Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed

1. Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 was also sent down regarding legislating/ruling

Some say that 'waman lam yahkum' refers to judgement only, not to ruling. This is not fully accurate, as the Arabic language uses the verb 'hakama' for both judging and ruling.

Those who believe that ruling by other than Shariah is kufr often bring up the verses 'Inil Hukmu illa lillah', or 'Wala yushriku fi hukmihi ahada'.

Both verses are talking about the term 'hukm' as well, but those people use it to mean legislation. But when it comes to the verse 'waman lam yahkum' it refers to judgement only?? That shows contradiction.

So one of the evidences for verse 44 including governing is the Arabic language. Another evidence is the fact that the Salaf Saliheen included legislating in their tafsir regarding 'waman lam yahkum bima anzalallah'.

12035 - حدثني يونس بن عبد الأعلى قال، أخبرنا ابن وهب قال: قال ابن زيد في قوله: " ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون "، قال: من حكم بكتابه الذي كتب بيده، وترك كتاب الله، وزعم أن كتابه هذا من عند الله، فقد كفر.
[تفسير الطبري - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Imam Tabari mentioned: Yūnus b. ‘Abd al-A‘lā narrated to me, he said: Ibn Wahb informed us, he said: Ibn Zayd said regarding His saying, “And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed – then they are the disbelievers” [al-Mā’idah 5:44]: He said: “Whoever rules/judges by a book that he himself has written with his own hand, and abandons the Book of Allah, and then claims that this book of his is from Allah – then such a one has disbelieved.” [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Maaidah verse 44]

٦٤٢٨ - أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو يزَيْدٍ الْقَرَاطِيسُِّ فِيمَا كَتَبَ إِلَيَّ ثنا أَصْبَغُ بْنُ الْفَرَجِ، ثنا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ يَقُولُ فِي قَوْلِهِ: وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ قَالَ: مَنْ حَكَمَ بِكِتَابِهِ الَّذِي كَتَبَهُ بِيَدِهِ وَتَرَكَ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ، وَزَعَمَ أَنَّ كِتَابَهُ هَذَا من عند الله قد كفر.
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: Abū Yazīd al-Qarāṭīs narrated to us in what he wrote to me: Asbaġ b. al-Faraj narrated to us, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. Aslam said regarding His saying: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – they are the disbelievers” [al-Mā’idah 5:44]: He said: “Whoever rules/judges by a book that he himself has written with his own hand, and abandons the Book of Allah, and then claims that this book of his is from Allah – then such a one has disbelieved.” [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Maaidah verse 44]

This is strong evidence that Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 also includes tashri' (legislating).

Abdulrahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam interpreted the verse to include judging and legislating, as he said 'judging by a book that he himself has written with his own hand', which clearly refers to a person legislation himself.

If legislating by itself was major kufr, then Abdulrahman ibn Zayd wouldn't have added a condition of it being major kufr only when you attribute it to Allah.

His next sentence shows why the verse was sent down, as some Jewish Rabbis used to legislate new punishments and claim them to have come from Allah. They rejected what Allah actually legislated and fooled people by telling them the new laws they just made up came from Allah, thus altering their religion.

Allah revealed Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 regarding some Jewish rabbis who legislated something contrary to Allah's legislation.

People followed them in it, making them gods besides Allah, as they rejected Allah's laws and adopted the laws of those Rabbis. Judaism for those people became what the Rabbis legislated, not what Allah did.

This is how they made them gods besides Allah. The reason was because they made those Rabbis authorities in legislation, not Allah.

When we look at the Tafsir of Surah al-Maaidah verse 44, we come to see that the reason it was sent down was to mention those Rabbis who rejected Allah's laws.

For this reason, it cannot be said that Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 was only regarding judges who take bribery, because that is only part of the context. The other part is that they rejected Allah's prescribed punishments and made their own.

So 'waman lam yahkum bima anzalallah' is regarding bribery as well as legislating.

Al-Bara’ b. ‘Azib reported: “It so happened that a Jew passed by Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) while he (the Jew) had been blackened with coal and scourged. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) called them (the Jews) and said: ‘Is this the punishment that you find in your Book (the Torah) as the prescribed penalty for adultery?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ He (the Prophet) then called one of their scholars and said: ‘I ask you, by Allah Who sent down the Torah upon Moses, is this truly the prescribed punishment for adultery which you find in your Book?’ The scholar replied: ‘No. Had you not asked me in the name of Allah, I would not have disclosed it to you. In the Torah we find stoning to death (as the prescribed punishment). But this crime (adultery) became widespread among our nobility (the wealthy among us). So when we caught a rich man committing it, we let him go, but when we caught a poor man, we imposed upon him the prescribed punishment. So we said: Let us devise a penalty that can be applied equally to both rich and poor. Thus we decided to blacken the offender’s face with coal and flog him as a substitute punishment for stoning.’ Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: ‘O Allah, I am the first to revive Your command after they had abolished it.’ Then he ordered that the offender be stoned. Allah, the Majestic and Glorious, then revealed (this verse): ‘O Messenger, let not those who vie with one another in disbelief grieve you… until “…accept it” (v. 41). It had been said among the Jews: ‘Go to Muhammad; if he commands blackening the face and flogging (as the punishment for adultery), then accept it. But if he rules for stoning, then reject it.’ It was on this occasion that Allah, the Majestic and Great, revealed: ‘And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers’ (v. 44), and ‘Whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the wrongdoers’ (v. 45), and ‘Whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the transgressors’ (v. 47). All of these verses were revealed concerning the disbelievers.” [Sahih Muslim 1700a]

In this we see that the context of Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 was regarding some Jewish rabbis who legislated a new punishment. So the verse does not talk about judgement only, it is also regarding making new laws and ruling with it.

2. Rejection/denial is the major kufr, not ruling with something else

قيل: إن الله تعالى عَمَّ بالخبر بذلك عن قومٍ كانوا بحكم الله الذي حكم به في كتابه جاحدين، فأخبر عنهم أنهم بتركهم الحكمَ، على سبيل ما تركوه، كافرون. وكذلك القولُ في كل من لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله جاحدًا به، هو بالله كافر، كما قال ابن عباس، لأنه بجحوده حكم الله بعدَ علمه أنه أنـزله في كتابه، نظير جحوده نبوّة نبيّه بعد علمه أنه نبيٌّ.
[تفسير الطبري - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Imam Tabari said: "Allah, Exalted is He, gave a general report here concerning a people who rejected the ruling of Allah which He decreed in His Book. So He informed about them that, because of their abandoning the judgment in the manner they did, they are disbelievers. So the ruling regarding everyone who does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, rejecting it—he is a disbeliever in Allah, as Ibn ʿAbbās said. For by his denial of Allah’s judgment, after knowing that He revealed it in His Book, he is like the one who denies the prophethood of His Prophet after knowing that he is truly a Prophet." [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Maaidah verse 44]

It becomes clear that Allah revealed 'then those are the disbelievers' in the context of those who denied Allah's laws. Denying and ruling with something else are seperate issues.

