Was An-Najashi of Abyssinia a Believer???

Was An-Najashi of Abyssinia a believer and did he still remain as a believer despite not having ruled by the Law of Allah? 

By Ustadh Musa Cerantonio (hafidhUllah) 

 

All praise belongs to Allah and may His Blessings and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah

 

Allah the Almighty says in His Qur'ān, "Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, then they are disbelievers" [5:44]

The implication of this verse is muḥkam (clear and decisive) and all Muslims agree that Allah has stated in this verse that whoever refuses to judge or rule by Allah's Law whilst he is able to do so and prefers another law to be used then such a person is not a believer and has left the fold of Islam and has become an apostate. This matter is clear and agreed upon, however some have attempted to add to this due to their ijtihad on the matter that there is a sub-category of people who do not rule by Allah's Law yet are not disbelievers due to the fact that they were under coercion and therefore were unable to rule by Allah's Law in fear of being persecuted by their people. An example of this in older times which they present is An-Najāshī of Abyssinia and in modern times they attempt to present modern-day rulers such as Erdoğan of Turkey or Mursī of Egypt as being 'excused' from not not ruling by Allah's Law due to the apparent pressures which they face. Since this matter is critical in our times and is very relevant to the Muslims I will analyse these claims according to the Revelation of Allah so as to clarify the reality of this matter and to put an end to any doubts that some may have and to unite us all upon the Truth which has come from Allah our Lord and Judge.

The Argument:
An-Najāshī ruled over Abyssinia for a number of years with a law other than the Sharīʿah yet the Prophet of Allah still prayed over him in absentia when he died, implying that he died as a believer since the Prophet would not pray over a disbeliever. Therefore An-Najāshī died as a believer despite not having ruled by Allah's Law and this can be understood to mean that he was excused from ruling by Allah's Law since he was unable to do so as his people who were non-Muslims would not accept to be ruled by any law other than their own and would have killed Najāshī or overthrown him which would therefore mean that the Arabian Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia to be protected under An-Najāshī's rule would be expelled and would lose their protection. As such An-Najāshī saw it to be a greater good to continue to rule by a law other than Allah's Law so as to protect himself and the other Muslims and this is why he had a valid reason to not rule by Allah's Law and is therefore not a disbeliever like those mentioned in the verse above.

Response:
This claim is incorrect for a number of reasons and is flawed because it makes claims which are historically incorrect and seem to be ignorant of the sīrah (biography) of the Prophet of Allah and his Companions. What is being ignored is that there was not 1 Najāshī who ruled during the life of the Prophet of Allah but there were in fact 2 entirely different Najāshīs who ruled at separate times over the land of Abyssinia, one of whom was a disbeliever and the other was a believer.

Perhaps the first thing which must be pointed out before showing the proofs for refuting this incorrect claim is that the term An-Najāshī is not a personal name but is rather a title that is used to refer to the king/ruler of Abyssinia. The original word in the native Ge'ez language of Abyssinia is nigūsh and in the Tigrinyan language is negāsi. The term entered into Arabic as najāshī and in English as negus. This title was used for all of the rulers of the land of Abyssinia and would precede the personal name of a ruler. This tradition continued up until 1395 AH (1975 AD) when the last 'Najāshī', whose personal name was Haile Sellasie was deposed. Therefore when speaking about An-Najāshī during the life of the Prophet of Allah we should understand that An-Najāshī was not a single person but rather a title used for the Abyssinian rulers. The first Najāshī to whom the Prophet of Allah wrote inviting him to Islam is not known to us by name in the Sunnah other than being referred to as An-Najāshī and it is narrated in the collection of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that the Najāshī to whom the first letter sent by the Prophet to Abyssinia was written was not the same Najāshī who the Prophet of Allah later prayed the funeral prayer for -

أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ ﷺ كَتَبَ إِلَى كِسْرَى وَإِلَى قَيْصَرَ وَإِلَى النَّجَاشِيِّ وَإِلَى كُلِّ جَبَّارٍ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَلَيْسَ بِالنَّجَاشِيِّ الَّذِي صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ
"The Prophet of Allah wrote to Chosroes (King of Persia), Caesar (Emperor of Rome), Negus (King of Abyssinia) and every other tyrant inviting them to Allah the Exalted, and this Negus was not the one for whom the Messenger of Allah prayed the funeral prayer." [Muslim 1774]

Therefore it is clear from the Sunnah that there were 2 Najāshīs who ruled over Abyssinia, one of whom was a believer and the other who was a disbeliever. The way to understand which is which (ie. who was first in ruling and who was his successor) is to look at the dates which the specific letters were sent and when the Prophet of Allah prayed the funeral prayer for the Najāshī who was a believer.

