf and Khalaf regarding the one who willingly seeks judgement from a non-Muslim or appoints him as a judge over Muslims
Regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
Allāh said: {It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muḥammad], the Book; in it are Āyāt [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is ambiguous, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding}
And the Āyah of al-Māʾidah is undoubtedly from these ambiguous Āyāt, and it is undoubtedly the most abused Āyah by the Khawārij - old and new alike - who all claim to merely be following the Āyah's "apparent meaning"
So we should firstly establish what is the real "apparent meaning" of this Āyah
Allāh states {And whoever...} - not "and the rulers..." - {does not judge by what Allāh has revealed...} - not "legislate other than what Allāh revealed" or "completely abolish the laws Allāh revealed" - {then those are the disbelievers}
So ironically, the most extreme among the Khawārij who takfīr all sinners have a stronger claim to taking the apparent than these modern Khawārij who think the apparent of this Āyah only applies to rulers who legislate man-made laws, since ANY sinner is, by definition, "not ruling by what Allāh has revealed"
In reality, any judgement that opposes the judgement of Islām is the judgement of Jāhiliyyah, whether it manifests as an action, or a single judicial ruling, or a general legislation
And this applies to every other Āyah and ḥadīth they use as well, not a single one proves their made-up distinction between ruling by other than what Allāh revealed in specific cases and making a general legislation, and I challenge the Khawārij to prove me wrong
As Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 1155):
My father narrated to us: Hilāl ibn al-Fayyāḍ ibn Abū ʿUbaydah al-Nājī narrated to us. He said: I heard al-Ḥasan say: Whoever judges by other than the judgment of Allāh, then it is the judgment of Jāhiliyyah.
Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā informed us: Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah narrated to us, from Ibn Abī Najīḥ. He said: Whenever a man would ask Ṭāwūs, Shall I make a distinction between two sons regarding gifts? he would recite: {Is it the judgment of Jāhiliyyah that they seek? And who is better than Allāh in judgment for a people who are certain?}
And this is supported by what Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Tamhīd (vol. 10, p. 390):
And a group from the people of innovation, from the Khawārij and the Muʿtazilah, went astray in this issue. They used these narrations and those similar to them to takfīr sinners. And they used from the Book of Allāh Āyāt that are not upon their apparent meaning, such as His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}...
So if the Khawārij really want to take the "apparent" meaning of the Āyah, they should be consistent and hold that any person - layman, ruler or judge - who does not rule - and not just legislate - by what Allāh revealed is a Kāfir
And this contradicts many authentic ḥadīths where the Prophet does not takfīr those who asked him to do exactly that
Such as what al-Bukhārī narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 4, p. 175):
...On the authority of ʿĀʾishah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnhā): The people of Quraysh were deeply concerned about the case of the Makhzūmī woman who had committed theft. They said, ‘Who will speak to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ about her?’ Then they said, ‘No one dares to speak to him except Usāmah ibn Zayd, who is beloved to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.’ So Usāmah spoke to him. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘Are you interceding regarding one of the ḥudūd of Allāh?’
Then he stood up and delivered a seramon and said: ‘Those before you were destroyed because when a noble person among them stole, they left him alone, but when a weak person stole, they carried out the punishment on him. By Allāh, if Fāṭimah the daughter of Muḥammad were to steal, I would cut off her hand.’
Now, some of the Khawārij I presented with this quote told me that yes, Usāmah ibn Zayd fell into major Kufr due to this, but he was excused due to his ignorance in the matter
So I ask them, what exactly was he ignorant of? And why aren't all the rulers today also given this same excuse? Are they more knowledgeable than the Saḥāba?!
But fine, even if for the sake of argument we were to accept their claim that the Saḥāba were ignorant of "Tawḥīd al-Ḥākimiyyah" and upon major Kufr, this is not the only ḥadīth on the topic
The clearest ḥadīths are those where the Prophet commands to obey and not rebel against oppressive rulers who are, by definition, not ruling by what Allāh revealed, as Muslim narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 6, p. 19):
...On the authority of Salamah ibn Yazīd al-Juʿfī that he asked the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ: “O Prophet of Allāh, what do you say if rulers are placed over us, they ask us for their right, yet they prevent us from our right, what do you command us?”
He turned away from him, then he asked him again, and he turned away, then he asked him the second or the third time, so al-Ashʿath ibn Qays pulled him and said: “Listen and obey, for upon them is what they carry, and upon you is what you carry.”
...On the authority of Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān that he said: I said: “O Messenger of Allāh, we were in evil, then Allāh brought good, and we are in it, so will there be evil after this good?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Will there be good after that evil?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Then will there be evil after that good?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “How?” He said: “There will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance, nor follow my Sunnah, and men will stand among them whose hearts are the hearts of devils in human bodies.” I said: “What should I do, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He said: “Listen and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, listen and obey.”
And from the Saḥāba, what Muslim narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 6, p. 18):
…On the authority of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAbd Rabb al-Kaʿbah that he said: I entered the mosque and found ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ sitting in the shade of the Kaʿbah… He mentioned a ḥadīth from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.
So I drew near to him and said: I ask you by Allāh, did you hear this from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ? He pointed to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my heart comprehended it.
I said: This cousin of yours Muʿāwiyah commands us to consume our wealth among ourselves unjustly and to kill ourselves, while Allāh says: {O you who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly… and do not kill yourselves}.
He remained silent for a while, then said: Obey him in obedience to Allāh, and disobey him in disobedience to Allāh.
And Imām al-Bukhārī said in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 9, p. 57):
...From Nāfiʿ, who said: When the people of Madīnah removed Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah, Ibn ʿUmar gathered his household and his children and said: I heard the Prophet ﷺ say: ‘For every treacherous person a banner will be set up on the Day of Resurrection.’ And we have pledged allegiance to this man upon the pledge of Allāh and His Messenger, and I do not know of any treachery greater than that a man pledges allegiance upon the pledge of Allāh and His Messenger and then sets up fighting against him. And I do not know any one of you who has removed him or pledged allegiance in this matter, except that it will be the decisive separation between me and him.
And not only that, this belief goes against the ʾIjmāʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah that oppression in judgement is a major sin and not Kufr, as al-Samʿānī mentioned in his Tafsīr of the Āyah (vol. 2, p. 42):
And know that the Khawārij use this Āyah as evidence, saying: Whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed is a Kāfir, and Ahl al-Sunnah say: One is not declared a Kāfir for simply abandoning judgment (tark al-ḥukm)...
And as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Istidhkār (vol. 8, p. 567):
The Muslim scholars have unanimously agreed that injustice in judgement is among the major sins (al-Kabāʾir), because of the threat mentioned concerning it. Allāh said: {And as for the qāsiṭūn — they will be firewood for Hell}. And al-qāsit means the unjust one, whereas al-muqsiṭ is the just one. And Allāh said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, meaning the People of the Book. Then He said: {…then they are the defiantly disobedient} and {…then they are the wrongdoers}
So all claims of taking the "apparent" of the Āyah necessitate takfīring the one who rules by other than what Allāh revealed "in specific instances" - since nothing in the Āyah itself indicates that it is restricted to general legislation - which in turn leads to rejecting several authentic ḥadīths from the Prophet, as well as the ʾIjmāʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah, and so, consistent with the Sunnī principle, the Āyah is taken on another meaning, as al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Risālah (p. 580):
...And the Qurʾān is on its apparent meaning until evidence comes from it, or the Sunnah, or ʾIjmāʿ that it is on a hidden (meaning) rather than apparent
And not only is there no difference between ruling in specific instances and general abolishment and alteration of the Sharīʿah rulings, some of the original Khawārij - who were not a monolith - even specifically used this Āyah only to takfīr over the latter!
ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʿtazz (d. 296 AH) said in Ṭabaqāt al-Shuʿarāʾ (p. 334):
Reports about Durust al-Muʿallim.
Al-Jāḥiẓ cited his poetry as evidence...
...He held the view of the Khawārij, and believed that the land was a land of Kufr, and he said: They have abolished the rulings and altered them (ʿaṭṭalū al-aḥkām wa-ghayyarūhā). And Allāh has said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
Notice how Durust, a Khārijī from over a thousand years ago(!) doesn't merely takfīr his rulers for "doing major sins" or "ruling by other than what Allāh revealed in a single instance" - as the modern Khawārij so desperately try to convince you these are the only things all of the original Khawārij in their many sects made takfīr over - he explicitly takfīred them for ABOLISHING THE RULINGS AND ALTERING THEM
So what exactly is so different between the Khawārij of new and the Khawārij of old?
They both believe the whole world today is a land of Kufr, they both takfīr their rulers for abolishing and altering the Sharīʿah rulings, and they both use the same exact Āyāt as proof for this
So now that we know what the tafsīr of the Khawārij is and why it is invalid, it's time to cover the true Sunnī position:
Ahl al-Sunnah have provided multiple different tafsīrs for this Āyah, all of which ultimately reach the same conclusion that the mere act of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed does not necessitate Kufr that takes one out of Islām as al-Samʿānī and many others mentioned
So, the two most common interpretations of Ahl al-Sunnah for the Āyah are:
- The Āyah was revealed about a group from Ahl al-Kitāb and is specific to them, and they were declared disbelievers for denying and refusing to accept what Allāh revealed with their hearts and tongues, not just for the action of ruling itself
- The Āyah applies to all of mankind, Muslims and non-Muslims, but the Kufr mentioned is a form of Kufr that does not take one out of the fold of Islām, or what is commonly referred to as Kufr Dūna Kufr
And both of these views are based on authentic ḥadīths of the Prophet, reports from the Saḥāba, and they were held by some of the biggest scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah
As for the first view, it is backed by the Āyah's context itself, as Allāh says:
{O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief – of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] places [i.e., usages], saying, "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allāh intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allāh. Those are the ones for whom Allāh does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.
[They are] avid listeners to falsehood, devourers of [what is] unlawful. So if they come to you, [O Muḥammad], judge between them or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them - never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, Allāh loves those who act justly.
But how is it that they come to you for judgement while they have the Torah, in which is the judgement of Allāh? Then they turn away, [even] after that; but those are not [in fact] believers.
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allāh] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allāh, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My Āyāt for a small price [i.e., worldly gain]. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.}
So these Āyāt were revealed about those who {...their hearts believe not...} and {...distort words beyond their [proper] places...} and were warned to {...not exchange My Āyāt for a small price...}
And this is all a condemnation and warning to those who alter Allāh's religion, rulings and scripture with their tongues for a small price, by denying what He sent down or attributing falsehood to Him, and this description can be found elsewhere in the Qurʾān, such as when Allāh says: {Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, then say: ‘This is from Allāh’} and {there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues...}
And it is further backed by the famous ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib which can be found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (vol. 5, p. 122) and elsewhere:
...Al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib said: A Jew who had been blackened and flogged was brought past the Prophet ﷺ, so he called them and said: ‘Do you find this as the punishment for one who fornicates in your Book?’ They said: ‘Yes!’ So he summoned one of their scholars and said: ‘I adjure you by Allāh who revealed the Torah upon Mūsā, do you find this as the punishment for fornication in your Book?’ He said: ‘No, and were it not that you adjured me with this, I would not have told you. We find its punishment in our Book to be stoning, but it became frequent among our nobles, so when we seized the noble we would leave him, and when we seized the lowly we would establish the punishment upon him. So we said: come, let us agree on something we can apply to both noble and lowly, and so we agreed on blackening with soot and flogging instead of stoning.’ Then the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘O Allāh, I am the first to revive Your command after they caused it to die!’ So he ordered that he be stoned, and then Allāh revealed: {O Messenger, let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you…} up to His saying: {If you are given this, take it} meaning: go to Muḥammad, if he commands you with darkening the face and flogging, then take it, but if he gives you a fatwā of stoning, then beware. So Allāh revealed {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the disbelievers} {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the wrongdoers (ẓālimūn)} {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the defiantly disobedient (fāsiqūn)} all of these were revealed regarding the disbelievers
And the main point to be taken here is that the Āyah was clearly revealed about a specific group who were already not Muslims to begin with, and denied with their tongues the correct ruling Allāh revealed in the Torah (stoning) and instead claimed that the ruling in the Torah is blackening the face and flogging
So the attribute of those whom the Āyah was revealed about is that of people who do not rule by what Allāh revealed through denial and attribution of lies to Him, and according to the Mufassirīn who took this view, this indicates that the intended meaning of the Āyah is that anyone who doesn't rule by what Allāh revealed in the same manner (rejecting and denying what Allāh revealed with their tongues), then those are the disbelievers
Now, for the scholars and Mufassirīn who embraced, validated or did not condemn this view
I'd like to immediately start with the strongest quote on the topic, which many brothers have testified to me is one of the main reasons for their repentance from the Khārijī Manhaj
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 1142):
Abū Yazīd al-Qarāṭīs informed us, in what he wrote to me: Aṣbagh ibn al-Faraj narrated to us, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam narrated to us. He said regarding His statement {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the disbelievers}: Whoever judges by a book that he wrote with his own hand and abandons the Book of Allāh, and claims that this book of his is from Allāh has disbelieved
And this is clear
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 182 AH) is saying that if someone judges with a book that he wrote with his own hands and claims that this book is from Allāh, then he has disbelieved
So he's talking about judging with a book that you wrote down - not just a judge judging based on his or someone else's desires "in a specific instance" - and he still conditions the Kufr to be upon the one who does so while claiming that this book is from Allāh
Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, who said in his Tafsīr (vol. 10, p. 345):
The statement regarding the interpretation of His, Exalted is His Mention, saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}:
Abū Jaʿfar said: Allāh, Exalted is His Mention, says: Whoever conceals the ruling of Allāh which He revealed in His Book, and which He made a judgment among His slaves, then hides it and rules by something else like the ruling of the Jews concerning the married adulterers by blackening the face and public humiliation, and their concealment of [the ruling of] stoning, or like their judgment in cases of murder among them - paying a full blood-money in some cases and a half in others, retaliation for nobles, and blood-money for the commoners - even though Allāh had made them equal in His judgment in the Torah - {...then those are the disbelievers} meaning: those who did not judge by what Allāh revealed in His Book, but rather altered and changed His ruling, and concealed the truth that He revealed in His Book - they are the disbelievers, meaning: they are the ones who concealed the truth which they were obliged to disclose and clarify, and they covered it up from the people and displayed something else instead, and they judged with it due to the bribes they received from them.
And the people of interpretation differed regarding the meaning of ‘disbelief’ (kufr) in this Āyah.
Some of them said the same as we have said regarding it, that it refers to the Jews who distorted the Book of Allāh and changed His ruling.
Among those who said this:
[He narrates the same ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ, alongside multiple other narrations mentioning that this Āyah was revealed about the Kuffār]
...Al-Muthannā narrated to me, he said: Isḥāq narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim narrated to us, he said: Abū Ḥayyān narrated to us, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, who said: The three Āyāt that are in Sūrat al-Mā’idah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, {… then those are the wrongdoers}, {… then those are the defiantly disobedient} the people of Islām have nothing to do with them, they are concerning the Kuffār
...
...Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā narrated to me, he said: Ibn Wahb told us, he said: Ibn Zayd said regarding His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: Whoever judged with a book he wrote with his own hand, and left the Book of Allāh, and claimed that this book is from Allāh has disbelieved
[He proceeds to mention several more views, then concludes:]
...The view I hold most correct is the one that says: These Āyāt were revealed regarding the disbelievers from the People of the Book (the view mentioned above), because what comes before and after these Āyāt is about them, and they are the ones intended by it. And for the Āyāt to be part of the same discourse about them is more appropriate.
So if someone says: But Allāh has generalized the statement about everyone who does not judge by what Allāh revealed, so how can you make it specific?
It is said: Allāh indeed generalized the statement about a people who denied (made juḥūd of) Allāh’s judgment that He decreed in His Book. So He informed [us] about them, that because they abandoned the judgment in the manner they did, they are disbelievers. And likewise is the case for anyone who does not judge by what Allāh revealed, out of denial of it, he is a disbeliever in Allāh, as Ibn ʿAbbās said, because by denying the judgment of Allāh after knowing that He revealed it in His Book, it is like denying the prophethood of His Prophet after knowing that he is a prophet
Al-Ṭabarī mentioned many narrations regarding this Āyah, but I decided to highlight two in particular as they make his point incredibly clear
The first from Abū Ṣāliḥ, who explicitly stated that the people of Islām have nothing to do with the Āyah or the following Āyāt, because they were revealed concerning a group of Kuffār
And the second from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd - which I mentioned previously - who is clear that one only disbelieves once he abandons ruling by what Allāh revealed in the same manner as the people in the Āyah did, by denying the judgement of Allāh and attributing man-made rulings to him, as he restricts the takfīr to the one who "...claimed that this book is from Allāh"
And Ṭabarī makes it clear that he agrees with this view and that he believes it was revealed specifically about the Kuffār, and even responds to the objection that the wording of the Āyah is general, by bringing up the same point I mentioned earlier, that it was revealed regarding those who denied and attempted to conceal Allāh's judgement with their tongues as in the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ
And Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (vol. 3, p. 405):
...This was narrated by Ibn Jarīr, then he (i.e., al-Ṭabarī) picked the view that the Āyah is referring to the People of the Book, or to whoever denies (literally: does juḥūd of) the ruling of Allāh which was revealed in the Book.
And Bakr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ said in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 1, p. 486):
There has been difference in the reports and tafsīrs concerning Allāh’s saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the disbelievers / the wrongdoers / the defiantly disobedient}. Some said: it is about the Jews when they altered the Book of Allāh and turned away from His rulings. Some said: it is about us and them. And Allāh explicitly mentioned in this about the Jews that they distort the words from their places, and opposed what was written upon them in the Torah. So He said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed…}. The apparent meaning indicates that whoever does like their deed, and makes up a ruling that opposes the ruling of Allāh, and makes it a religion to be acted upon, then upon him is what was upon them, whether he was a ruler or not.
And it was narrated from ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib, from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from ʿAlī: Some people from Shām drank wine while under Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān, and they said: ‘It is ḥalāl for us,’ and they interpreted the Āyah {There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have consumed…}. So a letter was written about them to ʿUmar Raḥimahullāh, and he consulted the people regarding them. They said: ‘O Amīr al-Muʾminīn, we see that they have lied upon Allāh, and legislated in His religion what He did not permit, so strike their necks.’ ʿAlī Raḥimahullāh was silent. So he said: ‘What do you say, O Abā al-Ḥasan?’ He said: ‘I see that you should call them to repent. If they repent, then flog them eighty for drinking wine, and if they do not repent, then strike their necks, for they have lied upon Allāh and legislated in His religion what He did not permit.’ So he called them to repent, and they repented, so he flogged them eighty, eighty.
Al-Qāḍī said: This statement is an agreement from ʿUmar and ʿAlī that whoever legislates a legislation opposing the Book of Allāh, then his ruling is the same as those before him who opposed the Book.
Notice that the form of "legislation" which he considered to be Kufr is the legislation in the religion, where you lie upon Allāh, and he clarifies that this is Kufr regardless of if you are a ruler or not, as with the example he provided of those who drank wine while claiming it to be ḥalāl
Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās said in Maʿānī al-Qurʾān (vol. 2, p. 315):
His saying, Exalted is He: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the disbelievers} Ibn ʿAbbās said: ‘It is a kufr by it, not kufr in Allāh and His Angels and His Books.’ And al-Shaʿbī said: ‘The first (āyah) is in the Muslims, the second in the Jews, the third in the Christians.’ And others said: ‘Whoever denies a ruling from the rulings of Allāh has indeed disbelieved.’ I said: the fuqahāʾ have unanimously agreed that whoever says that stoning is not obligatory upon the muḥṣan who fornicates, then he is a kāfir, for he has denied a ruling from the rulings of Allāh, Exalted is He. And it is narrated that Ḥudhayfah was asked about these āyāt, are they concerning Banū Isrāʾīl? He said: ‘Yes, they are about them – and you will certainly follow their path, step for step.’
Al-Naḥḥās also said in al-Nāsikh wal-Mansūkh (p. 400):
[He narrates the same ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ about the Jew who was blackened and flogged, clarifying that the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed…} was revealed concerning the group who denied the existence of stoning in their book.]
[He then says]: …Whoever rules by other than what Allāh revealed, denying it as those Jews denied it (meaning he denies it is from Allāh), then he is a kāfir, ẓālim, fāsiq.
Al-Naḥḥās also said in Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān (vol. 1, p. 269):
…Among the best of what has been said is the statement of al-Shaʿbī: this is about the Jews specifically. The evidence is three things: (1) that the Jews were mentioned just before in His saying: {To those who are Jews…}, so the pronoun returns to them (2) the flow of the discourse indicates it (3) the Jews are the ones who denied stoning and qiṣāṣ. If it is said: ‘Man (من) when conditional is general unless a specification occurs,’ it is said: here ‘man’ means ‘those who’, along with the evidences we mentioned. So the meaning is: ‘And the Jews who did not judge by what Allāh revealed, those are the disbelievers.’ This is the best of what was said. And it was said: ‘Whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed, deeming it ḥalāl, is kāfir.’ And it was said: ‘Whoever abandons judging by all of what Allāh revealed, he is kāfir.’
Al-Naḥḥās' statements throughout his various books consistently shows the same position, using the same narration from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib as Ṭabarī did to show that the Kufr referred to in the Āyah is specific to those who act as the group in the story did, meaning they deny the existence of the ruling in the book of Allāh, or claim it is ḥalāl to rule with something else
And al-Wāḥidī said in al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ (vol. 2, p. 190):
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then those are the disbelievers} [al-Mā’idah: 44]:
They differed regarding this, and regarding what comes after it, His saying: {… then those are the wrongdoers} [al-Mā’idah: 45], {… then those are the defiantly disobedient} [al-Mā’idah: 47].
A group said: The three Āyahs were revealed concerning the disbelievers and the ones who changed the judgement of Allāh from among the Jews, and the people of Islām have nothing to do with them. For indeed, if a Muslim commits a major sin, he is not called a disbeliever.
This was the saying of Qatādah, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Abū Ṣāliḥ, and it is narrated by al-Barāʾ from the Prophet
And al-Qurṭubī said in al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 6, p. 190):
His saying, the Exalted: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers}, and {the wrongdoers}, and {the defiantly disobedient} all of these were revealed concerning the disbelievers. This is established in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ, and it has preceded. And upon this is the majority. As for the Muslim, he does not disbelieve even if he commits a major sin.
And it has been said: there is an ellipsis, meaning: “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed rejecting the Qurʾān, and denying the statement of the Messenger ﷺ then he is a disbeliever.” This was said by Ibn ʿAbbās and Mujāhid, so the Āyah is general upon this.
Ibn Masʿūd and al-Ḥasan said: it is general in everyone who does not judge by what Allāh has revealed from among the Muslims, the Jews, and the disbelievers, meaning one who believes that and makes it ḥalāl. As for the one who does that while believing that he has mounted a prohibition, then he is among the sinners of the Muslims, and his affair is to Allāh, if He wills He will punish him, and if He wills He will forgive him.
And Ibn ʿAbbās said in another narration: “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then he has done an action resembling the actions of the disbelievers.”
And it has been said: meaning, “And whoever does not judge by all that Allāh has revealed, then he is a disbeliever. As for the one who judges by Tawḥīd, but does not judge by some of the rulings, then he does not enter into this Āyah." And the correct view is the first, except that al-Shaʿbī said: “It is concerning the Jews specifically,” and this was chosen by al-Naḥḥās.
…
…Ṭāwūs and others said: “It is not Kufr that expels from the religion, rather it is Kufr Dūna Kufr.” And this differs: if he judged by what he had while claiming it to be from Allāh then it is an alteration (tabdīl) which necessitates Kufr. But if he judged by it out of desire and disobedience, then it is a sin which forgiveness may encompass, upon the principle of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the forgiveness of sinners.
Notice how Qurṭubī mentions someone judging "by what he had", and saying that this only becomes Kufr and tabdīl once he attributes it to Allāh
And Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (vol. 3, p. 109):
{And We ordained for them therein: “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then they are the Ẓālimūn (wrongdoers)” (al-Māʾidah: 45)}
This is also among the matters for which the Jews were reproached and rebuked. For in their own Torah it is explicitly stated: “a life for a life,” yet they deliberately and stubbornly oppose this ruling. They would execute a Naḍarī for a Qurayẓī, but not a Qurayẓī for a Naḍarī. Instead, they would resort to blood money. Likewise, they opposed the explicit ruling of the Torah concerning the stoning of the adulterer who is married, and turned to their own agreed-upon penalty of lashing, blackening the face, and public exposure.
That is why the Āyah earlier says: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, because they denied (literally: made juḥūd of) Allāh’s ruling intentionally and stubbornly.
And here it says: {they are the Ẓālimūn}, because they did not do justice between the wronged and the wrongdoer in matters where Allāh commanded fairness and equality among all. Instead, they opposed that, wronged others, and transgressed against one another.
Just like al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr described a form of man-made laws, as he says the Jews replaced the ruling found in the Torah with a different one, and yet he too limits their Kufr to juḥūd and doesn't say the mere action itself was Kufr.
And Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī al-Ḥanafī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 393):
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed} means: if he does not affirm (the ruling) and does not clarify. {...then those are the disbelievers}. Ibn ʿAbbās said: "Whoever denies anything from the ḥudūd of Allāh has disbelieved, and whoever affirms them but does not judge by them is a fāsiq."
Wakīʿ narrated from Sufyān, who said: It was said to Ḥudhayfah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, it was revealed concerning Banū Isrāʾīl. So Ḥudhayfah said: "What good brothers Banū Isrāʾīl are to you, if they got all the bitterness, and you got all the sweetness?! No, by Allāh, you will surely follow their path like the strap of a sandal." meaning: this Āyah is general, so whoever does juḥūd of (meaning he denies) the judgement of Allāh, then he is among the disbelievers.
And al-Samʿānī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 42):
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
Al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib said, and it is also the view of al-Ḥasan, that this Āyah refers to the Mushrikīn (polytheists).
Ibn ʿAbbās said: The Āyah refers to Muslims, and he intended by it a Kufr Dūna Kufr.And know that the Khawārij use this Āyah as evidence, saying: Whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed is a Kāfir, and Ahl al-Sunnah say: One is not declared a Kāfir for simply abandoning judgment.
The Āyah has two interpretations:
The first: Its meaning is, Whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, out of rejection and denial, then those are the disbelievers.
The second: Its meaning is, Whoever does not judge by all that Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers, and the Kāfir is the one who abandons judgment by everything that Allāh has revealed, and not the Muslim.
And Ibn Ruslān said in Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd (vol. 17, p. 439), commenting on the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ:
(He said: all of these (the Āyāt) were revealed regarding the disbelievers) Ibn Ruslān said: the Muslims have nothing to do with it.
And likewise Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qurṭubī said in al-Mufhim limā Ashkala min Talkhīṣ Kitāb Muslim (vol. 5, p. 117) commenting on the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ:
His statement {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} is cited, according to its apparent meaning, by those who takfīr people over sins, and they are the Khawārij. There is no proof for them in it, because these Āyāt were revealed concerning the Jews who altered (literally: made taḥrīf of) the words of Allāh, as has come in this ḥadīth, and they are Kuffār. So those who share with them in the cause of its revelation share with them the ruling.
Al-Thaʿlabī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 11, p. 354):
Al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Abū Majliz, Abū Ṣāliḥ, and Qatādah said: These three Āyāt were revealed about the Jews, and none of them apply to the people of Islām. As for this Ummah, whoever among them does wrong, while knowing that he has done wrong, then that is not (a matter) of religion.
What proves the soundness of this interpretation is what al-Aʿmash narrated, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Murrah, from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, from the Prophet ﷺ regarding His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, and {the wrongdoers} and {the defiantly disobedient}: he said: All of them are about the disbelievers.
And Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ al-Ḥanafī said in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 2, p. 548):
The saying of Allāh {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} does not escape being intended as either Kufr of Shirk and juḥūd, or Kufr of ingratitude (Kufr al-Niʿmah, AKA minor Kufr) without juḥūd. If what is intended is juḥūd of the ruling of Allāh, or judging by other than it while declaring that it is the ruling of Allāh, then this is Kufr that expels from the religion, and its doer is an apostate if he was previously Muslim. Upon this it was interpreted by those who said, ‘It was revealed concerning the Children of Israel and it applies to us,’ meaning that whoever among us makes juḥūd of the ruling of Allāh or judges by other than the ruling of Allāh and then says that this is the ruling of Allāh, then he is a Kāfir just as the Children of Israel became Kuffār when they did that (referring to the group in the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ). If what is intended by it is Kufr of ingratitude, then ingratitude for a blessing may occur by leaving gratitude for it without juḥūd, and its doer does not exit the religion. What is more apparent is the first meaning (that the Kufr intended is the Kufr of juḥūd), due to His using the name Kufr unrestrictedly for one who does not judge by what Allāh has sent down. The Khawārij interpreted this Āyah as takfīring the one who abandons judging by what Allāh has sent down without denying it, and by that they takfīred everyone who disobeys Allāh by a major or minor sin, and that led them to Kufr and misguidance by their declaring the prophets to be Kuffār because of minor sins.
And now, for the killing blow...
His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers (44)} was sent down from Allāh concerning the Jews who sought judgment from the Prophet ﷺ regarding the punishment of the adulterer, as the story begins with mention of them and ends with them. Its beginning is: {O Messenger, let them not grieve you, those who hasten into disbelief}, and in its context what confirms it: {But if they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them; and if you turn away from them}, and His saying: {But how is it that they come to you for judgment} meaning regarding the punishment of the two adulterers {while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allāh}, meaning His judgment of stoning them.
And their altering the ruling of stoning, to blackening the faces, lashing, and parading, and their ascribing this to Allāh was disbelief, since they nullified a ruling of His which He did not abrogate, and they ascribed to Him the alteration of what He did not send down. Then Allāh, Majestic and Sublime, carried the story to completion, and said: {And We wrote for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds equal in retaliation; but if anyone remits the retaliation, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the wrongdoers (45)}.
So the ones described as disbelievers, wrongdoers, and defiantly disobedient were the people of the Torah from among the Jews, and the people of the Gospel from among the Christians. But the people of the Furqān (the Muslims), by the grace of Allāh, are safe from it.
…
…from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, from the Prophet ﷺ regarding His saying, the Exalted: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers (44)}, {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the wrongdoers (45)}, and {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the defiantly disobedient (47)} he said: “They are concerning the disbelievers alone.”
So it is said to those who use them as proof from among the Shurāt (a name for the Khawārij) and others, in declaring the people of the Qiblah disbelievers due to sins: what is your evidence in equating everyone? The people of the Furqān know that the rulings of Allāh revealed in His Book are truth, and that judging by them is obligatory upon them, and that by neglecting them they are sinful, and by wasting them they are punishable. Yet they remain Muslims. And those about whom the verses were revealed are Jews and Christians, and none among the adherents of any creed doubts their disbelief. Is it permissible for someone to suppose that before they judged the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, and abandoned the judgment of the Torah, they were disbelievers, and that denying his Prophethood and rejecting his Message did not harm them? And so they deserved disbelief for abandoning the judgment of the Torah in both times, as you (meaning the Khawārij) claim that the monotheist among the Muslims disbelieves by abandoning the judgment of Allāh for its opposite?
If they say: “This is possible to suppose, and their disbelief became clear, and we are spared from them,” then if they (the Khawārij) say: “Rather, they were disbelievers before the judgment by rejecting Prophethood, and so their alteration of the ruling was an addition to their disbelief,” it is said to them: What then is the reason for your declaring disbelievers those who, before the Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ, were disbelievers, and then by it became Muslims, by their abandoning the application of Allāh’s judgment? Is it to be an addition to a disbelief which was not in him? Or an addition to an Islām not of its kind? Or that a lifetime of goodness is nullified by an instant of sin, destroying what you have established in the chapter of justice? Or that one soul can be both disbeliever by its sin and believer by its goodness, deserving by its share of faith eternity in Paradise, and by its share of disbelief eternity in Hell? This, by Allāh, is the ugliest statement and the most detestable fabrication.
If the Shurāt say: “It is not fair that you argue against us that the Āyah was revealed regarding stoning, which the reports conveyed to you, while we do not believe in them.”