One might say that ruling with something else is in itself a denial and rejection, however, this is not fully accurate. For example: a person might allow his daughters to dress inappropriately, while acknowledging that he is sinning by allowing them to do that.

Same goes with ruling, as a ruler might allow something among his people while acknowledging he is sinning.

Those who say ruling with something else implies denial are not applying this same principle to judges. They don't say that whenever a judge takes bribes and gives a lesser punishment is denying Allah's prescribed punishment, this shows their contradiction.

12063 - حدثني المثنى قال، حدثنا عبد الله بن صالح قال، حدثني معاوية بن صالح، عن علي بن أبي طلحة، عن ابن عباس قوله: " ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون "، قال: من جحد ما أنـزل الله فقد كفر. ومن أقرّ به ولم يحكم، فهو ظالم فاسقٌ.
[تفسير الطبري - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Imam Tabari mentioned: al-Muthannā narrated to me, he said: ‘Abd Allāh b. Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, he said: Mu‘āwiyah b. Ṣāliḥ narrated to me, from ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ‘Abbās regarding His saying: “And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed – then they are the disbelievers” [al-Mā’idah 5:44]: He said: “Whoever rejects what Allah has revealed has indeed disbelieved. And whoever acknowledges it but does not rule/judge by it, then he is a wrongdoer and a sinner.” [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Maaidah verse 44]

٦٤٢٦ - حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي ثنا أَبُو صَالِحٍ حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَوْلَهُ: وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بما أنزل الله يَقُولُ: مَنْ جَحَدَ الْحُكْمَ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَقَدْ كَفَرَ، وَمَنْ أَقَرَّ بِهِ وَلَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِهِ فَهُوَ ظَالِمٌ فَاسِقٌ. يَقُولُ: مَنْ جَحَدَ مِنْ حُدُودِ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا فَقَدْ كَفَرَ.
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: My father narrated to us, saying: Abū Ṣāliḥ narrated to me, Mu‘āwiyah b. Ṣāliḥ from ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ‘Abbās regarding His saying: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed…” [al-Mā’idah 5:44]: He said: “Whoever denies the judgment contained in what Allah has revealed, then he has disbelieved. And whoever acknowledges it but does not rule/judge by it, he is a wrongdoer and a sinner. Whoever denies any of Allah’s prescribed punishments (ḥudūd), he has disbelieved.” [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Maaidah verse 44]

As it is clear that the verse talks about both judging and ruling, it shows that Ibn Abbas views a ruler who governs with other than the Shariah to be a transgressor, unless he rejects Allah's laws, in which case he will become a kafir.

This is the correct understanding, and it is a well-known position of Ibn Abbas. Anyone who rules/judges with other than the Shariah while acknowledging he is doing wrong Islamically, does not commit apostasy.

فمن كان تاركا لما أنزل الله في أحكامه على هذه الصفة، فقد ساوى من أنزلت فيهم الآيات من اليهود والنصارى واستحق اسم الكفر والظلم والفسق.
ومن حمله حرص الدرهم والدينار، أو بلوغ ثأر، أو شهوة نفس على ترك حكم الله، وهو عالم بعدوانه عارف بإساءته، حذرٌ من سوء صنيعه، مصدق لربه فيما أنزل من الأحكام، شاهد عليها بالحق المفترض عليه العمل به، ولم يساوهم فيها، وهو باق على إسلامه عاص لربه، فأفعاله تستوجب عقوبته إن لم يجد بالصفح عنه.
[كتاب نكت القرآن الدالة على البيان في أنواع العلوم والأحكام - أبو أحمد الكرجـي القصاب - الجزء ١ - الصفحة ٣١٠-٣١١]

Abu Ahmad al-Karaji al-Qassab said: "So whoever leaves what Allah has revealed in His rulings with this description/attribute (out of denial), then he is equal to those about whom these verses were revealed, among the Jews and the Christians, and deserves the name of Kufr, injustice (Dhulm), and immorality (Fisq). And whoever is overcome by the desire for dirhams and dinars, or the pursuit of revenge, or the desire of the Nafs to leave off the judgment of Allah, while he is aware that he has transgressed and has done evil and is afraid of what he has committed and is conscious of his Lord, acknowledging the rulings/judgments that Allah has revealed and bearing witness that His rulings/judgments are true and should be acted upon, then he does not become equal to them (People of the Book) in abandoning the judgments of Allah, then he remains on his Islam and in disobedience to Allah, so he deserves punishment if Allah does not forgive him." [Kitāb Nukat al-Qur’ān al-Dāllah ‘alā al-Bayān fī Anwā‘ al-‘Ulūm wa al-Aḥkām - Abu Ahmad al-Karaji Al-Qassab - Volume 1 - Page 310-311]

There have been many rulers in the past who ruled according to their desires while they didn't reject Allah's laws. They did so out of corruption or their own egos.

They made up their own laws due to weak iman. It cannot be said that such rulers are kuffar, due to the fact that the Salaf Saliheen did not rule them as such if they did not deny any of Allah's laws.

In the case of the ruler actually rejecting the Shariah is that you find him ruling with something completely else, rejecting to rule with Tawheed.

And any ruler who governs with a system that allows shirk is undoubtedly a kafir, as a condition of Tawheed is to accept it and never go against it in speech or actions.

3. Partly ruling with Shariah is not major kufr

Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 could be read by anyone and understood in multiple different ways, thus implying its abigiousness.

However, many would read it and believe that if a ruler were to rule with something else than the Shariah, though partly, that he would become a kafir. This would lead to the belief that a ruler becomes kafir if he rules with some laws contrary to the Shariah, even if he keeps a part of the Shariah.

This understanding does not come from the Salaf Saliheen, as they understood the verse in its context.

They believed that this verse was actually mutashabih, meaning, it must be read in accordance with its context and correct understanding.

