Rule/Judge by what Allah revealed..?

It is narrated from Hasan ibn Abi ar-Rabi`a al-Jurjaani saying, “We heard it from `Abdur-Razzaaq from Mu`ammar from Ibn Tawus from his father who said, ‘Ibn `Abbas (ra) was asked regarding the statement of Allah, “Whoever does not rule by what Allah has sent down, then they are Kaafiroon.” Surat al-Maa’idah, ayah 44 .

He (Ibn `Abbas) said‚ “This is sufficient for his Kufr.” - Akhbaar Al-Qudhaa Vol. 1/41

Abdur-Razzaq said, "Ma`mar narrated to us that Tawus said that Ibn `Abbas was asked about Allah's statement, (And whosoever does not judge...) He said, `It is an act of Kufr.'… (Abdur-Razzaq 1:191)

And this is clear based upon the following report: “Someone said to Huthayfah Ibn Al- Yamaan, that the Aayaat “And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn–Zalimoon and–Fasiqoon” applied to the Children of Israel only, that is, if one of the Jews ‘Ruled by Other Than What Allah Revelaed’ he would be a Kaafir, Thaalim and Faasiq but that this would not apply to a Muslim. Huthayfah (sarcastically) replied, “What good brethren the Children of Israel are to you. All of what is bitter is for them and all that is sweet is for you. By Allaah, you shall follow their way step by step and shall be dealt with like them!”-

Al-Haakim narrated it in Al-Mustadrak , Vol. 2/342 who said, “It is Saheeh according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs (i.e. Bukhaaree and Muslim) but they did not narrate it.” And Adh-Dhahabee said in Al-Taalkhees, “It is upon the conditions of Bukhaaree and Muslim”. And Shaykh Suylamaan Al-Ulwaan agreed with that.

The Saying of the eminent taabi’ee, Hasan Al-Basree:

Who said in his tafseer of the Aayah {and whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are kaafiroon (disbelievers.): “(This aayah) was revealed regarding the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), but it is also obligatory upon us (i.e. the ruling is the same for anyone who legislates other than the Legislation of Allaah.)” Tafseer Ibn Katheer Vol. 2/12

Shaykh Al-Islaam, Ibn Taymiyah:

Who said: “And it is known by necessity in the Deen of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims that whoever follows a Sharee’ah other than the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saws) ; then he is a Kaafir and it is like the Kufr of the one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some of the Book.” –“Al-Fataawaa”, Vol. 28/524

“The meaning of “Taaghoot” comes from the one who performs Tughyaan and this means going outside the established borders (i.e. exceeding his limits) and it is Thulm (wrong doing) and rebellion. So the one who is worshiped instead of Allaah and he doesn’t hate it, then he is a Taaghoot. And for this reason the Prophet called the idols Tawaagheet (plural of Taaghoot) in the Saheeh Hadeeth in which he said, “Tawagheet will follow the people who worship the Tawagheet.” The person who is obeyed in disobedience of Allaah or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the Deen of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allaah’s orders, then he is a Taghoot. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other than what Allaah revealed, a Taaghoot. And Pharaoh and the people of ‘Aad, were Tughaat (plural past tense).” Al-Fataawaa, Vol. 28/200

"Every group which rebels against a law of the clear Islamic Shariah, must be fought by the consensus of all the imams of the Muslims, even if they pronounce the shahaadah (declaration of faith)." (Al-Fataawa: 28/510)

After mentioning the ayah 9:31 Ibn Taymiyah writes, “One of the ways in which they committed shirk was that they (the rabbis and monks) permitted them things which were forbidden, and they obeyed them, and they forbade them in things which were permitted, and they obeyed them.” Iqtidaa as-siraat al-mustaqeem. So I ask the question has not the Saudi government or other so called Muslim countries made halal Ribba banks, which in fact Allah and His messenger (saws) have waged war on? Also the Hadith of not two religions being in the Arabian penicillin and the government allowing hostile kaffir troops inside the holy lands.