It is said to them: Place it upon whichever ruling you will. Is it not still revealed concerning other than the people of the Furqān? If they say: “Is it not possible that it was revealed about them, and thus whoever acts by their actions joins them?”
It is said: Yes, if they equaled them in totality, they would be like them in deeds, and thus called disbelievers. But if they acted by some of their actions, without equaling them in all of their attributes, then they are sinners by that act.
So we say: Whoever judges contrary to the judgment of Allāh, claiming it to be from Allāh, or denying what He revealed of His rulings, then he is a disbeliever. For whoever denies the Qurʾān, while Allāh has testified to its revelation, or attributes to Him what He did not reveal, has lied against Him. And whoever lies against Him, there is no doubt in his disbelief, due to His saying, Blessed and Exalted: {And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allāh and denies the truth when it has come to him? Is there not in Hell a dwelling for the disbelievers (32)} so He named them disbelievers.
Thus, whoever abandons what Allāh has revealed of His rulings in this manner has equaled those about whom the Āyāt were revealed from among the Jews and Christians, and has deserved the name of disbelief, wrongdoing, and defiantly disobedience.
But whoever was driven by greed for wealth, or pursuit of vengeance, or desire of the self, to abandon the judgment of Allāh, while knowing his transgression, recognizing his evil, fearing the vileness of his deed, affirming his Lord in what He revealed of rulings, testifying to them with the truth which is obligatory upon him to act by, and not equaling them in that, then he remains upon his Islām, sinful to his Lord. His actions necessitate punishment unless pardon covers him.
I say: This quote from al-Qaṣṣāb absolutely demolishes the creed of the Khawārij, old and new
He clearly states several times, with no room for any reinterpretation that this Āyah exclusively applies to the disbelievers who denied the existence of the correct rulings in their books, and not the Muslims who rule by something other than what Allāh revealed while knowing that they are sinful, once again using the narration from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib
And not only that, he also completely destroys the doubt of the modern-day Khawārij that whenever the scholars of Islām claimed that this Āyah is about minor kufr they were only referring to those judging "in specific instances" and not those who completely alter the ruling, as he claims that the people of the book DID completely alter the ruling of stoning into blackening the face (again, based on the narration of al-Barāʾ), and yet he STILL claims their Kufr was not from this action itself, but rather from lying upon Allāh by saying that their new invented ruling was found in their books
And not only that, he unknowingly humiliates the modern-day Khawārij even further simply by displaying the argument that the Khawārij of his time which he was refuting made, which was that the mere act of altering one ruling for another is major Kufr in it of itself, and this is exactly what the Khawārij today say
And by ignoring the context of the Āyah, and applying this Āyah which was revealed about non-Muslims against Muslims, the modern Khawārij fall into another one of the attributes of the original Khawārij, as al-Bukhārī transmitted from Ibn ʿUmar, that he said about the Khawārij: "They went to Āyāt that were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them upon the believers."
And as al-Shāṭibī said in al-Iʿtiṣām (vol. 2, p. 691):
Do you not see how the Khawārij left the religion just as an arrow leaves the hunted prey? For the Messenger of Allāh described them as: ‘They recite the Qurʾān but it does not go past their throats’ meaning, and Allāh knows best, that they do not understand it such that it reaches their hearts, because understanding is connected to the heart. So if it does not reach the heart, no understanding occurs at all, rather it only remains at the level of sounds and audible letters, and this is a level shared between the one who understands and the one who does not understand. And likewise what has preceded from his saying: ‘Indeed Allāh does not seize knowledge by taking it away…’ to the end of the ḥadīth.
And Ibn ʿAbbās explained this according to the very meaning we are discussing. Abū ʿUbayd narrated in Faḍāʾil al-Qur’ān and Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr in his Tafsīr from Ibrāhīm al-Tamīmī who said: ʿUmar was once alone and began speaking to himself: ‘How will this Ummah differ while its Prophet is one?’ So he sent for Ibn ʿAbbās and said: ‘How will this Ummah differ while its Prophet is one and its qiblah is one’ Saʿīd added: ‘and its Book is one?’ Ibn ʿAbbās replied: ‘O Amīr al-Muʾminīn, the Qurʾān was revealed upon us, so we recited it and we knew regarding what it was revealed. But there will come after us people who will recite the Qurʾān and will not know regarding what it was revealed, so they will have their own opinions about it. And if they have opinions about it, they will differ’ Saʿīd said: ‘Then every group will have an opinion, so they will differ, and when they differ, they will fight.’ ʿUmar rebuked him and scolded him, so Ibn ʿAbbās left. ʿUmar then reflected upon what he said and recognized its truth, so he sent for him and said: ‘Repeat to me what you said.’ He repeated it, and ʿUmar recognized it and was pleased with it.What Ibn ʿAbbās said is the truth, for when a man knows regarding what an Āyah or sūrah was revealed, he knows its context, its interpretation, and what was intended by it, then he does not exceed its meaning. But if he is ignorant of what it was revealed about, its interpretation becomes open to many possibilities. So each person goes towards an interpretation different from the next, and they do not possess the firmness in knowledge that would guide them to correctness or prevent them from plunging into problematic matters, thus they have no choice but to proceed with mere conjecture or interpretation based on guesswork that does not avail anything of the truth, for it has no evidence from the Sharīʿah. So they go astray and lead others astray.
And further clarifying this is what Ibn Wahb narrated from Bukayr, who asked Nāfiʿ: ‘What was Ibn ʿUmar’s view about the Ḥarūriyyah (Khawārij)?’ He said: ‘He considered them the worst of Allāh’s creation, indeed they went to Āyāt which were revealed regarding the disbelievers and applied them to the believers.’ Saʿīd ibn Jubayr explained this, saying: ‘Among what the Khawārij follow of the ambiguous Āyāt is the saying of Allāh: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then they are the disbelievers}, and they couple it with: {Then those who disbelieve equate (others) with their Lord}. Then when they see the ruler judging with other than the truth, they say: He has disbelieved and whoever disbelieves has equated others with his Lord, and whoever equates others with his Lord has committed shirk so these rulers are Mushrikīn, and they go out and kill as you have seen, because they interpret this Āyah in such a way.’
(Shāṭibī said) This is the meaning of ‘opinion’ which Ibn ʿAbbās warned about, the opinion that arises from ignorance of the meaning for which the Qurʾān was revealed
And we have many other examples of this form of context-based interpretation of the Qurʾān, such as the Āyāt: {So woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allāh," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. And they say, "Never will the Fire touch us, except for [a few] numbered days." Say, "Have you taken a covenant with Allāh? For Allāh will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allāh that which you do not know?" Yes, [on the contrary], whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.}
Both these Āyāt and the Āyāt of al-Māʾidah were revealed about a group from the people of the book who attributed lies and falsehood to Allāh, but in both cases the wording itself - if taken generally - imply the takfīr of all sinners
If the modern Khawārij want to argue that the context or reason for revelation of an Āyah is not relevant to the rulings derived from it - as they do with the Āyah of al-Māʾidah - they must accept the tafsīr of the original Khawārij for these Āyāt as well, and rule that anyone who sins will burn in hell for all eternity
And if they say "no, these Āyāt were clearly revealed about the people of the book, they do not apply to the sinners among the Muslims", then they have agreed with the principles of Ahl al-Sunnah in tafsīr, the same principles they lable as "Irjāʾ" when applied to the Āyah of al-Māʾidah!
Now, for the second view
According to another group from Ahl al-Sunnah, the Āyah is not specific to the Kuffār and does apply to the Muslims as well, but the Kufr mentioned within it is a form of Kufr which does not take one out of the fold of Islām (Kufr Dūna Kufr)
The evidence for this view is that the Prophet himself alongside some of the Saḥāba referred to certain sins as Kufr, or described their doers as Kuffār, while clearly still considering them to be upon Islām, as can be found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (vol. 1, p. 58):
...From ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd that he said: The Messenger of Allāh said: “Insulting a Muslim is fuṣūq, and fighting him is kufr.”
...From ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet that he said during the Farewell Ḥajj: “Woe to you, do not return after me as kuffār, striking the necks of one another.”...From Abū Hurayrah that he said: The Messenger of Allāh said: “Two things among the people are kufr in it (bihi kufr): attacking lineage, and wailing over the dead.”
...Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal) narrated from Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, from Ṭāwūs, from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said (about the Kufr mentioned in the Āyah) this is not the kufr that they intend. Sufyān said: Meaning: it is not kufr that removes (a person) from the religion
...From Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah that he said: We would not take from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr anything (in ḥadīth) that we did not find with someone other than him
Among it is a type of weakness that is removed by that, such as when its weakness arises from the weak memory of the narrator, while he is from the people of truthfulness and religion. So if we see that what he has narrated has come from another route, we know that it is something he has preserved, and his precision in it was not compromised. Likewise, if its weakness is from the aspect of being mursal, it is removed by something similar, as in the mursal which is narrated by an Imām who is a ḥāfiẓ, for in it is slight weakness that is removed by its narration from another route.
And among it is a type of weakness that is not removed by something like that, due to the strength of the weakness and the insufficiency of this supporting narration to mend and counter it, such as the weakness that arises from the narrator being accused of lying, or from the ḥadīth being shādh (neither of these apply to Hishām or what he narrated).
These are general principles, the details of which are recognized through practical application and investigation. So understand this, for indeed it is from the precious rarities. And Allāh knows best.
And what Ibn Ḥajar said in Nuzhat al-Naẓar fī Tawḍīḥ Nukhbat al-Fikar (p. 132):
And if a matn is found narrated from another Companion that resembles it in wording and meaning, or in meaning only, then it is a shāhid (supporting narration)
And indeed, we see that there are several other strong narrations with different routes that carry the same meaning as Hishām's
Such as what was narrated in al-Sunnah by Abū Bakr ibn al-Khallāl (vol. 4, p. 158) and elsewhere:
Abū ʿAbd Allāh narrated, he said: Wakīʿ narrated to us, from Sufyān, from Maʿmar, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} he said: It is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr), and not like one who commits Kufr in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh narrated, he said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, he said: Maʿmar narrated to us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father he said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} It is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr). Ibn Ṭāwūs said: And it is not like one who disbelieves in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers.
I say: the first Isnād, even on it's own, is completely authentic, as every single narrator there - Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Sufyān al-Thawrī, Maʿmar ibn Rāshid, Ibn Ṭāwūs and his father, Ṭāwūs - is famously thiqah (trustworthy) and is relied upon in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim as well as many other ḥadīth collections
As for the second Isnād, which leads to a narration with a nearly identical wording, then the only flaw with it would be ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, who was considered thiqah by most scholars, but others noted that we should not rely on sole reports from him (which is not the case here, as this is a corroborated report), as Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from his father, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī in al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (vol. 6, p. 39), that he said about him:
His ḥadīth is to be written down, but it is not used as evidence (again, meaning it is used to strengthen other corrobarating reports, but is not Ṣaḥīḥ if isolated)
And I have seen many Khawārij admit that this narration with this wording is indeed authentic, but they then proceed to argue that his statement "it is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr), and not like one who commits Kufr in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers" does not mean he viewed it as minor Kufr or Kufr Dūna Kufr, rather he still viewed ruling by other than what Allāh revealed to be Kufr Akbar that takes one out of Islām, but he did not view it as comparable to the Kufr of the one who says "I disbelieve in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers"
And this is an absolutely hilarious re-interpretation of a very clear statement
Firstly, why would he even feel the need to point this out for that Āyah specifically? What historical context prompted the need to say such a thing?
Secondly, not a single scholar understood his statement to mean such a retarded nonsensical thing, in fact they all understood it just as Ahl al-Sunnah today do, and explained that he is referring to a form of Kufr that does not take one out of the fold of Islām
Such as Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī, in Taʿẓīm Qadr al-Ṣalāh (vol. 2, pp. 520–522), who said right before narrating these two exact reports, with the exact same wording:
They said: We have as a role model in this those who transmitted from the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh, and the Tabiʿīn, in that they made branches of Kufr apart from its root, that does not remove the person from the religion of Islām, just as they established that neglect of certain acts does not remove one from faith, it is subsidiary to the root and does not take a person out of Islām. An example of this is Ibn ʿAbbās's interpretation of the Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}...
And as al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 10, pp. 355–356), once again right before narrating these exact two reports with the same wording
Others said: Rather, it means ‘kufr dūna kufr,’ ‘ẓulm dūna ẓulm ,’ and ‘fisq dūna fisq.’
Among those who said that:...
And Ibn Baṭṭah mentioned these two exact reports as well in al-Ibānah al-Kubrā (vol. 2, pp. 734, 736), under a chapter he titled
Mention of the sins that lead their doer to [a form of] kufr which does not take him out of the religion
And Ibn al-Mundhir said in al-Awsaṭ (vol. 12, p. 147):
Indeed, Ibn al-Mubārak interpreted the Prophet's statement ‘he has fallen into Kufr’ as a form of exagerrated emphasis (al-taghlīẓ), not actual Kufr. As narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: it is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr), and not like one who commits Kufr in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers. Similarly, ʿAṭāʾ said: kufr dūna kufr, ẓulm dūna ẓulm, and fisq dūna fisq
And there are many, many more examples of scholars mentioning these exact reports in this context, and clearly understanding them to be about minor Kufr/Kufr Dūna Kufr
In fact, when looking these quotes up, almost every single instance I've found of a scholar quoting these two narrations was in the context of explaining the concept of Kufr Dūna Kufr
And even though this should suffice, there is yet another route from Ibn ʿAbbās conveying the same meaning in an even clearer manner, and it is what was reported from Ibn Abī Ḥātim in his Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 1142):
My father (Abū Ḥātim) narrated to us, Abū Ṣāliḥ narrated to me, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed...} He said: Whoever denies the ruling by what Allāh has revealed has disbelieved.
And whoever affirms it but does not rule by it, then he is a ẓālim fāsiq.
He says: Whoever denies anything from the ḥudūd of Allāh, then he has disbelieved.
As Ḥikmat ibn Bashīr said in al-Tafsīr al-Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 1, p. 46-49):
The path of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās:
It is a famous scroll (ṣaḥīfah) that the scholars circulated, and the two who narrated from it the most were aṭ-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim in their two tafsīrs, to the extent that they nearly recorded this entire scroll comprehensively.
And Ibn Abī Ḥātim most often narrates this scroll on the auhority of his father, Abū Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.
And Abū Ṣāliḥ: He is ʿAbdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad ibn Muslim al-Juhanī, their mawlā, the Egyptian, the scribe of al-Layth. He is ṣadūq (truthful), but he makes many mistakes (kathīr al-ghalaṭ), precise (thabit) in his book, and he has been spoken against, And al-Dhahabī said: “Al-Imām al-Muḥaddith” and he presented the statements of the critics and defended him against most of what was said against him. There is no need to list all the statements about him because al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned the decisive statement in Hady al-Sārī where he said: “The apparent of the statements of these Imāms is that his ḥadīth was initially sound, and then confusion (takhlīṭ) occurred in it later. The necessary conclusion from this is that what comes from his narration transmitted by Ahl al-Ḥidhq, such as Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, Abū Zurʿah, and Abū Ḥātim, is from his authentic ḥadīth. As for what comes from the narration of other shaykhs from him, then one should withhold judgment regarding it.” He then listed the Aḥadīth which al-Bukhārī narrated from him in his Ṣaḥīḥ. And the narrator from him here is Abū Ḥātim, in the Tafsīr of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and he is from Ahl al-Ḥidhq. Therefore, his narration from him is from his authentic ḥadīth, as al-Ḥāfiẓ established.
Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ: Ṣadūq (truthful), [but] he is prone to errors.
(...)
ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah: Mawlā of Banū al-ʿAbbās. He reported as a mursal on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās and did not see him. He is ṣadūq (truthful) but he might err. Criticism has been directed at his narration on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās on the grounds that he did not hear directly from him. Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās responded to this, saying: “The one who criticises its chain of transmission says: “Ibn Abī Ṭalḥah did not hear from Ibn ʿAbbās, rather, he took the tafsīr from Mujāhid and ʿIkrimah.” This statement does not necessitate a valid criticism, because he took it from two reliable, trustworthy transmitters, and he is himself trustworthy and truthful (thiqah ṣadūq).”
And I (Ibn Bashīr) view that the intermediary is Mujāhid, for I have compared many of Mujāhid's texts in tafsīr with the reports of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah from Ibn ʿAbbās, and I found them to be consistent and not contradictory. And this is confirmed by the fact that I have found a narration in the Tafsīr of al-Nasāʾī and al-Amwāl of Ibn Zanjawayh from the path of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Mujāhid, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.
And al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned in his book al-ʿIjāb fī Bayān al-Asbāb the trustworthy transmitters on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās and said: “And ʿAlī is truthful. He did not meet Ibn ʿAbbās, but he transmitted from the trustworthy among his (Ibn ʿAbbās) companions, for this reason al-Bukhārī, Abū Ḥātim, and others relied upon this scroll (nuskhah).”
And al-Suyūṭī transmitted from Ibn Ḥajar that he said: “Once the intermediary is known, and he is trustworthy, then there is no harm in that.”
(...)
And al-Ājurrī reported from the path of Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl al-Rāsī, he said: ʿAbdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth ibn Saʿd, narrated to us, he said: Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allāh be pleased with them), regarding the statement of Allāh the Almighty: {an Arabic Qurʾān, without any crookedness} [Qurʾān 41:44] – He said: “Not created (Ghayr Makhlūq).” And this ḥadīth reached Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, so he wrote to Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl, requesting that it be written to him with his permission to narrate it. So he wrote it to him with his permission, and Aḥmad was delighted with this ḥadīth.
We conclude from this that Imām Aḥmad relied upon this chain.
And Yūsuf ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Ḥanbalī said: “Numerous tafāsīr have been transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās concerning the Qurʾān, through various chains. Among the finest of them is the Tafsīr narrated by Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.“ Then he mentioned the disconnection and identified the intermediaries as Mujāhid and ʿIkrimah.
And al-Suyūṭī said: “And what has been reported on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās in tafsīr is uncountable and it contajns various narrations and chains. The finest among them is the path of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah al-Hāshimī on the authority of him.”
Therefore, the chain is Ḥasan.
As for Abū Ṣāliḥ, ʿAbdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, he is truthful but makes many mistakes, his numerous errors do not harm because what he is narrating is from a written copy, his weakness was in his memory, not in his written book, and it has been previously established that he is precise in [narrating from] his book. The same applies to the minor errors of Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, because what he narrates is from the written copy of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, when discussing this copy, said: “This copy was in the possession of Abū Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth, who narrated it on the authority of Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. Al-Bukhārī received it from Abū Ṣāliḥ and relied upon it extensively in his Ṣaḥīḥ, as I have explained in various places. It was also in the possession of al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn al-Mundhir with intermediaries between them and Abū Ṣāliḥ.”
And many giants of Ahl al-Sunnah agreed with Ibn ʿAbbās's tafsīr
Such as Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām in his book al-Īmān (p. 86):
As for the narrations transmitted obligating kufr and shirk because of sins, then their meaning according to us is that they do not establish kufr or shirk upon those who commit them in a way that removes Īmān from its possessor. Rather, their meanings are: that these are from the manners and practices of the kuffār and the mushrikūn. And we have found for these two types of sins, from the evidences in the Book and the Sunnah, something similar to what we found regarding the first two types.
Among the proofs for shirk in the revelation is the saying of Allāh regarding Ādam and Ḥawwā’ when Iblīs spoke to them:
{He is the One Who created you from a single soul and made from it its mate so that he might find rest in her. Then when he covered her, she carried a light burden and continued with it} until {they made partners for Him in that which He had given them}And its interpretation is only that the shayṭān said to them: “Name your child ʿAbd al-Ḥārith.” So is it conceivable for anyone who knows Allāh and His religion to imagine that they committed shirk with Allāh despite their prophethood and their status with Allāh? Yet He described their action as shirk, though it is not shirk with Allāh.
And as for what is in the Sunnah: the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The thing I fear most for my ummah is minor shirk.’
So he clarified for you by saying that here exists a shirk other than that by which its doer becomes a mushrik with Allāh. And from it is the saying of ʿAbd Allāh: ‘Ribā has sixty-odd doors, and shirk is likewise.’
Thus he informed you that among sins there are many types that are called by this name, while they are different from the ishrāk whereby one takes another deity besides Allāh, far exalted is Allāh above that, a great exaltation. So these kinds, according to us, have no meaning except that they are the manners of the mushrikīn, their descriptions, practices, expressions, rulings, and such matters of theirs.As for the criterion that is testified to in the revelation it is the saying of Allāh:
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
And Ibn ʿAbbās said: ‘It is not a kufr that expels one from the religion.’
And ʿAṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ said: ‘Kufr Dūna Kufr.’So it has become clear to us that it was not expelling from the religion of Islām, that the religion remains as it is, even if sins mix with it. Thus its meaning is only the manners of the kuffār and their ways (Sunnahs), exactly as I have informed you regarding shirk
For among the ways (Sunnahs) of the Kuffār is judging by other than what Allāh has revealed. Have you not heard His statement: {Is it the judgment of Jāhiliyyah that they seek?}?
Its meaning according to the people of tafsīr is that whoever judges by other than what Allāh has revealed, while remaining upon Islām, then he, by that judgment, is like the people of Jāhiliyyah, for that is how the people of Jāhilīyyah also used to judge.
Likewise is his statement: ‘Three are from the traits of Jāhiliyyah: attacking lineage, wailing, and [believing in] omens from the stars.’
And similarly the ḥadīth narrated from Jarīr and Abū al-Bukhturī al-Ṭā’ī: ‘Three are from the customs of Jāhiliyyah: wailing, preparing food (upon death), and that a woman spends the night among people not from her household.’
And also the ḥadīth: ‘The signs of a Munāfiq [are three]: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks it, and when entrusted he betrays.’
And ʿAbdullāh’s saying: ‘Singing causes Nifāq to grow in the heart.’”None of these reports regarding sins mean that the doer is a Jāhil or a Kāfir or a Munāfiq while still believing in Allāh and in what He has revealed, and performing the obligations. Rather, the meaning is that these are known to be from the actions of the Kuffār, and they are forbidden and warned against in the Qur'ān and the Sunnah so that Muslims can avoid them and not resemble them in any of their traits or laws.
And it was the view of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal as well, as one of his companions, Ibn Hānī, said in his Masāʾil (no. 2042):
I asked him (Imām Aḥmad) about the ḥadīth of Ṭāwūs regarding the statement: “kufr that does not remove from the religion”.
He said: It is regarding this Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
And Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed this view for both Aḥmad and Ibn ʿAbbās and his companions, as he said in al-Īmān (p. 244):
And since it is from the statements of the Salaf that a person can have both Īmān and nifāq within him, then likewise, according to their words, he may also have Īmān and kufr, though not the kufr that expels from the religion. As Ibn ʿAbbās and his companions said regarding the Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: They disbelieved with a kufr that does not expel from the religion. And Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and other Imāms of the Sunnah followed them in this.
After their agreement that whoever Allāh and His Messenger have named a kāfir, we also name a kāfir, then it should be impossible that Allāh would call the ruler by other than what Allāh has revealed a kāfir, and that His Messenger should call the one mentioned before a kāfir, and that we not apply upon them the name of kufr.
But whoever says that Īmān consists of statement and action, increasing and decreasing (the Sunnīs), says: this is kufr in action (ʿamal), not in belief (iʿtiqād), and kufr, according to him, has levels, kufr dūna kufr, just as Īmān, according to him, has levels.And whoever says that Īmān is merely affirmation (taṣdīq), and that action does not enter into the definition of Īmān, and that kufr is only denial (juḥūd), and that neither Īmān nor kufr increase or decrease (the Ḥanafīs), says: this is figurative (majāzī) kufr, not real (ḥaqīqī) kufr, since true kufr is that which expels from the religion.
And Ibn ʿAṭiyyah said in his Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 196):
A great group from the people of knowledge said that the Āyah applies to everyone who does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, but concerning the rulers of this ummah it is the kufr of disobedience, which does not expel them from Īmān
{And whoever does not judge…} the context of the Āyah is that it is an address to the Jews, and was revealed concerning them, and there is nothing from it regarding Islām. Ibn Masʿūd and others held that it is general for the Jews and others, but kufr dūna kufr, ẓulm dūna ẓulm, and fisq dūna fisq. So the ẓulm of a Muslim is not like the ẓulm of a kāfir, and likewise his kufr and his fisq.
And Abū Ḥayyān said in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 269):
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: the apparent meaning is general, including this ummah and others before them, even though the apparent context is that it addresses the Jews. Ibn Masʿūd, Ibrāhīm, ʿAṭāʾ, and a group held that it is general, but kufr dūna kufr, ẓulm dūna ẓulm, and fisq dūna fisq, meaning: the kufr of a Muslim is not like the kufr of a kāfir, and likewise his ẓulm and fisq, it does not expel him from the religion. Ibn ʿAbbās and Ṭāwūs said this
But, what about the second objection of the Khawārij - that all of these statements from all of these scholars were simply negating the takfīr of the one who judges by other than what Allāh revealed once or twice, and not the one who abolishes or replaces the rulings entirely?
This claim, once again, has absolutely no basis
I have gone over every single classical tafsīr I could find for this Āyah, and out of dozens of scholars, not a single soul mentioned any sort of distinction between ruling in specific instances and establishing a general ruling, al-Ṭabarī alone mentioned 5 different interpretations for the Āyah and a total of 40 narrations commenting on it, and none of them even hinted at such a distinction, in fact one of them - what he narrated from Ibn Zayd - makes the exact opposite claim, that even the one who writes his own book and rules with it instead of the book of Allāh is to be takfīred only once he acts as the people the Āyah was revealed about acted and claims that this book he wrote is from Allāh
Al-Qaṣṣāb too makes a similar argument, that even completely altering a ruling for another - as with the case of the alteration of stoning into blackening the face - is only Kufr when accompanied with lying upon Allāh, as was mentioned in the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ
In fact, all of these statements from all of these scholars are clearly general, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that they somehow all happened to refer to one very specific form of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, while completely ignoring another extremely prevelant form, that was already widespread in the time of the Prophet himself among Quraysh and the people of the book, as well as during the time of the Umayyads and ʿAbbāsids and many of those who followed them
And not only could I not find this view in any classical tafsīr of this Āyah, I couldn't find this view attributed to anyone from Ahl al-Sunnah anywhere, not in any tafsīr for any other Āyah, not in any book of Īmān, not in any refutation of any subsect of the Murjiʾah or Khawārij, or anywhere else. How has such an important distinction been completely left out from every discussion for hundreds of years?!
And as I have already shown, this view that completely abolishing a ruling or altering it is Kufr did indeed exist even back then, but it was only ever attributed to the Khawārij, as Ibn al-Muʿtazz who died over a thousand years ago noted
And most importantly, there is absolutely no proof from the Qurʾān or Sunnah for such a distinction
They also quote Āyāt such as:
{Judgement is only for Allāh. He has commanded that you worship no one except Him.}
{They do not have any protector besides Him, and He doesn't share His judgement with anyone.}
They argue that since the right to judge belongs only to Allāh, then the one who judges according to his own source of legislation instead has fallen into "shirk in legislation"
And anyone who makes this argument is a Mushrik and a Kāfir without a doubt
Because by claiming that ONLY legislation - and not individual judgements - is exclusive to Allāh, the Khawārij are saying that Allāh does not have the exclusive right to judge, command or prohibit in specific situations or cases, and that His creation have just as much of a claim to this right as Him
And this is a statement of pure Shirk in Rubūbiyyah, which completely opposes what Allāh Himself says in the Qurʾān: {Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command}
Likewise these Āyāt themselves don't specify anything about "legislation", the wording used is ḥukm, which applies equally to specific and legislative judgements
So once again, the original Khawārij turn out to be more consistent than their pathetic offsprings, since they were at least smart enough to realize that "judgement" doesn't only apply to legislation, as was mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (vol. 3, p. 116):
[...]ʿUbaydullāh ibn Abī Rāfiʿ reported that when the Ḥarūriyyah rebelled, and he was with ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) they said: “Judgement (ḥukm) is only for Allāh!”
ʿAlī said: “A word of truth by which falsehood is intended...”
So the Khawārij now have two options:
- Apply this understanding consistently and say that ruling by other than what Allāh revealed in one case is "Shirk in judgement" which opposes Allāh's exclusive right to judge
- Remain Mushrikīn and insist that judging in specific cases isn't also an "exclusive right of Allāh" and that the creation can judge however they want independently of Allāh as long as it isn't through legislation
And the Khawārij are conflating between different things here
Something can be "exclusive to Allāh" in the sense that it is physically impossible for anyone other than Allāh to do or posses - such as control of the universe, knowledge of everything, putting someone in heaven or hell, etc - and it would be Shirk to attribute these to anyone else
This does not apply to ruling or legislation as it is physically possible for a human being to commit those acts, whether in a ḥalāl or ḥarām fashion
But if someone claims that he can rule or judge - whether in one case, a million cases or through legislation - independently of Allāh, then it would be Shirk, as they are once again claiming what is only physically possible for Allāh
And by this moronic understanding of Tawḥīd and Shirk, the Khawārij should takfīr the Saḥāba who made marriage and other worldly pleasures ḥarām upon themselves as mentioned in the Āyah: {O you who believe, do not make the good things that Allāh has made ḥalāl for you ḥarām}
Since they are - by the Khawārij's understanding - also "claiming an exclusive trait of Allāh", that being making the ḥalāl ḥarām or vice versa
If the Khawārij object and say that this form of making the ḥalāl ḥarām is different from Allāh's, then:
- This isn't entirely true, Allāh "makes things ḥarām" upon people even in the purely linguistic sense of physically prohibiting them from it, such as in the Āyah {And it is ḥarām to [the people of] a city which We have destroyed that they will [ever] return}
- Even if that was the case, then likewise the "jugement" of Allāh referred to in the Āyāt they use is different from the judgement of the creation, and - again - has nothing to do with legislating laws specifically
And since Allāh is also described as The Giver of Life (al-Muḥiyy) and The Taker of Life (al-Mumīt), by this understanding, both bringing a dead person back to life or breathing life into inanimate beings as ʿĪsā did, or taking a person's life would be acts of major shirk
If the Khawārij object and say that Allāh Himself let His creation bring or take life in some cases with His permission, then this would apply to legislation too, as He permitted His creation to legislate in accordance to what He revealed
Similarly, they should declare drawing living images to be an act of major Shirk, since this is also an exclusive right of Allāh, as Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb mentioned in Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (p. 138):
Chapter (60): What has come regarding image-makers
And in their narration from ʿĀʾishah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnhā), the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Judgment are those who imitate the creation of Allāh.
From Abū Hurayrah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh), who said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: Allāh the Most High said: Who is more unjust than the one who goes to create like My creation? So let them create an atom, or let them create a grain, or let them create a barley seed.
[Agreed upon by al-Bukhārī and Muslim]And in their narration from Ibn ʿAbbās: I heard the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ say: Every image-maker is in the Fire, for every image he made, a soul will be made for it, and he will be punished with it in Hell.
And likewise with burning things, as Abū Dāwūd said in his Sunan (vol. 3, p. 8):
Abū Ṣāliḥ Maḥbūb ibn Mūsā narrated to us, he said: Abū Isḥāq al-Fazārī narrated to us, from Abū Isḥāq al-Shaybānī, from Ibn Saʿd, someone other than Abū Ṣāliḥ said: from al-Ḥasan ibn Saʿd, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh, from his father, who said:
We were with the Messenger of Allāh on a journey......He then saw an ant nest that we had burned and said: ‘Who burned this?’ We said: ‘We did.’ He said: ‘It is not fitting that anyone punish with fire except the Lord of the Fire.’
And fixing prices, as Abū Dāwūd said in his Sunan (vol. 3, p. 286):
ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah narrated to us, ʿAffān narrated to us, Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Thābit, from Anas ibn Mālik - and Qatādah and Ḥumayd - from Anas ibn Mālik, who said:
The people said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, prices have risen, so set prices for us.’ The Messenger of Allāh said: ‘Indeed, Allāh is the Price-Setter (al-Musaʿʿir), al-Qābiḍ, al-Bāsiṭ, al-Rāziq, and I hope to meet Allāh while none of you claims against me an injustice in blood or wealth.’