٤٤ - حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا الْمُثَنَّى بْنُ أَحْمَدَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ} [آل عمران: ٧] قَالَ: " أَمَّا الْمُتَشَابِهَاتُ: فَهُنَّ آيٌّ فِي الْقُرْآنِ يَتَشَابَهْنَ عَلَى النَّاسِ إِذَا قَرَءُوهُنَّ، مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ يُضِلُّ مَنْ ⦗٣٤٢⦘ ضَلَّ مِمَّنِ ادَّعَى هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةَ , كُلُّ فِرْقَةٍ يَقْرَءُونَ آيَاتٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ، وَيَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهَا لَهُمْ أَصَابُوا بِهَا الْهُدَى وَمِمَّا تَتْبَعُ الْحَرُورِيَّةُ مِنَ الْمُتَشَابِهِ قَوْلَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: {وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ} [المائدة: ٤٤] وَيَقْرَءُونَ مَعَهَا: {ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ يَعْدِلُونَ} [الأنعام: ١] فَإِذَا رَأَوُا الْإِمَامَ يَحْكُمُ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ قَالُوا: قَدْ كَفَرَ , وَمَنْ كَفَرَ عَدَلَ بِرَبِّهِ فَقَدْ أَشْرَكَ فَهَؤُلَاءِ الْأَئِمَّةُ مُشْرِكُونَ، فَيَخْرُجُونَ فَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا رَأَيْتَ؛ لِأَنَّهُمْ يَتَأَوَّلُونَ هَذِهِ الْآيَةَ "
[كتاب الشريعة للأجُرِّي – المجلد الأول – الصفحة ٣٤١]

Al-Ajurri mentioned: Abū Bakr ibn Abī Dāwūd narrated to us, saying: al-Muthannā ibn Aḥmad narrated to us, saying: ʿAmr ibn Khālid narrated to us, saying: Ibn Lahīʿah narrated to us, from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Dīnār, from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, regarding the words of Allah, the Exalted: {And others are ambiguous} [Āl ʿImrān: 7]: “As for the ambiguous (mutashābih) verses, they are verses in the Quran that appear similar or confusing to people when they recite them. Because of this, those who went astray by claiming this statement were misled. Each sect recites verses from the Quran and claims that they belong to them and that by them they have attained guidance. Among the ambiguous verses that the Ḥarūriyyah (i.e., the Khawārij) follow is the saying of Allah, the Exalted: {And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then they are the disbelievers} [al-Māaidah: 44]. And they recite along with it: {Then those who disbelieved in their Lord equate others with Him} [al-Anʿām: 1]. So when they see an imam ruling unjustly, they say: ‘He has disbelieved. And whoever disbelieves has equated others with his Lord, thus committing shirk. Therefore, these leaders are polytheists.’ Then they go out and do what you have witnessed (rebellion), because they interpret this verse in such a manner.” [Kitab al-Shari'ah of Al-Ajurri - Volume 1 - Page 341]

So what is its context? The Salaf Saliheen like Ibn Abbas and his students explained that these verses are to be understood as Kufr duna Kufr, and if a ruler actually denies anything from the Shariah, that he becomes kafir due to his denial.

They made the condition that a ruler becomes kafir due to denial, not by his act of ruling with anything contrary to the Shariah.

Abdul-Aziz ibn Yahya al-Kinani further explains that these verses cannot be understood as the Khawarij understand them, taking it upon its apparent without considering its context.

He refutes the Khawarij, as they believe that a ruler becomes kafir just by ruling with something contrary to the Shariah, even if the ruler upholds another part of the Shariah.

وسمعت أبا القاسم الحبيبي، قال: سمعت أبا زكريا العنبري، يحكي عن عبد العزيز بن يحيى الكناني إنه سأل عن هذه الآيات، قال: إنها تقع على جميع ما أنزل الله لا على بعضه فكل من لم يحكم بجميع ما أنزل الله فهو كافر ظالم فاسق.
فأما من يحكم ببعض ما أنزل الله من التوحيد (وترك) الشرك ثم لم يحكم بهما (فبين) ما أنزل الله من الشرائع لم يستوجب حكم هذه الآيات
[تفسير الثعلبي - الثعلبي - ج ٤ - الصفحة ٧٠]

Al-Tha'labi mentioned: From Abū al-Qāsim al-Ḥabībī, from Abū Zakariyyā al-‘Anbarī, from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī, who said when being asked about these verses: "It only applies to everything that Allah has revealed, not to some of it. So anyone who does not judge by what Allah has revealed (leaves it in its entirety) is a kafir, dhalim, and fasiq. As for the one who rules by part of what Allah has revealed — for example: Upholding Tawheed and abandoning shirk — but then does not rule by what Allah has revealed of the laws and rulings, he does not fall under the full judgment of these verses.’” [Tafsir al-Tha'labi - Surah al-Maaidah verse 44]

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī understands Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 to mean that if a ruler refuses to govern with Shariah in its entirety, that he becomes a kafir.

Other Mufassireen have understood it to mean that only when a ruler denies the Shariah is when he becomes a kafir, even if he rules with a part of the Shariah.

It seems to us that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī implies that when a ruler refuses to rule with the Shariah in its entirety, that it must mean he rejects the Shariah, and that when he rules with it partially, it implies he does not reject the Shariah.

This would indicate that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī follows the opinion of Ibn Abbas in principle, as he bases the kufr on denial, not on the mere action.

Though it is true that in most cases (not all) when a ruler refuses to rule with Shariah in its entirety, it is because he rejects it internally.

If anyone who believes ruling with other than Shariah to be major kufr and says: "ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī bases the kufr on mere action and not on denial," then it would still not fit his narrative.

This is because to them ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī believes ruling with Shariah partially is not major kufr, while they believe it is, due to their understanding that legislating is an act of major kufr.

1. "Legislating is an act of major kufr"

It is true that only Allah has the right to legislate. This does not mean however, that whenever a person does something only Allah has the right to do, that he commits major kufr.

Let's take an example of drawing animate beings. None can create animate beings, even when it means drawing it. When a Muslim draws an animate being, he does not claim to be a creator besides Allah, nor does his deed necessitate this.

And we know that drawing animate beings is not an act of major kufr at all, yet its argument for its prohibition is that only Allah creates animate beings.

So we can say "None has the right to design animate beings except Allah", "None has the right to take life except Allah".

So when a person designs animate beings on paper, he is not implying that he has the right together with Allah to design animate beings.

And when a person takes life by killing unjustly, he is not implying that he has the right together with Allah to take life.

Same principle goes with legislation. It does not imply that the person has the right together with Allah to legislate.

A person may say "I know only Allah has the right to design animate beings, but I do it, knowing that I am sinning", "I know only Allah has the right to take life, but I do it, knowing that I am sinning", "I know only Allah has the right to legislate, but I do it, knowing that I am sinning".