The name and identity of the Najāshī who was a believer is identified in the following Ḥadīth -

قَالَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ حِينَ مَاتَ النَّجَاشِيُّ ‏ "‏ مَاتَ الْيَوْمَ رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ، فَقُومُوا فَصَلُّوا عَلَى أَخِيكُمْ أَصْحَمَةَ
When Negus died, the Prophet said, "Today a pious man has died. So get up and offer the funeral prayer for your brother Aṣḥamah." [Bukhārī 3877]
It is therefore known to us then that the believing Najashi was called Aṣḥamah (some narrations also use Aṣḥam) in Arabic, and is recorded in Abyssinian historical records as being named Ṣaḥām in the Ge'ez language. It is confirmed in the authentic Ḥadīth above that Aṣḥamah was the believing Najāshī which means that the other Najāshī was the disbeliever.It is known to us by mention in the Sunnah as well as in Abyssinian records that Aṣḥamah died in either the 8th or the 9th year of the Hijrah and so this was when the Prophet of Allah would have prayed over him, as the Prophet prayed for him on the same day that he died as is seen in the above Ḥadīth where the Prophet of Allah said "Today a pious man has died. So get up and offer the funeral prayer". The date that the first letter was sent to a Najāshī however was sent in 6 AH, 2-3 years before the death of Aṣḥamah. It should be noted again that the letters sent to An-Najāshī at the time did not mention a name, rather only the title of Najāshī was used to address the Abyssinian king, and as was noted in the earlier Ḥadīth, the Najāshī who received the first letter sent was not Aṣḥamah who embraced Islam but was the previous ruler before Aṣḥamah whose name is never mentioned in the Sunnah however Abyssinian historical records identify him as Armah II. For convenience I will refer to him by this name even though his name was not recorded in the Sunnah, so please note that I am not claiming that this was his name which was used by the Arabs, rather I am using the name only to avoid having to call him 'the unidentified Najāshī' which may seem odd. What is clear to us from the Sunnah then is that Armah was a disbeliever and did receive a letter from the Prophet of Allah but never embraced Islam, rather it was his successor Aṣḥamah who did so.Armah ruled over Abyssinia during the period when the Muslims first began to migrate to his lands from Makkah due to the persecution which they faced. The Prophet of Allah advised some of his followers to migrate there as their king was a just man who could protect them. The first migration to Abyssinia occurred 9 years before the Hijrah and Muslim presence in Abyssinia continued up until the 7th year of the Hijrah when all of the Muslims returned to Arabia and settled in the Islamic State in Madīnah. Throughout these 16 years there is not a single narration from any of the Companions exist which state or suggest that Armah was a believer, rather the Companions mentioned only that he fought against an enemy and was victorious, that he protected the Muslims and gave them sanctuary and they never mentioned that he embraced Islam nor did the Prophet ever state such a thing. There are inauthentic reports which state that he embraced Islam however due to their in-authenticity we do not accept them as a part of our Religion, especially as they contradict the authentic report that the Najāshī who embraced Islam was not the one to whom the initial letter was sent in 6 AH. So despite being a protector of the Muslims, Armah remained a disbeliever and died as such.

The exact date in which Aṣḥamah succeeded Armah to the Abyssinian throne is not known exactly, however it must have been between 6 AH and 9 AH as we know that Armah was still in power in 6 AH and that in 8-9 AH Aṣḥamah died and the Prophet of Allah prayed his funeral prayer. It is therefore clear that unlike Armah who ruled for between 12-14 years that Aṣḥamah ruled for a very short period which was after all of the Muslims had left back to Arabia (in 7 AH). The rule of Aṣḥamah may have been for as short as one year or less, or at most 2 years though this is less likely as none of the Companions reported that a new Najāshī had succeeded Armah and therefore it is very likely that it was after their migration in 7 AH that Aṣḥamah began to rule.