Are the Khawārij going to say that the one who sets prices is a Mushrik and a Kāfir who claimed an exclusive right of Allāh, since the Prophet ﷺ himself objected to it on the grounds that "Allāh is the Price-Setter"?
And a more relevant example is that of the Ḥāzimiyyah - an even more retarded sect of the modern-day Khawārij, who believe that asking a living person who is present in front of you to intercede for you on the day of judgement constitutes major shirk, and they use the exact same reasoning, that "intercession is exclusive to Allāh", referencing the Āyah {To Allāh belongs the intercession entirely}
If the other Khawārij object and say that the Prophet ﷺ will also intercede for us on the day of judgement, the Ḥāzimī can simply respond that this was only done with the permission of Allāh, and that the Prophet ﷺ likewise implemented laws among the creation with the permission of Allāh
If they try to argue that it would only be major Shirk if you believe the person you are seeking intercession from can intercede for you independently of Allāh, then they have fallen into what they themselves consider to be "extreme Irjāʾ"
The only way for the "moderate" Khawārij to get out of this would be to - again - commit shirk and claim that intercession is not an exclusive right of Allāh, which would clearly oppose the Qurʾān
Of course, this is not an issue for Ahl al-Sunnah, as they don't hold to these retarded principles in the firstplace, and don't believe that an action being "exclusive to Allāh" - in the sense that without Allāh's permission it would be physically impossible to take place - means that a human doing the material equivelant becomes a Mushrik
And two other Āyāt:
{Do not eat of what is not slaughtered in Allāh’s Name. For that would certainly be ˹an act of˺ disobedience. Surely the devils whisper to their ˹human˺ associates to argue with you. And if you obey them, indeed you would be polytheists.}
{They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allāh, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God.}
They claim that these Āyāt are proof that the one who legislates or follows man-made laws is guilty of "Shirk in obedience" and is therefore a Kāfir
The problem with this interpretation is that what's apparent from these Āyāt, and what most of the Mufassirīn mentioned is that they refer to the one who follows and obeys others in the belief that a certain action is ḥarām or ḥalāl, in contradiction to the judgement of Allāh, which is why it mentions religious figures (Rabbis and Monks)
As Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī said in al-Dhabb ʿan Madhhab al-Imām Mālik (vol. 1, p. 268):
Then he began to argue, invalidating the people’s following of their scholars and accepting what they issue as fatwā for them, using as evidence the saying of Allāh Almighty: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allāh}, applying it to such cases that come later. And that the Messenger said to Ḥudhayfah: ‘They made ḥalāl for them what is ḥarām, so they considered it ḥalāl, and they made ḥarām for them what is ḥalāl, so they considered it ḥarām.’
And this is a grave matter, I never thought anyone would dare to commit such boldness! How can one use as evidence an Āyah that was revealed regarding a group from the Children of Israel who altered the Book of Allāh out of obstinacy and falsehood, to sell it for a small price, and said about what they had altered, ‘This is from Allāh,’ though it was not from Allāh, a fabrication against Allāh in falsehood?
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 1380):
Abū Zurʿah narrated to us, from Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh, who said: Ibn Lahīʿah narrated to me, from ʿAṭā’, from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr regarding the Āyah: {And if you obey them…} he said: "It means obeying them in making it ḥalāl to eat the dead animals, then indeed you are polytheists like them."
ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn narrated to us, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah, from Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl, from ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, who said: "I asked al-Shaʿbī about this Āyah {And if you obey them, indeed you would be polytheists}.
I said to him: The Khawārij claim that it refers to the rulers (ʾUmarāʾ).
He said: They lied! This Āyah was revealed about the polytheists, who used to argue with the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. They would say: “Do you not eat what Allāh has killed (i.e., the dead animals), but you eat what you yourselves kill?”
So Allāh revealed: {Do not eat of what is not slaughtered in Allāh’s Name. For that would certainly be ˹an act of˺ disobedience.} Up to His saying: {…indeed you would be polytheists.}
Meaning: If you eat the dead animals and obey them, you are then polytheists."
Similarly, Ibn Abī Zamanīn says in his Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 95):
{Do not eat of what is not slaughtered in Allāh’s Name. For that would certainly be ˹an act of˺ disobedience.} It is Shirk. He says that consuming dead animals while believing it is ḥalāl constitutes shirk.
{Surely the devils whisper to their ˹human˺ associates} among the Mushrikīn {to argue with you} the interpretation of Mujāhid: he said the Mushrikīn used to argue with the Muslims regarding [the matter of] slaughtered animals. They would say: ‘You eat what you yourselves slaughter (and kill), but you do not eat what Allāh has killed? And yet you claim to be following the command of Allāh?!’ So Allāh revealed: {And if you obey them}, meaning: and you deem dead animals to be ḥalāl, {indeed you would be polytheists}.
And Abū Ḥayyān said in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 633):
{And if you obey them, indeed you would be polytheists} meaning: if you obey the allies of the devils, then indeed you are polytheists, because obedience to them is obedience to the devils, and that is shirk. However, one does not become a true Mushrik unless he obeys him in belief (iʿtiqād), but if he obeys him in action while his belief remains sound, then he is a fāsiq
As for those who took their rabbis and monks as lords, by obeying them in making ḥalāl what Allāh has made ḥarām and making ḥarām what Allāh has made ḥalāl, they fall into two categories:
The first: They know that they have altered the religion of Allāh and they follow them in that alteration. So they believe what Allāh has made ḥarām is ḥalāl and what Allāh has made ḥalāl is ḥarām, following their leaders, while knowing that they have opposed the religion of the Messengers. This is kufr, and Allāh and His Messenger have deemed it shirk, even if they do not pray to them or prostrate to them. So, whoever follows someone else in opposition to the religion, knowing it contradicts the religion, and believes in what that person says over what Allāh and His Messenger said, then he is a polytheist like them.
The second: Their belief and faith that the ḥarām is ḥarām and that the ḥalāl is ḥalāl remains intact, but they obey them in disobedience to Allāh, just as a Muslim may commit acts of disobedience that he believes are sins. So these people are judged like others among the sinners.
And the Khawārij themselves are largely inconsistent with their own made-up interpretation
If these Āyāt are really saying that obeying another source of legislation or just any non-Muslim is Shirk, then by this understanding almost everyone on earth has fallen into Shirk at some point, as even obeying man-made traffic laws, dietary laws, dress codes etc would be "Shirk in obedience", and likewise a kid obeying his disbelieving parents in anything that does not align with the Sharīʿah - for example if he shaves his beard for them - would be falling into major Shirk
Another Āyah which they use:
{Or do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion that which Allāh did not permit?}
Now, this Āyah does specifically mention legislation, but there are two main issues with the Khawārij's application:
- Neither does the Āyah's own context nor any tafsīr of it back up the idea that "legislation in the religion" refers to the legislation of man-made laws in a judicial or governmental setting
- Nothing in the Āyah even indicates that "legislating in the religion" is inherently an act of major Shirk (I will expand on this point later)
Regarding the first point, the actual interpretation would be that "legislating in the religion" refers to adding/removing actual aspects of the religion, so Bidʿah and Sunnah, ḥalāl and ḥarām, etc
So for example, we say that the ʿīds or prohibition of things like alcohol are "legislated for us in the religion", and anyone who "legislates" (=innovates) something of this manner from his own whims and desires - such as someone who "legislates" (=innovates) the Mawlid celebration, or someone who "legislates" (=innovates) that drinking alcohol is in fact ḥalāl - has likewise "legislated in the religion" in the condemned sense
And we can see that this is how the Salaf used the word "legislation" (Tashrīʿ) generally, and the term "legislating in the religion" specifically, and I have not found a single person from the Salaf who used it to refer to the legislation of laws or interpreted the Āyah as such
As ʿAbd al-Razzāq mentioned in his Tafsīr (vol. 3, p. 159):
Maʿmar narrated to us, from Qatādah, regarding His statement: {He legislated for you of the religion that which He enjoined upon Nūḥ}. He said: the ḥalāl and the ḥarām
And as Ibn al-Muthannā said in Majāz al-Qurʾān (vol. 2, p. 200):
{They legislated for them in the religion} they innovated (ibtadaʿū).
And as al-Bukhārī mentioned in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 6, p. 129):
{They legislated} they innovated
And as al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 21, p. 522):
Allāh says: Or do these polytheists with Allāh have partners in their shirk and misguidance, {who have legislated for them in the religion that which Allāh did not permit?} Meaning: they innovated for them of the religion what Allāh did not permit them to innovate.
And Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Istiqāmah (vol. 1, p. 5):
We have established in the foundational principles regarding the definition of Sunnah and Bidʿah that Bidʿah is the religion (i.e., practice of worship or belief) which Allāh and His Messenger did not command. So whoever adopts a religion which Allāh and His Messenger did not prescribe is an innovator by that. And this is the meaning of His statement: {Or do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion that which Allāh did not permit?}
And many scholars applied this term to all forms of Bidʿah, whether it was the Bidʿah of worshiping other than Allāh or lesser forms of Bidʿah that render their doer a sinful Muslim
As al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ said in Tartīb al-Madārik (vol. 1, p. 95):
Some have defined istiḥsān as inclining to an opinion without proof. This is the blameworthy desire, passion, innovation in religion, and bidʿah - to the point that al-Shāfiʿī said: Whoever practices istiḥsān has legislated in the religion.
And Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighāthat al-Lahfān fī Maṣāyid al-Shayṭān (vol. 1, p. 221):
The guidance of the Messenger of Allāh - whoever turns away from it has turned away from his Sunnah - is the permissibility of bathing from pools and vessels, even if they are deficient and not overflowing. Whoever waits for the pool until it overflows and then uses it alone, not allowing anyone to share with him in using it, is an innovator who opposes the Sharīʿah.
Our Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah) said: he deserves severe disciplinary punishment that will deter him and others like him from legislating in the religion what Allāh has not permitted, and from worshipping Allāh by innovations rather than by adherence.
And Ibn Ḥazm said in al-Muḥallā bi al-Āthār (vol. 6, p. 335):
The description of the kaffārah is that whoever breaks an oath, or intends to break it even if he has not yet broken it, is given a choice among what the text has mentioned: either to free a slave, or to clothe ten poor people, or to feed them. Whichever of these he does is obligatory and suffices him. If he is unable to do any of that, then his obligation is fasting three days...
...It does not suffice for him to give, in place of what we mentioned, charity, nor a sacrificial offering, nor a monetary value, nor anything else at all. That is because Allāh did not obligate anything other than what we mentioned.
So whoever obligates a monetary value in that has transgressed the ḥudūd of Allāh {And whoever transgresses the ḥudūd of Allāh has indeed wronged himself}. And he has legislated from the religion that which Allāh did not permit {And your Lord is never forgetful}
So if they want to interpret this to mean that any legislation in the religion equals major Kufr and Shirk, then they would have to takfīr everyone who performs istiḥsān, participates in Mawlid or falls into any other Bidʿah which is - again - by definition legislated in the religion
But the best example of such legislation in the religion which no one made takfīr over is al-Rahbāniyyah (monasticism), which Allāh condemned in al-Ḥadīd: {...and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allāh. But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient.}
Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 27, p. 148):
Allāh, exalted, condemned the Mushrikīn because they legislated in the religion that which Allāh had not permitted, so they forbade things that Allāh had not forbidden - such as the baḥīrah, the sāʾibah, the waṣīlah, and the ḥām. And they legislated a religion that Allāh had not permitted, such as supplicating to other than Him and worshipping it, and the monasticism which the Christians invented.
And if any Khārijī fool wants to take the ilzām and takfīr over every form of bidʿah out there, they should first take note that it is reported that some of the Saḥāba wished to partake in monasticism, and were condemned but not takfīred over it by the Prophet ﷺ himself
As Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 14, p. 449):
And in the Ṣaḥīḥayn is the ḥadīth of Anas concerning the four men, one of whom said: ‘As for me, I fast and do not break my fast.’ Another said: ‘As for me, I stand (in prayer) and do not sleep.’ Another said: ‘As for me, I do not marry women.’ And another said: ‘As for me, I do not eat meat.’ So the Prophet said: ‘But I fast and I break my fast, I marry women, and I eat meat. So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’
Thus it resembles - and Allāh knows best - that His saying, {do not make the good things that Allāh has made ḥalāl for you ḥarām} is regarding one who makes the ḥalāl ḥarām upon himself by speech or by resolve to abandon it, like the one who said: ‘I do not marry women and I do not eat meat.’ And this is the innovated monasticism, for the monastic does not marry and does not slaughter.
And as ʿAbd al-Razzāq mentioned in his Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 22):
Maʿmar informed us, from Ayyūb, from Abū Qilābah, who said: Some people from the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh intended to renounce the world, abandon women, and take up monasticism (yatarahhabū). So the Messenger of Allāh stood and spoke harshly to them, then said: Those before you were destroyed only by excessiveness, they were excessive, so excessiveness was imposed upon them. Those are their remnants - dwelling places and monasteries. Worship Allāh and do not associate anything with Him, perform ḥajj and ʿumrah, and be upright, He will make you upright
He said: And regarding them was revealed: {O you who believe, do not make the good things that Allāh has made ḥalāl for you ḥarām}
And this leads me to the second point, which is that the mention of "partners" (Shurakāʾ) does not necessitate major Shirk in the firstplace, as I previously mentioned from Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām in al-Īmān (p. 86):
As for the narrations transmitted obligating kufr and shirk because of sins, then their meaning according to us is that they do not establish kufr or shirk upon those who commit them in a way that removes Īmān from its possessor. Rather, their meanings are: that these are from the manners and practices of the kuffār and the mushrikūn. And we have found for these two types of sins, from the evidences in the Book and the Sunnah, something similar to what we found regarding the first two types.
Among the proofs for shirk in the revelation is the saying of Allāh regarding Ādam and Ḥawwā’ when Iblīs spoke to them:
{He is the One Who created you from a single soul and made from it its mate so that he might find rest in her. Then when he covered her, she carried a light burden and continued with it} until {they made partners (Shurakāʾ) for Him in that which He had given them}And its interpretation is only that the shayṭān said to them: “Name your child ʿAbd al-Ḥārith.” So is it conceivable for anyone who knows Allāh and His religion to imagine that they committed shirk with Allāh despite their prophethood and their status with Allāh? Yet He described their action as shirk, though it is not shirk with Allāh.
And they use the Āyah:
{He could not have taken his brother within the religion (Dīn) of the king except that Allāh willed}
And they argue that because the ruling of the king of Egypt was referred to as a "Dīn" (religion) here, that this means that a ruler who comes up with his own rulings has invented a new religion, and therefore left the religion of Islām
And not only does this argument make no sense, this Āyah, in fact, completely demolishes the Khawārij's entire ideology as I will show shortly
I have already gone over the issue of how an action sharing the name with another action does not necessitate them sharing the same ruling at the beginning of the article, and the Khawārij should agree unless they want to takfīr Sawdah and declare ʿUmar to be an innovator
But even with the case of the word "Dīn" specifically, it has been used by many great Imāms of the Salaf to refer to forms of Bidʿah that they themselves did not takfīr over, most famously regarding Irjāʾ, as was narrated by al-Khallāl in al-Sunnah (vol. 3, p. 563):
Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥajjāj Abū Bakr al-Marwazī informed us, he said: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh say: Ibn Numayr said: I heard Sufyān say: An innovated Dīn, the Dīn of Irjāʾ
And they did the same with qiyās and istiḥsān, which no sane person would claim are Shirk or Kufr to partake in, as al-Qaṣṣāb said in Nukat al-Qurʾān al-Dāllah ʿalā al-Bayān fī Anwāʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Aḥkām (vol. 4, p. 97):
{Or do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion that which Allāh did not permit?} there is a lesson for the one whom Allāh grants success: that qiyās and istiḥsān are a Dīn that Allāh did not permit, for permission is only through explicit wording, not through conjecture.
And we do not find anyone performing qiyās or istiḥsān who bases his qiyās on an Āyah or a Sunnah that explicitly grants him permission for qiyās...
And the most ironic part of all of this is that these Khawārij have once again refuted themselves by bringing this Āyah up, as some of the Salaf actually said that the king was a Muslim the whole time, the same king who ruled by other than the Sharīʿah of Islām as these Khawārij themselves state!
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 7, p. 2114):
Ḥajjāj ibn Ḥamzah narrated to us, Shabābah narrated to us, Warqāʾ narrated to us, from Ibn Abī Nujayḥ, from Mujāhid, regarding His saying: {And they concealed him as merchandise} the owner of the bucket and those with him concealed him, saying to their companions: We stored him (as merchandise), fearing that they would share him with us if they knew about him.
And his brothers followed them, saying to the one who drew the bucket and his companions: Secure him well, do not let him escape, until they brought him to Egypt.
He (Yūsuf) said: Who will buy me and give good tidings? So the king bought him, and the king is a Muslim
So according to the great Imām, Mufassir and Tābiʿī, Mujāhid ibn Jabr, who studied tafsīr directly under Ibn ʿAbbās himself, before even buying Yūsuf ﷺ, the same king of Egypt that these retarded Khārijī dogs takfīr and claim followed a Dīn other than the Dīn of Allāh - because he ruled by other than what Allāh revealed - was a Muslim
So, what cope will the Khawārij come up with?
Will they accuse Mujāhid - and by extention Ibn ʿAbbās - of Irjāʾ, for affirming the Islām of an individual they claim Allāh Himself takfīred in the Qurʾān?
Or will they accuse them of such extreme ignorance of the Qurʾān that they did not realize that the king ruled by other than the Sharīʿah in the firstplace?!
Will they claim that before meeting Yūsuf ﷺ the king ruled in accordance with the Sharīʿah, and only introduced a new "Dīn" into legislation after meeting the Prophet, making him an apostate?!
Or do they think the king was simply excused for his ignorance, and that the Prophet Yūsuf ﷺ did not bother informing him of his "Kufr" or tell him to "repent" from it?!
As, keep in mind, the Āyah referencing the "Dīn of the king" was referring to an event that happened after the king already bought Yūsuf ﷺ and appointed him to a high position
And by claiming that the king was a Kāfir and a Ṭāghūt who legislated and implemented a religion other than Islām upon his subjects these absolutely braindead Ḥarūrī apes are accusing Yūsuf ﷺ - who worked as a minister in this same government while this was happening according to the same Khawārij - of what they view to be major Kufr and Shirk, if not at the very least a major sin
...from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, who said: Some of my camels were lost, so I went out searching for them. Suddenly cavalry approached. When the people of the water saw the cavalry, they joined me, and they came to one of the tents from among those tents and brought out from it a man and struck his neck. They said: This is a man who married the wife of his father. So the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent us to him and he was killed.
And they make a completely moronic analogy with this, trying to connect the act of marrying your father's wife to legislation of man-made laws, arguing they are both istiḥlāl by action and other hilariously retarded claims
Ignoring the fact that this makes absolutely no sense and there is no correlation between the two, their whole argument relies on the assumption that marrying your father's wife - or entering any other invalid marriage - is even Kufr in the firstplace, which isn't stated anywhere in the ḥadīth itself and completely contradicts the understanding of both the Salaf and Khalaf
First, regarding the ḥadīth itself, most of Ahl al-Sunnah explained that the man was killed as an apostate due to believing it is ḥalāl to enter such a marriage - as the people of Jāhiliyyah did - and that the act itself does not remove one from Islām
Al-Khallāl said in Aḥkām Ahl al-Milal wa-l-Riddah (p. 457):
ʿAbd al-Malik al-Maymūnī informed me. He said: Abū ʿAbd Allāh came out to us one day after the break of dawn. The uncle of Abū ʿAbd Allāh said: ‘O Abū ʿAbd Allāh, does the apostate’s property go to Bayt al-Māl (when he dies)?’ I heard him say: ‘There was nothing in my mind greater than this. He is not inherited from. I return in this to the principles and their rulings: the people of two religions do not inherit from one another. And the Prophet said regarding the one who married his father's wife that he ordered him to be killed and his property taken.’
I said: His marrying of his father's wife is less than apostasy (irtidād)
He said: Then Abū ʿAbd Allāh mentioned the view of the people of Madīnah and the view of ʿAlī regarding it, and that the people differ concerning the apostate. And I saw that he remained firm upon his view that he is not inherited from, because the people of two religions do not inherit from one another.
And it was narrated in Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad, through the narration of his son ʿAbd Allāh (p. 351):
I asked my father about the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ that a man married the wife of his father, so the Prophet ﷺ ordered that he be killed and that his wealth be taken. My father (Imām Aḥmad) said: We see, and Allāh knows best, that this was due to istiḥlāl, so he ordered that he be killed and that his wealth be taken
I said: the one who marries the wife of his father or his slave-woman, is he asked to repent?
He said: No. That is if he makes istiḥlāl. He is killed if he consummated
Now I want the Khawārij to use their brains for a moment here
Notice how Imām Aḥmad is giving two scenarios?
The first is the one who marries his father's wife while making istiḥlāl, he believes that one should be asked to repent
The second is the one who merely consummates without istiḥlāl, he is not asked to repent according to Aḥmad
But according to the Khawārij the act itself of marriage is istiḥlāl or necessitates istiḥlāl, so there can't be different rulings depending on if the one who already entered such a marriage "makes istiḥlāl" or not, in their view he necessarily did already!
And Burhān al-Dīn Ibn Mufliḥ said in al-Mubdiʿ Sharḥ al-Muqniʿ (vol. 9, p. 464), commenting on the report of al-Barāʾ:
Abū Bakr said: It is to be interpreted, according to Aḥmad, regarding the one who makes istiḥlāl, whereas the one who doesn't make istiḥlāl is like the fornicator
Once again, if they believed that the one who enters such a marriage is automatically making istiḥlāl of it, why are they making a distinction? How would it even be possible to "not make istiḥlāl"? Why do they only mention the one "not making istiḥlāl" being like the fornicator, without stating that he becomes an apostate as the Khawārij believe?
And al-Bayhaqī said in al-Khilāfiyyāt (vol. 5, p. 184), commenting on the report of al-Barāʾ:
What is meant by this marriage is sexual intercourse, for it has been narrated: "...to a man who consummated marriage with his father’s wife."
Some of our companions interpreted it to mean that he married her believing (literally: muʿtaqid) it to be permissible, thereby becoming an apostate, so it became obligatory to kill him and take his wealth, for by ʾIjmāʿ a man’s wealth is not taken merely for fornication without believing (literally: having iʿtiqād) it is permissible.
And al-Māwardī said in al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr (vol. 11, p. 287), commenting on the report of al-Barāʾ:
So it could be interpreted that one-fifth of his wealth was taken because he made istiḥlāl and thus became an apostate, and his wealth by apostasy became fayʾ
And it could also be interpreted that, if he did not make istiḥlāl, he was killed as a ḥadd punishment, and one-fifth of his wealth was taken as a disciplinary penalty
And Ibn Kathīr said in Irshād al-Faqīh ilā Maʿrifat Adillat al-Tanbīh (vol. 2, p. 127) commenting on the report of al-Barāʾ:
...It was narrated by Imām Aḥmad and the compilers of the Sunan, and al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Mājah did not mention ‘taking the wealth.’ They interpreted this ḥadīth to mean that he did that believing (muʿtaqid) it to be permissible, thereby apostatizing, so his wealth was taken as fayʾ. And Allāh knows best.
And Muẓhir al-Dīn al-Zaydānī al-Ḥanafī said in al-Mafātīḥ fī Sharḥ al-Maṣābīḥ (vol. 4, p. 49):
His saying: ‘So he ordered me to strike his neck and take his wealth’, the interpretation of this is that the man married the wife of his father believing (muʿtaqid) that this marriage was ḥalāl. And if one believes the permissibility of something forbidden, he disbelieves...
But if someone marries the wife of his father or one of his maḥārim while ignorant of the prohibition of marrying her, meaning: he did not know it was ḥarām to marry her, he does not become a disbeliever.
Likewise, if he marries her knowing the prohibition but believes it is ḥarām, then he becomes a fāsiq through this marriage, and they are separated, and he is disciplined, but it is not permissible to kill him nor take his wealth.
And this is if no intercourse took place, but if intercourse did take place, then if he knew the prohibition, he is a fornicator
And Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Bayḍāwī said in Tuḥfat al-Abrār Sharḥ Maṣābīḥ al-Sunnah (vol. 2, p. 354), commenting on the same ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ:
And most of the scholars went to the view that the one who married was making istiḥlāl of it, based upon what he believed (literally: had iʿtiqād) during Jāhiliyyah, therefore he was ordered to be killed
So, the specific person the ḥadīth was discussing believed such marriage was ḥalāl, and this does not necessarily apply to every single person who enters such a marriage, and no one from Ahl al-Sunnah ever made such a claim
Rather, Ahl al-Sunnah split into two main views regarding the ruling of the one who marries his father's wife or enters other such invalid marriages - neither view indicating his takfīr
According to the first view, if he marries and has intercourse with her he carries the ruling and punishment of the fornicator (not apostate) or is just executed, and this is the view of Aḥmad as I presented previously
And according to the second view, even if he marries her and has intercourse with her while knowing it is ḥarām, he is not treated as a fornicator let alone apostate, rather he is given - at most - a taʿzīr punishment
As al-Ṭaḥāwī said in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār (vol. 3, p. 149) right after narrating this exact same ḥadīth :
A group went to the view that whoever marries a woman who is maḥram to him, while knowing that she is forbidden to him, and he consummates with her, then his ruling is the ruling of the fornicator (not apostate), and the ḥadd of zinā (not apostasy) is carried out upon him, whether stoning or flogging, and they used these reports as proof. Among those who held this view were Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad.
Others differed, saying: the ḥadd of zinā is not obligatory in this case, but taʿzīr and severe punishment is obligatory. Among those who said this were Abū Ḥanīfah and Sufyān al-Thawrī
And the view he references from Abū Ḥanīfah was transmitted by his companion Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan in al-Aṣl (vol. 7, p. 172):
I said: What do you think about a man who marries a woman, then consummates the marriage with her while she is among those whom it is not permissible for him to marry, would you apply the ḥadd to him? He said: No. I said: Even if he did that knowingly? He said: Even so, there is no ḥadd upon him, but he is punished severely as a disciplinary punishment, though it does not reach the ḥadd. I said: And likewise if the woman is one with whom he has a prohibited kinship (dhū raḥim maḥram)? He said: Yes, there is no ḥadd upon him. I said: If he confesses that he did that deliberately while knowing that she was ḥarām for him? He said: The Imām disciplines him, and it does not reach forty lashes.
And there is no room for Taʾwīl here, he is speaking about someone knowingly and intentionally entering such a marriage and still holds that there is no ḥadd punishment upon him - let alone that he becomes a Kāfir
And the Salaf and Khalaf applied the same principle to other invalid marriages, such as a Muslim man marrying a fifth wife, or a Muslim woman marrying a Dhimmī, or a Muslim man marrying a non-Kitābī woman, and none of them said that this act is Kufr that takes you out of Islām, even though according to the Khawārij this is all Istiḥlāl and clear rejection of the Sharīʿah
ʿAbd al-Razzāq said in his Muṣannaf (vol. 7, p. 340):
From Ibn Jurayj, from al-Ḥakam bin ʿUtaybah, from Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, concerning one who marries a fifth [woman] deliberately before the waiting period of the fourth of his wives has ended, he said: He is flogged one hundred lashes and is not banished.
From al-Thawrī, concerning a man who marries a fifth, he said: He is disciplined (yuʿazzar) and there is no prescribed ḥadd.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq said: And this is what the people are upon.
Imām al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Umm (vol. 5, p. 62):
And when a Muslim woman marries a Dhimmī, the marriage is annulled, and the two are disciplined, but not to the extent of the ḥadd. And if he has had intercourse with her, then she has the mahr of one like her. And when a Muslim marries a non-Kitābī disbeliever, the marriage is annulled, and the Muslim is disciplined unless he is among those who are excused due to ignorance.
Notice how al-Shāfiʿī says that the Muslim who enters such an invalid marriage is disciplined (not takfīred and killed) unless he is among those who are excused due to ignorance, meaning al-Shāfiʿī believed that even the one who could not be excused with ignorance on this topic is still only supposed to be disciplined and not killed!
And it was mentioned in al-Aṣl by Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan (vol. 10, p. 218):
And when a Dhimmī marries a Muslim woman, whether free or slave, with the permission of the guardian or master, or without their permission, all of that is the same. They are separated between him and her, and he is given painful punishment if he has had intercourse with her, but it does not reach forty lashes. And the one who married them is given taʿzīr, and the woman is given taʿzīr.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Kāfī fī Fiqh Ahl al-Madīnah (vol. 2, p. 1074):
Whoever contracts a nikāḥ with a woman from among those who are his maḥārim, or a fifth (wife), is lashed with the ḥadd of zinā if he has intercourse with her. No one today is excused by ignorance in that. But if the nikāḥ was a fifth (wife), ignorance is accepted from him as an excuse, so no ḥadd is applied to him, and no excuse is accepted from others among those we mentioned along with him.
Again, either taʿzīr or the ḥadd of zinā, no ḥadd of apostasy or takfīr anywhere
And every single time when I present the same Khawārij who INSIST that the act of entering an invalid marriage is exactly like legislating man-made laws with these quotes, they suddenly change their minds
All of a sudden entering an invalid marriage and legislating man-made laws are totally different, what an absolute joke of a cult
And they make another moronic analogy with the takfīr of the abandoners of prayer and zakāh, arguing the one who persistently abandones any obligatory act from the Sharīʿah must likewise be a Kāfir, and then apply this to the rulers who abandoned ruling with the Sharīʿah - and sometimes to the Muslim masses as well, and I have seen one Khārijī even argue for the takfīr of the Muslim women who persistently refuse to wear the Ḥijāb using the same reasoning
The clearest flaws with this argument are that, firstly, prayer and zakāh are not like any other obligatory act, they are from the five pillars of Islām, and secondly, many scholars disputed if abandonment of even them is Kufr in the firstplace, and disputed what even falls under "abandonment" or "withholding" - for example, if simply refusing to give zakāh is Kufr, or does it only become Kufr once they fight the Imām over it? And many others clarified that they hold that abandonment is only kufr for
1. The one who abandones one of (or all) of the pillars, not just any obligatory act
Or
2. The one who abandones either prayer, zakāh, or both exclusively, and not the fast of Ramaḍān or Ḥajj
Or
3. The one who abandones prayer exclusively
And there is not a single Āyah, ḥadīth or statement of any Imām from the Salaf comparing the state of the one who abandones prayer and zakāh - or any of the five pillars - with the one who abandones legislation, in fact many have explicitly said the exact opposite
And the strongest proof for this is what al-Tirmidhī narrated in al-Sunan (vol. 4, p. 571):
[...]from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shaqīq al-ʿUqaylī that he said:
The companions of Muḥammad ﷺ did not see the abandonment of any of the actions to be kufr except prayer
And what was reported in Aḥkām Ahl al-Milal wa al-Riddah, from al-Jāmiʿ of al-Khallāl (p. 481):
1405 - Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Maṭar informed us. He said: Abū Ṭālib narrated to us that he said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal): What if someone says: ‘Fasting is obligatory, but I do not fast’? He said: Fasting is not like prayer and zakāh, nothing has come concerning it.
ʿUmar sought repentance from the apostate, and Abū Bakr regarding zakāh.
As for fasting, nothing has come concerning it, and we do not make it like prayer and zakāh.
He said: They did not say anything about it.
1406 - Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī informed me. He said: al-Athram narrated to us. He said: It was said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh: Is the one who abandons fasting the month of Ramaḍān like the one who abandons prayer? He said: Prayer is more emphatic, what has come is only concerning prayer, so it is not like others.
And what Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī said in Taʿẓīm Qadr al-Ṣalāh (vol. 2, p. 1015):
What we have mentioned indicates that the one who withholds zakāh is neither a Kāfir nor a Mushrik...
And the people of fatwā and the scholars of the cities have agreed that whoever deliberately breaks his fast in Ramaḍān, he does not disbelieve by that...