حَدَّثَنَا الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ، - يَعْنِي ابْنَ الْمِقْدَامِ بْنِ شُرَيْحٍ - عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، شُرَيْحٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، هَانِئٍ أَنَّهُ لَمَّا وَفَدَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مَعَ قَوْمِهِ سَمِعَهُمْ يَكْنُونَهُ بِأَبِي الْحَكَمِ فَدَعَاهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْحَكَمُ وَإِلَيْهِ الْحُكْمُ فَلِمَ تُكْنَى أَبَا الْحَكَمِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ إِنَّ قَوْمِي إِذَا اخْتَلَفُوا فِي شَىْءٍ أَتَوْنِي فَحَكَمْتُ بَيْنَهُمْ فَرَضِيَ كِلاَ الْفَرِيقَيْنِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ مَا أَحْسَنَ هَذَا فَمَا لَكَ مِنَ الْوَلَدِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ لِي شُرَيْحٌ وَمُسْلِمٌ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَمَنْ أَكْبَرُهُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قُلْتُ شُرَيْحٌ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَأَنْتَ أَبُو شُرَيْحٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ شُرَيْحٌ هَذَا هُوَ الَّذِي كَسَرَ السِّلْسِلَةَ وَهُوَ مِمَّنْ دَخَلَ تُسْتَرَ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ وَبَلَغَنِي أَنَّ شُرَيْحًا كَسَرَ بَابَ تُسْتَرَ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ دَخَلَ مِنْ سِرْبٍ ‏.‏

Abu Dawud mentioned: Al-Rabīʿ ibn Nāfiʿ narrated to us, from Yazīd — meaning Ibn al-Miqdām ibn Shurayḥ — from his father, from his grandfather Shurayḥ: My father, Hani, attended the delegation with his people to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and the Prophet heard them calling him by his nickname Abu al-Hakam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called him and said: “Indeed, Allah is al-Ḥakam (The Judge), and judgment belongs to Him. So why are you given the kunya Abū al-Ḥakam?” He replied: “My people, when they differ over something, they come to me, and I judge between them, and both parties are pleased.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “How excellent this is! So what children do you have?” He said: “I have Shurayḥ, Muslim, and ʿAbdullāh.” He (ﷺ) said: “Who is the eldest of them?” I replied: “Shurayḥ.” He (ﷺ) said: “Then you are Abū Shurayḥ.” [Sunan Abi Dawud 4955]

Absolutely, all these are true, and Allah is the only one who has the right to legislate.

Anyone who legislates is going against Allah, as they haven't been given the right to legislate.

But again, doing something you have no right to do does not mean you are setting yourself up as a god alongside Allah. Otherwise, it would imply that anyone who draws living beings or kills unjustly is making themselves a god beside Allah, and we can clearly see that such a claim would be absurd.

2. "Legislating is performing istihlal!"

It is not too unreasonable to think that if a person allows something that he may be performing istihlal.

So we can see why this argument is being made. Because if a person were to allow his guests to consume pork or listen to music, it would automatically raise the question whether this person does it because he regards it as permissible.

As a guest of such a host, you might look at him with lots of confusion and disgust, thinking he allows it because he might view it as permissible.

But that is not the only option available in that situation. The host might also do it because he is negligent, not because he views it as permissible.

So whenever a person allows a haram thing to be done in his home, he may either believe it is actually permissible, or he does it out of negligence.

The former option would make the host a kafir, without a doubt. Anyone who believes a haram thing to be halal becomes a kafir.

The latter option does not make the host a kafir, because the host does not make istihlal, he only allows it out of negligence, knowing he is sinning by allowing consumption of pork or music to happen in his house.

The same goes with a ruler, he is the host of the country, and the inhabitants are his guests. If he chooses to allow some things Allah has made haram, he either does this because he rejects Allah's prohibition, or he does it because he is negligent and knows that he is sinning.

3. "Ruling with something else implies rejection"

We understand why this argument is being made, as it is indeed one of the possible reasons why someone chooses to rule with other than the Shariah.

A ruler might do this because he rejects the Shariah, so he makes his own laws and denies Allah's laws. But this is not the case all the time.

It is not always the case that a ruler denies the Shariah when he does not rule by it. He may do so because he is a sinner, who does not want to implement Allah's laws. Just like a host of his house would do so when he is a sinner, not implementing Allah's laws in his own house due to him following his desires.

If we cannot say a host becomes kafir for refusing to implement Allah's laws in his own house, then same applies to a ruler.

You'll find a sinful host to allow his daughters to dress the way they want, not actually implementing Allah's laws. Or he might invite people to free-mix, play music, allow his guests to gossip, etc.

Such a host is sinful, unless he denies Allah's laws, in which case he becomes a kafir. Same goes with a ruler, who would be sinful by allowing things that shouldn't be allowed, unless he denies Allah's laws, in which case he becomes a kafir.

A ruler becomes kafir for saying things such as: "There is nothing wrong with this," "We reject Allah," "You live in old times, leave that way of thinking". But if he allows it without showing any actual rejection of Allah's laws, then he is obviously sinning.

4. "The major kufr is replacing the Shariah with man-made laws"

Surah al-Maaidah verse 44 was sent down regarding an incident that happened regarding some of the Jews who made a new punishment for those married people who commited zina. They ruled that the new punishment for them should be to have their face blackened with coal and to be whipped.

However, it was not sent down because they merely replaced the punishment Allah prescribed. That is a misconception.

The verse was sent down because some Jews rejected/denied the punishment Allah prescribed, not because they made a different punishment.

So the kufr was in their denial, not in the act of replacing.

5. "The Salaf Saliheen meant withholding judgement is minor kufr, not replacing or making new laws"

This argument is based on the assumption that the statements of the Salaf Saliheen regarding 'hukm bighayri ma anzalallah' is regarding withholding punishment, meaning to not act out the prescribed punishment.

1. The Ummayyad rulers who introduced new taxation laws were not made takfir of because of that. So if the Salaf Saliheen only talked about withholding judgement to be minor kufr, then it does not make sense why they withheld takfir
2. The Salaf Saliheen included tashri' into the interpretation of the verse, due to the saying of Abdulrahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam when he said: 'judging by a book which a person writes with his own hand', and because they never specified it for the qadhi (judge).
3. The Salaf Saliheen never said Kufr duna Kufr only revolves around withholding judgement, because they spoke about actual judging, not withholding
4. The Salaf Saliheen explicitly said that ruling with other than the Shariah is an act of minor kufr, like Ibn Battah and others said, and they did not specify it to mean withholding judgement, they said 'judging with other than the Shariah'
5. The Salaf Saliheen coupled ruling with other than what Allah has revealed with the verse 'do they seek the judgement of Jahiliyyah?', which tells us that the former is about action, not inaction. It means that the ruler actually rules with a different law than that of the Shariah

6. "Making new laws is making a new religion"

Whenever a person legislates new laws, he is either doing so because he wants to create a system in his country which suits his desires, or he does so out of the intention to be made an authority in legislation, one who should be placed besides or above God.