The significance of this short rule and the fact that there were no longer any Muslims in Abyssinia means that Aṣḥamah had no interaction with the Muslims and therefore knew very little about Islam despite having accepted it as his Religion. It is established that even the Prophet of Allah did not know that he was a Muslim until the day of his death, as the Prophet announced only then that he was in fact a believer, something he would have learned of via Revelation since he learned of Aṣḥamah's death on the same day that he died, indicating that the news was brought to him by an Angel of Allah who would have also informed the Prophet of Aṣḥamah being a believer. This means that the Prophet of Allah never informed Aṣḥamah of the rulings of Islam, and that the verse commanding us to rule by Allah's Law or else we will fall into disbelief was unknown to Aṣḥamah which is why he is excused from any possibility that he intentionally ruled by a law other than the Sharīʿah of Islam in defiance of Allah's commands. The reality of Aṣḥamah's rule is that he had no Muslims around to inform him of the laws of Islam during his short rule and therefore would have ruled according to the little of Islam that he knew and as such cannot be said to be a disbeliever as he did not know of the bulk of the rulings of Islam nor had he had the chance to contact the Prophet of Allah to inquire about them.

Due to these proofs it is clear that the fact that the Prophet of Allah prayed for Aṣḥamah and called him a pious believer is in no way an evidence that one is allowed to rule by laws other than Allah's Law, nor is there even any evidence that Aṣḥamah actually did so, rather it is just as likely that he ruled by the little of Islam that he knew, though either way he is excused as he neither knew of the verse commanding these things nor was he aware of the Laws of Allah due to having no interaction with the Muslims other than a second letter that the Prophet of Allah sent to Aṣḥamah inviting him to Islam which he received and instantly embraced Islam meaning that he accepted that there is only one god and that Muhammad is His Messenger. This second letter is mentioned in the Sunnah as scholars such as Ibn Ḥazm specify that the first letter was sent to the disbelieving Najāshī (ie. Armah) and that the second letter was sent to Aṣḥamah who embraced Islam. Therefore all that is proven to us from the Sunnah of Aṣḥamah's knowledge of Islam was the Shahādah and nothing else, and so it cannot be said that he intentionally ruled by a law other than Allah's Law as the reality is that he did not know about the rulings of Islam nor did he have any means to learn about them due to not having any Muslims there to inform him and teach him. As such it is an error to suggest that Aṣḥamah's rule is a proof that one may rule by a law other than Allah's Law, and any suggestion that he knew of the rulings of Islam has no basis, and further there is not even any proof to suggest that he was under coercion from his people to not rule by the rulings of Islam, such a claim is not based upon any authentic reports but is merely an excuse they have made to try and compare Aṣḥamah to the tyrants of our times who know about the rulings of Islam yet do not rule by them and they try to use the excuse that they have been somehow coerced into abandoning Allah's Law as an excuse to still follow them and uphold them as legitimate rulers.

The reality of the verses which speak about those who do not rule by Allah's Law is very clear, that they imply that such people are disbelievers who have no excuse. There is no exception made in the Revelation for those who do not rule by Allah's Law regardless of whether they are coerced to not do so or if they fear rebellion from their people. The Prophet of Allah is recorded in an authentic Ḥadīth narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Sunan Abī Dāwūd as having said -

"Allah revealed 'Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, then they are disbelievers', and 'Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, then they are oppressors', and 'Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, then they are evil-doers' and all of these are in reference to the disbelievers." [Muslim 1700, Abī Dāwūd 4448]This Ḥadīth destroys any idea that not ruling by Allah's Law causes a person to be either an evil-doer (but still a believer), an oppressor (but still a believer) or a disbeliever. Rather it demonstrates that all three verses are referring to those who are disbelievers, demonstrating that the sin of not ruling by Allah's Law causes one to become a disbeliever regardless of the 'type' of not ruling by Allah's Law that they fall into. The common excuse that the tyrants of today cannot be called disbelievers unless they openly claim without any coercion that they reject Allah's Law is therefore absolutely incorrect, rather all of those who do not rule by Allah's Law are apostates and as such are disbelievers.There is more that may be said about the matter of those who do not rule by Allah's Law in refutation to the other excuses which people make, however refuting those claims is not the scope of this short piece which only focused on the excuse regarding An-Najāshī. For those interested in exploring the issue further however I can recommend the following article with further refutes those who attempt to defend the tyrant apostates - About Not Ruling by What Allah Revealed

[A further article has been written discussing the saying that not ruling by Allah's Law is 'lesser kufr' and refutes this inauthentic saying in detail however I cannot find the link to it so will try to add it later on if I get the chance, as this is one of the more common arguments made by those who defend the tyrants in our times]