And with these evidences they differentiated between the (abandonment of) prayer and the rest of the obligations
Every act whose abandoner leaves it except the three (meaning prayer, zakāh and the Shahādah) out of laziness or slackness, while knowing his wrongdoing and acknowledging his wrongdoing and not denying its obligation, it is a grave sin with which he meets Allāh: if He wills, He punishes him, and if He wills, He forgives him.
And what Ibn Hubayrah al-Ḥanbalī said in Ikhtilāf al-Aʾimmah al-ʿUlamāʾ (vol. 1, p. 209):
And they agreed that whoever refuses to pay zakāh, deeming it permissible while not believing in its obligation, then he is a Kāfir, if he is not one who has only recently entered Islām, but one who is informed and aware...
Then they differed concerning one who believes in its obligation, yet refuses to pay it and fights over it, does he disbelieve or not?
...And Ibn Ḥabīb from the companions of Mālik said: Whoever abandons it out of negligence is a disbeliever, and likewise the one who abandons fasting and ḥajj, and the rest of the pillars of Islām...
Notice how even Ibn Ḥabīb, who is already taking a much harsher position than most scholars, still clarifies that he only takfīrs the one who abandones anything from the pillars, not just any obligation from the Sharīʿah
And Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (vol. 3, p. 446):
And likewise those who withheld the Zakāh... Then the jurists disputed over the disbelief of the one who withholds it and fights the Imām over it while acknowledging its obligation, upon two opinions, and they are two narrations from Aḥmad, like the two narrations from him concerning the takfīr of the Khawārij.
And Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 7, p. 609):
For this reason, the scholars disputed regarding the takfīr of the one who abandons anything from these four obligations (referring to prayer, Zakāh, the fast on Ramaḍān and ḥajj) after acknowledging its obligation...
And many giants of Ahl al-Sunnah did not takfīr the withholders of zakāh at all, most famously Imām al-Shāfiʿī, who argued for their Islām in al-Umm (vol. 4, p. 227):
And Ahl al-Riddah after the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ are of two types: some apostatized after Islām, like Ṭulayḥah, Musaylimah, al-ʿAnsī and their followers, and some remained holding onto Islām but withheld Zakāh.
So if someone said: What proves this while the common folk call them Ahl al-Riddah (the people of apostasy)?
(Imām al-Shāfiʿī said): This is the Arabic language: apostasy (al-riddah) is turning back from that which one was upon. Whoever turns away from something, it is valid to say: he made riddah from such-and-such.And the saying of ʿUmar to Abū Bakr: Did the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ say not: I was commanded to fight the people until they say Lā ilāha illā Allāh, and when they say it, they protect their lives and wealth from me except by its right and their reckoning is with Allāh?
In the statement of Abū Bakr: This (Zakāh) is from its right. If they had withheld a young she-goat from that which they used to give the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, I would have fought them over it.This was mutual understanding between the two of them that among those they fought were some who still held onto faith. And had it not been so, ʿUmar would not have doubted the fighting of them, and Abū Bakr would have said: They abandoned Lā ilāha illā Allāh and became Mushrikīn
And al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ made a similar argument, as was noted by Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qurṭubī in al-Mufhim limā Ashkala min Talkhīṣ Kitāb Muslim (vol. 1, p. 185):
Al-Qāḍī Abū al-Faḍl ʿIyāḍ said: Ahl al-Riddah were of three categories.
One category disbelieved after their Islām, returned to their pre-Islāmic state, followed Musaylimah and al-ʿAnsī, and believed them.
Another category affirmed Islām except for zakāh which they denied, some of them interpreted that it had been specific to the Prophet...
A third category acknowledged its obligation but refused to hand it over to Abū Bakr, saying: ‘Its collection was specific to the Prophet alone, not to anyone else,’ and they distributed their charities with their own hands. Abū Bakr and the Companions therefore held the view of fighting all of them: the first two categories for their Kufr, and the third for their refusal (imtināʿ).
And even the Muʿtazilī al-Jaṣṣāṣ - whom I've seen many Khawārij claim agrees with them in their takfīr of those who withhold from performing any obligatory act - argued that the withholders of zakāh and prayer are not Kuffār and should not be killed at all so long as they affirm their obligation, as he said in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 3, p. 108):
Those who deem it obligatory to kill the one who abandons prayer and the one who withholds zakāh deliberately argue by this Āyah, claiming that it obligates killing the Mushrik unless he believes, establishes prayer, and gives zakāh. We have already clarified the meaning of His saying: {and they establish prayer and give zakāh}, namely that what is intended is acceptance of being bound by them and commitment to their obligation, not their actual performance. Moreover, there is nothing in the Āyah that indicates what they claimed, because it only obligated the killing of the Mushrikīn, and whoever repents from Shirk, enters Islām, commits himself to its obligations, and affirms them is not a Mushrik by agreement. Thus, the Āyah does not necessitate killing him, since its ruling is restricted - regarding the obligation of killing - to one who is a Mushrik, and the one who abandons prayer and withholds zakāh is not a Mushrik.
And even among the Ḥanbalīs, Shihāb al-Dīn al-ʿAskarī said in al-Manhaj al-Ṣaḥīḥ fī al-Jamʿ bayna mā fī al-Muqniʿ wa al-Tanqīḥ (vol. 1, p. 529), and al-Ḥajjāwī said in al-Iqnāʿ (vol. 1, p. 283):
He is not declared a Kāfir for fighting him.
And al-Buhūtī said in Kashāf al-Qināʿ (vol. 5, p. 82) commenting on the previous quote:
(And he is not declared a Kāfir) - meaning the one who withholds zakāh out of negligence or miserliness (for fighting him), i.e., the Imām. Due to what has preceded from ʿAbdullāh ibn Shaqīq, and because ʿUmar and others initially refrained from fighting those who withheld zakāh. Had they believed them to be Kuffār, they would not have refrained from fighting them.
They also use this Athar from Ibn Masʿūd (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) which can be found in Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī (vol. 10, p. 321) and elsewhere:
[...]From Masrūq who said: I asked Ibn Masʿūd about ‘al-suḥt’ (illicit gain), and he said: It is bribes (al-rishā).
So I said: In judgement? He said: That is the kufr (al-Kufr).
Again, this Athar has nothing to do with legislation specifically and could be just as easily used to argue for the takfīr of the one who rules by other than what Allāh has revealed in "specific instances"
But some of these filthy Khārijī dogs of hellfire take their mask off here and admit that they indeed believe that it is at the very least a valid view to takfīr those who rule by other than what Allāh revealed in a specific instance, and dare attribute this filth to Ibn Masʿūd and other Imāms of Ahl al-Sunnah
Although I believe I already refuted this view at the beggining of this part of the article, I just want to point out that this is, quite literally and without any doubt, the belief of the original Khawārij, as Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī mentioned in Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn (p. 452):
They (the Khawārij) said: The two arbiters are disbelievers, and ʿAlī became a disbeliever when he accepted arbitration. They argued with the saying of Allāh: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers.} And His saying: {Fight the one which rebels until it returns to the command of Allāh.} They (the Khawārij) said: So Allāh has commanded and judged to fight Ahl al-Baghī (Muslim rebels), yet ʿAlī abandoned fighting them when he accepted arbitration, thus he abandoned the judgement of Allāh, becoming deserving of Kufr due to the saying of Allāh: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers.}
And al-Samʿānī mentioned in his Tafsīr of the Āyah (vol. 2, p. 42):
And know that the Khawārij use this Āyah as evidence, saying: Whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed is a Kāfir, and Ahl al-Sunnah say: One is not declared a Kāfir for simply abandoning judgment (tark al-ḥukm)...
And al-Qurṭubī mentioned in his Tafsīr (vol. 7, p. 499) that:
Al-Qushayrī said: The madhhab of the Khawārij is that whoever took a bribe and judged by other than the ruling of Allāh is a Kāfir, and this has also been attributed to al-Ḥasan and al-Suddī
So if anyone attempts to say that this is a valid view to hold, he must then refrain from declaring even the original Khawārij to be misguided, or say that their only misguidance was falsely applying this takfīr upon the Saḥāba, while their belief that the act itself of not ruling by other than what Allāh revealed is Kufr is, in principle, valid
And believing that there is a valid difference of opinion regarding this matter also necessitates believing there is a valid difference of opinion regarding the takfīr of Muʿāwiyah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) and that Ibn Masʿūd would have taken the view that he is a Kāfir, due to what I have already mentioned from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, and what I will mention later from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr
But they argue that because Ibn Masʿūd (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) referred to it as "the kufr" (al-Kufr), with an "al", that means it must be Kufr Akbar!
And with this idiotic understanding, they must state that anal sex is Kufr Akbar as well, as it was reported in al-Jāmiʿ that:
20953. ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, he said: Maʿmar narrated to us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about a man who enters his wife from her behind, and he said: “This one is asking me about the kufr (al-Kufr)!”
And before someone embarrasses himself and actually tries to argue that this is Kufr Akbar, it was reported in the same chapter that:
20955. ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, from Maʿmar, from al-Zuhrī, he said: I asked Ibn al-Musayyib and Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān about that, “and they both disliked it and forbade me from it.”
Notice how both Saʿīd Ibn al-Musayyib and Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān considered anal sex to be forbidden, not Kufr Akbar, and both of them were not only major Tābiʿīs, they both met and heard from Ibn ʿAbbās himself! Will anyone dare claim that they were both Murjiʾah who didn't understand the speech of one of their own Shuyūkh?!
But then, how should we understand Ibn Masʿūd's statement?
Some scholars, like al-Ṭabarī, believed that the bribery referenced is regarding the bribes some scholars from the people of the book took to lie about Allāh by corrupting their books and the judgements found within them, as he said in his Tafsīr (vol. 10, p. 318):
Concerning the interpretation of His saying: {Listeners to falsehood, devourers of illicit gain}.
Abū Jaʿfar said: Allāh says: These Jews whose description I have described to you, O Muḥammad, their description is that they are listeners to false speech and lies, and among what some of them say to others is: ‘Muḥammad is a liar, he is not a prophet.’ And some of them say: ‘The ruling for the married adulterer in the Torah is flogging and blackening,’ and other falsehoods and slanders, and they accept bribes and consume them upon their lying against Allāh and fabricating against Him, just as:
…Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd said: It was said to ʿAbd Allāh: ‘What is al-suḥt?’ He said: ‘Bribery.’ They said: ‘In judgment?’ He said: ‘That is al-Kufr.’
And others, such as Ibn Baṭṭah understood what Ibn Masʿūd said to be referring to minor Kufr, as he narrated the same exact Athar in his book al-Ibānah al-Kubrā (vol. 2, p. 723) under a chapter he named:
Mention of the sins that lead their doer to [a form of] kufr which does not take him out of the religion.
And Muḥammad ibn Khalf ibn Ḥayyān - known as Wakīʿ al-Qaḍī - explained a similar report in the same manner, as he said in Akhbār al-Quḍāt (vol. 1, p. 41):
ʿAlī ibn al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥaḍarī informed me, he said: Muḥammad ibn Marwān al-Qaṭṭān narrated to us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Ẓuḥayr narrated to us, from his father, from al-Suddī, he said: Ibn ʿAbbās said: Whoever is unjust in judgement while knowing, or judges without knowledge, or takes bribery in judgement, then he is among the Kāfirīn.
(Wakīʿ said:) And this is about the people of Tawḥīd
And he mentioned this report among several other similar ones alongside the narrations of Kufr Dūna Kufr in the same chapter
And likewise Ibn Ruslān, Abū Ḥayyān and al-Qurṭubī - in what I have already mentioned from them earlier - all interpreted Ibn Masʿūd's view to be referring to minor Kufr
And they use the statements of various scholars, regarding the fact that the one who rules by other than what Allāh revealed, or the one who people seek judgement from and obey instead of Allāh is a Ṭāghūt, as proof for the takfīr of the rulers and judges who judge with man-made laws
And there are many issues with this line of thinking
If this was applied unrestrictedly, it would mean that even an oppressive judge who judges people based on his desires is a Ṭāghūt and a Kāfir, since ruling by other than what Allāh revealed isn't restricted to legislation as I have already established
And likewise any person who is obeyed by others in committing a sin - like a father who commands his son to drink alcohol - would be a Ṭāghūt and a Kāfir by this understanding, as al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 8, p. 465):
That is because al-Jibt and al-Ṭāghūt are two names for everything that is venerated by worship besides Allāh, or by obedience, or by submission to it, whatever that venerated thing may be, whether stone, human, or devil. Since that is so, and the idols which the Jāhiliyyah used to worship were venerated by worship besides Allāh, they were Jibts and Ṭāghūt. Likewise the devils whom the Kuffār used to obey in disobedience to Allāh.
And another example from the Salaf is that of the Sāḥir (sorcerer), who was labelled a Ṭāghūt generally, despite not actually being takfīred at every instance
As can be seen in Ibn Abī Ḥātim's Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 495):
Abū Saʿīd al-Ashajj narrated to us, ʿUqbah narrated to us, from Ḥanash ibn al-Ḥārith, who said: I heard al-Shaʿbī say: The Ṭāghūt is the Sāḥir
While Imām al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Umm (vol. 1, p. 293):
Siḥr (sorcery) is a comprehensive term for various meanings. It is said to a Sāḥir: ‘Describe the siḥr by which you perform sorcery.’
If what he uses in his sorcery is explicit speech of Kufr, he is asked to repent, if he repents, fine, otherwise, he is killed and his wealth is taken as fayʾ.
But if what he uses is not speech of Kufr, and is unknown, and he harms no one by it, he is forbidden from it, if he repeats it, he is given taʿzīr.
So why isn't every Sāḥir a Ṭāghūt Kāfir? Why isn't an oppressive father who is obeyed by his children in sinning a Ṭāghūt Kāfir? If the Khawārij say "well, the definition is deeper and more restricted than just a few quotes", then we say that the same is true for the Ṭāghūt of judgement, as al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 8, p. 507):
{They want to seek judgment from the Ṭāghūt}, meaning: the one whom they magnify, and from whose word they take guidance, and whose ruling they are pleased with instead of the ruling of Allāh.
And as ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Rasaʿnī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 547):
{They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt} it was Kaʿb ibn al-Ashraf, he was called that because of his extreme transgression and enmity to Islām.
And they use what Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr transmitted from Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh in al-Tamhīd (vol. 3, p. 320):
The scholars have unanimously agreed that whoever insults Allāh, or insults His Messenger ﷺ, or rejects (dafaʿ) anything that Allāh has revealed, or kills one of the prophets of Allāh, while still affirming what Allāh has revealed, is a Kāfir, and the same applies to one who deliberately abandons the prayer until its time ends.
We do not name Him, describe Him, or ascribe to Him anything except what He has named Himself with, as has preceded in our mention of His describing Himself - without any partner - and we do not make dafʿ of (nadfaʿ) what He has described Himself with, becauase that is dafʿ of the Qurʾān (dafʿun li-l-Qurʾān).
Do the Khawārij think he meant that we should not legislate laws that oppose the way Allāh described Himself? What would that even mean?!
Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī said in Taʿẓīm Qadr al-Ṣalāh (vol. 2, p. 930):
991 – Isḥāq said: Among those whom there is ʾIjmāʿ upon takfīring and judging them like the one who falls into juḥūd is the believer who believes in Allāh, the Exalted, and what has come from Him, yet kills a prophet or assists in his killing, even if he acknowledges and says: 'Killing the prophets is ḥarām', such a person is a Kāfir, and the same applies to whoever insults a prophet or rejects his statement not due to taqīyyah or fear.
992 – Do you not see what came from the Prophet ﷺ when he gave to a Bedouin something, and then said to him: “Have I done well to you?” The Bedouin said: “No, and you have not acted nobly!” So the Prophet’s companions (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnhum) became angry to the point that they considered killing him. But the Prophet ﷺ gestured to them to withhold, and said to the Bedouin: “Come to us.” So the man came to him in his home, and the Prophet gave him more and increased his gift. Then he said to him: “Have I done well to you?” The man said: “Yes, by Allāh, and you have acted nobly. May Allāh reward you on behalf of your family and tribe with good.” Then the Prophet ﷺ said to his companions: “My example and the example of this man and you is like a man who had a camel that ran away from him. So the people chased it, but only made it flee more. So the owner said: ‘Leave me with my camel, for I know it better and am more gentle with it.’ He picked up some earth from the ground and came to it from its front, calling it softly: ‘Huway, huway,’ until it came and knelt in front of him. He then secured its saddle and mounted it. If I had obeyed you when he said what he said, he would have entered the Fire.”
[...]993 – Isḥāq said: In this is confirmation of what we described, that one disbelieves by rejecting the Prophet ﷺ. However, everyone whose Kufr arises from ignorance and not from disdain is treated gently until he retracts from what he denied, just as the Prophet ﷺ treated the Bedouin gently...
994 – Isḥāq said: Everything that includes speaking badly (al-Waqīʿah) against Allāh, the Exalted, or anything He has revealed to His prophets is Kufr that removes one from his īmān, even if he acknowledges everything Allāh has revealed.
And the meaning of the statement of Isḥāq (Raḥimahullāh): 'or rejects anything from what Allāh has revealed' is that a person repels or denies anything that Allāh has revealed in His Book or through the tongue of His Messenger ﷺ whether from the obligations, or duties, or recommended acts, or commendable deeds after knowing that Allāh revealed it in His Book, or that His Messenger ﷺ commanded or forbade it.
Then, if he rejects it after that, he is a Kāfir apostate, even if he affirms all that Allāh has revealed from the Sharīʿah except what he rejected or denied, due to following his desire, or his custom, or the custom of the people of his land.
And they misquote many late-comers, especially Ibn Taymiyyah and his students, the Najdiyyah, and even contemporaries who were clearly not upon their Manhaj, such as Ibn Bāz, Ibn ʿUthaymīn and Fawzān, saying "look, even your own scholars say this!".
I believe that responding to the doubts about these individuals is not nearly as important as responding to the previous quotes I went over, as long as this view cannot be backed by any Āyah or ḥadīth or quote of an Imām from the Salaf, it would simply be one personal opinion out of many and not something a person is sinful for disagreeing with - as I established at the beginning of the article
And although I have already freed the position of most of the individuals mentioned earlier in this article, there are still some misused quotes I want to clarify such as what:
Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 3, p. 267):
Whenever a person makes ḥalāl what is unanimously ḥarām, or makes ḥarām what is unanimously ḥalāl, or alters (baddal) the clearly established Sharʿ, then he is a Kāfir apostate, by agreement of the Fuqahāʾ.
The explanation is quite simple, and it can be seen by how Ibn Taymīyyah, on the very next page, defines "altering" (tabdīl) of the Sharīʿah, here is the full quote:
Whenever a person makes ḥalāl what is unanimously ḥarām, or makes ḥarām what is unanimously ḥalāl, or alters (baddal) the clearly established Shar', then he is a Kāfir apostate, by agreement of the Fuqahāʾ.
And according to one of two views, it is about such a person that this Āyah was revealed: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} meaning: the one who deems it ḥalāl to judge by other than what Allāh has revealed.And the term 'Sharʿ' (divine law) in common usage refers to three meanings:
The revealed (munazzal) Sharʿ, what the Messenger ﷺ brought. This must be followed, and whoever opposes it deserves punishment.
The interpreted Sharʿ, the opinions of scholars derived through ijtihād, such as the school of Mālik and others. It is permissible to follow, but not obligatory or forbidden. No one may impose it on all people, nor prevent all people from it.
The altered (mubaddal) Sharʿ, it is fabricating lies against Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ, or against people through false testimony and the like, and manifest injustice. Whoever claims this is from the Sharʿ of Allāh has committed kufr without dispute, such as someone who says: 'blood and dead animals are ḥalāl,' even if he says: 'This is (just) my madhhab,' or something similar.
And this is the same way Imām al-Shāfiʿī used the word tabdīl in his book al-Umm (vol. 4, p. 226), while talking about the people of the book:
...because Allāh has mentioned their tabdīl of it (their books), saying: {Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, then say: ‘This is from Allāh’} and saying: {And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues...}
And this is similar to what Ibn al-ʿArabī said in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 2, p. 127):
His saying, the Exalted: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} [al-Māʾidah: 44], the Mufassirīn differed regarding it. Among them are those who said: ‘the disbelievers,’ ‘the wrongdoers,’ and ‘the defiantly disobedient’ all refer to the Jews. Others said: ‘the disbelievers’ refers to the Mushrikīn, ‘the wrongdoers’ to the Jews, and ‘the defiantly disobedient’ to the Christians. And this is my view, because it is the apparent meaning of the Āyāt, and it is the choice of Ibn ʿAbbās, Jābir ibn Zayd, Ibn Abī Zāʾidah, and Ibn Shubrumah.
Ṭāwūs and others said: it is not kufr that removes one from the religion, but rather Kufr Dūna Kufr.
This differs depending on whether one judges by what he has with the belief that it is from Allāh, that is alteration (tabdīl) which necessitates Kufr, But if he judges by it out of desire or sin, then it is a transgression that is covered by forgiveness, according to the foundational view of Ahl al-Sunnah concerning the pardon of sinners.
And even then, acting upon these "altered" rulings is not necessarily Kufr, and it depends on each individual case
As Ibn Taymiyyah's own student Ibn al-Qayyim said in al-Rūḥ (vol. 2, p. 742):
The revealed (munazzal) ruling is not permissible for a Muslim to oppose nor to depart from.
As for the altered (mubaddal) ruling - which is ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed - then it is not permissible to enforce it, nor to act upon it, nor is it permissible to follow it, and its doer is between Kufr, Fusūq, and Ẓulm.
And they use what Ibn Kathīr said in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (vol. 15, p. 161):
And in all of that is a contradiction to the revealed laws of Allāh sent down upon His servants, the prophets (peace be upon them). So whoever abandons the definitive revealed Sharīʿah sent down upon Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdillāh, the Seal of the Prophets, and seeks judgment from other than it, from abrogated laws, has committed kufr, then what about one who seeks judgment from the Yāsā and gives it precedence (qaddamaha, literally: does taqdīm) over it? Whoever does that has disbelieved by the consensus of the Muslims.
I have already shown how Ibn Kathīr holds the view that ruling with man-made laws is only Kufr when one falls into juḥūd, so what is he referring to here? It is clear that in Arabic "giving it precedence", or taqdīm, is referring to those who prefer the laws of the Yāsā over the Sharīʿah, and historically this is indeed what happened as Ibn ʿArabshāh mentioned in ʿAjāʾib al-Maqdūr fī Akhbār Tīmūr (p. 445):
And he was a believer (muʿtaqid, literally: had iʿtiqād) in the laws of Genghis Khan, which they treat like branches of Islāmic jurisprudence, and applying them upon the Muḥammadan path. And likewise all the Chaghatays, and the people of the Steppe, and Khitā, and Turkistān, and those rabble, all of them apply the laws of the accursed Genghis Khan as if they were the laws of Islām.
And due to this, both our master and Shaykh, Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Bazzāzī, and our master, our leader, our Shaykh ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Bukhārī, and others among the distinguished scholars and Imāms of Islām, gave a fatwā takfīring Tīmūr, and likewise takfīring anyone who gives precedence (yuqaddim, literally: makes taqdīm) to the laws of Genghis Khan over the Islāmic Sharīʿah, and for other reasons as well.
And they use what Ibn ʿUthaymīn said in Sharḥ Thalāthat al-Uṣūl (p. 158):
We say: Whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, out of belittlement, or disdain, or belief that other than it is more appropriate, more beneficial for the people, or equal to it, then he is a Kāfir, a form of Kufr that expels one from the religion. Among such people are those who legislate laws for the people that contradict the Islāmic laws, to be adopted as a system by which people live. They only legislate such laws that contradict the Sharīʿah of Islām because they believe them to be more appropriate and more beneficial for the people, for it is known by necessary reasoning and inherent instinct that a person does not leave one system for another that opposes it unless he believes in the superiority of what he switched to and the deficiency of what he left.
[...]
There is a difference between issues that constitute general legislation and a specific case in which a judge rules by other than what Allāh has revealed. The latter issues fall under the previously mentioned classification, while the former, general legislation, only falls under the first category, because this one who legislates something that opposes Islām does so only because he believes it to be better than Islām and more beneficial to the servants, as was previously mentioned.
This matter of ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed is one of the major issues by which the rulers of this time have been tested. Therefore, a person should not be hasty in declaring rulings upon them with what they do not deserve until the truth becomes clear to him. For this is a serious matter, we ask Allāh Taʿālā to rectify the affairs of the Muslims and their rulers and advisors.
And although I plan to show Ibn ʿUthaymīn's last statement on this topic which contradicts this later on in the article, I want to point out just how ridiculous this statement is
He is essentially claiming that we should takfīr a Muslim over the assumption that he did an action with the belief that it is ḥalāl or superior to acting on accordance with the Sharīʿah, despite that Muslim himself never stating so, as he says: "because this one who legislates something that opposes Islām does so only because he believes it to be better than Islām and more beneficial to the servants".
This is despite Ahl al-Sunnah having an established principle that takfīr is only to be performed with absolute certainty, even if a person's actions might strongly indicate he is hiding Kufr in his heart
This is backed by the Ḥadīth in Sunan Abū Dāwūd (vol. 2, p. 348):
...on the authority of Usāmah ibn Zayd that he said:
The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent us on a military expedition to the Ḥuraqāt. They became aware of us and fled, but we caught up with a man. When we surrounded him, he said: Lā ilāha illā Allāh. But we struck him until we killed him. I mentioned this to the Prophet ﷺ, and he said: ‘Who will protect you against Lā ilāha illā Allāh on the Day of Resurrection?’
I said: O Messenger of Allāh, he only said it out of fear of the weapon. He said: ‘Did you split open his heart so that you could know whether it was for that reason that he said it or not? Who will protect you against Lā ilāha illā Allāh on the Day of Resurrection?’
He kept saying this until I wished that I had not accepted Islām except on that day.
The apparent from the man's action was that he only said the Shahādah out of fear of being killed as Usāmah pointed out, and did not actually intend to embrace Islām, yet despite this the Prophet ﷺ condemned Usāmah and stated that we cannot see what the man believed inside his heart
Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 20, p. 217):
As for the statement of the questioner: Is the necessary implication of a madhhab itself a madhhab, or is it not a madhhab? The correct view is: the necessary implication of a person’s madhhab is not his madhhab so long as he does not commit himself to it, for if he has denied it and rejected it, attributing it to him is a lie. Rather, it indicates the corruption of his statement and its contradiction in discourse, not that he is bound by the necessary implications that appear to involve disbelief or absurdity, of which there are many more. For those who have spoken statements whose necessary implications entail matters which they themselves do not commit to, it is only that they did not realize it entails such implications. And if the necessary implication of a madhhab were itself a madhhab, it would follow that everyone who said about al-Istiwaʾ or other Attributes that it is metaphorical and not real would be declared a disbeliever since the necessary implication of this statement entails that none of His Names or Attributes are real...
If Ibn Taymiyyah wasn't willing to takfīr people over the necessary implication of their creedal positions so long as they denied holding to such implication, it makes even less sense to takfīr someone over the alleged necessary implication of his actions, something which is even less severe than a creedal disagreement
And Ibn ʿUthaymīn's pricinple, if applied consistently, necessitates takfīr of many sinners and not just those who legislate man-made laws, since we can just as easily assume that a person who regularly fornicates, listens to music, or drinks alcohol openly does not hold these actions to be Ḥarām
In fact, Ibn ʿUthaymīn himself did not restrict his principle to the legislators, and further agreed with the original Khawārij by takfīring the one who fornicates openly using this same logic that "he must believe doing so is ḥalāl otherwise he would not have done it" as he stated here:
There is a third category: a rebellious, wicked libertine who talks about fornication boastfully. He says: ‘I traveled to such-and-such country and committed debauchery and fornicated with several women,’ and the like, boasting of this. Such a person must be asked to repent; if he repents, (it is accepted), and if not, he is to be killed. Because the one who boasts of fornication, the implication of his state is that he has deemed fornication ḥalāl and whoever deems fornication ḥalāl is a Kāfir
And if a Khārijī asks "oh, so you believe Ibn ʿUthaymīn was a Khārijī innovator before changing his view??"
The simple answer is no.
He wasn't an innovator, rather he was - and died as - a Kāfir, for legislating in Allāh's religion what He did not send down, claiming to know the unseen, and making the blood of the Muslims everywhere ḥalāl
May that Zindīq and his Khārijī followers rot in hell
And this doesn't change the fact that by the Khawārij's own principles he remains a "Ṭāghūt palace scholar" due to his support of the Ṭāghūt Saudi state, his belief that seeking judgement from secular Ṭāghūt courts is permissible in order to obtain your rights, and his Fatwā promoting voting in the Ṭāghūt US elections
Now, for the scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf who agreed with Ahl al-Sunnah that ruling with or acting upon man-made laws is not an act of Kufr Akbar
It is mentioned in al-Mudawwanah (vol. 2, p. 599), under the chapter:
[Inheritance between a Muslim and a Christian]
Regarding the inheritance of a Muslim and a Christian, I said: What if a Muslim man dies and some of his heirs are Christians, but they embrace Islām before the inheritance is distributed, or all of his heirs were Christians, and they embraced Islām after his death but before his wealth was taken?
He said: Mālik said: Inheritance is only due to the one who was a Muslim on the day of his death. Whoever embraces Islām after his death has no right to the inheritance.
He said: It was said to Mālik: What if a Christian dies and his heirs are Christians, and they embrace Islām before the wealth is distributed, according to which way do they divide it? According to Christian inheritance or according to Islāmic inheritance?
He said: Rather, according to Christian inheritance that applied to them on the day their companion died.
And it is mentioned in al-Tamhīd (vol. 2, p. 59):
Ibn Wahb narrated: I said to Mālik: A Christian man dies and his children are Christians, and some of them embrace Islām after his death and before the inheritance is distributed.
He said: Those who embraced Islām and those who did not are treated the same in their division on the day their father died. If, according to their division, the male has the same share as the female, then the one who embraced Islām gets no more than that.
They are only to divide based on the Christian system of inheritance, and (even) if some of them embraced Islām, they do not receive except what was due to them before their Islām on the day their father died.
And Ibn Yūnus al-Ṣiqillī said in al-Jāmiʿ li-Masāʾil al-Mudawwana (vol. 8, p. 1203):
The Prophet ﷺ said: Every inheritance that was divided in Jāhiliyyah, then it remains upon the division of Jāhiliyyah. And every inheritance that Islām reached before it was divided, then it is upon the division of Islām.
Mālik said: Its meaning is in other than the People of the Book, from the Magians, the Zanj, and others besides them. As for if a Christian died, and his heir accepted Islām before his wealth was divided, then it is divided according to the division of the Christians. And if a Muslim died, and he had heirs who were Christians, then his heir accepted Islām before his wealth was divided, then he does not inherit him, rather the one who was a Muslim on the day of his death inherits him.
Ibn Nāfiʿ and others among the senior people of Madīnah said: The ḥadīth is general concerning the People of the Book and others among the people of disbelief.
And al-Rajrājī said in Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl (vol. 5, p. 415):
The response to the third topic: if they all embraced Islām before the division of the inheritance, should it be divided among them according to the division of Islām or according to the division of the Christians? The madhhab has three opinions:
The first: that it is divided among them according to the division of the Muslims, and this is the narration of Ashhab from Mālik, and it is the saying of Ibn Nāfiʿ in al-Mudawwanah, and it is the saying of Muṭarrif and Ibn al-Mājishūn in the book of Ibn Ḥabīb.
The second: that it is divided among them entirely according to the division of the people of shirk, whether they were People of the Book or others, and this is the apparent meaning of the saying of Ibn al-Qāsim in al-ʿUtbiyyah: regarding the Magians, if they were people of dhimmah and his children embraced Islām before the inheritance was divided, where he said: Indeed it is divided according to the division of shirk.
The third: a distinction between the People of the Book and others; so the People of the Book are divided according to the division of the Christians if they embraced Islām, and the Magians are divided according to the division of Islām if they embraced it, and this is the saying of Mālik in al-Mudawwanah, and it is upon this that Ibn al-Qāsim acted.