In the former, the ruler does not become a kafir, as he does not create a new religion. But as for the latter, he definitely becomes a kafir, as he now places himself as an authority in legislation.

Some Jewish rabbis used to do exactly this, they would make new laws and people obeyed them in it. They claimed to have been given authority to make and change laws with Allah and to decide for the Jewish people.

But as for a negligent person who just wants to create an environment which suits his desires without claiming he should be placed besides or above Allah, such a person is a fasiq.

And whenever he rules that certain things are allowed in his country, this does not mean he intends to overrule Allah's legislation. Just like a person who allows certain things in his house does not intend with it that it overrules Allah's legislation.

Some say that whenever you obey the ruler who allows some things in his country, that you become a kafir. For example, a ruler allowing music to play on the streets. When a person then plays music on the streets and feels free to do so, he is claimed by some people to have become a kafir. This is incorrect.

They base this on multiple verses, of which are 'Whoever seeks a way other than Islam, it will never be accepted from them', 'And if you obey them, you would be polytheists'.

7. {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}

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا۟ فِىٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًۭا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا۟ تَسْلِيمًۭا ٦٥ 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.
[4:65 Quran]

This verse is used as an argument by those who believe ruling by other than Shariah is an act of major kufr. But is this verse actually talking about major kufr, or is it talking of completion of Eman?

We know that the Prophet said "They will not believe (thrice), those who's neighbors do not feel safe from him", but obviously that does not mean the person becomes kafir if his neighbor feels unsafe from him.

حَدَّثَنَا عَاصِمُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي شُرَيْحٍ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ وَاللَّهِ لاَ يُؤْمِنُ، وَاللَّهِ لاَ يُؤْمِنُ، وَاللَّهِ لاَ يُؤْمِنُ ‏"‏‏.‏ قِيلَ وَمَنْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ ‏"‏ الَّذِي لاَ يَأْمَنُ جَارُهُ بَوَايِقَهُ ‏"‏‏.‏ تَابَعَهُ شَبَابَةُ وَأَسَدُ بْنُ مُوسَى‏.‏ وَقَالَ حُمَيْدُ بْنُ الأَسْوَدِ وَعُثْمَانُ بْنُ عُمَرَ وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ وَشُعَيْبُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ، عَنِ الْمَقْبُرِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ،‏.‏

Imam al-Bukhari mentioned: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe!" It was said, "Who is that, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)?" He said, "That person whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil." [Sahih al-Bukhari 6016]

This shows us that the verse 'But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muḥammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute' may just mean the exact same as what is understood from the Prophet's words regarding the neighbor who feels unsafe.

In that case, the verse would mean that the Muslim does not reach complete faith if he does not surrender fully to the judgement of Allah. And sure, the one who denies Allah's judgement is a kafir, but a person who does not deny/reject it but refuses to be satisfied with it out of his desires, he does not become a kafir by that.

Now, let's look at the context of this verse, as to why it was sent down. There are two views regarding what event triggered this verse:

واختلف أهل التأويل فيمن عنى بهذه الآية، وفيمن نـزلت؟ فقال بعضهم: نـزلت في الزبير بن العَوَّام وخصم له من الأنصار، اختصما إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في بعض الأمور.
وقال آخرون: بل نـزلت هذه الآية في المنافق واليهوديّ اللذين وصف الله صفتهما في قوله: أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْـزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْـزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ .
[تفسير الطبري - سورة النساء الآية ٦٥]

Imam al-Tabari said: "Scholars of Tafsir differed regarding whom this verse refers to and the occasion of its revelation. Some said: it was revealed concerning al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām and a man from the Ansar, who came to dispute before the Prophet ﷺ over certain matters. Others said: rather, this verse was revealed regarding a hypocrite and a Jew, whose characteristics Allah described in His words: “Have you not seen those who claim that they believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you, yet they desire to refer to the taghūt?”" [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Nisaa verse 65]

Those who held the first view believed that the verse would mean that the Muslim does not reach complete faith. Because no one made takfir of the Ansari man, as he was a Muslim.

Those who viewed the second view believed that the verse talks about nifaq, meaning that if a person were to be displeased with Allah's judgement, that he is a munafiq.

Now, both events show that a person was displeased with the Prophet's judgement, so we need to look at the intention rather than the deed. If we don't, then that would mean the Ansari man would have been made takfir of, and no one from the Salaf Saliheen did this.

This means that being displeased are of two scenarios:

قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى: فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شجر بينهم
[الوجه الأول]
٥٥٥٨ - حَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى، ثنا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ وَيُونُسُ عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ أَنَّ عُرْوَةَ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ حَدَّثَهُ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ حَدَّثَهُ، عَنِ الزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ الْعَوَّامِ أَنَّهُ خَاصَمَ رَجُلا مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ قَدْ شَهِدَ بَدْراً مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي شِرَاجٍ مِنَ الْحَرَّةِ كَانَا يَسْقِيَانِ بِهِ كِلاهُمَا النَّخْلَ، فَقَالَ الأَنْصَارِيُّ: سَرِّحِ الْمَاءَ يَمُرُّ، فَأَبَى عَلَيْهِ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: اسْقِ يَا زُبَيْرُ، ثُمَّ أَرْسِلْ إِلَى جَارِكَ، فَغَضِبَ الأَنْصَارِيُّ وَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنْ كَانَ ابْنُ عَمَّتِكَ، فَتَلَوَّنَ وَجْهُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: اسْقِ يَا زُبَيْرُ ثُمَّ احْبِسِ الْمَاءَ حَتَّى يَرْجِعُ إِلَى الْجِدْرِ وَاسْتَرْعَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الزُّبَيْرِ حَقَّهُ، وَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ أَشَارَ عَلَى الزُّبَيْرِ أَيْ أَرَادَ فِيهِ السَّعَةَ لَهُ وَلِلأَنْصَارِيِّ، فَلَمَّا أَحْفَظَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الأَنْصَارِيَّ اسْتَرْعَى لِلزُّبَيْرِ حَقَّهُ فِي صَرِيحِ الْحُكْمِ، فَقَالَ الزُّبَيْرُ: وَمَا أَحْسِبُ هذه الآية إلا في نَزَلَتْ فَلا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيماً أَحَدُهُمَا يُرِيدُ عَلَى صَاحِبِهِ بِذَلِكَ.
٥٥٥٩ - حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي ثنا عَمْرُو بْنُ عُثْمَانَ ثنا أَبُو حَيْوَةَ ثنا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ فِي قَوْلِهِ: فَلا وَرَبِّكَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ الآيَةَ: قَالَ: أُنْزِلَتْ فِي الزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ الْعَوَّامِ وَحَاطِبِ بْنِ أَبِي بَلْتَعَةَ اخْتَصَمَا فِي مَاءٍ، فَقَضَى النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يَسْقِيَ الأَعْلَى ثُمَّ الأَسْفَلُ.
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة النساء الآية ٦٥]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: His Exalted Words: "So by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge in all disputes between them…" [First Interpretation]: Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā narrated to us, Ibn Wahb narrated to me, al-Layth and Yūnus narrated from Ibn Shihāb that ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr reported to him that ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Zubayr narrated from al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām: He once disputed with a man from the Ansar, who had fought at Badr with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, over a canal in al-Harrah that both were using to water their date palms. The Ansari said: “Let the water flow!” but al-Zubayr refused. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Water first, O Zubayr, then send it to your neighbor.” The Ansari became angry and said: “O Messenger of Allah, just because he is your cousin?!” The Prophet ﷺ’s face changed, showing his displeasure, then he said: “Water first, O Zubayr, then hold back the water until it returns to the basin” — thus fully protecting al-Zubayr’s rights. Before this, the Prophet ﷺ had suggested a solution to al-Zubayr that would ease the matter for both him and the Ansari. But when the Prophet ﷺ safeguarded the Ansari’s rights, he then ensured al-Zubayr received his due in clear judgment. Al-Zubayr said: “I do not think this verse was revealed except regarding this: ‘So by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge in all disputes between them, then feel no discomfort in their hearts regarding what you decide, and submit with full submission.’ One of them desires to dominate over the other with that.” My father narrated to us, ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān narrated to us, Abū Ḥaywah narrated to us, Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz narrated from al-Zuhrī, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib regarding His saying: “So by your Lord, they will not believe…” He said: it was revealed concerning al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām and Ḥātib ibn Abī Baltaʿah, who disputed over water. The Prophet ﷺ judged that the one who was upstream would water first, then the who was downstream. [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Nisaa verse 65]

الْوَجْهُ الثَّانِي:
٥٥٦٠ - أَخْبَرَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى قِرَاءَةً، أَنْبَأَ ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ لَهِيعَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الأَسْوَدِ قَالَ: اخْتَصَمَ رَجُلانِ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَضَى بَيْنَهُمَا، فَقَالَ الَّذِي قَضَى عَلَيْهِ: رُدَّنَا إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: نَعَمْ، انْطَلِقَا إِلَى عُمَرَ، فَلَمَّا أَتَيَا عُمَرَ قَالَ الرَّجُلُ: يَا ابْنَ الْخَطَّابِ قَضَى لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى هَذَا، فَقَالَ: رُدَّنَا إِلَى عُمَرَ حَتَّى أَخْرُجَ إِلَيْكُمَا فَأَقْضِيَ بَيْنَكُمَا، فَخَرَجَ إِلَيْهِمَا، مُشْتَمِلا عَلَى سَيْفِهِ فَضَرَبَ الَّذِي قَالَ: رُدَّنَا إِلَى عُمَرَ فَقَتَلَهُ، وَأَدْبَرَ الآخَرُ فَارّاً إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، قَتَلَ عُمَرُ وَاللَّهِ صَاحِبِي وَلَوْ مَا أَنِّي أَعْجَزْتُهُ لَقَتَلَنِي، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: مَا كُنْتُ أظن أن يَجْتَرِئُ عُمَرُ عَلَى قَتْلِ مُؤْمِنَيْنِ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فَلا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيماً فَهَدَرَ دَمَ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلِ وَبَرِئَ عُمَرُ مِنْ قَتْلِهِ، فَكَرِهَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَسُنَّ ذَلِكَ بَعْدُ، فَقَالَ: «وَلَوْ أَنَّا كَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ أَنِ اقْتُلُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ أَوِ اخْرُجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ مَا فَعَلُوهُ إلا قَلِيلٌ مِنْهُمْ» إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: وَأَشَدَّ تَثْبِيتاً
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة النساء الآية ٦٥]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: The second opinion: Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā (reading) told us, Ibn Wahb informed me, ʿAbdullāh ibn Lahiyya told me from Abū al‑Aswad, who said: Two men brought their dispute to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he judged between them. The man against whom the judgment went said: “Return us to ʿUmar ibn al‑Khattāb.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Yes — go to ʿUmar.” When they went to ʿUmar, the man said: “O son of al‑Khattāb, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ judged for me in this matter.” Umar then said: "Wait until I come out to you and judge between you." ʿUmar then returned to them, wearing his sword, and struck the man who had demanded to be returned to ʿUmar, killing him. The other man fled back to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ʿUmar has killed my companion — by God, he would have killed me too if I had not fled.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “I did not think that ʿUmar would dare to kill two believers.” Then Allah, Exalted, revealed: “So by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge in what disputes arise between them, then feel no discomfort in their hearts concerning what you have decided and submit with full submission.” As a result, the blood of that man was vindicated (i.e., his killing was examined) and ʿUmar was cleared of having unlawfully killed him. God, however, disliked that such an incident become a precedent thereafter, so He said: “And if We had ordained upon them, ‘Kill yourselves’ or ‘Leave your homes,’ they would not have done it except a few of them…” — up to His words: “…and more firmly established.” [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Nisaa verse 65]

Whatever event caused the verse to be sent down, it is a valid stance to say that the verse can either be about munafiqeen, or about believers who haven't reached complete faith.

It comes down to the reason why a person becomes unsatisfied with a ruling. If he denies the ruling, he becomes kafir, if he feels uneasy but accepts the ruling, he hasn't completen faith.

So if a ruler were to rule with other than Shariah because it suits his desires, he is definitely sinning, and he would fall under those who are not complete in faith.

As for the ruler who denies Allah's rulings because he dislikes them, he becomes a kafir, and his disbelief comes outward when he says things like: "We live in a modern era, leave the Shariah, it is not for this time" or "It is not obligatory to uphold the Shariah, you are free to do whatever you like".