On discussing the issue on how to treat the people of deviance; “The aim of it is to scold the one who is abandoned and discipline him and save the society from a similar outcome. So if the good in doing so is more preponderate as far as one can ascertain, then hijrah until the evil is weakened and diminishes is permissible. But if the one abandoned or other cannot leave the evil but increase in evil due to the treatment, or the one abandoning the weak – so much so that it is improbable that the good will prevail- then hijrah is not allowed.

Rather, being friendly to some people is more beneficial than shunning them. And shunning is more beneficial with some people than friendliness.” Majmu al-Fatawa (28/203-204). So what is being said here is that bara from the deviants is done to benefit and help them and not destroy. So bara must be done with hikmah if harshness will make the person realize there deviance then this is best. However if kindness and direct verbal and actions guidance is showed it will benefit then this is best. The Madkhali Tramps just show statements of the salaf backing the one side of being harsh, but this was at a time when the mainstream Muslims where strong and darrul Islam was present. At the present time deviancy is strong and we lack darrul Islam, and most importantly a deviant is still a Muslim. Something the super Madkhalis lack in their khawrij style of bara.

There is also the hadith of abu Bardah ibn Nayyaar, whom the prophet (saws) sent to the man who had married his father’s wife. He ordered him to behead him and to take his wealth and give one-fifth of it to the Muslim state (like war booty); the fact that his wealth was seized and on fifth given to the Muslim state indicates that he was a kaafir and not merely an evildoer. His kufr was because he dint not regard as haraam that which Allah (swt) and his Messenger had forbidden. “majmoo al fatwaawa 20/90-92” So the man was killed without being asked or hujja being done, and this because his action was clear open kufr or kufr bawaa.

He was not asked if he felt what he was doing was wrong, this because marrying the mother is forbidden and by marrying, which is like a ceremony or constitutes legislation. The man apostated and this was judged by his actions and the rulers who make open banks filled with Ribba, regardless if they say they know they are doing wrong their actions speak different. By legislating it is okay to have Ribba contained bank account they have apostated and committed kufr bawaa.

Ibn Jareer comments on the same issue, “His action was the clearest evidence that he disbelieved in the message that the Messenger of Allah (saws) had brought from Allah, and that he denied the clear, unambiguous aayah… Based on his action, he deserved the ruling of killing and beheading. Hence the Messenger of Allah (saws) commanded that he should be killed and beheaded, because that was his way concerning the apostates who left Islam.” Tahdheed al-Athaar 2/148.

“And that is why anyone to whom people go to for judgment other than the Quran and the Sunnah is called Taghut”. Majmooal Fatawa pg.20

Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer:

Who said: “Thus whoever left the wise Sharee`ah sent upon Muhammad (saws) ibn `Abdullah, the Seal of the Prophets, and makes judgments to other than it from the abrogated sharee`ah’s has become a kaafir. So how is it for the one who makes judgment to al-Yaasiq and makes it superior over it (the Islamic Sharee`ah)? Whoever did that, then he has already become a kaafir by consensus (ijmaa`) of the Muslims.” – “Al-Bidaayah wa Nihaayah”, Vol. 13/119

“And as for the royal policies, which the Tartars were ruled by, which were taken from their king, Genghis Khan, who laid down for them Al-Yaasiq, which is a book made up of laws which he took from different shari`as. It is from Judaism, Christianity, the Islamic religion and others. Also it contains many laws which he took from his sheer thinking and desire. Thus, it became within his sons a followed law to which they have been giving precedence over ruling by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saws). Whoever does this is a kaafir who must be fought until he returns to the rule of Allah and His Messenger (saws) so no one other than He should not rule even for a day.” Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol. 2/63-67

Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah:

“The term‚ Taaghoot refers to all things in which the slave (i.e. man) exceeds his limits whether it takes the form of someone who is worshiped or obeyed. So a Taaghoot means all people who rule by other than what Allaah rules or His Messenger (saws) This would also apply in the case that the people worship him besides Allaah or they follow him without sight from Allaah or they obey him when they aren’t sure if they are obeying Allaah. So these are the Tawaagheet of the world and if you look at them and see the condition of the people with them, you will see that most of them have switched from worshipping Allaah to worshipping the Taaghoot. From ruling by what Allaah and His Messenger (saws) ruled, to the ruling of the Taaghoot. And from obeying Him and His Messenger (saws) to obeying the Taaghoot and following him.” - I’laam al-Mawaqqi’een, Pg. 50