And al-Lakhmī said in al-Tabṣirah (vol. 9, p. 4162):
Chapter on a Christian who dies and whose heirs disagree over his inheritance, or if they embrace Islām, or if some of them embrace Islām before his inheritance is divided:
Mālik said regarding a Christian who dies leaving Christian heirs that disagree about their inheritance and bring their case before a Muslim judge: he has the choice either to judge or to abstain, and if he judges between them, he judges according to the ruling of the Muslims.
He means: after clarifying to them that he will judge between them as if they were Muslims, if, after this clarification, they consent to his judgment, he judges between them, otherwise, he leaves them.
He said: if some of them embrace Islām, he judges between them and does not refer them back to the judgment of the Christians. He said: they are not to be referred back to the inheritance laws of their people, and if all of them embrace Islām and then disagree, he also judges between them.
His statements differ as to whether he applies to them the inheritance laws of the Christians or those of the Muslims. He distinguished between the three cases in his answers:
He gave the judge the option if they are all disbelievers, based on Allāh’s saying: {So judge between them or turn away from them}. And he did not judge between them according to their own laws, because Allāh has informed that they altered what Allāh revealed, and because that (their law) has been abrogated by our Sharīʿah, and the Prophet ﷺ judged only according to what he knew had not been altered.
And if some of them embrace Islām, he no longer has the choice, and he applies to them the inheritance laws of the Christians (and doesn't let them go to a Christian judge instead), for it is not appropriate for a disbeliever to judge over a Muslim, since that would humiliate him, and because it is not safe from them showing bias against him, for his departure from their religion, toward those who share their faith. Therefore, it is upon the Muslim judge to investigate their inheritance laws and apply them. Likewise, if all of them embrace Islām according to the opinion that they inherit according to Christian law and that he judges between them by that, but does not refer them back to Christian judges, for that would humiliate them.
And if they differ regarding how the inheritance laws are among them, he investigates until it becomes clear to him, then he rules.
There is a difference of opinion if all of them embrace Islām before the inheritance is divided: there are three views.
Mālik said: they divide it according to the division of the Christians.
And he said that the meaning of the ḥadīth, ‘Any land that Islām reaches before being divided is upon the division of Islām’, applies to those other than the People of the Book, such as the Magians and the Zanj, but as for the Christians, they remain upon their inheritance laws, and this is the view adopted by Ibn al-Qāsim.Ashhab narrated from him that they divide it according to the division of the Muslims if all of them have embraced Islām. He was asked: ‘What if some of them embrace Islām?’ He said: ‘I do not know.’
And after saving the best for last, al-Zurqānī said in his Sharḥ of Mukhtaṣar Khalīl (vol. 8, p. 401):
(If they are not People of the Book, otherwise) - that is, if they were People of the Book and some of them embraced Islām after the death of the one they inherit from (then by their ruling), meaning: we judge between them according to their rulings of inheritance, that is, the property is divided among them according to the inheritance rules of the People of the Book, by asking their bishops about who inherits among them and who does not, and about the share each inherits, and we judge between them according to that, unless they all consent to our ruling.
As for the case where all of them embraced Islām before the division of the property of their Kāfir inheritor, and they refuse the ruling of Islām, al-Rajrājī mentioned three opinions on this, the strongest of them is that if they were People of the Book, judgment is given between them according to the ruling of the People of the Book, otherwise, according to our ruling.
And Muḥammad al-Kharshī said the same in his Sharḥ of Mukhtaṣar Khalīl (vol. 8, p. 223)
And ironically enough, Ibn Ḥazm admitted that this was Mālik's position and even criticized him for it, as he says in al-Muḥallā bil-Āthār (vol. 8, p. 342):
As for the statement of Abū Ḥanīfah and what Mālik agreed with him on, we have already mentioned its falseness. And what could be more outrageous than ruling over a Muslim with the laws of Kufr, of the Jews and Christians? This is indeed astonishing! We have never known them to say, in any case of judgment between a Muslim and a dhimmī, anything but that it must be judged by the law of Islām, except in this case, where they obligated that a Muslim be judged by the rule of Shayṭān, in the religion of the Jews and Christians, especially if all the heirs embraced Islām!
By my life, their dividing up inheritance according to the word of Dekriz the Goth or Hilāl the Jew is astonishing! We seek refuge in Allāh from that.
And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr similarly said in al-Tamhīd (vol. 2, p. 58):
And it is impossible that a group of believers would all have their inheritance divided according to the Sharīʿah of the Ṭāghūt and the path of disbelief. And this is the saying of Ibn Shihāb, a group of the people of al-Ḥijāz, and the majority of the people of knowledge and ḥadīth. And everyone who held to this ḥadīth did not differentiate between the People of the Book and others, except as we have mentioned.
And what's hilarious is that I've seen many Khawārij quote this statement from Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, not bothering to read the full context, or even just opening the next page where he shows how Imām Mālik opposes this view!
And even this statement alone completely refutes them, no where does he say that this act of splitting the inheritance "according to the Sharīʿah of the Ṭāghūt and the path of disbelief" is Kufr, and he quite literally states that the MAJORITY of scholars opposed it
If it was Kufr or Shirk Akbar, on the level of worshiping an idol or cursing Allāh, would ANYONE say that the "majority" of scholars oppose such a thing?!
Can someone say "it is not permissible for a Muslim to worship other than Allāh, and this is the saying of so-and-so scholar, and the majority of the people of knowledge"?!
And there is really no getting around this, the Mālikīs who held to this quite literally believed that the judge or ruler would have to look into the Christian or even Zoroastrian inheritance laws and judge over the Muslims with that
Not only that, some of them went further than this and said that the Muslim ruler or judge would need to go to a bishop and ask him about those inheritance laws, then judge the group of Muslim converts according to that
And if that wasn't enough, other scholars opposed this by bringing up the exact objection of the Khawārij, saying this should not be done because you are ruling over Muslims "according to the Sharīʿah of the Ṭāghūt" and "the rule of Shayṭān", and despite believing this they did not takīr any of the Mālikīs who held that view!
Now, some of the Khawārij say that this was merely a mistake in ijtihād from Mālik and those who agreed with him, which is just hilarious, if ruling over Muslims with the "Sharīʿah of the Ṭāghūt" was an act of "Shirk in legislation" that opposed "Tawḥīd al-Ḥākimiyyah" - as the Khawārij claim - then there would be no possible excuse for permitting it, unlike a scholar mistakenly permitting something ḥarām such as Mutʿah or drinking Nabīdh for example
And even if a scholar could be excused for permitting what is - according to the Khawārij - an act of major Shirk, why didn't anyone correct Mālik and all the Mālikī scholars who took this view by pointing out that ruling over Muslims with another Sharīʿah is an act of Shirk?!
Of course, this is all just a moronic cope from the Khawārij, who are merely making excuses due to Mālik's status
If none of the Mālikī scholars - or any famous scholar - believed this, but a contemporary came and made the exact same argument, they would have instantly takfīred him and labeled him a Ṭāghūt worshiping Murjiʾī for daring to suggest that it would ever be permissible to judge Muslims with another Sharīʿah in any circumstance - in fact, I have encountered some extreme cases of Khawārij who admit they takfīr Mālik and his Madhhab for accepting this view
Al-Nasāʾī said in al-Sunan al-Kubrā (vol. 10, p. 257):
ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn informed us, he said: Umayya ibn Khālid narrated to us, from Shuʿba, from Muḥammad ibn Ziyād, who said: When Muʿāwiyah made people pledge allegiance to his son, Marwān said: This is the sunnah of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. So ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr said: This is the Sunnah of Heraclius and Caesar...
And Ibn Kathīr said in al-Bidāya wa al-Nihāya (vol. 11, p. 330):
And ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated from Maʿmar, from al-Zuhrī, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, who said: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr told me that when the bayʿa for Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah came to Madīnah, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said to Marwān: By Allāh, you have made it Heraclean and Kisrawian, meaning you have made the kingdom of the monarch to be passed on to his child after him.
And Ibn al-Jawzī said in Gharīb al-Ḥadīth (vol. 2, p. 497):
When Muʿāwiyah made the people pledge allegiance for Yazīd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr said: A Heraclean custom.
Meaning: do you carry this out upon the Sunnah of Heraclius in appointing the son in place of the father?
Now the Khawārij will cry "how dare you accuse Muʿāwiyah of implementing man-made laws!", while of course ignoring the actual argument being made that, even if we disagree with ʿAbd al-Raḥmān who accused him of doing so, neither he nor anyone else who believed Muʿāwiyah was guilty of this takfīred him for it
And the Khawārij will suddenly change their own definition of Tashrīʿ and try to claim that, no, implementing a binding ruling from the Sunnah of the Roman and Persian rulers that opposes the Sharīʿah has absolutely nothing to do with it, and is perfectly in line with "Tawḥīd al-Ḥākimiyyah"
And - once again - I think it is quite obvious that if this same accusation was directed at any contemporary ruler who doesn't share the status and rank of Muʿāwiyah he would immediately be labeled a Kāfir by the same people, but - and you will notice that this is a pattern - the modern Khawārij are extremely selective when it comes to their takfīr, and are willing to come up with the most convoluted mental gymnastics on the spot just to avoid takfīring famous names for doing what they would have otherwise claimed is an act of clear cut Kufr and Shirk
Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī said in al-Nawādir wa-l-Ziyādāt (vol. 14, p. 546):
Chapter: On killing the people of tribalism and enmity from the Muslims.
From the book of Ibn Saḥnūn: Saḥnūn said: Allāh the Exalted said: {And if two groups from among the believers fight...} to His saying: {...then fight the one that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allāh.}
Those among the scholars whom we met said: Its meaning is that if some people rise against others out of rebelliousness and rejection of Islāmic judgment due to tribal loyalty (ʿaṣabiyyah) acting sinfully and rebelliously, then the imām and those with him should call them to return to seeking judgement and to mutual fairness before a judge from among the judges of the Muslims. If they comply, it is accepted from them. But if the two groups or one of them refuses, then the imām fights the one who refuses, and their blood becomes lawful until they are subdued.
Saḥnūn describes a group of rebels (Bughāt) who outright reject Islāmic judgment (by action, not belief), and despite that they are being referred to as sinful Muslims here, and they are interpreted to be part of the Āyah about {...two groups from among the believers...}
Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (vol. 5, 129–132):
...He mentioned the ruling of the Torah and the Gospel, then mentioned that He sent down the Qurʾān, and commanded His Prophet to judge between them by the Qurʾān and not to follow their desires away from what came to him of the Book. He informed that He made for each of the prophets a sharʿ and a minhāj, so He made for Mūsā and ʿĪsā what is in the Torah and the Gospel of sharʿ and minhāj, and He made for the Prophet ﷺ what is in the Qurʾān of sharʿ and minhāj. He commanded him to judge by what Allāh sent down, and warned him lest they tempt him away from some of what Allāh sent down. He informed him that that is the judgment of Allāh, and whoever seeks other than it has sought the judgment of Jāhiliyyah. And He said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has sent down, then those are the disbelievers}
And there is no doubt that whoever does not believe in the obligation of ruling by what Allāh has revealed to His Messenger is a Kāfir. So whoever makes it ḥalāl to judge between people according to what he sees as just without following what Allāh has revealed is a Kāfir, for there is no nation except that it commands judgment with justice, and the concept of justice in their religion might be what their elders consider just. In fact, many of those who affiliate themselves with Islām rule according to their customs which Allāh Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā has not revealed, like the traditions of the Bedouins and the commands of those obeyed among them, and they believe this is what should be ruled by instead of the Book and the Sunnah, and this is Kufr. For many people have entered Islām, but despite that, they do not rule except by their prevailing customs, which are commanded by those obeyed among them. If such people know that it is not permissible to rule except by what Allāh has revealed and yet they do not adhere to that, rather, they make it ḥalāl to judge contrary to what Allāh has revealed, then they are Kuffār. Otherwise, they are ignorant, like those mentioned previously.Allāh has commanded all the Muslims, if they dispute over anything, to refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger. He said: {O you who believe, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Then if you dispute over anything, refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day; that is better and best in outcome}. And He said: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission}. So whoever does not adhere (literally: have iltizām, and I will clarify this shortly) to making Allāh and His Messenger judge in what arises between them, Allāh has sworn by Himself that he does not believe. As for one who adheres to the judgment of Allāh and His Messenger inwardly and outwardly, but disobeys and follows his desire, then he is like others of his kind among the sinners.
This Āyah is among what the Khawārij use as proof to declare the rulers disbelievers when they do not judge by what Allāh sent down, then they claim that their belief is the judgment of Allāh. People have spoken on this at length, the mention of which would be long here, and what I have mentioned is indicated by the context of the āyah.
The point is that judging by justice is obligatory absolutely, in every time and place, upon everyone and for everyone. Judging by what Allāh sent down to Muḥammad ﷺ is a specific justice, and it is the most complete of types of justice and the best of them. Judging by it is obligatory upon the Prophet ﷺ and upon everyone who follows him. So whoever does not adhere to the judgment of Allāh and His Messenger is a disbeliever.
This is obligatory upon the Ummah in everything over which it disputes, in matters of belief and action. He said: {Mankind were one community; then Allāh sent the prophets as bringers of glad tidings and warners, and He sent down with them the Book in truth to judge between people concerning that in which they differed; and none differed over it except those who were given it after the clear proofs came to them}. And He said: {And whatever you differ over—its judgment is to Allāh}. And He said: {Then if you dispute over anything, refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger}. So, matters shared by the Ummah are not judged except by the Book and the Sunnah, it is not for anyone to obligate people to the statement of a scholar, nor a commander, nor a shaykh, nor a king.
Whoever believes that he judges between people by something of that, and does not judge between them by the Book and the Sunnah, is a disbeliever. And the rulers of the Muslims judge in specific matters, they do not judge in universal principles. When they judge in specific matters, they must judge by what is in the Book of Allāh, if not, then by what is in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh, and if they do not find it, then the judge exercises ijtihād by his opinion.
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions two forms of judgement here:
The first is judgement in action, which includes judging with man-made customs and traditions - which the modern Khawārij consider major Kufr in it of itself - and he refers to this as judgement in "specific matters", since it doesn't encompass the other forms of judgement, such as the second one which he mentions - judgement in belief (iʿtiqād), which includes referring your belief to the statements of scholars and shaykhs instead of the Book of Allāh
And regarding the first form of judgement - the ones that rule with their man-made customs and traditions, he only ever makes takfīr on them if they:
- "Do not believe in the obligation" of ruling with the Sharīʿah
- "Make it ḥalāl" to rule with "what they see as just"
- Believe that their man-made customs and traditions are "what should be ruled by"
- Do not "adhere" (make iltizām) to the Sharīʿah
This, of course, completely opposes the creed of the Khawārij who believe the mere action of ruling with these man-made customs and traditions is Kufr Akbar that takes one out of Islām
Why did Ibn Taymiyyah repeatedly mention that if they make it ḥalāl to rule with these customs they disbelieve, or if they believe those customs are good and just they disbelieve, if he viewed the mere action to be Kufr? Would someone randomly say when talking about a person who curses Allāh that "if he makes cursing Him ḥalāl, or believes that cursing Him is good and justified he disbelieves"?!
Why did he not mention a single time that the act itself takes one out of Islām as these Khawārij believe?
But the Khawārij pathetically ignore how he continuously conditions the Kufr of the ones ruling with these man-made traditions only to those who fall into various forms of juḥūd and istiḥlāl, and cling to his statement "...So whoever does not adhere to the judgment of Allāh and His Messenger is a disbeliever", ignorantly thinking that he meant that any ruler who abandones ruling with the Sharīʿah is "not adhering" to it and is therefore a Kāfir
Ignoring the fact that this is not what Ibn Taymiyyah means when he refers to "adhering" to the Sharīʿah, the Khawārij themselves can't even explain when and how exactly a ruler doesn't "adhere" to the Sharīʿah
Does it include abandoning the establishment of a ḥadd punishment one time? Most of the time? All the time?
Does it include legislating one single law that opposes the Sharīʿah? Or replacing the majority of the constitution with man-made laws? Or all of it?
And this issue is clarified quite easily once you look at how Ibn Taymiyyah himself uses the term "adherence" (iltizām), he exclusively uses it to refer to the one who arrogantly abandones an action and displays hatred for it or to the one who obligated it, and explicitly differentiates between this and the one who abandones the action out of worldly desires while knowing and admitting he is mistaken
And there are many examples of this from his various books and Fatwās, but the clearest one is what he said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 20, p. 97):
Declaring the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever is the well-known transmitted view from the majority of the Salaf among the Companions and the Tābiʿīn. The point of dispute concerns one who affirms its obligation and adheres (makes iltizām) to performing it, yet does not perform it. As for one who does not affirm its obligation, he is a disbeliever by their agreement. The matter is not as is understood from the wording of some jurists among the companions of Aḥmad and others, that if he denies its obligation he disbelieves, and if he does not deny its obligation then he is the point of dispute. Rather, there are three categories:
The first: if he denies its obligation, then he is a disbeliever by consensus.
The second: that he does not deny its obligation, but he refrains from adhering (making iltizām) to performing it out of arrogance, envy, or hatred of Allāh and His Messenger, so he says: ‘I know that Allāh obligated it upon the Muslims, and the Messenger is truthful in conveying the Qurʾān’, but he refrains from adhering to performing it out of arrogance, or envy of the Messenger, or partisanship for his religion, or hatred of what the Messenger came with. This too is a disbeliever by consensus. For Iblīs, when he left the commanded prostration, was not denying the obligation, rather Allāh directly addressed him, yet he refused and was arrogant and became among the disbelievers. Likewise Abū Ṭālib believed the Messenger regarding what he conveyed, but he abandoned following him out of zeal for his religion and fear of the disgrace of submission, and arrogance at his lower end being above his head. This ought to be carefully understood. Whoever among the jurists states unrestrictedly that only the one who denies its obligation disbelieves, then denial for him includes both denial by rejection of the obligation and denial by refraining from affirmation and adherence (iltizām) as He said: {They do not deny you, but the wrongdoers reject the Āyāt of Allāh}; and He said: {They rejected them while their souls were certain of them, out of wrongdoing and arrogance}. Otherwise, whenever he does not affirm and adhere to performing it, he is killed and declared a disbeliever by consensus.
The third: that he affirms and adheres (makes iltizām), but leaves it out of laziness and negligence, or due to being occupied with other aims, this is the point of dispute. It is like one who owes a debt and affirms its obligation and adheres (makes iltizām) to paying it, but delays out of miserliness or negligence.
And here is a fourth category: that he leaves it while neither affirming its obligation nor denying its obligation, yet he affirms Islām in general, then is this among the points of dispute, or among the matters of consensus?
Notice how his example of "not adhering" here is the likes of Iblīs, who he says abandoned the prostration out of arrogance and hatred of the Sharīʿah, and Abū Ṭālib, who completely refused to follow Islām in the firstplace out of zeal for his own religion and arrogance
And at the same time, he referred the the one who abandones prayer and the one who delays paying his debt as "adhering" to those actions, despite not actually performing them
And this is the exact same way his student Ibn al-Qayyim used the word, as he said in Zād al-Maʿād (vol. 5, p. 160):
As for marrying a fornicatress: He, Glorified is He, has explicitly stated the ruling of its prohibition in Sūrat al-Nūr, and He informed that whoever marries her is either a fornicator or a Mushrik. And he either adheres (makes iltizām) to His ruling, Exalted is He, and believes it to be obligatory upon him, or he does not. If he does not adhere (make iltizām) to it and does not believe in it, then he is a Mushrik, and if he adheres (makes iltizām) to it and believes in its obligation yet goes against it, then he is a fornicator.
And he repeated this in Ighāthat al-Lahfān fī Maṣāyid al-Shayṭān (vol. 1, p. 109):
Thus, the one who marries either adheres (makes iltizām) to the ruling of Allāh and His legislation which He legislated upon the tongue of His Messenger, or he does not adhere (makes iltizām) to it.
If he does not adhere (makes iltizām), then he is a Mushrik, and none is pleased with his marriage except one who is a Mushrik like him.
And if he adheres (makes iltizām) to it yet goes against it and marries what has been made ḥarām for him, the marriage is not valid, so he is a fornicator. Thus the meaning of His statement becomes clear: {He does not marry except a fornicatress or a Mushrikah}.
And this is even clearer
Ibn al-Qayyim gives two scenarios:
The first, where a person "does not adhere" to the ruling prohibiting the marriage of the fornicatress - this person is a Mushrik
And the second - which is what is relevant here - where he "adheres" to this same ruling, but proceeds to go against it and marry her anyways - this person is a fornicator and his marriage is invalid, but he is not called a Mushrik
By the Khawārij's ignorant understanding of the word, there would be no difference between the two scenarios, as the one who enters this contract has automatically failed to "adhere" to the prohibition of it by this mere action, and so both quotes become incoherent
And Ibn Ḥazm said in his Rasāʾil (vol. 3, p. 168):
Accordingly, books of opinion (Raʾiy) must be read in this manner (critically examined) and not otherwise. Whoever reads them in this way is rewarded and benefits from them greatly. As for whoever reads them religiously, without comparing them to the Qurʾān and the ḥadīth of the Prophet, he is a Fāsiq, for his disobedience to what Allāh has commanded him, and because he did not judge by what Allāh revealed. And whoever adds to this istiḥlāl of opposing what is reported from the Prophet - of what he believes to be authentic from him - for the statement of someone else instead of him, and believes (literally: has iʿtiqād) that this is permissible, then he is a Kāfir, a Mushrik, an apostate from the religion.
Once again, this is not just about ruling in "specific cases" based off your desires, Ibn Ḥazm is talking about someone ruling with the books of Raʾiy - which he considers to be a source of rulings that oppose the ruling of Allāh - and yet still does not takfīr the one who follows them unless he believes doing so is permissible
If the Khawārij object and claim that those books do not actually oppose the Sharīʿah, then this is irrelevant as Ibn Ḥazm clearly believed they do, so if he agreed with them in principle that ruling with another source of legislation is Kufr Akbar, he would have applied this to the ones who rule with those books
And this is not even his clearest quote on this issue, as you will see in the next chapter
ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-Shaykh said in Minhāj al-Taʾsīs (p. 71):
Arbitration (taḥkīm) becomes ḥarām when it is based on a false Sharīʿah that contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, such as the rulings of the Greeks, the Franks, the Tatars, and their laws whose source is their opinions and desires, as well as the traditions and prevailing customs of the Bedouins.
Whoever deems judgment by this to be ḥalāl, whether in matters of blood or other than that, is a Kāfir. Allāh said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} [al-Māʾidah: 44].
Some of the Mufassirīn have mentioned regarding this Āyah that the kufr intended here is minor kufr, because they understood it to apply to one who rules by other than what Allāh revealed without deeming it ḥalāl. But they differ regarding its general application to the one who does deem it ḥalāl, and that his kufr takes him out of the religion.
ʿAbd al-Laṭīf explicitly mentions man-made laws here, yet once again, he only brings up Kufr when it comes to the one who believes ruling with or seeking judgement from them is ḥalāl
...It reached us from them that they takfīr the Imāms of the Muslims for corresponding with the Egyptian kings, rather, they takfīr those among the shaykhs of the Muslims who associated with those who corresponded with them. We seek refuge in Allāh from misguidance after guidance, and from reversal after firmness.
It has reached us from you something similar to this. You plunged into issues from this door, such as speaking about loyalty and enmity, reconciliation and correspondence, giving weaʾlth and gifts, and the like - matters from the doctrines of the people of shirk with Allāh and misguidance - and ruling by other than what Allāh revealed among the Bedouins and those like them from the harsh and coarse. No one speaks about these matters except scholars of sound intellects, those granted understanding from Allāh, and those given wisdom and decisive speech.
Speech on this depends upon knowing what we have previously set forth, and knowing general, universal foundations. It is not permissible to speak in this door, or others, for one who is ignorant of them, turns away from them and from their details. For generalization and unqualified statements, and lack of knowledge of the proper places of discourse and their details, lead to confusion, error, and lack of understanding from Allāh, things that corrupt religions, scatter minds, and stand between them and understanding the Sunnah and the Qurʾān. Ibn al-Qayyim said in his Kāfiyah:
‘So adhere to detail and clarification, for
unrestrictedness and generalization without explanation
have corrupted this existence and confounded
minds and opinions in every age.’As for takfīring over these matters which you assumed to be among the nullifiers for the people of Islām, this is the doctrine of the Ḥarūriyyah, the renegades, who rebelled against ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the Amīr of the Believers, and those with him among the Companions. For they objected to his appointing Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī and ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ as arbiters in the tribulation that occurred between him and Muʿāwiyah and the people of al-Shām. The Khawārij objected to him for that, though they were originally from among his companions, from the reciters of Kūfah and Baṣrah. They said: ‘You have judged by men in the religion of Allāh, and you have allied with Muʿāwiyah and ʿAmr and appointed them,’ while Allāh has said: {Judgment is only for Allāh}
Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān said in ʿUyūn al-Rasāʾil wa-l-Ajwibah ʿala al-Masāʾil (vol. 2, p. 603):
...So the Shaykh (referring to ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-Shaykh), raḥimahullāh, responded to him, urging and encouraging him to remain upright upon this sound creed, to avoid the people of the Hellfire, to strive in seeking knowledge and teaching it, and to call to the religion of Allāh and His path.
And that which he mentioned regarding the Bedouins, of distinguishing between the one who deems ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed to be ḥalāl, and the one who does not deem it ḥalāl, is the view that should be acted upon, and it is the one to be referred to according to the people of knowledge.
Meaning: whoever deems it lawful to rule by other than what Allāh has revealed, and sees the judgement of the Ṭāghūt as better than the judgement of Allāh, and believes that the townspeople know only the rules of inheritance, and that what they (the Bedouins) are upon of traditions and customs is the truth, then whoever holds such a belief is a Kāfir.
As for the one who does not deem this to be ḥalāl, and sees the judgement of the Ṭāghūt as false, and the judgement of Allāh and His Messenger as the truth, then he does not disbelieve, and does not exit Islām.
{And for all there are degrees according to what they have done} [Sūrat al-Anʿām (6:132)]
Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān, while explaining the statements of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf in another instance, gives the same tafṣīl as his Shaykh and mentions that the one who doesn't prefer the judgement of the Ṭāghūt or deem it ḥalāl to rule by it is not to be takfīred
And once again, this is clearly not just about someone ruling by other than what Allāh revealed "in a specific instance", he is talking about someone judging with the judgement of the Ṭāghūt, and still does not takfīr him
And Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Āl al-Shaykh gave the same exact tafṣīl as Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān, as is explicitly stated in Fatāwā wa-Rasāʾil Samāḥat al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-Shaykh (vol. 1, p. 79):
Likewise, and what is even more important than that, is what atheists, heretics, orientalists, and others insert into the minds of some Muslims, causing doubt in the very foundations of their religion, misleading them regarding the Sunnah of their Prophet ﷺ and his Sharīʿah, and promoting the judgment by man-made laws that oppose the Islāmic Sharīʿah.
And the most important matter is understanding the essence of Tawḥīd which Allāh sent His Messenger Muḥammad ﷺ with, and realizing it in knowledge and action, and fighting what contradicts it, whether major Shirk, which expels from the religion, or the forms of minor shirk. This is the realization of the meaning of Lā ilāha illā Allāh.
Likewise, realizing the meaning of Muḥammadan Rasūlullāh entails judging by his Sharīʿah, adhering to it, and rejecting whatever contradicts it from man-made laws, customs, and other things for which Allāh has sent down no authority. Whoever rules by them or refers to them for judgment, believing in their validity and permissibility, is a Kāfir, the kind of Kufr that expels from the religion.
And whoever does so without believing in its validity or permissibility, then he is a kāfir in the form of kufr ʿamalī, which does not expel from the religion.
It's found in the audio recording titled "al-Damʿat al-Bāziyyah", which is a famous discussion between Salmān al-ʿAwda and Ibn Bāz that:
Salmān al-ʿAwda said: "What if someone rules by an abrogated Sharīʿah, like Judaism, and imposes it on the people, making it a general law, punishing those who oppose it by imprisonment, execution, or exile?"
Ibn Bāz said: "Did he attribute it to the Sharīʿah or not?"
Al-ʿAwda said: "He ruled by it without commenting on that matter, but he replaced the Sharīʿah with it."
Ibn Bāz said: "If he attributes it to the Sharīʿah, then this is Kufr."
Al-ʿAwda said: "Kufr akbar or aṣghar?"
Ibn Bāz said: "Akbar, if he ascribes it to the Sharīʿah. But if he doesn't ascribe it to the Sharīʿah, it is just a law he implemented, then no, like the one who lashes people without the Sharʿī ruling, lashes people based on his desires, or kills them based on his desires, he might kill some people based on his desires overcoming him."
Al-ʿAwda said: "Is there no difference, may Allāh preserve you, between a specific case or particular incident and him setting it as a general law for all people?"
Ibn Bāz said: "If he ascribes it to the Sharīʿah, he disbelieves. But if he doesn’t ascribe it to the Sharīʿah, and views it as a law that works among people not from the Sharīʿah, not from Allāh nor His Messenger, then it is a crime, but not major Kufr, I believe."
Q: Is there a difference between wholesale replacement and judging in a single case?
A: If he did not intend by that istiḥlāl, but rather judged by it for other reasons, then it is Kufr Dūna Kufr. But if he says: it is permissible and there is no harm in judging by other than what Allāh has revealed - even if he says the Sharīʿah is better, but says: there is no harm, it is permissible - then by that he commits major Kufr.
Ibn ʿUthaymīn said in an audio recording of his last fatwā on this topic:
As for the matter of ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed, it is, as is mentioned in the Noble Book, divided into three categories: Kufr, ẓulm, and fisq, according to the reasons upon which such ruling is based.
If a man rules by other than what Allāh has revealed out of following his desires, while knowing that the truth lies in what Allāh has decreed, then he is not a Kāfir, but is either a fāsiq or a ẓālim.
As for the one who legislates a general ruling upon which the Ummah proceeds, thinking that it is in the interest (of the people), while having been confused or misled regarding it, he is also not to be declared a Kāfir, for many of the rulers are ignorant of the Sharʿī knowledge, and those who reach them may not know the ruling of the Sharīʿah, even while they are thought to be great scholars, and this leads to opposition (to the Sharʿ).
And if a person knows the Sharīʿah, yet he rules or legislates by other than it, making it a constitution upon which the people proceed, while believing himself to be unjust in doing so, and acknowledging that the truth is what the Book and the Sunnah brought, then we cannot declare this person a Kāfir.
Instead, we takfīr the one who sees that the ruling of other than Allāh is more appropriate for the people to follow, or equal to the ruling of Allāh, for such a person is a Kāfir, as he is denying the statement of Allāh: {Is not Allāh the best of judges?}, and His statement: {Is it the judgment of the Jāhiliyyah that they seek? And who is better than Allāh in judgment for a people who are certain?}.
Additionally, many of the Khawārij and their heads hold that voting in democratic elections - regardless of the candidate - is an act of major Shirk, while the very same Saudi contemporaries they praise considered it at most ḥarām or even outright permissible under some conditions
It is mentioned in the Permanent Committee Fatwas - First Collection (vol. 23, p. 406):
Q: Is voting in elections and running as a candidate permissible, given that our country is ruled by other than what Allāh has revealed?
A: It is not permissible for a Muslim to nominate himself in hope of becoming part of a government that rules by other than what Allāh has revealed and operates by other than the Sharīʿah of Islām. So it is not permissible for a Muslim to vote for him or for others who work in this government - unless the one who puts himself forward from among the Muslims, and those who vote for him, hope by entering through that to bring about a transformation of governance to ruling by the Sharīʿah of Islām, and they take that as a means to overcome the system of rule - on the condition that the one who puts himself forward, after completing entry, does not work except in positions that do not conflict with the Islāmic Sharīʿah.
And with Allāh is success.ʿAbd Allāh bin Quʿūd … ʿAbd Allāh bin Ghadayān … ʿAbd al-Razzāq ʿAfīfī … ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin ʿAbd Allāh bin Bāz
And Ibn ʿUthaymīn said in this recording:
This questioner asks: Esteemed Shaykh, the United States of America is currently undergoing a presidential election, they are electing the president. Is it permissible for American Muslims to vote in these elections for one of the candidates who they believe to be more beneficial for the Muslims in this country, or should they completely avoid these elections?