8. {Is it the judgment of the Jāhilīyyah that they seek?}

أَفَحُكْمَ ٱلْجَـٰهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ ۚ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ حُكْمًۭا لِّقَوْمٍۢ يُوقِنُونَ ٥٠ Is it the judgment of ˹pre-Islamic˺ ignorance they seek? Who could be a better judge than Allah for people of sure faith?
[5:50 Quran]

When reading this verse from the Qur’an, one might think that seeking judgment according to man-made laws automatically makes a person a disbeliever, like someone from the people of Jahiliyyah. However, this is not how the Salaf Saliheen understood it.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam explained this verse clearly. He stated that if a Muslim seeks the judgment of Jahiliyyah, it means they are acting in the manner of the people of Jahiliyyah, not that they immediately become one of them.

For example, wailing over the dead while physically harming oneself is a practice associated with Jahiliyyah. If a Muslim engages in it, they do not automatically become a disbeliever; rather, they are merely acting in a way characteristic of the Jahiliyyah.

Therefore, when someone seeks judgment according to the ways of Jahiliyyah instead of following Islam, they do not become a disbeliever, but they perform actions that reflect the practices and characteristics of the people of Jahiliyyah.

مِنْ سُنَنِ الْكُفَّارِ الْحُكْمَ بِغَيْرِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ، أَلَا تَسْمَعُ قَوْلَهُ: ﴿أَفَحُكْمَ الْجاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ﴾ [المائدة: ٥٠]. تَأْوِيلُهُ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ التَّفْسِيرِ أَنَّ مَن حَكَمَ بِغَيْرِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَهُوَ عَلَى مِلَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ كَانَ بِذَلِكَ الْحُكْمِ كَأَهْلِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ، إِنَّمَا هُوَ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ كَذَلِكَ كَانُوا يَحْكُمُونَ. وَهَكَذَا
قَوْلُهُ: «ثَلَاثَةٌ مِنْ أَمْرِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الطَّعْنُ فِي الْأَنْسَابِ والنياحة والأنواء» (٢). وَمِثْلُهُ
الْحَدِيثُ الَّذِي يُرْوَى عَنْ جَرِيرٍ وَأَبِي الْبَخْتَرِيِّ الطَّائِيِّ: «ثَلَاثَةٌ مِنْ سُنَّةِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ: النِّيَاحَةُ، وَصَنْعَةُ الطَّعَامِ، وَأَنْ تَبِيتَ الْمَرْأَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الْمَيِّتِ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمْ» (١).
وَكَذَلِكَ الْحَدِيثُ: «آيَةُ الْمُنَافِقِ [ثَلَاثٌ]: إِذَا حدَّث كَذَبَ، وَإِذَا وَعَدَ أَخْلَفَ وَإِذَا ائْتُمِنَ خَانَ» (٢).
وَقَوْلُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ: «الْغِنَاءُ ينبت النفاق في القلب» (٣). لَيْسَ وُجُوهُ هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ كُلِّهَا مِنَ الذُّنُوبِ: أَنَّ رَاكِبَهَا يَكُونُ جَاهِلًا وَلَا كَافِرًا وَلَا مُنَافِقًا وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ بِاللَّهِ وَمَا جَاءَ مِنْ عِنْدِهِ، ومؤدٍ لِفَرَائِضِهِ، وَلَكِنْ مَعْنَاهَا أَنَّهَا تَتَبَيَّنُ مِنْ أَفْعَالِ الْكُفَّارِ مُحَرَّمَةٌ مَنْهِيٌّ (١) عَنْهَا فِي الْكِتَابِ وَفِي السُّنَّةِ لِيَتَحَامَاهَا الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَيَتَجَنَّبُوهَا فَلَا يَتَشَبَّهُوا بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ أَخْلَاقِهِمْ وَلَا شَرَائِعِهِمْ. وَلَقَدْ
رُوي فِي بَعْضِ الْحَدِيثِ: «إِنَّ السَّوَادَ خِضَابُ الْكُفَّارِ» (٢). فَهَلْ يَكُونُ لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّهُ يَكْفُرُ مِنْ أَجْلِ الْخِضَابِ؟! وَكَذَلِكَ
حَدِيثُهُ: فِي المرأة إذا استعطرت ثم مرت بِقَوْمٍ يُوجد ريحُها «أَنَّهَا زَانِيَةٌ» (١). فَهَلْ يَكُونُ هَذَا عَلَى الزِّنَا الَّذِي تَجِبُ فِيهِ الْحُدُودُ؟
وَمِثْلُهُ قَوْلُهُ: «الْمُسْتَبَّانِ شَيْطَانَانِ يَتَهَاتَرَانِ وَيَتَكَاذَبَانِ» (٢). أَفَيُتَّهَمُ عليه أنه أراد الشيطانين الذين هُمْ أَوْلَادُ إِبْلِيسَ؟! إِنَّمَا هَذَا كُلُّهُ عَلَى ما أعلمتك من الأفعال والأخلاق والسنن.
[كِتَاب الإيمان – أبو عبيد القاسم بن سَلّام – الصفحات ٩٠-٩٣]

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam said: Among the customs of the disbelievers is judging by something other than what Allah has revealed. Do you not hear His statement: “Are they seeking the judgment of [pre-Islamic] ignorance?” [al-Mā’idah: 50] The interpretation among the scholars of tafsīr is that whoever judges by something other than what Allah revealed, while still being within the religion of Islam, is, by that ruling, like the people of ignorance, because that is how the people of ignorance used to judge. His statement: “Three matters belong to the custom of ignorance: slandering lineage, wailing, and superstitions (al-anwā’).” Similarly, the narration transmitted from Jarīr and Abū al-Bakhtar al-Ṭā’ī states: “Three matters from the custom of ignorance: wailing, preparing food (upon death), and a woman spending the night with the family of the deceased other than her own.” And likewise the narration: “The signs of a hypocrite [are three]: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is trusted, he betrays.” And ʿAbdullāh said: “Singing cultivates hypocrisy in the heart.” These statements do not mean that the doer becomes a Jahil, Kafir, or a Munafiq while still believing in Allah and following His commands. Rather, their meaning is that these actions, drawn from the deeds of kuffar, are prohibited and forbidden in the Book and the Sunnah, so that Muslims avoid them and do not imitate their morals or laws. For example, it is narrated in some hadith: “Black dye is the dye of the disbelievers.” Would anyone claim that a person becomes a disbeliever simply for using black dye? Clearly not. Similarly, the hadith about a woman who perfumes herself and passes by people, “she is an adulteress,” does not refer to the actual zina for which the hudūd apply. Likewise, the statement: “The clean-shaven are two devils quarreling and lying to each other.” Does this imply he meant the literal sons of Iblīs? Certainly not. All of this refers, as I explained, to actions, morals, and customs, not core disbelief or obligatory punishments. [Kitab al-Eman - Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam - Page 90-93]

This by itself is sufficient to understand that seeking the laws of Jahiliyyah is not meant to be an act of major kufr.

But let's look at some extra sayings from the Salaf Saliheen, like Ibn Abi Hatim and Imam al-Tabari.

قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى: أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ
٦٥٠٢ - حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي ثنا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ ثنا حَمَّادٌ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ: كانت تُسَمَّى الْجَاهِلِيَّةُ الْعَالِمِيَّةَ حَتَّى جَاءَتِ امْرَأَةٌ قَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، كَانَ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ كَذَا وَكَذَا فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ ذِكْرَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ.
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة المائدة الآية ٥٠]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: My father narrated to us, Abu Salamah narrated to us, Hammad narrated from Hisham ibn ʿUrwah from his father, who said: The Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic era) used to be called al-ʿĀlimiyyah (the age of knowledge/civilization), until a woman came and said: “O Messenger of Allah, in the Jāhiliyyah it used to be such and such…” So Allah revealed mention of al-Jāhiliyyah (the Age of Ignorance). [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Maaidah verse 50]

٦٥٠٤ - حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي ثنا هِلالُ بْنُ الْفَيَّاضِ بْنِ أَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ النَّاجِيُّ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ يَقُولُ: مَنْ حَكَمَ بِغَيْرِ حُكْمِ اللَّهِ فَحُكْمُ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ.
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة المائدة الآية ٥٠]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: My father narrated to us, Hilāl ibn al-Fayyāḍ ibn Abū ʿUbaydah al-Nājī said: I heard al-Ḥasan say: “Whoever judges by other than the judgment of Allah, then that is the judgment of Jāhiliyyah.” [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Maaidah verse 50]

٦٥٠٥ - أَخْبَرَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى ثنا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي نَجِيحٍ قَالَ: كَانَ طَاوُسٌ إِذَا سَأَلَهُ رَجُلٌ أُفَصِلُ بَيْنَ وَلَدَيْنِ فِي النَّحْلِ قَرَأَ أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللهِ حُكْمًا لِّقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ
[تفسير ابن أبي حاتم - سورة المائدة الآية ٥٠]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā informed us, Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah narrated from Ibn Abī Najīḥ, who said: Whenever a man asked Ṭāwūs: “Should I make a distinction between two of my children in giving gifts?” he would recite: “Do they then seek the judgment of Jahiliyyah? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who are certain.” [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Maaidah verse 50]

Would anyone declare takfīr on a father who differentiates between his sons when giving gifts? Tawus certainly did not declare takfīr on the man who asked, even though he sought the judgment of the Time of Ignorance.

This interpretation shows us that the verse is not meant to be used to make takfir. Rather, it serves as a reminder from Allah that we should always seek His judgment, which is the best. If someone were to follow any other judgment, they would be following the path of Jahiliyyah and committing a sin in doing so.

Also, this verse was sent down regarding the Jews who sought the judgement of the Prophet (who judged them by their Tawrah) but were not satisfied with it. Imam al-Tabari explains this further.

ثم قال تعالى ذكره= موبِّخا لهؤلاء الذين أبوا قَبُول حكم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عليهم ولهم من اليهود، ومستجهلا فعلَهم ذلك منهم=: ومَنْ هذا الذي هو أحسن حكمًا، أيها اليهود، من الله تعالى ذكره عند من كان يوقن بوحدانية الله، ويقرُّ بربوبيته؟ يقول تعالى ذكره: أيّ حكم أحسن من حكم الله، إن كنتم موقنين أن لكم ربًّا، وكنتم أهل توحيدٍ وإقرار به؟
[تفسير الطبري - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Imam al-Tabari said: "Then Allah, Exalted is He, rebukes those who refused to accept the judgment of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and censures this act as strange behavior on their part: “And who is better in judgment than Allah?”—O Jews—for those who have certainty in God and acknowledge His Lordship. He says: “Which judgment is better than the judgment of Allah, if you are certain that you have a Lord and are people of monotheism who acknowledge Him?”" [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Maaidah verse 50]

This verse speaks specifically about the Jews, and Allah addresses them, not the Muslims.

Allah highlights their strange behavior: they claim to acknowledge His Lordship, yet they are not satisfied with the judgment revealed in their Tawrah and instead seek other judgments according to their whims and desires—not because they always deny Allah's Lordship or His Oneness.

Two jewish people came to the Prophet to seek his judgement regarding a matter, and they were told to reject his judgement if he ruled in accordance with what is prescribed in the Tawrah.

If a Muslim were to act in the same manner as these Jews, then Allah does not imply that such a Muslim has rejected His Lordship or Oneness, nor does the action itself constitute major kufr, as Allah acknowledged that those Jews accepted His Lordship and Oneness.

In other words, a Muslim does not become a disbeliever simply for seeking a judgment based on personal whims or desires rather than divine guidance.

The Salaf Saliheen have already clarified this. None of them ever used this verse as a basis to declare takfīr on someone who sought a non-Islamic judgment. This teaches us that we too should refrain from such declarations, following the understanding of those who were rightly guided.

Retracting when necessary

When the matter becomes clear to a person and he his doubts have been removed, it becomes obligatory to follow what he now perceives as the truth, even if that might raise discomfort.

The subject of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed has been a big topic, which led to many fractions.

To us, this subject has been made clear, and though we used to hold the view that ruling by other than Shariah is kufr, it did not stop us from adapting and changing views when our doubts were removed.

وَلَيْسَتْ تَدْخُلُنِي أَنَفَةٌ مِنْ إظْهَارِ الِانْتِقَالِ عَمَّا كُنْت أَرَى إلَى غَيْرِهِ إذَا بَانَتْ الْحُجَّةُ فِيهِ بَلْ أَتَدَيَّنُ بِأَنَّ عَلَيَّ الرُّجُوعَ عَمَّا كُنْت أَرَى إلَى مَا رَأَيْتُهُ الْحَقَّ
[كتاب الأم - المجلد ٧ - الصفحة ٢٨٩]

Imam Shafi'i said: "And no pride prevents me from showing that I have changed from what I used to see to something else when the proof becomes clear in it. Rather, I consider it a duty upon me to return from what I used to see to that which I have perceived as the truth." [Kitab al-Umm - Volume 7 - Page 289]