On the tafseer of 4:61 the shaykh said: ”Here Allah describes turning away from that which the messenger brought and turning towards something else as being the essence of hypocrisy.” Mukhtasar as-Sawaa’iq 2/353

And in his tayseer al-Azeez al Hameed;”Ibn al-Qayyim said: this indicates that whoever is called to refer for judgment to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and does not accept that and refuses to do so, is one of the hyprocrites. The verb yasuddoon (translated here as ‘turn away’) is intransitive, i.e., it does not take an object; it means that they turn away, not that they prevent others. If Allah has ruled that the one who turns away from that is a hypocrite, then how about the one who goes further that that and turns other people away from referring for judgment to the Qur’an and Sunnah through his words, teaching and books, still claims that he means no more than good will and reconciliation, goodwill through his actions and reconciliation between the taaghoot to which he refers for judgment and the Qur’an and Sunnah?” Tayseer al-Azeez al Hameed pg. 557

“The Taghut of every people is the one whom they go to for judgment apart from Allah and his Messenger.” (Aalamul Nouaquieen: 40,141)

Ibn Jareer At-Tabaree:

Who said: “He ta’ala says, whoever conceals the Hukm of Allaah, which He revealed in His Book and made it a law between the slaves – so he hides it and rules with other than it like the Hukm of the Jews concerning the married fornicators with whipping of the guilty and blackening their faces and concealing the Hukm of stoning and like their judging upon some of their murdered with full blood-money and some with half of their blood-money. And concerning the noble people, they would have Qisaas but the commoner would only get the blood money. But Allah made all of them equal in the Tauraat: …such are the Kâfirûn. They are the ones who concealed the truth, which was upon them to uncover and make clear.

And they hid it from the people and they showed something different to the people and they judged according to that (changed Hukm) because of a bribe they took from them.” (* So the point of At-Tabaree here is that he considers this Ayaah general for anyone who does what the Jews did and hold this Ayaah meaning of Kufr Akbar upon anyone who does what they did.) – “Tafseer Al-Tabaree” Vol. 4/592)

Imaam Ibn Hazm:

Who said: “…If someone prohibits something that was permissible during the time of the Prophet:SAAWS:; or makes permissible something that was prohibited during the Prophet (saws) or makes a punishment obligatory (for a certain crime) which was not obligatory during the Prophet (saws) or legislates a legislation which was not existent during the Prophet (saws) then he is an infidel polytheist (kaafir mushrik), his blood and wealth are Halaal. The verdict regarding him is the same as regarding an apostate, without any difference.” Al-Ihkaam fee Usool al-Ahkaam Vol. 1/73

"Whoever seeks the judgment other than that of the Messenger (saws) is not a believer, and if he is not a believer, then he is a disbeliever- and there is no third way in this!" (Al-ihkaam fi usooli al ahkaam, 1/98)

Ibn Qudamah:

“The absence of an imam does not postpone the jihad, because much is lost in its postponement.” Al-Mughni 8/253

Allaamah Muhammad Al-Ameen Al-Shanqeetee:

“Associating with Allaah in His Hukm is like associating with Him in his worship and there is no difference between them at all, so the one who follows an institution other than the institution of Allaah, or other than that which Allaah legislated and a law which opposes the legislation of Allaah from that which has been fabricated by human beings, turning away from the light of the heavens that Allaah revealed upon His Messenger (saws).

Whoever does this and whoever worships an idol or prostrates to a statue; there is no difference between them at all from any point of view. They are both one thing and they are both Mushriks with Allaah.