He said: No, I see that they should vote for the one they see as more beneficial for the Muslims, and there is no harm in this..
And on a similar note, many of the 13th-14th century scholars these Khawārij constantly appeal to did not takfīr - in fact they even praised - the ones who worked as judges under the Ṭāghūt Mongol government, as long as they themselves ruled with the Sharīʿah
A good example of this would be with Hulegu Khān, one of the worst Mongol rulers, as Ibn Kathīr said in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (vol. 13, p. 248):
Hulegu Khān, son of Tolui Khān, son of Genghis Khān
The king of the Tatars, son of the king of the Tatars, and he was the father of their kings. The common people say Hulāwūn, like Qalāwūn. And Hulegu was a tyrannical, immoral, Kāfir king, may Allāh curse him.
Hulegu appointed the Shāfiʿī scholar ʿUmar bin Bundār as a judge over vast swathes of land, and he accepted this Ṭāghūt's appointment, and yet - again - no one takfīred him for it
Ibn Kathīr said in Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyīn (p. 905):
ʿUmar bin Bundār bin ʿUmar, Chief Judge, Kamāl al-Dīn Abū Ḥafṣ al-Tiflīsī al-Shāfiʿī
…He was appointed deputy in judgment and treated the people well. Then when Hulegu arrived, he appointed him judge over Syria, al-Jazīrah, and al-Mawṣil. He was highly regarded by them and they did not oppose him in anything. He also treated the people well, and no act of injustice, wrongdoing, or anything he unlawfully took was known from him. Rather, he strove to prevent bloodshed.
Then Qāḍī Muḥyī al-Dīn bin al-Zakī departed, so he assumed the judiciary in Damascus. They dismissed him and removed from him the teaching post of al-ʿĀdiliyyah, and appointed him judge of Aleppo. Then they dismissed him and compelled him to travel to the Egyptian lands, where he remained benefiting the people until he died in the year 672 AH, in Rabīʿ al-Awwal of that year, may Allāh have mercy upon him
Al-Dhahabī said in Tārīkh al-Islām (vol. 15, p. 246):
ʿUmar bin Bundār bin ʿUmar, the judge, the erudite scholar, Kamāl al-Dīn, Abū Ḥafṣ al-Tiflīsī, al-Shāfiʿī.
...He had a praiseworthy conduct, good religiosity, and sound creed. When the Tatars took control, he received an appointment decree from Hulegu granting him authority over the judiciary of Syria, al-Jazīrah, and al-Mawṣil. He served for a short period and treated the people as well as possible, and defended the subjects.
Now, regarding seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt
They use the Āyāt of al-Nisāʾ:
{Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muḥammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, while they were commanded to disbelieve in it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray. - And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allāh has revealed and to the Messenger," you see the Munāfiqīn turning away from you in aversion. - So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allāh, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation." - Those are the ones of whom Allāh knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching [i.e., effective] word. - And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allāh. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muḥammad], and asked forgiveness of Allāh and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allāh Accepting of Repentance and Merciful. - But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.}
The Khawārij argue that Allāh "negated the claim to īmān" of those who seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, as He said {Have you not seen those who claim to have believed}, and ruled that this act renders you a Munāfiq, as He said {And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allāh has revealed and to the Messenger," you see the Munāfiqīn turning away from you in aversion.}
And this is a shockingly embarrassing argument once you understand a few basic principles
The reason Allāh referred to those people as "those who claimed to have believed" and as Munāfiqīn was not in order to prescribe that whoever seeks judgement from the Ṭāghūt is a Munāfiq who merely claims to believe in Allāh, and this is not even the apparent reading
Rather this is a descriptive report, in simple terms, the Āyāt are saying "the Munāfiqīn who verbally claimed to have believed do X" and not that "whoever does X is a Munāfiq, and his claim to īmān is false" - and I will provide more examples of this shortly
This would have been even clearer if the Khawārij bothered to ask themselves why were they specifically called Munāfiqīn and not just Kuffār or Murtaddīn
The Munāfiqīn during the time of the Prophet were - by definition - disbelievers due to the Kufr they hid in their hearts, and not due to their outward actions of the limbs, which is why they were left alone until they showed that Kufr which they hide in their hearts
And this aligns with what al-Samʿānī mentioned in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 46):
As for Kufr of Nifāq: it is that one affirms with the tongue while not believing with the heart.
And what Ibn al-Qayyim said in Madārij al-Sālikīn (vol. 1, p. 522):
As for Kufr of Nifāq, it is that one displays īmān with his tongue while inwardly harboring denial (takdhīb) in his heart. This is major Nifāq (Nifāq Akbar)
And he said in al-Ṣalāh (p. 97):
Likewise, Nifāq is of two types: Nifāq of belief (iʿtiqād), and Nifāq of action (ʿamal).
As for Nifāq of belief, it is that which Allāh condemned the Munāfiqīn for in the Qurʾān, and by it He obligated for them the lowest depths of the Fire.
And keep in mind, this is different from the tafṣīl Ibn al-Qayyim himself gives for Kufr in the same book just a few pages earlier, in al-Ṣalāh (p. 88):
There is another principle here: Kufr is of two types: Kufr ʿamal (action), and Kufr of juḥūd and ʿinād
As for kufr of juḥūd, it is to disbelieve in what one knows the Messenger came with from Allāh, out of juḥūd and ʿinād, from the Names of the Lord, His Attributes, His Actions, and His Rulings.
This type of kufr is entirely contrary to īmān.As for kufr of ʿamal, it is divided into that which negates īmān (meaning, makes one a Kāfir), and that which does not negate it.
So prostrating to an idol, showing contempt for the Muṣḥaf, killing a Prophet, and reviling him - all of these negate īmān....
Notice how for Kufr, he separates it into Kufr of juḥūd, which is always major Kufr, and Kufr of action, which he notes "is divided into that which negates īmān, and that which does not negate it" - meaning some actions can be major Kufr, while others can be minor Kufr
And this is different from Nifāq, as he himself states major Nifāq is the Nifāq of belief and denial of the heart, and he notes that it is the Nifāq the Munāfiqīn were condemned for in the Qurʾān
And there are examples of similar descriptive reports regarding the Munāfiqīn in the Sunnah, that are clearly about Nifāq of action (=minor nifāq) or the attributes of the Munāfiqīn, and don't render everyone who falls into the same sin a Munāfiq Kāfir
Such as what Muslim narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 2, p. 110):
[...]from al-ʿAlāʾ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that he entered upon Anas ibn Mālik in his house in al-Baṣrah...
...he said: I heard the Messenger of Allāh say: That is the prayer of the Munāfiq: he sits watching the sun, until when it is between the two horns of Satan, he stands and pecks the ground four times, not remembering Allāh in it except a little.
Obviously the intended meaning here is not that delaying ʿAṣr and praying it lazily makes one a Munāfiq Kāfir, again this is descriptive and not prescriptive
But this is best shown in the Āyāt themselves, as it is mentioned that those same Munāfiqīn who sought judgement from the Ṭāghūt are among {...the ones of whom Allāh knows what is in their hearts}
And it is supported by the understanding of most of the Mufassirīn, who held that the people the Āyah was revealed about were already Munāfiqīn who glorified the Ṭāghūt while hating the judgement of Allāh in their hearts - and there is no reason that their ruling would apply to a Muslim who merely goes to a Ṭāghūt for a worldly reason without concealing in his heart hatred of the ruling of Allāh, and does not secretly prefer the judgement of the Ṭāghūt
As al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 8, p. 507):
The interpretation of His saying: {Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muḥammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, while they were commanded to disbelieve in it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray}.
Abū Jaʿfar said: He means by that: Have you not seen, O Muḥammad, with your heart, and thus known those who claim that they believed in what was sent down to you from the Book, and those who claim that they believed in what was sent down before you from the Books? {They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt}, meaning: to the one whom they magnify, and from whose word they take guidance, and whose ruling they are pleased with instead of the ruling of Allāh. {while they were commanded to disbelieve in it} meaning: Allāh commanded them to deny what the Ṭāghūt whom they seek judgement from brought them, but they abandoned the command of Allāh and followed the command of Satan. {and Satan wishes to lead them far astray} meaning: that Satan wants to divert these who seek judgment from the Ṭāghūt away from the path of truth and guidance, and thus mislead them far away, meaning: to deviate them from it with severe deviation.
And Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 3, p. 992):
His saying, Exalted is He: {So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allāh, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation."}
5553 – al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad narrated to us, Mūsā ibn Muḥkam narrated to us, Abū Bakr al-Ḥanafī informed us, ʿAbbād ibn Manṣūr said: I asked al-Ḥasan, meaning regarding His saying: ‘So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth’ he said: ‘A punishment for them due to their nifāq, and that they hated the ruling of Allāh. Then they came to you swearing by Allāh, ‘We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation.’
And Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī said in al-Ṣārim al-Munkī (p. 317):
{And when it is said to them: Come, the Messenger of Allāh will seek forgiveness for you, they turn their heads, and you see them turning away while they are arrogant} and likewise this Āyah is concerning the Munāfiq who was pleased with the judgment of Kaʿb bin al-Ashraf and other Ṭawāghīt instead of the judgment of the Messenger of Allāh, so he wronged himself by that with the greatest wrongdoing.
While another - much smaller - group interpreted the Āyah differently, and held that even the specific group of Munāfiqīn mentioned in it were Muslims who were not guilty of nifāq of denial/major nifāq, and were only called Munāfiqīn in the sense of nifāq ʿamalī/minor nifāq
And this view is also backed by reports from the Sunnah such as what Aḥmad narrated in his Musnad (vol. 16, p. 539):
Ḥasan narrated to us; Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Dāwūd ibn Abī Hind, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet. And Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Ḥabīb ibn al-Shahīd, from al-Ḥasan, from the Prophet, who said: Three - whoever has them is a Munāfiq, even if he fasts and prays and claims that he is a Muslim: when he speaks, he lies. When he makes a promise, he breaks it. And when he is entrusted, he betrays.
And what al-Tirmidhī said in his Sunan (vol. 4, p. 578):
Maḥmūd ibn Ghaylān narrated to us, ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Mūsā narrated to us, from Sufyān, from al-Aʿmash, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Murrah, from Masrūq, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, from the Prophet, who said: Four - whoever has them is a Munāfiq, and whoever has one of them has a trait of nifāq until he abandons it: when he speaks, he lies, when he promises, he breaks his promise; when he disputes, he behaves immorally, and when he makes a covenant, he betrays.
This is a ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth.
The meaning of this according to the people of knowledge is nifāq of action (ʿamal). As for nifāq of denial (takdhīb), it was during the time of the Messenger. It has been narrated from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī something to this effect, that he said: Nifāq is of two kinds: nifāq of action and nifāq of denial.
As for the ones who held this view
Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated in his Tafsīr (vol. 3, p. 993):
Ḥajjāj ibn Ḥamzah narrated to us, Shabābah narrated to us, Warqāʾ narrated from Ibn Abī Najīḥ, from Mujāhid regarding His statement: {And if they, when they wronged themselves...} to {...Merciful} this was about the Jewish man and the Muslim man who sought judgement from Kaʿb ibn al-Ashraf.
And Ibn Ḥazm said in al-Muḥallā bil-Āthār (vol. 12, p. 128):
He said: {Have you not seen those who claim that they believe in what was sent down to you and what was sent down before you? They want to seek judgment from the Ṭāghūt, though they were commanded to reject it; but Satan wants to lead them far astray} up to His saying: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission}
It is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allāh that he said: ‘Three - whoever has them is a pure Munāfiq’ in the book of Muslim and others: ‘When he speaks, he lies, when he promises, he breaks it, and when he is entrusted, he betrays, even if he fasts and prays and claims that he is Muslim.’ And also by the route of Muslim: Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Numayr both narrated to us, they said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Numayr narrated to us from al-Aʿmash, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Murrah, from Masrūq, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, who said: the Messenger of Allāh said: ‘Four - whoever has them is a pure Munāfiq, and whoever has one trait of them has a trait of Nifāq until he leaves it: when he speaks, he lies, when he promises, he breaks it, when he makes a covenant, he betrays, and when he disputes, he transgresses.’
It is then established that here there is Nifāq whose possessor is not a Kāfir, and Nifāq whose possessor is a Kāfir. So it is possible that those who sought judgment from the Ṭāghūt instead of from the Prophet ﷺ were outwardly manifesting obedience to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, disobedient by seeking to refer judgment to other than him, believing in the correctness of this, but desiring to follow whims, so they were not thereby Kuffār, but sinners.
And this quote from Ibn Ḥazm is so clear that I genuinely have no idea why some Khawārij claim him or think he shares their Manhaj, but alas
The Mufassirīn likewise held that, because their Kufr is hidden in their hearts and not apparent from their limbs, we should turn away from them and not punish them unless they outwardly present what is in their hearts, based on Allāh's command to {...turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching [i.e., effective] word}
Regarding the interpretation of the Āyah: {Those are the ones Allāh knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them and admonish them, and say to them a far-reaching word}
Abū Ja'far said: Allāh Exalted is His praise means by “those”: these Munāfiqīn whose characteristics I have described to you, O Muḥammad. {Allāh knows what is in their hearts} regarding their seeking judgment from the Ṭāghūt and abandoning seeking judgment from you, and their turning away from you, this is from nifāq and deviation. Even if they swear by Allāh saying, “We intended nothing but good conduct and reconciliation,”
{So turn away from them and admonish them} means: leave them, and do not punish their bodies and limbs, but rather admonish them by warning them of Allāh’s punishment that may descend upon them, and His punishment that could fall upon their homes. Warn them of the evil of what they are upon from doubt concerning the command of Allāh and His Messenger.
{And say to them a far-reaching word} that is, command them to fear Allāh and believe in Him, in His Messenger, and in His promise and threat.
Regarding His saying: {Those are the ones Allāh knows what is in their hearts} contrary to what is on their tongues
{So turn away from them and admonish them}, If someone were to ask, “How can turning away and admonishing be combined, when Allāh has commanded both?”
It is said: The meaning is “Turn away from punishing them, but admonish them.”
And it is said: The meaning is “Turn away from accepting their excuses, but admonish them.”
{And say to them a far-reaching word}: A far-reaching word is that which reaches the depth of what is in the person’s heart.
It is also said: it means threatening them with Allāh.
And it is said: that he should say to them, “If you return to this, your punishment will be execution.”
Regarding the Āyah: {So turn away from them and admonish them, and say to them a far-reaching word},
Ibn al-Qayyim said: Allāh commanded His Messenger ﷺ regarding them with three things:
To turn away from them as a way to humiliate them, belittle their status, and diminish their significance, not merely ignoring and abandoning them, and from this it is understood that the Āyah is not abrogated.
To admonish them, this means to warn them of Allāh’s punishment, wrath, and vengeance if they persist in referring judgment to other than the Messenger ﷺ and what was revealed to him.
To speak to them a far-reaching word about themselves, meaning a statement whose effect reaches their hearts. It is not soft speech that leaves no impact. The linguistic root indicates a word that achieves its intended purpose, which in this context is rebuke and warning, with a deep impact on the soul. It is not like a statement that passes by the ear unnoticed
And ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Rasaʿnī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 547):
{They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt} it was Kaʿb ibn al-Ashraf, he was called that because of his extreme transgression and enmity to Islām.
{while they were commanded to disbelieve in it} Muqātil said: they were commanded to disassociate from the soothsayers.
His saying: {So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them} meaning: what will their state be when a punishment from Allāh befalls them? It was said: it is the killing of the Munāfiq.
{because of what their hands have put forth} of nifāq and seeking judgment from the Ṭāghūt.
{and then they come to you} meaning: the allies of the Munāfiq, and they had requested retaliation from ʿUmar, may Allāh be pleased with him.
{swearing by Allāh, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation."} meaning: by requesting retaliation.
Another view: ‘We did not intend by seeking judgment from other than you except good and reconciliation between the disputants, not to oppose your judgment or reject your ruling.’ But that was a lie from them. Do you not see that He says: {Those are the ones whom Allāh knows what is in their hearts} meaning: of Kufr, Nifāq, and concealing contrary to what they say.
{So turn away from them} meaning: leave punishing them.
A group of Mufassirīn said that the command to turn away is abrogated by the ‘Verse of the Sword.’ This is not correct, for the Verse of the Sword entailed the permissibility of the blood of the polytheists and urged fighting them, but the Munāfiq’s blood is inviolable because of his manifesting the word of truth.
{but admonish them} frighten them lest they return to the like of it, and warn them of nifāq .
{and speak to them a far-reaching [i.e., effective] word} meaning: say to them and emphasize in admonishing them with an admonition that impacts their souls and reaches the core of their hearts.
Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, raḥimahullāh, said: The meaning is: say to them, ‘If you manifest what is in your hearts of nifāq, you will be killed.’
And likewise, Ibn Abī Zamanīn said in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 384):
Keep in mind, this is all regarding the people who were already exposed for wishing to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, and yet Allāh Himself tells us to {...turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching [i.e., effective] word}, and all these Mufassirīn affirmed that this means that we should not punish them, and some of them took it a step further and clarified that this ruling wasn't abrogated either{So turn away from them} do not k... them as long as they continue to outwardly display īmān {but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching [i.e., effective] word} say to them: If you reveal what is in your hearts, I will k... you.
And if that wasn't enough, some of them made their view even clearer by stating that those same people who wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt should only be punished if they reveal what is in their hearts
This is a disaster for the Khawārij, who hold that anyone who wishes to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt is automatically an apostate who should be executed, regardless of what he holds in his heart
Can you imagine their reaction if a scholar said that a person who we see worshiping an idol or cursing the Prophet ﷺ should be left alone unless he "reveals what is in his heart", they would obviously call this pure Irjāʾ! So why the double standards? According to the Khawārij there is no difference between those actions and the action of seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt
Would the Khawārij mind explaining why Allāh commanded us to turn away from those they themselves deem as apostates who must be killed, and why the Mufassirīn held that this same command entails not punishing them "unless they reveal what is in their hearts", and that it was not abrogated either?
But then the Khawārij make another, even more moronic argument
They argue that Allāh ruled that anyone who seeks judgement from the Ṭāghūt did not disbelieve in it, based on His statement {They wish to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, while they were commanded to disbelieve in it}, and that anyone who does not disbelieve in the Ṭāghūt is a Kāfir
Ignoring the fact that no one from the Salaf ever layed out this principle that failing to disbelieve in a Ṭāghūt makes one a Kāfir, this belief necessitates that any act that opposes the command to disbelieve in the Ṭāghūt is automatically Kufr
And there are many examples for this, such as the one who obeys a Ṭāghūt in committing a sin, or spies for a Ṭāghūt, or fights in the army of the Ṭāghūt, and many other such sins
So if the Khawārij want to be consistent, they should declare the one who does all of these to be a Kāfir who has failed to disbelieve in the Ṭāghūt
But the clearest example of this is the case of the Kāhin (soothsayer), who is a Ṭāghūt by definition, as al-Bukhārī mentioned in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 6, p. 45):
ʿIkrimah said: al-jibt, in the language of the Ethiopians, means a devil, and al-Ṭāghūt means the Kāhin.
And denial (takdhīb) of what the Ṭāghūt came with is also, by definition, disbelief in it, as al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 8, p. 507):
{While they were commanded to disbelieve in it} meaning: Allāh commanded them to deny what the Ṭāghūt whom they seek judgement from brought them, but they abandoned the command of Allāh and followed the command of Satan.
So if someone deals with a Ṭāghūt and fails to deny what he came with, he is by definition not disbelieving in that Ṭāghūt!
And even the Najdī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Qāsim admitted this in Ḥāshiyat Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (p. 204):
In al-Ṭabarānī's (Musnad), from Wāthilah, as a marfūʿ report: Whoever goes to a Kāhin and asks him about something, repentance is withheld from him for forty nights, and if he believes what he says, he commits Kufr.
The aḥādīth that mention Kufr are restricted to believing him. The apparent meaning of the ḥadīth is that he commits Kufr whenever he holds his truthfulness to be true in any manner whatsoever. Is the Kufr in this context Kufr Dūna Kufr, such that it does not remove one from the religion, or should one withhold judgment regarding it, as is the more well-known of the two narrations from Aḥmad? And the one who believes the ʿArrāf or the Kāhin has not disbelieved in the Ṭāghūt, rather, he is a believer in it.
And yet, no one made takfīr on those who actively go to these Kāhins and affirm and believe what they say, and no one said that they have failed to disbelieve in that Ṭāghūt and failed to believe in Allāh, rather they were considered sinful
As Ibn Wahb mentioned in al-Jāmiʿ (p. 766):
Ibn Lahīʿah informed me, from al-Ḥārith ibn Yazīd, from Wadāʿah, that he entered upon Faḍālah ibn ʿUbayd, a Companion of the Prophet. He brought food close to him, so Faḍālah said: Do you know what this is? Such-and-such a woman had gone to a Kāhin to ask him about something, and he ordered her to fast forty days as an expiation for that. Today is the completion of that.
And as al-Tirmidhī said in his Sunan (vol. 1, p. 242):
Bundār narrated to us, he said: Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, and Bahz ibn Asad narrated to us, they said: Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Ḥakīm al-Athram, from Abū Tamīmah al-Hujaymī, from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet, who said: Whoever enters a menstruating woman, or a woman from her behind, or a Kāhin, has committed Kufr with what was revealed to Muḥammad.
We do not know this ḥadīth except through the narration of Ḥakīm al-Athram from Abū Tamīmah al-Hujaymī from Abū Hurayrah. The meaning of this, according to the people of knowledge, is exaggerated emphasis (al-taghlīẓ).
And Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām said in al-Īmān (p. 37), in the chapter “Leaving īmān due to sins”:
And among the types in which Kufr is used as a designation is the saying of the Prophet when they were rained upon, and he said: ‘Do you know what your Lord said?’ He said: ‘Among My servants, one awakens as a believer and another as a Kāfir. As for the one who says, “We were given rain by such-and-such a star,” he is a Kāfir in Me and a believer in the star, and the one who says, “This is the provision of Allāh and His mercy,” he is a believer in Me and a Kāfir in the star.’ And his saying: ‘Do not return after me as Kuffār, striking the necks of one another.’ And his saying: ‘Whoever says to his companion, “O Kāfir,” then one of them has incurred it.’ And his saying: ‘Whoever goes to a Sāḥir or a Kāhin and believes what he says, or enters a menstruating woman or a woman from her behind, has freed himself from what was revealed to Muḥammad, or has committed Kufr with what was revealed to Muḥammad.’ And the saying of ʿAbd Allāh: ‘Insulting a believer is Fisq, and fighting him is Kufr.’ Some of them raise it [to the Prophet]…
Ibn Baṭṭah said in al-Ibānah al-Kubrā (vol. 2, p. 728), in the chapter he titled "Mention of the sins that lead their doer to [a form of] kufr which does not take him out of the religion"
…from Abū Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allāh said: Whoever goes to a ʿArrāf or a Kāhin and believes what he says has committed Kufr with what was revealed to Muḥammad.
Ibn Abī Zamanīn said in Uṣūl al-Sunnah (p. 238):
…from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet, who said: Whoever enters a menstruating woman, or a woman from her behind, or a Kāhin and believes what he says has committed Kufr with what was revealed to Muḥammad.
…These ḥadīths and others like them mean that these mentioned acts are among the characteristics of the Kuffār and the Mushrikūn and their practices, and they are prohibited so that Muslims avoid them. As for the one who commits any of them being a Mushrik with Allāh or a Kāfir - then no.
Ibn al-Qayyim said in Madārij al-Sālikīn (vol. 1, p. 517):
As for Kufr, it is of two types: major Kufr and minor Kufr.
Major Kufr is that which necessitates abiding eternally in the Fire.
Minor Kufr necessitates deserving the threat without eternity, as in His statement… and in the other ḥadīth: Whoever goes to a Kāhin and believes what he says has committed Kufr with what was revealed to Muḥammad.
Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān said in Kashf Ghayāhib al-Ẓalām ʿan Awhām Jalāʾ al-Awhām (p. 314):
...And the second type is kufr ʿamalī (Kufr of action), and it is of two types as well: one that expels from the religion, and one that does not. The first type negates īmān, such as prostrating to an idol, dishonoring the muṣḥaf, killing a Prophet, or reviling him. And the second is kufr of action that does not expel from the religion, such as ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, and abandoning ṣalāh, this is kufr ʿamalī, not kufr iʿtiqād.
And likewise the statement: ‘Do not return after me as Kuffār, striking the necks of one another’, and his statement: ‘Whoever goes to a Kāhin and believes him, or enters a woman from behind, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muḥammad ﷺ’, this is of the kufr ʿamalī, not like prostrating to an idol, dishonoring the muṣḥaf, or killing a Prophet or reviling him, even if all of them are called kufr, as he (raḥimahullāh) said.
As for the final Āyah {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.}
They claim that {they will not believe} (lā yuʾminūn) is a declaration of takfīr on those who make something other than the Qurʾān and Sunnah a judge in their disputes
The first issue with this understanding is that despite coming right after the Āyāt of Taḥākum, the more correct view is that this Āyah was not even revealed about the same topic, rather, as was reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (vol. 6, p. 46):
[...]From ʿUrwah that he said: “Al-Zubayr disputed with a man from the Anṣār regarding a stream of water from al-Ḥirrah. The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘O Zubayr, irrigate (your land), then let the water flow to your neighbor.’ The Anṣārī said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, (is it) because he is your cousin?’ The face of the Prophet ﷺ changed color, then he said: ‘O Zubayr, irrigate (your land), then withhold the water until it reaches the walls (i.e., fully irrigate), then let it flow to your neighbor.’
The Prophet ﷺ gave al-Zubayr his full right when the Anṣārī angered him. He (the Prophet ﷺ) had initially suggested a middle solution that was spacious for both of them.
Al-Zubayr said: ‘I don’t think this Āyah was revealed except regarding that: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe...}’”
And ignoring the fact that this whole story has absolutely nothing to do with the action of legislating man-made laws or going to courts that rule with those laws, if the Khawārij want to argue that this Āyah is making clear-cut takfīr, then they must takfīr the Saḥābī it was revealed over in the firstplace, and this Saḥābī is, quite ironically - according to Muqātil, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and other Mufassirīn - none other than Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh), who was already an absolute nightmare for the modern Khawārij
And in any case, the phrasing "they will not believe" (lā yuʾminūn) does not necessitate takfīr at all, since Ahl al-Sunnah believe that īmān (faith) consists of both speech and actions and can increase and decrease, someone's actions can cause them to be incomplete in their īmān without exiting it entirely and becoming Kuffār, an example of this is what was narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (vol. 8, p. 10):
[...]On the authority of Abū Shurayḥ that the Prophet ﷺ said:
By Allāh he will not believe! By Allāh he will not believe! By Allāh he will not believe! (Wallāhi lā yuʾmin, Wallāhi lā yuʾmin, Wallāhi lā yuʾmin)
It was said: ‘Who, O Messenger of Allāh?’
He said: ‘The one whose neighbor is not safe from his harm.’
And what was narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (vol. 1, p. 12):
[...]On the authority of Anas ibn Mālik that the Prophet ﷺ said:
None of you believes (lā yuʾmin) until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.
The Prophet ﷺ used quite literally the exact same phrasing - "he will not believe" (lā yuʾmin) - as the one found in the Āyah, so even if the Khawārij want to completely ignore the reason for the Āyah's revelation or takfīr the Saḥābī it was revealed over, they would still need to explain why - according to their own principles - the one whose neighbor is not safe from his harm, or the one who doesn't love for his brother what he loves for himself is not also a Kāfir whose faith is completely negated
And this was the view of al-Samʿānī, as he says in his Tafsīr (vol. 1, p. 444):
Regarding His saying: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe...}, the phrase {But no} is a rejection of the Munāfiqīn’s claim and their excuse. Then follows a new statement: {By your Lord, they will not believe} what is meant here is complete īmān, i.e., their īmān is not complete {until they make you judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves}.
[...]{and submit in [full, willing] submission.} the meaning of the Āyah: their īmān is not complete until they are content with your judgment and surrender fully to you.
And they differed regarding the reason for the revelation of the Āyah. ʿAṭāʾ and Mujāhid said the Āyah concerns the Munāfiqīn who sought judgment from the Ṭāghūt. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr, ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, and a group said the Āyah was revealed concerning a man from the Anṣār called Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah - and he was from the people of Badr. He had a dispute with al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām over the water of a piece of land in the presence of the Prophet...
And notice, O Khawārij, how al-Samʿānī declares that this Āyah negated the completion - so not all - of their īmān, and only then proceeds to mention the two different views regarding it's revelation, meaning that in both cases - in his view - it merely negates their īmān's completion
So what do you say? Do you agree with al-Samʿānī that seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt negates your īmān's completion and not all of it - just like making your neighbor unsafe, or not loving for your brother what you love for yourself would?
And this was also the same understanding of Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, as he said in Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wal-Ḥikam (vol. 2, p. 395), in his explanation of the ḥadīth “None of you believes until his desire follows what I have come with”:
As for the meaning of the ḥadīth, it is that a person is not a believer with complete obligatory īmān until his love follows what the Messenger ﷺ came with of commands and prohibitions and other than that, so he loves what he commanded and hates what he forbade.
The Qurʾān has come with the like of this in more than one place. He, Exalted, said: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.}. And He, Exalted, said: {It is not for a believing man nor a believing woman, when Allāh and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should have any choice in their affair}
And the understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah, who said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 7, p. 37):
The intent here is that everything whose designation among the names of obligatory matters - such as the name of īmān, Islām, dīn, ṣalāh, ṣiyām, ṭahārah, ḥajj, and other than that - Allāh and His Messenger have negated, is only negated due to leaving an obligation from that designated title.
From this is His saying: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission}. When He negated īmān until this end is attained, it indicates that this end is an obligation upon the people. Whoever leaves it is among the people of threat (al-Waʿīd), he has not fulfilled the obligatory īmān whose people were promised entry into Paradise without punishment. For Allāh only promised that to those who do what He commanded. As for one who performs some obligations and leaves some, he is exposed to the threat (al-Waʿīd).
Notice how he mentions that the people whose īmān was negated in the Āyah are not from those who "were promise entry into Paradise without punishment", clearly he is referring to Muslim sinners who are under the threat of being temporarily punished in hell before entering Paradise, while according to the Khawārij they are all Kuffār who weren't promise entry into Paradise at all!
And now for what is possibly the most embarrassing argument of the Khawārij
They use this Athar of ʿUmar (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh), which can be found in al-Wāḥidī's Asbāb al-Nuzūl (p. 162) and elsewhere:
Al-Kalbī reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās: This (Āyah) was revealed regarding a man from the Munāfiqīn who had a dispute with a Jew. The Jew said: 'Come with me to Muḥammad ﷺ,' and the Munāfiq said: 'Rather, let us go to Kaʿb ibn al-Ashraf' - and he is the one whom Allāh Taʿālā named a Ṭāghūt.
The Jew refused except to dispute before the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. When the Munāfiq saw that, he came along with him to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, and they both disputed before him, and the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ judged in favor of the Jew.
So when they left from him, the Munāfiq clung to the Jew and said: 'Let us go to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.'
They both went to ʿUmar, and the Jew said: 'We disputed - me and this man - before Muḥammad ﷺ, and he ruled in my favor over him, but he was not pleased with his ruling, and he claims that he wants to dispute before you, and he grabbed hold of me so I came to you with him.'
ʿUmar said to the Munāfiq: 'Is it so?'
He said: 'Yes.'
ʿUmar said to them: 'Wait here until I come out to you.'
ʿUmar entered the house, took his sword, wrapped it upon himself, then came out to them and struck the Munāfiq until he went cold (i.e., died), then he said: 'This is how I judge the one who is not pleased with the judgment of Allāh and His Messenger.'
The Jew fled, and this Āyah was revealed.
And Jibrīl ʿalayhi al-salām said: 'Indeed, ʿUmar has distinguished between the truth and falsehood,' and so he was given the title 'al-Fārūq' (the distinguisher)
Now, I genuinely cannot tell how they think this supports their view that going to court makes one a Kāfir
Firstly, killing a person does not necessitate making takfīr of them - and I will expand on this point later on when discussing the ruling of the Muslim spy
And secondly, it is quite clear that the Munāfiq in this story was killed due to not being pleased with the judgement of the Prophet ﷺ and not for the act itself of seeking judgement
As ʿUmar explicitly said that this was the reason for killing him when he said: 'This is how I judge the one who is not pleased with the judgment of Allāh and His Messenger.'
And this was also Ibn Taymīyyah's understanding of the story, as he says in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl (p. 203):
And we have already gone over the ḥadīth of the man whom ʿUmar killed without seeking repentance from him, when he refused to be pleased with the judgment of the Prophet ﷺ.
How could this be compared to someone who is pleased with the judgement of the Prophet ﷺ and displeased with the judgement of the Ṭāghūt, and only goes to courts that rule with man-made laws due to his desires, knowing he is sinful for that?
Not to mention that this Athar is weak due to the narrator - al-Kalbī - who is famous for his weakness, and it has another varient that clarifies it, and it is what can be found in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl (p. 38):
...And supporting that is what Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Duḥaym narrated in his Tafsīr: Shuʿayb ibn Shuʿayb narrated to us, Abū al-Mughīrah narrated to us, ʿUtbah ibn Ḍumrah narrated to us, who said that his father narrated: Two men disputed before the Prophet ﷺ, and he judged in favor of the one who was correct against the one who was wrong. Then the one against whom judgment was passed said: 'I am not pleased.' So his opponent said: 'Then what do you want?' He replied: 'Let us go to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq.'
So they went to him, and the one who had judgment in his favor said: 'We disputed before the Prophet ﷺ, and he judged in my favor against him.'
Abū Bakr said: 'You are both upon what the Prophet ﷺ judged.'
But his opponent refused to be pleased and said: 'Let us go to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.'
So they went to him, and the one who had judgment in his favor said: 'We disputed before the Prophet ﷺ, and he judged in my favor against him. Then he refused to be pleased, so we went to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, and he said: 'You are both upon what the Prophet ﷺ judged,' yet he refused to be pleased.'
ʿUmar asked the opponent, and he replied in the same manner.
Then ʿUmar entered his house, came out with a sword unsheathed, and struck the head of the one who refused to be pleased, killing him.'
Then Allāh revealed: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge between them regarding what they dispute}
In this version (which is also weak, as are all variations of the story), instead of attempting to seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt Kaʿb ibn al-Ashraf, they both only go to the Prophet ﷺ, then Abū Bakr, and then ʿUmar
And notice how in this version, Abū Bakr neither takfīrs nor kills the man, who just told him that they disputed before the Prophet ﷺ and decided to refer to his - Abū Bakr's - judgement instead, he merely tells them 'You are both upon what the Prophet ﷺ judged.'
And in this version ʿUmar still killed the man, but it is even clearer that he was killed due to what Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned - his refusal to be pleased, and not the act itself of seeking judgement from other than the Prophet ﷺ, since otherwise Abū Bakr - who was just as aware of what he did - would have done the same thing
And in conclusion, the Khawārij are arguing that going to court makes you a Kāfir because of a weak report narrated by a Shīʿī where ʿUmar kills - and does not even takfīr - someone who openly states that he is not pleased with the Prophet's judgement
Now, for the scholars' statements regarding the one who seeks judgement from the Ṭāghūt and their lack of takfīr of him
Right off the bat I'd like to start with possibly the clearest statement on the topic, which every single Khārijī I've met has completely failed to explain or refute
Imām al-Shāfiʿī said in Kitāb al-Umm (vol. 6, p.152):
Some people said to me: ‘If you refuse to judge between them (meaning the Dhimmīs), they will return to their own judges, who will judge between them by other than the truth.’
I said to him: If I refuse to judge and their judge rules between them by other than the truth, while I am not a judge, what am I to the judgment of their judges? Do you think that my refraining from judging between them over a dirham, were they to wrong one another over it - when I have already informed you of the choice that Allāh granted His Prophet to judge between them or to leave them, and of the proofs I have shown you that this choice is established by the fact that the Messenger of Allāh did not judge between them, nor did those after him from the Imāms of guidance - do you think that my leaving judgment between them is more serious, or leaving them upon Shirk with Allāh? If you say: 'Allāh has permitted taking the jizyah from them while knowing that they persist upon Shirk with Him as a support for the people of His religion', then affirming them upon what is less than Shirk is more fitting that nothing should trouble your mind about it - since when we affirm them upon the greatest of matters, the smaller is less than the greater.
He said to me: ‘If they refuse to go to their judges?’ I said: I give them the choice between returning to them or dissolving the covenant. He said: ‘If you give them the choice and they return - while you know that they judge between them with falsehood in your view - then I see that you have shared with them in their judgment.’
I said to him: ‘I have not shared with them in their judgment; rather, I have fulfilled their covenant. Their covenant is that they be secure in the lands of the Muslims and not be compelled away from their religion. They have always sought judgment from (literally: made taḥākum to) their judges by their own consent. If they refuse their judges, I say to them: you were not granted security upon refusal and injustice, so choose either to dissolve the covenant or to return to those who have always been known to judge between you since before.
Al-Shāfiʿī is responding to his opponent's claim that the Muslims must judge between the Dhimmīs in their disputes, otherwise those Dhimmīs "will return to their own judges, who will judge between them by other than the truth"
Al-Shāfiʿī argues that the Muslims already leave them to commit Shirk, and so tells his opponent that "affirming them upon what is less than Shirk is more fitting that nothing should trouble your mind about it"
Meaning - al-Shāfiʿī considers the Dhimmīs returning to their own Dhimmī judges who judge by other than the truth as less than Shirk
This is, of course, quite the issue for the Khawārij who bark day and night about "Shirk in Ḥākimiyyah", and they attempt to come up with a few creative copes to deal with this quote
Their first objection is saying "he was only speaking about Christians here!"
But this is not a valid argument at all, if "Shirk in Ḥākimiyyah" was really the same as any other form of shirk, it would remain shirk regardless of who commits it. These same Khārijī fools claim that seeking judgement from a Ṭāghūt means you worship him besides Allāh, so according to them if a Dhimmī goes and worships other than Allāh it is permissible to call that "less than Shirk"?!
Another even dumber objection they bring is that al-Shāfiʿī meant that it is only less than shirk when the Dhimmīs judge by other than what Allāh revealed in specific instances, which is hilarious
Did al-Shāfiʿī expect them to refer to the Sharīʿah of the Muslims and only be oppressive in specific instances? Did he not expect them to judge with their own laws and customs? Not only does he not state this anywhere, he says the exact opposite, as he admits they will judge "by other than the truth", how does one judge by other than the truth while being committed to the Sharīʿah exactly?
And even if he was really referring to judgement in specific cases, going to a non-Muslim judge who will judge you with other than the truth in one case or a million cases is still taḥākum to the Ṭāghūt, and al-Shāfiʿī even refers to it as taḥākum later
So what do you say Yā Khawārij, is seeking judgement from a non-Muslim judge who rules with other than the truth an act of Shirk, or is it less than Shirk?
It is reported in Ibn Hishām's Sīrah (vol. 2, p. 167) that:
...And with him went out ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah ibn ʿAwf ibn al-Aḥwaṣ ibn Jaʿfar ibn Kilāb, and Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿUmayr al-Thaqafī. When he (Abū ʿĀmir) died, they disputed over his inheritance before Caesar, the ruler of the Byzantines. Caesar said: 'The people of madar (cities and settled lands) inherit from the people of madar, and the people of wabar (Bedouins and nomads) inherit from the people of wabar.' So he gave the inheritance to Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl as he was of the madar, not to ʿAlqamah.
And al-Balādhurī said in Ansāb al-Ashrāf (vol. 1, p. 334):
They disputed over his (Abū ʿĀmir's) inheritance: Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl al-Thaqafī - who was among those who envied the Messenger of Allāh and so departed for Syria - and ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah, who was also in Syria and was a Muslim, it is also said that he was a Mushrik and then became Muslim when he arrived. He then came to the Messenger of Allāh and pledged allegiance to him.
ʿAbbās ibn Hishām narrated to me, from his father, from his grandfather, that it was ruled that the inheritance of Abū ʿĀmir belonged to Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl because he was among the people of settled towns, and he deprived ʿAlqamah because he was a Bedouin. The one who issued that ruling was the ruler of the Byzantines in Damascus.
And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Istīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb (vol. 2, p. 205):
As for Abū ʿĀmir, he went to Makkah, then came with Quraysh on the Day of Uḥud to fight. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ named him Abū ʿĀmir the Fāsiq. When Makkah was conquered, he fled to Heraclius in the land of the Romans and died a disbeliever with Heraclius. With him there were Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl and ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah. They disputed over his inheritance before Heraclius, and he gave it to Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl, saying to ʿAlqamah: 'They are from the people of madar, and you are from the people of wabar.'
And Ibn ʿAsākir said in Tārīkh Dimashq (vol. 41, p. 141):
ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah ibn ʿAwf ibn al-Aḥwaṣ ibn Jaʿfar ibn Kilāb ibn Rabīʿah ibn ʿĀmir ibn Ṣaʿṣaʿah ibn Muʿāwiyah ibn Bakr ibn Hawāzin al-ʿĀmirī al-Kilābī, one of the muʾallafat qulubuhum and from the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, came to Damascus seeking the inheritance of Abū ʿĀmir at the hands of ʿAmr ibn Ṣayfī ibn al-Nuʿmān al-Awsī, known as al-Rāhib (the Monk). Abū ʿĀmir had fled from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ to Damascus. ʿAlqamah and Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl sought judgement (literally: made Taḥākum) over the matter, and the ruler of the Byzantines in Damascus ruled in favor of Kinānah because he was from the people of madar, and did not rule in favor of ʿAlqamah because he was from the people of wabar. Al-Balādhurī mentioned the same. Hishām ibn al-Kalbī, quoting Jaʿfar ibn Kilāb al-Kilābī, said that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb appointed ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah as governor over Ḥawrān and made his appointment under the authority of Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān. He died there...
And Ibn Kathīr said in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (vol. 7, p. 142):
ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah ibn ʿAwf ibn al-Aḥwaṣ ibn Jaʿfar ibn Kilāb ibn Rabīʿah ibn ʿĀmir ibn Ṣaʿṣaʿah al-ʿĀmirī al-Kilābī accepted Islām during the Year of the Conquest (of Makkah) and witnessed the Battle of Ḥunayn. On that day, he was given one hundred camels to draw his heart (to Islām). He used to live in Tihāmah and was a noble man obeyed among his people. He later apostatized during the caliphate of Abū Bakr, so a military detachment was sent against him, and he fled. Then he returned to Islām and his Islām was well. He visited ʿUmar during his caliphate, and came to Damascus seeking an inheritance. It is said that ʿUmar appointed him over Ḥawrān, and he died there.
There are a few things to be noted here:
Firstly, as is already mentioned in many of these quotes, it is established that ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) is a Saḥābī, and he was also considered one according to Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, as he counted him among the Saḥāba in al-Istīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb (vol. 5, p. 499). As for Kinānah ibn ʿAbd Yālīl then it is disputed whether he embraced Islām or not.
Secondly, although some mentioned that ʿAlqamah was a Mushrik or that he apostated, al-Balādhurī rules that he was a Muslim and merely transmits the other view by stating that "it is also said" that he was a Mushrik, and Ibn Kathīr notes that he later returned to Islām, and that this was all before his dispute with Kinānah over the inheritance. And I haven't found an authentic source mentioning the story of ʿAlqamah's apostasy, so it is very much doubtful if it ever happened in the firstplace.
Thirdly, and the main point from all of these quotes, is that none of the people who mentioned this story made takfīr upon ʿAlqamah for seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt Caesar (or Heraclius in some variations) - who explicitly issued a judgement that opposes the Sharīʿah by declaring that Kinānah deserved the inheritance merely due to being from the people of the settled towns - and in fact most of them explicitly stated that he is a Muslim or a Saḥābī, and did not mention his act of seeking judgement as something that puts his Islām in doubt
And similarly, al-Dīnawarī said in al-Mujālasah wa Jawāhir al-ʿIlm (vol. 5, p. 198):
Ahmad narrated to us, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Rabʿī narrated to us, Qaḥṭabah ibn Ḥumayd ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Qaḥṭabah narrated to me. He said: I was standing at the head of al-Maʾmūn, ʿAbd Allāh, Amīr al-Muʾminīn, one day while he was seated to hear grievances. He prolonged the sitting until the sun declined. Then a woman came forward, stumbling over the hem of her garment, until she stood at the edge of the carpet. She said: ‘Peace be upon you, O Amīr al-Muʾminīn, and the mercy of Allāh and His blessings.’ Al-Maʾmūn looked to Yaḥyā ibn Aktham, so Yaḥyā approached her and said: ‘Speak.’ She said: ‘O Amīr al-Muʾminīn! I have been barred from my estate, and I have no helper except Allāh, Exalted and Most High.’ Yaḥyā ibn Aktham said to her: ‘The time has passed, return on the day of the hearing.’ He said: So she returned. When the day of the hearing came, al-Maʾmūn said: ‘The first to be called is the wronged woman.’ She was called and brought. He said to her: ‘Where is your opponent?’ She said: ‘Standing at your head, O Amīr al-Muʾminīn! I have been barred from him,’ and she gestured toward al-ʿAbbās, his son. He said to Aḥmad ibn Abī Khālid: ‘Take him by the hand and seat him with her.’ He did so. They disputed for an hour until her voice rose over his. Aḥmad ibn Abī Khālid said to her: ‘O woman! You are disputing with the prince - may Allāh honor him - in the presence of Amīr al-Muʾminīn - may Allāh prolong his remaining - so lower your voice.’ Al-Maʾmūn said: ‘Leave her, O Aḥmad! For truth gives her speech, and falsehood renders him mute.’ She continued disputing with him until al-Maʾmūn ruled in her favor against him, ordered him to return her estate, and ordered Ibn Abī Khālid to hand over to her ten thousand dirhams.
Notice how no one takfīred this woman for seeking judgement from al-Maʾmūn?
And al-Maʾmūn was - by the Khawārij's standards - a Ṭāghūt, as he legislated the Miḥnah, a form of inquisition where declaring the Qurʾān to be uncreated was made illegal
And a similar case was reported by al-Lālakāʾī in Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Iʿtiqād (vol. 2, p. 236):
Al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ṭabarī informed us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad al-Mīlī narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad bin Yaḥyā ibn Ādam narrated to us, he said: Abū Zayd ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Ṭarīf narrated to us, he said: Abū Ḥātim Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā al-Umawī narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī narrated to us, he said: One of our companions narrated to me that:
A Muslim and a Jew disputed before ʿĪsā bin Abān, who was the judge of Baṣra, and he held the view of those people (meaning he was a Muʿtazilī Jahmī). The oath was placed upon the Muslim. The Jew said to him, ‘Make him swear.’ He said, ‘Swear by Allāh, besides whom there is no deity.’ The Jew said to the judge, ‘You claim that the Qurʾān is created, yet Allāh, besides whom there is no deity is in the Qurʾān. So make him swear by the Creator, not by the created.’ʿĪsā was perplexed by this and said, ‘Both of you, stand aside until I look into your matter.’
And al-Bukhārī related the story as well in Khalq Afʿāl al-ʿIbād (p. 44):
A Jew and a Muslim disputed before one of their negators (meaning the Jahmiyyah), and he ruled that the oath be upon the Muslim. The Jew said, ‘Make him swear by the Creator, not by the created, for this is in the Qurʾān, and you have claimed that the Qurʾān is created.’ So he made him swear by the Creator. The other was confounded and said, ‘Both of you, stand aside until I look into your matter.’ And there the falsifiers lost.
And this is even clearer than the previous quotes, they all affirmed the Islām of the man who willingly disputed before ʿĪsā bin Abān, a famous Ḥanafī Muʿtazilī judge who believed the Qurʾān is created
Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī al-Mālikī narrated in al-Nawādir wa-l-Ziyādāt (vol. 8, p. 85) that:
Saḥnūn said: I do not acknowledge this, and it is not permissible to appoint as judge any of those mentioned, a slave, a woman, or the like. Saḥnūn said: If two people appoint as judge a woman, or a man who is not upright, or a slave, or a mukātab, or a dhimmī, and he rules between them, then that is invalid and impermissible. And if they appoint two men, but only one rules, it is not valid until both rule together.
Ibn Ḥabīb said: Muṭarrif and Ibn al-Mājishūn said: If both parties are content with the ruling of a child, or a reprehensible person, or a Christian, and he rules correctly, the ruling is not binding on either of them.
Saḥnūn, an early Mālikī Imām, refers to the appointment of a Kāfir as a judge as something "impermissible" and says that the judgement is invalid, similarly to the appointment of women and other groups that are not eligible to judge. If he considered seeking judgement from a Kāfir to be outright apostasy he would not just mention this act being impermissible and the judgement being non-binding, since the much more pressing issue would be the fact that the one doing it has just left Islām and needs to be asked to repent - according to the Khawārij
And likewise Ibn Shās al-Mālikī said in ʿAqd al-Jawāhir al-Thamīnah fī Madhhab ʿĀlim al-Madīnah (vol. 3, p. 1006):
If the two parties appoint as judge a slave, a woman, one who is disgraced, a Kāfir, an insane person, a child, or one afflicted with obsessive whisperings, his judgment is not enforced. Ashhab said: If the judgment of a slave, a woman, or a disgraced free person concerns a matter over which people differ, then it is to be carried out.
And Ibn Yūnus al-Ṣiqillī said the same in al-Jāmiʿ li-Masāʾil al-Mudawwana (vol. 15, p. 750)
And Ibn Farḥūn said the same in Tabṣirat al-Ḥukkām fī Uṣūl al-Aqḍiyah wa Manāhij al-Aḥkām (vol. 1, p. 63)
And al-Lakhmī said in al-Tabṣirah (vol. 9, p. 4163):
Because it is not proper that a Kāfir will be appointed as judge over a Muslim, due to the humiliation that results from that, and because there is no guarantee that they will not be biased or unjust toward him…
And they are prohibited from being referred to the judgment of the Christians because of the humiliation that would befall the Muslim, and because there is no assurance against injustice and bias against him…
And many other Mālikī scholars mentioned this issue, and yet - again - not a single one said anything about the takfīr or repentance of those Muslims who appointed a Kāfir as a judge between them, their only focus was the judgement's validity and permissibility (or lack thereof)
If the Khawārij object and say that this is strictly about seeking judgement from a Kāfir who rules in accordance to the Sharīʿah, then this is an idiotic reinterpretation
None of the scholars quoted mentioned anything about the judge ruling with the Sharīʿah or something else, in fact both al-Lakhmī and al-Rajrājī mentioned the possibility of the Christian judge ruling unjustly and being biased against the Muslim, which would obviously not be the case if they were adhering to the Sharīʿah
And in any case, seeking judgement from a Kāfir judge is - by definition - taḥākum to the Ṭāghūt, regardless of what he rules with
If a Muslim entrusted another Muslim with something and gave him permission, that if he travels, he may take it with him, and then the one entrusted apostatized and fled to Dār al-Ḥarb, and the owner followed him and demanded it back, but he refused, so they both brought the matter before the (non-Muslim) ruler of that land, so he deprived the Muslim of it, then, afterward, the people of that land embraced Islām, the item remains with the one who had apostatized, and the original owner has no claim over it.
And in Sharḥ al-Siyar al-Kabīr (p. 1386):
If two men embraced Islām in Dār al-Ḥarb, and then one of them wrongfully took something from the other and denied it, and they brought the case before the (non-Muslim) ruler of that land, and he ruled in favor of the usurper because it was in his possession, and then the people of that land later accepted Islām, while those two men remained Muslims as they were, the usurped item must be returned to its rightful owner.
And in Sharḥ al-Siyar al-Kabīr (p. 1743):
If a Muslim enters Dār al-Ḥarb under amān and a Ḥarbī seizes his property by force, then they later accept Islām or become Dhimmīs - if it was from the ruling of their king that usurpation is a cause of ownership, whether the one whose property was taken was a Mustaʾmin, a Muslim, or a Ḥarbī - then the Muslim has no claim to his property.
But if it was from the ruling of their king that such property is to be returned to its owner, yet they did not litigate until the people of the land accepted Islām, then it is returned to the Mustaʾmin.
If it is not known what their ruling was in that matter, then the property is to be returned to the Muslim Mustaʾmin.
If they disputed before their king and the usurper denied it and said ‘This is my property, I did not take it from him,’ and their king confirmed it in his possession until the Muslim brings proof - and then they converted to Islām - then it remains secure for the usurper.
But if the Muslim established proof and their ruler took it from the usurper and handed it to him, then it belongs to him, and there is no khums upon it.
Al-Shaybānī describes multiple scenarios where a Muslim would go to a Kāfir ruler in Dār al-Ḥarb in order for him to judge and resolve a dispute he has with another party - which is the exact definition of seeking judgement from a Ṭāghūt who doesn't rule in accordance to the Sharīʿah - but despite this al-Shaybānī not only continuously refers to the one seeking judgement as a Muslim and doesn't mention that he fell into Kufr by his action, he clearly makes a distinction between the Muslim and apostate in the first scenario, and even more clearly states that the men seeking judgement "remained Muslims as they were" the whole time in the second scenario
The only response I have seen from the Khawārij regarding this quote is pathetically reinterpreting his statements and arguing that the men he mentioned were coerced or forced into seeking judgement from the Kāfir ruler in these cases, something neither al-Shaybānī himself nor al-Sarakhsī - who wrote a whole commentary that covers every passage in the book - mention anywhere, in fact it is quite clear that they willingly decided to refer their dispute to the Kāfir ruler in order to get some of their worldly possessions back, and as I'm sure the Khawārij are aware, seeking worldly gain is not an excuse to become "Ṭāghūt worshipers"
And if those quotes wasn't clear enough, al-Shaybānī also said in al-Aṣl (vol. 11, p. 196):
If two men agree to appoint as judge between them one who is the father of one of them, or his son, or his grandfather, or anyone whose testimony in his favor is not admissible - or their shared father - then that is not permissible. If he does judge between them, his judgment is not to be enforced. If, however, he judged against his son in favor of the outsider between them, then it is valid. Likewise, if a dhimmī and a Muslim dispute and appoint a dhimmī as judge between them: if he rules against the Muslim, it is not valid, but if he rules against the dhimmī, it is valid
Once again, clearly affirming the Islām of the one who willingly accepted a non-Muslim as a judge in his dispute
And if even that wasn't clear enough, it is stated in al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī fī al-Fiqh al-Nuʿmānī (vol. 8, p. 15):
In the Nawādir of Hishām: from Muḥammad (al-Shaybānī), regarding a judge or governor who apostatized from Islām, or became blind, or committed fisq, then died, or regained sight, or embraced Islām - he remains upon his office. This is how Dāwūd ibn Rashīd narrated from Muḥammad. In one narration of Hishām there is an addition: if he had issued a judgment during the state of his fisq, then later rectified himself, that judgment is invalidated. Hishām said: I said to Muḥammad: a governor from among the governors of the Muslims appoints a Mushrik as a judge to judge between the Muslims, then he embraces Islām. He said: he is a judge as he is and does not need to be appointed again.
And Hishām narrated from Muḥammad: if a Christian was appointed as a judge and then embraced Islām, his judgment is not valid.
Look at how al-Shaybānī explicitly affirms Islām for the governor who appoints a Mushrik as a judge over Muslims, with once again no mention of him falling into any form of Kufr, or that he was under some form of coercion, or that he is merely excused due to ignorance or any other possible Khārijī cope
Ibn al-Qayyim said in al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah fī al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah (p. 146):
As for the people of innovation who agree with the people of Islām yet oppose them in some of the Uṣūl, such as the Rāfiḍah, the Qadariyyah, the Jahmiyyah, the extremists among the Murjiʾah, and those like them, they are of categories:
The first: the ignorant imitator who has no insight. Such a person is neither declared a kāfir nor a fāsiq, and his testimony is not rejected...
The second: one who is able to ask and seek guidance and know the truth, but he abandons that due to being preoccupied with his worldly concerns, status, pleasures, livelihood, and the like. Such a person is negligent and deserving of threat, sinful for abandoning what Allāh made obligatory upon him according to his ability. His ruling is the ruling of others like him who abandon some obligations. If the innovation and desire he holds outweigh what he has of Sunnah and guidance, his testimony is rejected, and if what he has of Sunnah and guidance outweighs, his testimony is accepted.
The third: one who asks and seeks, and guidance becomes clear to him, yet he abandons it out of imitation and fanaticism, or out of hatred or enmity for its people. The lowest of his levels is that he is a fāsiq, and declaring him a kāfir is a matter of ijtihād and tafṣīl. If he is openly calling (to his innovation), then his testimony, fatwās, and judgments are rejected, so long as one has the ability to do so. None of his testimonies, fatwās, or judgments are accepted except in cases of necessity, such as when these people overpower and dominate, and the judges, muftīs, and witnesses are from among them. In such a case rejecting their testimonies and rulings would bring about great corruption and would not be possible, so they are accepted due to necessity.
Ibn al-Qayyim said in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn (vol. 1, p. 186):
Allāh has commanded us to refer what we dispute about back to Him and to His Messenger ﷺ. He has never permitted us at all to refer such matters to opinion, qiyās, taqlīd of an Imām, dreams, unveilings, inspiration, inner thoughts, istiḥsān, reason, the law of the court, the politics of kings, or the customs of people - which are more harmful to the laws of the Muslims than anything else. All of these are Ṭawāghīt, whoever refers judgment to them or calls his opponent to be judged by them has referred judgement to the Ṭāghūt
As I already pointed out, this is the biggest contradictions of the modern Khawārij
They made up a distinction between the judge or ruler who refers his judgement to his or someone else's opinion, or to an invalid qiyās, or performs istiḥsān, and the judge or ruler who refers his judgement to a piece of paper - what they call "man-made laws" - that merely includes positions based on all of the aforementioned things
As Ibn al-Qayyim noted, referring your judgement to any of these is by definition referring judgement to other than Allāh, seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt, and ruling with the judgement of Jāhiliyyah
Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said in Majmūʿat Rasāʾil fī al-Tawḥīd wa-l-Īmān (p. 386), in the famous treatise of Nawāqiḍ al-Islām:
(The fourth nullifier): Whoever believes that guidance other than the guidance of the Prophet is more complete than his guidance, or that the ruling of someone other than him is better than his ruling - such as one who prefers the ruling of the Ṭawāghīt over his ruling, then he is a Kāfir.
And anyone who uses their brain can see that he is restricting the Kufr of the ones who seeks judgement from the Ṭāghūt to those who do it believing that his judgement is superior to the judgement of the Prophet, otherwise why not just say "whoever seeks judgement from the Ṭāghūt is a Kāfir"?
It is mentioned in al-Durar al-Saniyyah fī al-Ajwibah al-Najdiyyah (vol. 10, p. 251):
And Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh, son of Shaykh Muḥammad, may Allāh have mercy on them both, was also asked [...]
And he was asked: Is it permissible to seek judgment from other than the Book of Allāh?
So he answered: That is not permissible. And whoever believes it to be ḥalāl has committed Kufr. It is among the gravest of evil acts, and it is obligatory upon every Muslim to denounce whoever does that, and no one who has the slightest knowledge would doubt this.
Once again, just like his father, ʿAbd Allāh only mentioned Kufr for those who believe the action is ḥalāl
Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān said in Kashf Ghayāhib al-Ẓalām ʿan Awhām Jalāʾ al-Awhām (p. 314):
So look, may Allāh have mercy on you, at what the scholars have mentioned that kufr is of two types: Kufr of iʿtiqād (belief) and juḥūd and ʿinād (denial and stubborn defiance), as for kufr of juḥūd and ʿinād, it is to disbelieve in what one knows the Messenger came with from Allāh, out of denial and stubbornness, whether of the Names of the Lord, or His Attributes, or His Actions, or His rulings, whose foundation is His Tawḥīd and exclusive worship, this is total opposition to īmān in every sense.
And the second type is kufr ʿamalī (Kufr of action), and it is of two types as well: one that expels from the religion, and one that does not. The first type negates īmān, such as prostrating to an idol, dishonoring the muṣḥaf, killing a Prophet, or reviling him. And the second is kufr of action that does not expel from the religion, such as ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, and abandoning ṣalāh, this is kufr ʿamali, not kufr iʿtiqād.
And likewise the statement: ‘Do not return after me as Kuffār, striking the necks of one another’, and his statement: ‘Whoever goes to a Kāhin and believes him, or enters a woman from behind, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muḥammad ﷺ’, this is of the kufr ʿamali, not like prostrating to an idol, dishonoring the muṣḥaf, or killing a Prophet or reviling him, even if all of them are called kufr, as he (raḥimahullāh) said.
But it must be known that whoever seeks judgment from a Ṭāghūt, or rules by other than what Allāh revealed, and believes that their ruling is more complete and better than the ruling of Allāh and His Messenger, then this is leads to the Kufr of iʿtiqād that expels from the religion, just as is mentioned in the ten nullifiers of Islām.
But whoever does not believe that, but still seeks judgment from a Ṭāghūt while holding their judgment to be false, then this is kufr ʿamali.
Now many of the Khawārij attempt to make Taʾwīl of Ibn Saḥmān's quote here where he clearly makes a distinction between seeking judgement from a Ṭāghūt for worldly reasons and seeking judgement from him while believing his judgement is superior, claiming that "he didn't say it isn't Kufr Akbar in either case" - which is quite hilarious as the context makes his intention clear - but if they bothered to open the very next page after he finished discussing this issue, they would have seen that he himself says that what he layed out there is the tafṣīl regarding when seeking judgement from the Ṭāghūt becomes Kufr Akbar and when it doesn't!
As he said in the next chapter of the same book (p. 316):
Section: The ruling on seeking judgment from the Ṭāghūt
As for the second issue, which is the question of the questioner: What is the seeking of judgment from Ṭāghūt which leads to kufr, and what is the one that does not lead to kufr?
Then the answer is: we have already addressed this issue in detail in the words of Shams al-Dīn Ibn al-Qayyim and the words of our Shaykh, so return to it. And know that this matter is one where being mistaken is likely, so stick to what the righteous Salaf and early generations were upon. And Allāh speaks the truth and guides to the straight path.
Notice how when asked explicitly "What is the seeking of judgment from Ṭāghūt which leads to kufr, and what is the one that does not lead to kufr?" he answered that he already addressed this in detail "in the words of Shams al-Dīn Ibn al-Qayyim and the words of our Shaykh"?
This is the exact quote from earlier, as in that quote he is commenting on the words of his Shaykh - ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-Shaykh - and the words of Ibn al-Qayyim in his book al-Ṣalāh - as he says in the beginning of that section
Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm said in his Sharḥ of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (vol. 3, p. 110):
And seeking judgment from other than the Sharīʿah is split into categories:
The first: that he believes (literally: has iʿtiqād) it is permissible and correct, and prefers it over seeking judgment from the Sharīʿah while knowing that it contradicts the Sharīʿah, this is Kufr that expels from the religion.
The second: that he does not believe (literally: has iʿtiqād) it is permissible, nor does he prefer it over the Sharīʿah, and he knows that it is false, but he sought judgment from it for some worldly purpose, this is a sin, and it may be minor Shirk.
And Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm said in his Sharḥ of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (vol. 3, p. 125):
This ḥadīth contains the negation of Īmān, and its lowest level: the negation of its obligatory perfection from one who does not judge by the Sharīʿah, such as one who judges by the opinions of the Jāhiliyyah while acknowledging about himself that he is mistaken and unjust, and that he has judged by other than what should be judged by, he is mistaken, and it is Kufr ʿamalī.
But if he judges by it and holds that it is suitable to judge by it, then there is no doubt that this is Kufr.
Al-Saʿdī said in his Tafsīr (p. 184):
{Then how} will the condition of these misguided ones be {when a calamity strikes them because of what their hands have sent forth} of sins, among them seeking judgment from the Ṭāghūt?!
{Then they come to you} apologizing for what they have done, saying: {We intended nothing but good conduct and conciliation}, meaning: we only intended to bring good between the disputing parties and reconcile them. But they are lying in this claim, for true good conduct is all in judging by Allāh and His Messenger, {and who is better in judgment than Allāh for a people who are certain}.
Thus He said: {Those are the ones Allāh knows what is in their hearts} of Nifāq and evil intent. {So turn away from them}, meaning: do not concern yourself with them or react against what they committed. {And admonish them} meaning: explain to them the ruling of Allāh, encouraging them to obey and warning them from disobedience {and speak to them concerning themselves a far-reaching word}, meaning: advise them privately, between yourself and them, for that is more effective in achieving the intended result. And be intense in reprimanding them and restraining them from what they were upon.
In this is evidence that one who commits sins, even if one turns away from him, he should still be advised privately and admonished in a manner likely to achieve the intended outcome.
Similarly to al-Ṭabarī, al-Saʿdī believes we should turn away from and privately advise those who seek judgement from the Ṭāghūt, instead of saying we should treat them like disbelieving apostates
Ibn Bāz was asked, as can be found in the book Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa Maqālāt Mutanawwiʿah (vol. 2, p. 325) as well as on his official website:
...Regarding the ruling on one who studies man-made laws or undertakes teaching them: is he takfīred for that or is he merely labeled a Fāsiq? And is prayer valid behind him?
The answer: There is no doubt that Allāh has obligated His servants to judge by His Sharīʿah and to refer disputes to it, and He warned against referring for judgment to other than it, and He informed that this is among the characteristics of the Munāfiqīn…
As for those who study the laws and those who undertake teaching them, they fall into categories:
The first category: One who studies them or undertakes teaching them in order to know their reality, or to know the superiority of the rulings of the Sharīʿah over them, or to benefit from them…
The second category: One who studies the laws or undertakes teaching them in order to judge by them or to assist others in doing so, while believing in the prohibition of judging by other than what Allāh has revealed, but desire or love of wealth carried him to that. The people of this category are undoubtedly Fussāq, and in them is Kufr, ẓulm, and fisq, however, it is minor Kufr, minor ẓulm, and minor fisq, by which they do not exit the fold of Islām. This view is the well-known position among the people of knowledge, and it is the view of Ibn ʿAbbās, Ṭāwūs, ʿAṭāʾ, Mujāhid, and a group from the Salaf and the Khalaf, as mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr, al-Baghawī, al-Qurṭubī, and others. Its meaning was also mentioned by the scholar Ibn al-Qayyim in his book al-Ṣalāh, and Shaykh ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan has a good treatise on this issue, printed in the third volume of the collection al-Rasāʾil al-Ūlā...
And it is mentioned in the Permanent Committee Fatwas – First Collection (vol. 1, p. 781):
Seeking judgement (al-taḥākum) from the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger when disagreement occurs is obligatory. Allāh, the Exalted, said: {Then if you dispute over anything, refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day; that is better and best in outcome} And He said: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.}
Seeking judgement is to the Book of Allāh, Exalted is He, and to the Sunnah of the Messenger. If one does not seek judgement from them while making Istiḥlāl of seeking judgement from other than them, then he is a Kāfir. If he does not make Istiḥlāl of seeking judgement from other than them, but seeks judgement from other than them from man-made laws out of desire for wealth, status, or position, then he has committed a sin and is Fāsiq with Fisq Dūna Fisq, and he does not exit the circle of faith.ʿAbd Allāh bin Quʿūd … ʿAbd Allāh bin Ghadayān … ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin ʿAbd Allāh bin Bāz
Ibn ʿUthaymīn said in al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ ʿalā Zād al-Mustaqniʿ:
This is, in reality, a very important issue. For example: is it permissible for us to seek judgement from those who rule by the law if we are in the right, or should we forgo our rights? Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned at the beginning of al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah that some of the fuqahāʾ said: One should not take his case to them, and should let all of his rights go to waste. And he said: This is not something by which people’s affairs could ever be rectified, especially considering the abundance of those who rule by other than what Allāh has revealed.
So, you may seek judgement, but if the judgment is issued in your favor by other than what Allāh revealed, then reject it.
But as for letting people’s rights be lost, perhaps these are properties or estates involving many heirs, we let it all go to waste just because the judge rules with the law?!You may seek judgement from him, and if he rules with the truth, then the truth is acceptable from anyone.
Part Three
It was narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (vol. 5, p. 145):
[...]From ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Abī Rāfiʿ that he said: I heard ʿAlī (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) say:
The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent me, along with al-Zubayr and al-Miqdād, and said: Go until you reach Rawḍat Khākh, for there is a woman there with a letter, take it from her. So we set off swiftly on our horses until we reached the Rawḍah, and there we found the woman. We said to her: Bring out the letter. She said: I do not have a letter. We said: You will bring out the letter, or we will strip your clothes. She then brought it out from her hair braids, and we brought it to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. It was from Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah to some people among the Mushrikīn in Makkah, informing them of some of the affairs of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.
The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: O Ḥāṭib, what is this? He said: O Messenger of Allāh, do not be hasty with me. I was a man closely attached to Quraysh, and not from among themselves. Those with you from the Muhājirūn have relatives in Makkah who protect their families and wealth. So I wanted, since I lacked that kinship among them, to have some favor with them so they would protect my family. I did not do it out of apostasy from my religion, nor out of pleasure with Kufr after Islām.
The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: He has spoken the truth to you.
ʿUmar said: O Messenger of Allāh, let me strike the neck of this Munāfiq.
The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: He witnessed Badr! And how do you know? Perhaps Allāh looked at the people of Badr and said: ‘Do whatever you wish, for I have forgiven you.’
Then Allāh revealed the sūrah: {O you who believe, do not take My enemy and your enemy as allies, offering them affection...} to His saying: {...then he has certainly strayed from the right path}.
This Ḥadīth alone should be sufficient in refuting the idea that aiding the Kuffār against the Muslims is major Kufr unrestrictedly. Ḥāṭib (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) defended himself by stating he did not aid them "out of apostasy" or "pleasure with Kufr", meaning he restricted the action to only be Kufr when accompanied with those beliefs (which is "extreme Irjāʾ" according to the modern-day Khawārij), and the Prophet ﷺ accepted his excuse as he said "he has spoken the truth to you", and did not correct him or ask him to repent.
Someone might object and ask "why did ʿUmar (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) refer to him as a Munāfiq and ask for permission to kill him then?" And this can be explained with what Ibn al-Qayyim said in Zād al-Maʿād (vol. 3, p. 372) while commenting on this very same story:
Among the points [learned from it]: that if a man attributes a Muslim to Nifāq and Kufr based on interpretation (Taʾwīl) and out of anger for the sake of Allāh, His Messenger, and His religion, not for his own desire or personal interest, then he does not disbelieve by that, in fact he does not even sin, rather, he is rewarded for his intention and purpose. This is contrary to the people of desires and innovations, for they declare others disbelievers and innovators for opposing their desires and sects, and they are more deserving of that than those whom they declare disbelievers and innovators.
And with what Ibn al-Qayyim also said in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn (vol. 4, p. 69):
And the Prophet ﷺ did not reprimand ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnh) when he accused Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah - the Badrī Muʾmin - of Nifāq due to interpretation. Nor did he reprimand Usayd ibn Ḥuḍayr for saying to Saʿd, the chief of al-Khazraj: ‘You are a Munāfiq arguing on behalf of the Munāfiqīn,’ due to interpretation. Nor did he reprimand the one who said about Mālik ibn al-Dukhshum: ‘That Munāfiq, his face and speech are with the Munāfiqīn,’ due to interpretation...
And the Prophet ﷺ excused Ḥāṭib by mentioning he was from the people of Badr, but if his action was one of major Kufr - like prostrating to an idol for example - then being from the people of Badr would obviously not excuse it, as no one is given a free pass to commit Kufr.
And this aligns with what Ibn Taymīyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 7, p. 490):
[...]That His statement to the people of Badr and the like, ‘Do whatever you wish, for I have forgiven you.’, if interpreted as referring to minor sins or forgiveness along with repentance, then there would be no distinction between them and others. Just as it is not permissible to interpret the ḥadīth as referring to Kufr, because it is known that Kufr is not forgiven except through repentance it is also not permissible to interpret it as referring only to minor sins that are forgiven by avoiding major ones.
And there are many clear, explicit quotes on this topic that these people will never show you, such as what is mentioned in Imām al-Shāfiʿī's book al-Umm (vol. 4, p. 263):
It was said to al-Shāfiʿī: What do you say about a Muslim who writes to the Mushrikīn from Ahl al-Ḥarb that the Muslims intend to raid them, or informs them of a vulnerability among the Muslims, does his blood become ḥalāl thereby, and is this considered taking the Mushrikīn as allies?
(Al-Shāfiʿī raḥimahullāh said): The blood of one whose Islām is established is not ḥalāl except if he kills, or fornicates after having been married, or disbelieves with clear Kufr after faith and then remains upon Kufr, and informing of a vulnerability of a Muslim or supporting a Kāfir by warning him that the Muslims intend to ambush him so that he may guard himself, or helping him strike the Muslims is not clear Kufr. [And he proceeds to quote the same ḥadīth of Ḥāṭib as proof]
And such as what al-Samʿānī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 5, p. 413):
The people of tafsīr said: The Prophet ﷺ, when he intended to go on a military expedition, would give a false impression of something else. He used to say: ‘War is deception.’ So when he intended to invade Makkah, he kept the matter extremely secret. And Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah wrote a letter, delivered by a woman named Sārah, to the people of Makkah informing them of the Prophet’s movement. Allāh informed His Prophet of that, and the matter occurred as we have explained, and Allāh revealed this Āyah.
His saying, Exalted is He: {O you who believe} in this Āyah is proof that Ḥāṭib did not leave the fold of belief (īmān) by his action.
And what Ibn Taymīyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 7, p. 522):
A man may show affection to them [the Kuffār] due to kinship or a need, and that would be a sin which decreases his īmān but does not make him a Kāfir just as occurred with Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah when he wrote to the Mushrikīn with some of the Prophet’s ﷺ news, and Allāh revealed about him: {O you who believe, do not take My enemy and your enemy as allies, offering them affection}.
And Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī said in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 4, p. 225):
Issue four: Whoever excessively spies on the vulnerabilities of the Muslims, exposes them, and informs their enemy of their conditions is not thereby rendered a Kāfir if his action is due to a worldly aim and his belief remains sound, just as Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah did when he intended thereby to earn favor and did not intend apostasy from the religion.
And Ibn al-Mundhir said in al-Awsaṭ (vol. 6, p. 300):
And they differed about what is to be done with a Muslim man who has written to the Mushrikīn and informed them of the Muslims’ news. Mālik ibn Anas said: I have not heard anything specific on this, and I see it as a matter of the ruler's ijtihād. Al-Awzāʿī said about a Muslim spy for the enemy: he is asked to repent, and if he repents, his repentance is accepted, if he refuses, the ruler punishes him with a painful punishment, then banishes him to a distant land and confines him.
Al-Awzāʿī also said when asked about this issue: if he is a Muslim, the ruler gives him a severe punishment and banishes him to a far land in chains, but if he is a dhimmī, he is killed, for he has broken his pact. If those at war have sent money to him in loyalty, that money is seized and placed in Bayt al-Māl.
The people of Raʾy (Ḥanafīs) said: he is punished and imprisoned for a long time.
ʿAbd al-Malik al-Mājishūn said: As for one of the ignorant fools who is known for bad character and corrupt conduct, and is not known for prolonged presence or risk of exposure, and this happened from him once, not out of malice toward Islām and its people, and it is assumed he acted out of ignorance, then he is to be harshly disciplined and made an example to others. But if it is someone who has repeated this, and it is known from him, and speech and reputation have corroborated it, then he is a spy, a traitor to Allāh and His Messenger, and he is to be killed.
And Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī said in al-Nawādir wa al-Ziyādāt (vol. 3, p. 352):
Concerning a spy from among the Muslims, or a ḥarbī, or a muʿāhad (treaty holder)
From the book of Ibn Saḥnūn, from his father:
If we find in the land of Islām a spy for the people of shirk, whether he is a ḥarbī who entered without a safe-conduct, or a dhimmī, or a Muslim who corresponds with them regarding the vulnerabilities of the Muslims, then, as for the ḥarbī, the ruler may kill him or keep him alive, like any enemy combatant we capture. The ruler may take his wealth, and there is no khums in it, it is fay’. If he accepts Islām before being killed, then he is not to be killed but remains a slave like a prisoner of war who accepted Islām.
As for the Muslim who corresponds with them, he is to be killed and not asked to repent, and his wealth is for his heirs, he is like the one who wages war and spreads corruption on earth. Some of our companions said: he is to be flogged a severe flogging, imprisoned for a long time, and banished from the place where he was near the Mushrikīn.
They said: If he is a dhimmī, he is to be killed as a deterrent for others.From it and from al-ʿUtbiyya, Ibn al-Qāsim said: The spy is to be killed, and there is no known repentance for this.
Ibn Wahb reported from Mālik regarding a Muslim spy who is upon Islām: I have not heard anything specific about it, and the ruler should exercise ijtihād in it, this was also narrated by Ibn al-Qāsim from Mālik in al-ʿUtbiyya.
Ibn Saḥnūn said that Ibn Wahb said: If this is established against him, he is to be killed, unless he repents.
Ibn al-Mawwāz said, quoting Ibn al-Qāsim: If he assisted against the affairs of the Muslims in a way that exposed their vulnerabilities, he is to be killed. If what he did did not involve such exposure, then he is imprisoned until his repentance is known.
Ibn al-Mājishūn said: He is to be examined, if he is thought to be ignorant and known for heedlessness, and is not someone who possesses knowledge of confidential matters, and it occurred once from him, not as a habit, and he is not known for attacking Islām, then he is punished as a deterrent to others. But if he is habitual and it is established against him, then he is to be killed.
Ibn Rajab said in Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wal-Ḥikam (p. 301), commenting on the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd, “The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except by one of three: A fornicator... and a man who leaves Islām and declares war on Allāh and His Messenger”:
The ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd has a wording with no disagreement in it, and it is firmly established with agreed-upon authenticity. However, it may be said regarding this that there have been reports of executing a Muslim for reasons other than these three characteristics.
Among them:
…[and he proceeds to mention multiple strange opinions regarding the execution of the Muslim who commits various sins such as drinking alcohol four times, or stealing five times, etc until he says at p. 306]:
...Among them is the killing of a Muslim spy if he spies for the disbelievers against the Muslims. Aḥmad withheld judgment regarding it, while a group among the companions of Mālik permitted executing him, as did Ibn ʿAqīl from among our companions. And among the Mālikīs are those who said: if that is repeated from him, it becomes permissible...
And it is stated in Tabṣirat al-Ḥukkām fī Uṣūl al-Aqḍiyah wa Manāhij al-Aḥkām (vol. 2, p. 297):
Issue: And if we say that it is permissible for the ruler to exceed the ḥudūd punishments in taʿzīr, then is it permissible for him to reach the point of execution through taʿzīr or not? There is a disagreement on this.
According to us (the Mālikīs), it is permissible to kill a Muslim spy if he is spying for the enemy, and this is also the position of some of the Ḥanbalīs.
As for the one who calls to Bidʿah and causes division among the Muslims, he is to be asked to repent, then he either repents or is killed.
And Ibn Taymīyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (vol. 28, p. 345):
As for Mālik and others, it has been reported from him that some crimes may reach (the punishment of) execution. Some of Aḥmad’s companions agreed with him, like in the case of the Muslim spy who spies for the enemy against the Muslims, Aḥmad withheld from taking a position regarding his execution, while Mālik and some Ḥanbalīs like Ibn ʿAqīl permitted killing him. Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī and some Ḥanbalīs like al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā forbade it.
And he said in Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawīyyah (vol. 6, p. 175):
And execution as a form of taʿzīr when benefit cannot be achieved without it is a matter of ijtihād, like the killing of a Muslim spy. There are two well-known opinions among the scholars regarding it. They are also two views in the Ḥanbalī madhhab: one is that it is permissible to kill him, this is the view of Mālik and the choice of Ibn ʿAqīl. The second is that it is not permissible to kill him, this is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī and the choice of al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā and others.
And Ibn al-Qayyim said in al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah fī al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah (p. 224):
Mālik holds the view that a Muslim spy may be punished by execution, and some of Aḥmad’s companions agreed with him. He also holds, along with a group of Aḥmad’s and al-Shāfiʿī’s companions, that the one who calls to Bidʿah may be executed.
And in either case this is a weak view, as Ibn Baṭṭāl said in his Sharḥ of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (vol. 5, p. 164) commenting on the ḥadīth of Ḥāṭib:
Whoever holds the view of killing a Muslim spy has opposed the ḥadīth and the statements of the early scholars, so there is no basis for his view.
And Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī likewise objected to this view and mentioned that it even opposes an established consensus, as he said in Fatḥ al-Bārī (vol. 12, p. 310) commenting on the ḥadīth of Ḥāṭib:
In it is a refutation of those who takfīr a Muslim a for committing a sin, of those who decisively assert his eternal abiding in the Fire, and of those who categorically hold that he must inevitably be punished.
…
And in it is the exposure of the spy. It has been used as evidence by those among the Mālikīs who hold that he is to be killed, based on ʿUmar’s seeking permission to kill him and the Prophet not forbidding him from that except due to his being from the people of Badr. Some of them restricted this to the case where it is repeated from him. What is well known from Mālik is [saying] that the Imām exercises ijtihād regarding him, and al-Ṭaḥāwī transmitted a consensus that the blood of a Muslim spy is not lawful. The Shāfiʿīs and the majority said he is to be disciplined, and if he is among people of upright standing, he is excused. The same was said by al-Awzāʿī...
Ibn al-Mundhir said in al-Awsaṭ (vol. 6 p. 406):
And the people of knowledge differed about entering the lands of shirk for trade. A group disliked that. Among those who disliked it were Mālik ibn Anas and al-Awzāʿī. Mālik said: I think they should be prevented from that, and he disliked it very strongly. Al-Awzāʿī disliked going into Dār al-Ḥarb for trade because of the rules that apply on them and the fact that one then exits the rulings of Muslims (meaning he leaves the Muslim territory where Muslim laws apply). Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal regarded going out to the lands of shirk for trade as a grave matter.
It is reported from al-Ḥasan al-Basrī that he said about those who carry food into the enemy’s land: ‘Those are fussāq.’
One group disliked sending weapons to them but were lenient about everything except weapons. ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ disliked sending weapons and mounts to them and what strengthens them, as for other things, there is no harm. The same was said by ʿAmr ibn Dīnār. It is reported from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz that he forbade sending horses into the land of the enemy.
And Ibn Abī Shaybah said in his Muṣannaf (Vol. 18, p. 444):
[132] What is Disliked to be Carried to the Land of the Enemy, Thereby Strengthening Them
35599 - ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ibn Sulaymān related to us, from Ashʿath, from al-Ḥasan, who said: 'It is not permissible for a Muslim to carry food or weapons to the enemy of the Muslims, thereby strengthening them against the Muslims. Whoever does that is a fāsiq.'
35600 - Muḥammad ibn Bakr related to us, from Ibn Jurayj, from ʿAṭāʾ, that he disliked carrying weapons to the enemy. He said: I asked him: 'Are horses to be carried to them?' He refused that and said: 'As for what strengthens them for fighting, no. But as for anything else, there is no harm.'
35601 - ʿAmr ibn Dīnār said the same.
35602 - Muḥammad ibn Bakr related to us, from Ibn Jurayj, who said: 'ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz prohibited that horses be carried to the land of India.'
35603 - Abū Usāmah related to us, from Hishām, from al-Ḥasan, that he disliked that weapons and horses be carried to the land of the enemy for trade.
35604 - ʿAbd al-Raḥīm related to us, from ʿUbaydah, from Ibrāhīm, that he used to dislike that weapons or anything beneficial be carried to the enemy of the Muslims.'
I said: What if Ahl al-Baghī (Muslim rebels) sought the help of a group from the Dhimmīs in their war and they fought alongside them, would that be considered a breach of their pact? He said: No. I said: Why not? He said: Because they are with a faction of the Muslims.
And the famous Ḥanafī jurist al-Sarakhsī similarly said in al-Mabsūṭ (vol. 10, p. 128):
And if Ahl al-Baghī seek help from some of Ahl al-Dhimmah to fight alongside them, and they (the Dhimmīs) do so, that is not a breach of their covenant. Do you not see that such an act from Ahl al-Baghī themselves does not nullify their faith? So likewise, it does not annul the covenant of Ahl al-Dhimmah. This is because Ahl al-Baghī are Muslims, as Allāh called both parties believers in His saying: {And if two parties of the believers fight...} [al-Ḥujurāt: 9]...
Al-Sarakhsī also said in al-Mabsūṭ (vol. 10, p. 133):
If Ahl al-Baghī overpower Ahl al-ʿAdl (the people of justice) to the point that they force them into the land of shirk, it is not permissible for them to fight alongside the Mushrikīn against the people of rebellion, because the rule of shirk has become dominant over them. So it is not permissible for them to seek the help of the Mushrikīn against Ahl al-Baghī from the Muslims if the rule of the people of shirk is what prevails. And there is no harm in Ahl al-ʿAdl seeking help from some of Ahl al-Baghī and from Ahl al-Dhimmah against the Khawārij, so long as the rule of the people of justice is apparent, because they fight to bring glory to the religion. Seeking help from them or from Ahl al-Dhimmah is like seeking help with dogs against them.
So al-Sarakhsī also explicitly permitted allying with Kuffār against the Khawārij, under some conditions, as well only viewing it as "not permissible" to ally with the Mushrikīn against the Muslims of Ahl al-Baghī if the rule of shirk is the dominant one.
And in case there is any doubt, al-Sarakhsī clearly believed the Khawārij were still Muslims, as he says in al-Mabsūṭ (vol. 10, p. 125):
...This is proof that if the Khawārij fight the Kuffār under the banner of the people of justice, then they deserve from the spoils what others deserve, because they are Muslims.
Likewise the famous Ḥanafī al-Qaddūrī said in at-Tajrīd (vol. 11, p. 5838):
Issue 1393 — [Seeking assistance from the Kuffār in fighting Ahl al-Baghī]
Our companions said: It is permissible for the Imām to seek assistance from the Kuffār in fighting Ahl al-Baghī if the word of the Muslims remains dominant over them. And al-Shāfiʿī said: It is not permissible.
Likewise, Ibn Qudāmah said in al-Mughnī (vol. 12, p. 247):
And the companions of Raʾy (i.e., the Ḥanafīs) said: There is no harm in seeking help against them (the rebels) from Ahl al-Dhimmah and those under temporary protection, or from another group among them, if the people of justice are the dominant ones over those from whom help is sought.
Our view (i.e., the Ḥanbalīs) is that the objective is to repel and return them (the rebels) to obedience, not to kill them, and if the need necessitates seeking help, then it is permitted. If it is possible to repel them without such help, then it is not permitted.
And if he killed a Muslim who was in the ranks of the Mushrikīn fighting the Muslims with them, he would not be entitled to his belongings
And al-Sarakhsī said in the footnotes commenting on al-Shaybānī's words:
...His belongings are not considered ghanīmah. For it is the wealth of a Muslim, and the wealth of a Muslim is never ghanīmah for the Muslims in any circumstance, like the wealth of Ahl al-Baghī
It is disliked to intentionally target the relative of a rebel for killing, and it is ḥarām to fight them with what causes widespread destruction, and to seek the aid of a Kāfir, except out of necessity (ḍarūrah)
And it is ḥarām to seek aid in fighting them from a Kāfir or from one who holds the view that it is permissible to kill them while they are fleeing, except out of necessity
Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī said in al-Nawādir wa al-Ziyādāt (vol. 3 p. 313):
Al-Awzāʿī said: If a tyrant (ṭāghī) hands over some Muslim prisoners in his possession and calls on them to fight with him against those of his own people who oppose him, promising to free them if he is victorious, then if they fight with him in order to secure what he promised them, not in order to win favor with him or to exalt his religion, there is no harm in that. Furat ibn Mujāhid did that with some of his companions from the Tābiʿūn under his Roman tyrant in the raid of Burjān, when the Romans were victorious they freed them, and those scholars who were alive at that time found no fault with that.
Al-Awzāʿī said: It is permitted for them to fight alongside them without being called to embrace Islām, and whatever spoils they take belong to him because they are like his slaves. Saḥnūn said: According to Mālik’s view I say: they must not fight with him and they must not accept his invitation to fight.
Ibn al-Qāsim said: Likewise, if he has merchants he wants to fight with him, they must not do so and it is not permissible for them. Mālik said concerning the Romans who say to Muslim prisoners in their hands: ‘Fight alongside us against our Roman enemies and we will set you free’ this is not permissible for those whom they intend to return [to freedom].
Now a Khārijī could object and say that al-Awzāʿī might have viewed imprisonment as a form of ʾIkrāh Muljiʾ (coercion that permits a Muslim to commit Kufr), but this argument fails as al-Awzāʿī - alongside many other scholars - believed that this type of coercion only permits the Muslim to commit Kufr with his tongue, and that even if threatened with execution he cannot commit an act of Kufr with his limbs, as we can see in al-Nawādir wa al-Ziyādāt (vol. 3 p. 312):
Ibn ʿAbbās said: taqīyyah is with the tongue, not with action or the hand. And Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan said: If a pagan idol is placed facing the qibla, one may prostrate to it while intending the qibla, and that is a good opinion. From Ibn Saḥnūn’s book al-Awzāʿī said: The coerced person is permitted in speech but not in action. He said: If one is forced to do like prostrating to an idol or a cross, or to eat pork or drink wine, he should not do it and should rather choose death, Qatāda said the same.
And it was reported in Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad, narration of Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (p. 332):
I said to Aḥmad: If an enemy descended upon the people of Constantinople, and the king said to the captives: ‘Go out and fight, and I will give you such and such,’ he said: If he says to them, ‘I will release you,’ then there is no harm, in hope that they might be saved.
I said: What if he says, ‘I will give you and treat you well’?
He said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘Whoever fights so that the word of Allāh is the highest…’ I don't know.
This is - once again - clearly not restricted to ʾIkrāh, Aḥmad seems unsure about the permissibility of fighting in the Byzantine ranks even when the Muslim captive is merely promised better treatment in captivity without being freed
And there is another narration from him to this effect
Ibn Abī Yaʿlā said in Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah (vol. 1, p. 391):
Nuʿaym ibn Nāʿim Abū Ḥātim
He transmitted from our Imām various matters.
…He said: I asked Aḥmad about a prisoner in the hands of the enemy; then an enemy of theirs came to fight them, and he fights along with them? He said: If he fears for himself, or they say to him, ‘If you fight with us, we will release you,’ then he fights with them.
I said: If he does not fear, and they did not say to him, ‘We will release you’? He said: I have something in myself concerning it (fī nafsī minhu shayʾ)
And in Ikhtilāf al-Ulamāʾ (abridged by al-Jaṣṣāṣ) (vol. 3 p. 454):
On the Muslim under guarantee (mustaʾmin) fighting with the polytheists:
Our companions said: They should not fight with the polytheists because the rule of polytheism is apparent, and that is also Mālik’s view.
Al-Thawrī said: they fight with them.
Al-Awzāʿī said: they do not fight unless the captors stipulate that if they prevail they will return them to the land of Islām.
Al-Shāfiʿī has two views.
Abu Jaʿfar said: fighting under a banner whose allegiance is to the polytheists is fighting under the banner of kufr. The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘I am disassociated from every Muslim who is with a polytheist and they conceal each other’s fire’
And Ibn al-Munāṣif said in al-Injād (p.160):
Topic:
Scholars differed about Muslim prisoners fighting with the enemy against other enemies......My comment: The stronger view is disliking (karāha) of their fighting with them...
...As for those who permitted it when the captors promised to release them, that is choosing one reprehensible thing over another, remaining under the bondage of the enemy is not lawful for them when means of escape exist, such as paying ransom, etc.
All the scholars who discussed this topic clearly saw it as an issue of dispute between ḥalāl and ḥarām, not Islām and Kufr, not one of them objected to it on the grounds of it being Kufr or even brought it up as a possible consideration
It is mentioned in al-Aṣl by Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan (vol. 5, p. 542):
If a Muslim makes a bequest to a church or a monastery, his bequest is invalid.
And al-Sarakhsī said in al-Mabsūṭ (vol. 28, p. 96):
If a Muslim makes a bequest to a church or a monastery, then his bequest is invalid, because a Muslim does not draw close to Allāh through such a bequest.
And Imām al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Umm (vol. 4, p. 226):
If he makes a bequest that a church be built so that wayfarers may lodge there, or dedicates it to people to dwell in it, or designates its rent for Christians or for the poor, then the bequest is valid. There is no sin in the mere construction of the church, except if it is taken as a place of prayer for the Christians who gather therein upon shirk, and I dislike for a Muslim to work in building or carpentry or anything else in their churches that are for their prayers.
And it was reported in Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad, narration of his son ʿAbd Allāh (p. 306):
ʿAbd Allāh said: I asked my father (Imām Aḥmad) about a man who built a house and rented it out [for use as] a lodging, or a nāwūs (mausoleum), or a church, or who builds for the Magians a place where they lay their dead, or plasters a church for them, or sells them wood [for that purpose]
He said: I dislike all of this.
And it is mentioned in al-Mudawwanah (vol. 3, p. 435):
[Chapter on renting out a church]
I said: What if I rent my house to someone who will make it into a church or fire-temple, while I am in a city among the towns of the People of the Covenant, or in one of their villages? He said: Mālik said: I do not like that a man sell his house to someone who will make it into a church, nor that he rent his house to someone who will make it into a church, nor that he sell his sheep to the polytheists if he knows they are only buying it in order to slaughter it for their festivals.
Mālik said: And he should not lease them his riding animal if he knows they are renting it in order to ride it to their festivals.
I said: May a man hire himself out for working in a church according to Mālik? He said: It is not ḥalāl for him, for Mālik said: A man must not hire himself out for anything Allāh has forbidden.
Mālik said: Nor should he rent his house or sell it to someone who will make it into a church.
I said: Did Mālik say that the Christians have no right to build churches in the lands of Islām? He said: Yes, Mālik disliked that
And it is mentioned in al-Bayān wal-Taḥṣīl (vol. 4, p. 207):
From the Book al-Jāmiʿ: Ibn al-Qāsim was asked about a Christian who gave another Christian a bird he had hunted, telling him to sell it and place its price in the church. He passed by a Muslim who asked him, and he told him his story and what he was ordered regarding its price, and the Muslim wanted to buy it. He (Ibn al-Qāsim) said: I see that as a light matter. Aṣbagh said: I do not like it, nor do I see it as permissible, and I see it as sinful and blameworthy, and I see it as assistance in the religions of disbelief and in the veneration and construction of churches. Whoever does this or anything similar to it is a bad Muslim, diseased in faith.
Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī al-Ḥanafī said in ʿUyūn al-Masāʾil (p. 474):
Repairing a church for payment:
2357. If a man hires himself out to work in a church, repairing it for payment, there is no harm in it.
And it is mentioned in al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī (vol. 5, p. 362), a major Ḥanafī fiqh book that:
If he hires himself out to work in a church and repair it, then there is no harm in it, since there is no sin in the work itself.
And Ibn Qudāmah said in al-Mughnī (vol. 6, p. 319):
The same ruling applies to everything that is intended for the ḥarām, such as selling weapons to Ahl al-Ḥarb, or to bandits, or during a Fitnah, or selling a slave-girl for the purpose of singing, or hiring her out for that, or renting one’s house for selling wine therein, or so that it be taken as a church or fire-temple, and the like. All this is ḥarām, and the contract is invalid, as we mentioned.
It is clear that everyone quoted either viewed building or aiding in the construction of churches and other places of worship to be either permissible or at most a sinful act, and none of them considered it to be Kufr, as they continuously refer to the one doing so as a Muslim
And once again, the same applies for wearing a cross
Al-Bahūtī said in Kashāf al-Qināʿ (Vol. 14, p. 228):
And in Al-Intiṣār: 'Whoever adopts the attire of Kufr, such as wearing the ghiyār (a distinctive mark for non-Muslims), fastening the zunnār (a specific belt), or hanging a cross on his chest, it is forbidden, but he is not considered a Kāfir.'