This one associated with Allaah in His Hukm and they are both the same” From the cassettes of the Shaykh in his Tafseer of Surat At-Taubah at Allaah ta’ala’s saying: “They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allâh”

“And since the legislation and all of the laws, whether they are from the Sharee’ah or Qadr laws, they are from the specific characteristics of Ruboobiyyah, like the aforementioned Ayaat indicate. Based upon that, anyone who follows a legislation other than the legislation of Allaah; then he has taken that legislator as a Lord and has associated him with Allaah” “Adhwaa Al-Bayaan”, Vol. 7/169

In a clear and unambiguous statement: “according to the guidance of the Quran, which guides to that which is most just and right, everyone who follows any laws other than those which were brought by the master of the sons of Adam, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (saws) follows a deviant and contradicting laws. This is blatant kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam. Adwaa al Bayaan pg 3/439.

‘Allaamah Muhammad bin Ibraheem Aal’a-Shaykh (Teacher of Bin Baz):

“So maybe you will ask: What if the one who rules with the laws says, “I believe these Laws are Baatil?” There is no effect. Rather, this is removing the Sharee’ah just like if one said, “I worship these idols and believe that it is Baatil” - Fataawa Al-Imaam Muhammad bin Ibraheem Aal’a-Shaykh, Vol. 6/ 89

‘Abdul-Lateef bin ‘Abdur-Rahmaan (i.e. Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab’s great-grandson):

Who said: When asked concerning what the Bedouins judge with according to the customs of their fathers and grandfathers. “Do we label them with Kufr after it is made clear to them (that this is not permissible and when they continue)?” So he answered, “Whoever takes the judgment to other than the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saws) after it is made clear to him (that this is not permissible), then he is a Kaafir. He, ta’ala said: ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn.’ ‘Is it other than the Deen of Allaah that they seek?’ ‘Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tâghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them.’ ‘And the Ayaat with this meaning are many.” – “Dur’ur as-Suniyyah fi’Al-Ajwibah an-Najdeeyah”, Vol. 8/231 published by “Dar Al-Iftaa’ bil’Saudeeyah” 1385H

Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Ibn Baaz:

Who said: “There is no Eemaan for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger (saws) or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of Allaah are more encompassing and more just.” – “Risalaat Wujoob Tah’keem Sharee’at Allaah’ Pg. 39, which follows the “Risalaat Tah’keem Al-Qawaneen” Published by “Daar Al-Muslim”

When asked the question, “The ruling concerning one who opposes the laws of Allah?” Bin Baz replied. “Allah has made this clear in his noble Book and there is a consensus of the Muslim scholars upon it. It is, therefore obligatory to act upon it with faith and belief. If a person alleges that something different from what the shariah has stated is better or more suitable, then he is a disbeliever. Similarly, anyone who says that it is permissible to go against the shariah is also a disbeliever. This is because he is opposing Allah and his Messenger (saws), as well as the consensus of the ummah. It is upon the ruler to ask him to repent if he is a Muslim. If he repents (that is accepted from him). If he does not repent, then he must be killed as a disbelieving apostate from islam. “Islamic Fatawa regarding women” pg.33

Bin Baaz also said: “Whoever rules by something other than that which Allah has revealed thinking that is better than the laws of Allah is a kaafir according to all the Muslims. The same applies to one who rules by man made laws instead of the laws of Allah and thinks that is permissible even if he says that referring to the shariah for judgment is better he is a kaafir because he regards as permitted something that Allah's has forbidden.” Majmoo al fatawwa Ibn Baaz, 4/416.

Also on his fatwa of allowing American soldiers into the holy land to attack Iraq a Muslim based country, this contradicts a fatwa issues by the shaykh himself. When he was once asked if some one could have a none Muslim maid in the holy land he forbade this. If the shaykh was right or wrong and what is his punishment is due to Allah as he is dead. But those who support and follow his fatwa even though they have been showed clear proof then the words of ibn taymeer should shed some light. On talking about a fatwa that is incorrect or misjudged itjihad shaykh ul islam said this “But those who know that it is a mistake and goes against what the messenger said, and still follow him in his mistakes and turn away from what the messenger said, have a share in that shirk which Allah condemns, especially if they are following their whims and desires and they support it by their actions, even though they know that this goes against what the messenger said. This is shirk and the one who does this deserves to be punished for it. Hence the scholars are agreed that if a person knows the truth (the correct view on a matter), it is not permissible for him to follow anyone in going against it…” Al eeman pg.67; majmoo al Fataawa, 7/71

al-Muhaddith Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaanee:

Who said, in one of his earlier cassette recorded lessons, wherein he is describing an argument he had with someone about the Takfeer of Mustafah Ata’turk, the secularist who converted the constitution of Turkey from the Hanafee code Sharee’ah, to the man-made laws. So Shaykh Al-Albaanee said, “I made clear to him (i.e. his opponent) that the Muslims did not make Takfeer to Ata’turk who was Muslim. No. (They did so) when he freed himself from Islaam when he implicated upon the Muslims an institution other than the institution of Islaam. And from that was the example of his equalizing between the inheritance of the male and the female. But Allaah says according to us, ‘And for the male is the share of two females.’ And then he obligated upon the Turkish masses, the Qobah (i.e. a Turkish-style hat).” – “Fataawa Ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee wa-Maqara’netihah bi’Fatawaa Al-‘Ulaama”, Pg. 263 from his cassette #171.

In Albanies book silsilah ahadith al-da'ifah wa al-Mawdu'ah on the hadith 118/77. "There isn't any mahdi but isa" (munkar). He writes, "This hadith has been used by the Qadiyanis to prop up and promote the cause of Mira Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani who first claimed he was the mahdi. Later he claimed that he was the awaited Isa and that there will be no mahdi but Isa himself. Of course, he used this hadith to argue in is own favor. The claim appeared to be truthful to many who were ignorant of their religion.

Much has been written to combat this new evil and of special value is the booklet written by Syed Abul A'ala Mawdudi." Now Madkhalis hate Mawdudi however Albani is advising to read his book when the huqq is spoken. Showing even if an Alim is deviant that to read from his books or obtain knowledge when the huqq is spoken is allowed.

Also in his tawwasul book on page 38 albani writes. "Imam Ahmad allowed tawasssul by means of the messenger (saws) alone, and others such as imaam ash-Shawkanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other prophets and the pious." So many fahadies lie and say tawwasul is a new innovated matter and was not done by anyone of knowledge of the past; however this is a deceiving lie.

Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen:

“This sect unites upon the truth even if they do have differences of opinions between themselves. However, these differences do not harm them, nor cause them to declare each other to be deviants. Rather their hearts are still united, even if these differences occur in matter linked to the aqeedah; such as did the Prophet SAW see his lord with his eyes, or did he not see him? Or is the punishment in the grave to the body and soul, or just to the soul alone? And other such issues. This is because these issues are subsidiary issues connected to the fundamentals (usool), they are not in the actual usool themselves. So they do not declare each other as being misguided when they differ in such matters; contrary to what the innovators do.” “Understanding the etiquette's of differing pg.9” Now this attitude is not adopted by the super fahadies in fact they deem one who does not do isbal a deviant and would refuse to give them Salam.

It is also narrated that Al-Hassan said in At-Tabari, 10/357: “it was revealed concerning the jews, and it is also applicable to us.” concerning 5:44. Also in at- Tabari 10/321, Ilqimah and Masrooq asked ibn Mas’ood about bribes, and he said; it is one of the illegal things. They said what about when one bribes a judge (to give a wrong ruling)? He said, that is kufr, then he recited this aayah: “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah (swt) has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon.”

Malik said in the al-muwatta:

"In our opinion, if people refuse to obey one of the obligatory duties enjoined by Allah, and the Muslims cannot take it from them, then it is their duty to wage jihad against them. Ibn Battaal said: this applies even if they accept that is obligatory, and there is no scholarly dispute concerning that.” Fath al-Baari 12/275-276. This refutes there claim that even if the tawagheet rulers are doing wrong we should be patient. Even though they are refusing to rule by Allah by force and also making waliyah with the kuffars knowingly. It is the rights of the muslims to be judged exclusively by the book of Allah and the sunnah. Their argument on revolting and removing the leader by force will achieve nothing is batil. Imam Nawi in sharh of Sahih Muslim vol 12 pg229 said “If a leader becomes a kaafir, you must topple him.”

INSHA'ALLAH TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES, CLICK: