Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed

1. Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44 was also sent down regarding legislating/ruling
2. The Salaf Saliheen believed rejection/denial is major kufr, not ruling with something else
3. Ibn Abbas interpreted the verse as Kufr duna Kufr
4. The Salaf Saliheen believed partially ruling with Shariah is not major kufr
5. The Khawarij used Surah al-Maidah verse 44 to make takfir of rulers who partially ruled with the Shariah

1. Surah al-Ma'idah 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 al-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-Ma'idah 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-Ma'idah verse 44]

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

Abdulrahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam interpreted the verse to include judging and legislating, as he said 'rules/judges by a book that he himself has written with his own hand', which clearly refers to a person legislating 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-Ma'idah 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-Ma'idah 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-Ma'idah 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 prescribe 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-Ma'idah 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. The Salaf Saliheen believed rejection/denial is 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 al-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-Ma'idah 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 al-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-Ma'idah 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-Ma'idah 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.

The same principle was mentioned by another Mufassir named Al-Nahhas:

فَكُلُّ مَنْ حَكَمَ بِغَيْرِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ جَاحِدًا لَهُ كَمَا جَحَدَتِ الْيَهُودُ فَهُوَ كَافِرٌ ظَالِمٌ فَاسِقٌ
[ص400 - كتاب الناسخ والمنسوخ النحاس]

Al-Nahhas said: "So whoever rules/judges by other than what Allah, Glorious and Exalted, has revealed, while denying it (a law of Allah) as the Jews denied it, is a disbeliever, wrongdoer, and defiantly disobedient." [Kitāb Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh - Al-Nahhas - Page 400]

There are many more Mufassireen who understood these verses to only mean that the doer becomes a kafir if he denies it, like some Jews denied it.

The verses were sent regarding some Jews who denied Allah's laws, so the same context should be applied to Muslims. Leaving the denial part is going against the context of these verses.

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. Ibn Abbas interpreted the verse as Kufr duna Kufr

When we look at the books of Tafsir, we find that Ibn Abbas interprets Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44 as Kufr duna Kufr when it is applied to Muslims.

With it he implies that whenever a Muslim person rules or judges with other than the Shariah, then the term 'kafirun' is not to understood as major kufr.

باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به عن الملة
1010 - حدثنا أبو الحسين إسحاق بن أحمد الكاذي ، قال : حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد ، قال : حدثني أبي ، قال : حدثنا سفيان ، عن هشام بن حجير ، عن طاوس ، قال : قال ابن عباس : ليس بالكفر الذي تذهبون إليه قال سفيان : أي ليس كفرا ينقل عن الملة :
ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون .
[الإبانة الكبرى - ابن بطة - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ٧٣٦]

Ibn Battah mentioned: Chapter: Mention of sins that lead a person to kufr, without taking them out of the fold of Islam. ... Abū al-Ḥusayn Isḥāq ibn Aḥmad al-Kādhī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad narrated to us, he said: my father narrated to me, he said: Sufyān narrated to us, from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, from Ṭāwus, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās said: “It is not the kufr that you usually think of.” Sufyān (ibn Uyaynah) said: “It is not kufr that removes one from the fold of Islam: {And whoever does not judge/rule by what Allah has revealed – then it is they who are the disbelievers.} (Qur’ān 5:44)” [Al-Ibanatul Kubrah - Ibn Battah - Volume 2 - Page 736]

Ibn Abbas is telling you that when you read the verse 'fa-ulaika humul kafirun' that it does not mean kafirun how you usually understand it.

Sufyan ibn Uyaynah even made his individual interpretation on the verse, saying it does not mean major kufr.

No scholars held the view that Ibn Abbas was just responding to the Khawarij instead of interpreting the verse.

The scholars of Tafsir believed that it was an interpretation of Ibn Abbas, nothing else.

The evidence for Ibn Abbas actually interpreting the verse as minor kufr is mentioned in several places. If we just look at the Tafsir of al-Tabari, we would find that Ibn Abbas interpreted the verse as minor kufr.

وقد اختلف أهل التأويل في تأويل " الكفر " في هذا الموضع.
فقال بعضهم بنحو ما قلنا في ذلك، من أنه عنى به اليهود الذين حَرَّفوا كتاب الله وبدَّلوا حكمه.
وقال بعضهم: عنى بـ" الكافرين "، أهل الإسلام، وب " الظالمين " اليهود، وب " الفاسقين " النصارى.
وقال آخرون: بل عنى بذلك: كفرٌ دون كفر، وظلمٍ دون ظلم، وفسقٌ دون فسق. ذكر من قال ذلك:
12053 - حدثنا هناد قال، حدثنا وكيع= وحدثنا ابن وكيع قال، حدثنا أبي= عن سفيان، عن معمر بن راشد، عن ابن طاوس، عن أبيه، عن ابن عباس: " ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون " ، قال: هي به كفر، وليس كفرًا بالله وملائكته وكتبه ورسله. (82)
وقال آخرون: بل نـزلت هذه الآيات في أهل الكتاب، وهى مرادٌ بها جميعُ الناس، مسلموهم وكفارهم.
وقال آخرون: معنى ذلك: ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله جاحدًا به. فأما " الظلم " و " الفسق "، فهو للمقرِّ به.
ذكر من قال ذلك: 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 al-Tabari said: "The scholars of interpretation differed regarding the meaning of “kufr” in this context. Some of them said, in line with what we have mentioned earlier, that it refers to the Jews who distorted Allah’s Book and altered His rulings (meaning, they 'covered' it). Others said: the term “disbelievers” refers to the Muslims, “the wrongdoers” refers to the Jews, and “the rebellious” refers to the Christians (meaning, 'kufr' here is intended for the Muslims). Yet others said: it means Kufr duna Kufr, Dhulm duna Dhulm, Fusuq duna Fusuq. Among those who said this: Hanad narrated to us, he said: Waki‘ narrated to us; and Ibn Waki‘ narrated to us; he said: my father narrated to us; from Sufyan, from Mu‘ammar ibn Rashid, from Ibn Ta‘wus, from his father, from Ibn ‘Abbas: “And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers.” He said: it is a kufr, but not like the kufr in Allah, His angels, His Books, or His Messengers. Others said: these verses were revealed regarding the People of the Book, but they are meant for all people, both Muslims and non-Muslims (meaning, initially the Jews were addressed, but Allah also intended to apply these verses to the Muslims). Others said: the meaning is: whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, if he denies it, then he is a kafir. As for “Dhulm” and “Fisq”, these apply to those who acknowledge it (His laws) but fail to rule/judge by it. Among those who said this: Al-Muthanna narrated to me; he said: ‘Abdullah ibn Salih narrated to us; he said: Mu‘awiyah ibn Salih narrated to me, from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah, from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding the verse: “And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers”—he said: whoever denies what Allah has revealed is a kafir. And whoever acknowledges it but does not rule/judge by it is a dhalim and a fasiq." [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44]

Scholars such as Ibn Battah have explained that ruling or judging by other than what Allah has revealed does not remove one from the fold of Islam. He cites the statements of Kufr duna Kufr under his chapter: “Sins that do not expel one from the religion.”

This shows that Ibn Battah, like Ibn ʿAbbas, considers ruling or judging by other than Shariah to be minor kufr.

4. The Salaf Saliheen believed partially ruling with Shariah is not major kufr

Surah al-Ma'idah 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 took the view that leaving off the Shariah completely is an act of major kufr.

It refutes the Khawarij, because al-Kinani does not believe that when a ruler governs with Shariah partially that he becomes a kafir. The Khawarij used to believe that even if a ruler would replace one law of the Shariah with his own one without ascribing it to Allah, that he would become a kafir by that.

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-Ma'idah verse 44]

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī understands Surah al-Ma'idah 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.

وقد قيل: من لم يحكم بما أنزل الله مستحلّا لذلك. وقد قيل: من ترك الحكم بجميع ما أنزل الله فهو كافر.
[إعراب القرآن – النحّاس – سورة المائدة آية ٤٤]

Al-Nahhas said: "First view: Whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed while considering it permissible. Second view: Whoever abandons judging/ruling by all that Allah has revealed, he is a disbeliever." [I'rab al-Quran - Al-Nahhas - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44]

If anyone who believes ruling with other than Shariah to be major kufr 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 own narrative.

This is because 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.

So they would not only follow an opinion none of the Mufassireen adopted, they cannot use any of them to support their view.

5. The Khawarij used Surah al-Maidah verse 44 to make takfir of rulers who partially ruled with the Shariah

Some believe that the Khawarij never used Surah al-Maidah to make takfir of rulers but only to make takfir of those who committed major sins. But this is not correct.

The Khawarij used this verse for both rulers and ordinary people. They would say, "If a ruler governs with some laws contrary to the Shariah, then he is kafir, because the verse says 'they are the kafirun'", and "Anyone who commits major sins and persists in it is ruling with something contrary to the Shariah, so he must be a kafir".

Such Khawarij were spoken of by the Salaf Saliheen, including the grandson of al-Mutawakkil, called Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz.

حدثني أبو حاتم الأسدي قال: حدثني أبو حاتم الأحول قال: كان درست المعلم أقصر من رأيت وأضعفه بدنا، وكان مع ذلك يقول: لولا أنني معلم، والمعلم عند الناس أحمق، وأنا مولى. وليس بالمولى كالصريح، لما دعا الناس إلى بغض هذه الدولة - يعني دولة بني العباس -، أو حي يقال له: درست. وكان يرى رأى الخوارج ويرى الدار دار كفر، ويقول: قد عطلوا الأحكام وغيروها. وقد قال الله: " ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون " وكان مع هذا أرقع خلق الله، إلا أنه كان فصيحاً جيداً لقول الشعر.
[ص334-335 - كتاب طبقات الشعراء لابن المعتز]

Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz mentioned: Abū Ḥātim al-Asadī narrated to me, saying: Abū Ḥātim al-Aḥwal told me that Durust al-Muʿallim was the shortest and weakest-bodied man he had ever seen. Yet despite that, he used to say: “Were it not that I am a teacher — and teachers are considered fools by the people — and that I am a mawlā (a client, not of pure Arab descent), for a mawlā is not like one of pure lineage — I would have called the people to hate this state,” — meaning the state of the Banū al-ʿAbbās (the Abbasid dynasty). He held the doctrine of the Khawārij, and considered the land to be a land of disbelief. He used to say: “They have suspended the divine rulings and replaced them. And God, exalted be He, has said: ‘And whoever does not judge/rule by what God has revealed — then they are the disbelievers.’” He was one of the most foolish of God’s creation, except that he was eloquent and skillful in composing poetry. [Tabaqat al-Shu'ara - Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz - Page 334-335]

So in essence, Durust al-Mu'allim was a teacher of low social status, and he hated the Abbasid state and wanted to speak up against them.

But he knew that because he held such a low social status, people wouldn't have taken him seriously. He is saying that if he held a higher social position, he would've spoken against the Abbasid state.

Durust al-Mu'allim was of low status during his time, eloquent and skillful in composing poetry, but he was a Khariji, inciting hatred toward the Abbasid state at the time due to their corruption and ruling with other than the Shariah.

People who would hold the view that ruling with something else is major kufr would agree with Durust al-Mu'allim, as he holds their same view. They would say, "He wasn't a Khariji, he was right in saying that ruling with other than the Shariah is major kufr."

But the Salaf Saliheen viewed Durust al-Mu'allim being foolish and a Khariji due to his views of overthrowing political authorities due to them ruling with other than Shariah partially.

He considered the Abbasid state as Darul-Kufr, just like the people today, who claim that rulers are kuffar and that the countries are all Darul-Kufr for not ruling with the Shariah in its entirety.

1. "Legislating is an act of major kufr"
2. "Legislating is performing istihlal!"
3. "Ruling with something else implies rejection"
4. "The major kufr is replacing the Shariah with man-made laws"
5. "The Salaf Saliheen meant withholding judgement is minor kufr, not replacing or making new laws"
6. "Making new laws is making a new religion"
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}
8. {Is it the judgment of the Jāhilīyyah that they seek?}
9. "Ibn Abbas meant Kufr duna Kufr in a specific incident with the Khawarij"
10. "But the Salaf Saliheen said 'Dhaak al-Kufr', implying major kufr"
11. "But al-Suddi said leaving the judgement of Allah is 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 far-fetched to assume that when someone legislates something, he may be engaging in istihlal.

Hence the claim is made: “The ruler himself wrote that riba is lawful, or that alcohol is lawful.”

In response we say: There is a difference between permitting something and declaring it halal. If a ruler legalizes riba in his land, we cannot conclude from that alone that he is declaring it halal in the religion, or that he is saying, “I do not care about what Allah has forbidden; I reject it.”

Some people argue that a ruler who permits riba to be practiced in his country becomes a kafir, but this position is incorrect.

The reason is that permitting something does not by itself amount to istihlal. Consider a man who hosts guests in his home and tells them they may commit haram there without consequence — which, in essence, is equivalent to legalizing it — or even goes so far as to encourage and support it.

This would not mean that the host is committing istihlal or denying the laws of Allah; rather, he is acting out of his desires.

If the same reasoning were applied to this host, he would be deemed a kafir for allowing his guests to do what Allah has forbidden — yet obviously, he is not.

So, when a ruler tells his people they may commit haram in his country, it does not indicate that he rejects the laws of Allah or declares istihlal. It merely shows that he is disregarding Allah’s commands and granting permission within his country, not within the religion.

3. "Ruling with something else implies rejection"

We understand why this argument is made, as it is indeed one possible reason why someone may choose to govern by laws other than the Shariah.

A ruler might do this because he rejects the Shariah, creating his own laws and denying Allah’s legislation. However, this is not always the case.

Not every ruler who does not rule by the Shariah is rejecting it. He may simply be a sinner who does not wish to implement Allah’s laws, similar to a host in his own house who ignores Allah’s laws in favor of following his desires.

If we cannot claim that a host becomes a kafir for refusing to enforce Allah’s laws in his own house, the same principle applies to a ruler.

For example, a sinful host may allow his daughters to dress as they wish, permit free-mixing, play music, or let guests gossip — all without implementing Allah’s laws.

Such a host is sinful, but he does not become a kafir unless he explicitly denies Allah’s laws. The same applies to a ruler: he is sinful for allowing prohibited actions, but only becomes a kafir if he denies Allah’s laws.

A ruler becomes a kafir if he says things like: “There is nothing wrong with this,” “We reject Allah,” or “You live in old times, leave that way of thinking.” But if he allows these actions without showing any actual rejection of Allah’s laws, then he is merely sinning.

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

Surah al-Ma’idah verse 44 was revealed in relation to an incident involving some of the Jews who introduced a new punishment for married individuals who committed zina. They decreed that the punishment should be blackening the face with coal and whipping.

However, the verse was not revealed merely because they replaced Allah’s prescribed punishment — this is a common misconception.

The verse was revealed because some Jews denied or rejected the punishment that Allah had legislated, not simply because they introduced a different penalty.

Therefore, the kufr lay in their denial, not in the act of replacing the punishment itself.

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 anzal Allah" refer to withholding punishment, meaning not implementing the prescribed punishment.

But this is not correct due to several reasons:

1. The Umayyad rulers who introduced new taxation laws were not declared kafir for doing so. If the Salaf Saliheen had only considered withholding judgment as minor kufr, it would not make sense that they refrained from takfir.
2. The Salaf Saliheen included tashri‘ (legislation) in their interpretation of the verse, based on the statement of ‘Abdurrahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam: “judging/ruling by a book which a person writes with his own hand,” and because they never restricted it to the qadi (judge) alone.
3. The Salaf Saliheen understood "fa-ulaika humul kafirun" as referring to minor kufr, and they never applied this specifically to judges who withhold judgment or rulers who withhold rulings.
4. The Salaf Saliheen understood the verse in Surah al-Ma'idah according to its context, which addressed replacing rather than withholding judgment, as the Jews for whom this verse was revealed legislated one punishment for another instead of merely withholding judgment.
5. The Salaf Saliheen connected ruling with something other than what Allah has revealed to the verse, “Do they seek the judgment of Jahiliyyah?”, showing that it refers to judging or ruling by other than Allah’s law, not merely withholding judgment.

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

Whenever a person legislates new laws, he does so either to create a system in his country that suits his desires, or with the intention of elevating himself as an authority in legislation, placing himself beside or above Allah.

In the former case, the ruler does not become a kafir, as he is not creating a new religion. In the latter case, he becomes a kafir, as he claims authority in legislation alongside Allah.

Some Jewish rabbis acted in this latter manner, creating new laws and requiring people to obey them, claiming authority to make and change laws alongside Allah and to rule over the Jewish people.

However, a negligent person who simply wants to create an environment that suits his desires, without claiming authority over Allah, is considered a fasiq.

When such a ruler permits certain things in his country, it does not mean he intends to overrule Allah’s legislation. Similarly, a host who allows certain things in his house does not intend to override Allah’s laws.

Some claim that obeying a ruler who permits certain actions in his country makes one a kafir. For example, if a ruler allows music on the streets and a person plays music there freely, some say that person becomes a kafir. This is incorrect.

They base this on several verses, such as: “Whoever seeks a way other than Islam, it will never be accepted from them,” and “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 often cited by those who claim that ruling by other than the Shari‘ah constitutes major kufr. But does the verse actually refer to major kufr, or is it addressing the completeness of iman?

We know the Prophet said, “They will not believe (thrice), those whose neighbors do not feel safe from them,” yet clearly this does not mean a person becomes a kafir simply because his neighbor feels unsafe.

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 indicates that the verse, “But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute,” may be understood in the same way as the Prophet’s words regarding the neighbor who feels unsafe.

In this case, the verse means that a Muslim does not attain complete faith unless he fully submits to the judgment of Allah. Certainly, one who denies Allah’s judgment is a kafir, but a person who does not deny or reject it yet refuses to be satisfied with it out of personal desires does not become a kafir by that.

Now, let us examine the context of this verse and why it was revealed. There are two views regarding the event that triggered its revelation:

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 indicates a Muslim does not reach complete faith, as no one declared the Ansari man a kafir—he was still considered a Muslim.

Those who held the second view believed the verse addresses nifaq, meaning that a person who is displeased with Allah’s judgment is considered a munafiq.

Both events show that a person was displeased with the Prophet’s judgment, so it is necessary to consider the intention behind the deed. If we do not, it would imply that the Ansari man should have been declared a kafir, which none of the Salaf Saliheen did.

This means that being displeased can fall into 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 Lahi'ah 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]

Regardless of which event prompted the revelation of the verse, it is valid to interpret it as referring either to munafiqeen or to believers who have not yet attained complete faith.

It depends on the reason a person is dissatisfied with a ruling. If he denies the ruling, he becomes a kafir; if he feels uneasy but still accepts it, his faith is incomplete.

Therefore, if a ruler legislates with something other than the Shari‘ah to suit his desires, he is certainly sinning and falls into the category of those with incomplete faith.

On the other hand, a ruler who denies Allah’s rulings because he dislikes them becomes a kafir, and his disbelief manifests outwardly when he says things such as: “We live in a modern era, leave the Shari‘ah, it is not for this time,” or “It is not obligatory to uphold the Shari‘ah; you are free to do as you please.”

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 assume 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 instance, 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/ruling 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/rules 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 alone is sufficient to understand that seeking the laws of Jahiliyyah is not in itself an act of major kufr.

Let us also consider additional statements from the Salaf Saliheen, such as those of 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-Ma'idah 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/rules by other than the judgment of Allah, then that is the judgment of Jāhiliyyah.” [Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim - Surah al-Ma'idah 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-Ma'idah 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 that the verse is not meant to be used to make takfīr. Rather, it serves as a reminder from Allah that we should always seek His judgment, which is the best. Following any other judgment would be following the path of Jahiliyyah and committing a sin.

Additionally, this verse was revealed regarding the Jews who sought the judgment of the Prophet (who judged them according to 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-Ma'idah 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 deny Allah's Lordship or Oneness.

Two Jewish people came to the Prophet to seek his judgment regarding a matter, and they were told to reject his ruling if he judged according to the Tawrah.

If a Muslim were to act similarly, 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 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 to follow their understanding and refrain from such declarations.

9. "Ibn Abbas meant Kufr duna Kufr in a specific incident with the Khawarij"

The incident that some people refer to is never clearly specified, nor is it found in any authentic reports of Ibn Abbas’s debates with the Khawarij.

Ibn Abbas did not consider Ali’s action of appointing a mediator as an act of minor kufr. In fact, he defended Ali’s decision during his debate with the Khawarij, explaining that Ali was, in reality, judging according to Allah’s judgement in that matter. Therefore, Ibn Abbas could not have said kufr duna kufr in reference to that event.

Likewise, Ibn Abbas did not use the term kufr duna kufr in connection with withholding judgement, because Ali never withheld judgement. Hence, the saying has nothing to do with the Khawarij or Ali’s actions, radiyAllahu 'anhu.

So why did Ibn Abbas say kufr duna kufr? He said it as a tafsir (interpretation) of the verse referring to when a Muslim rules or judges by other than what Allah has revealed. Such a person commits minor kufr.

Those who hold the view that ruling by other than the Shariah constitutes major kufr also claim that the interpretation of Ibn Abbas regarding kufr duna kufr cannot be accepted, as they believe it contradicts the apparent wording of the verse.

They argue, “Allah said, ‘They are the disbelievers,’ but Ibn Abbas said, ‘No, they are not disbelievers.’” This, however, is a misunderstanding.

Ibn Abbas explained kufr duna kufr concerning Muslims who rule or judge by other than what Allah has revealed while not denying or rejecting any of Allah’s laws.

Ibn Abbas understood that the term kafirun applies in its complete sense only to those who deny or reject any part of Allah’s legislation — such as the Jewish rabbis who rejected the punishments prescribed by Allah.

Evidence of Ibn Abbas’ interpretation of the verse as minor kufr can be found in multiple sources, including the Tafsir of al-Tabari, where it is clearly presented as such.

وقد اختلف أهل التأويل في تأويل " الكفر " في هذا الموضع.
فقال بعضهم بنحو ما قلنا في ذلك، من أنه عنى به اليهود الذين حَرَّفوا كتاب الله وبدَّلوا حكمه.
وقال بعضهم: عنى بـ" الكافرين "، أهل الإسلام، وب " الظالمين " اليهود، وب " الفاسقين " النصارى.
وقال آخرون: بل عنى بذلك: كفرٌ دون كفر، وظلمٍ دون ظلم، وفسقٌ دون فسق. ذكر من قال ذلك:
12053 - حدثنا هناد قال، حدثنا وكيع= وحدثنا ابن وكيع قال، حدثنا أبي= عن سفيان، عن معمر بن راشد، عن ابن طاوس، عن أبيه، عن ابن عباس: " ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون " ، قال: هي به كفر، وليس كفرًا بالله وملائكته وكتبه ورسله. (82)
وقال آخرون: بل نـزلت هذه الآيات في أهل الكتاب، وهى مرادٌ بها جميعُ الناس، مسلموهم وكفارهم.
وقال آخرون: معنى ذلك: ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله جاحدًا به. فأما " الظلم " و " الفسق "، فهو للمقرِّ به.
ذكر من قال ذلك: 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 al-Tabari said: "The scholars of interpretation differed regarding the meaning of “kufr” in this context. Some of them said, in line with what we have mentioned earlier, that it refers to the Jews who distorted Allah’s Book and altered His rulings (meaning, they 'covered' it). Others said: the term “disbelievers” refers to the Muslims, “the wrongdoers” refers to the Jews, and “the rebellious” refers to the Christians (meaning, 'kufr' here is intended for the Muslims). Yet others said: it means Kufr duna Kufr, Dhulm duna Dhulm, Fusuq duna Fusuq. Among those who said this: Hanad narrated to us, he said: Waki‘ narrated to us; and Ibn Waki‘ narrated to us; he said: my father narrated to us; from Sufyan, from Mu‘ammar ibn Rashid, from Ibn Ta‘wus, from his father, from Ibn ‘Abbas: “And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers.” He said: it is a kufr, but not like the kufr in Allah, His angels, His Books, or His Messengers. Others said: these verses were revealed regarding the People of the Book, but they are meant for all people, both Muslims and non-Muslims (meaning, initially the Jews were addressed, but Allah also intended to apply these verses to the Muslims). Others said: the meaning is: whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, if he denies it, then he is a kafir. As for “Dhulm” and “Fisq”, these apply to those who acknowledge it (His laws) but fail to rule/judge by it. Among those who said this: Al-Muthanna narrated to me; he said: ‘Abdullah ibn Salih narrated to us; he said: Mu‘awiyah ibn Salih narrated to me, from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah, from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding the verse: “And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers”—he said: whoever denies what Allah has revealed is a kafir. And whoever acknowledges it but does not rule/judge by it is a dhalim and a fasiq." [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44]

Ibn Abbas explains that the verses in Surah al-Ma'idah were initially revealed regarding Ahl al-Kitab, but their application extends to the Muslims.

أَخْبَرَنِي جعفر بْن الْحَسَن؛ قال: حَدَّثَنَا وهب بْن بقية؛ قال: حَدَّثَنَا خالد، عَن عطاء بْن السائب، عَن سعيد بْن جبير، عَن ابْن عَبَّاس؛ قال: نعم القوم أنتم؛ إن كان ما كان من حلو فهو لكم، وما كان من مر هو لأهل الكتاب؛ كأنه يرى أن ذلك في المسلمين؛ الآيات الثلاث: {الْكَافِرُونَ [المائدة: ٤٤} و: {الظَّالِمُونَ [المائدة: ٤٥} و: {الْفَاسِقُونَ [المائدة: ٤٧} .
[أخبار القضاة - الجزء ١ - صفحة ٤١]

Waki' al-Qadi mentioned: Jaʿfar ibn al-Ḥasan narrated to me: He said: Wahb ibn Buqaynah narrated to us, from Khālid, from ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sā’ib, from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, from Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: “Indeed, also applicable to you! Whatever is sweet is for you, and whatever is bitter is for the People of the Book (meaning, you will follow them in their bitterness).” It appears he was referring to the Muslims in this context, regarding the three verses: {they are the al-Kafirun}, {al-Dhālimūn}, {al-Fāsiqūn}. [Akhbaar al-Qudaa - Volume 1 - Page 41]

Kufr duna Kufr is exceeded when a Muslim denies Allah’s laws. If a Muslim acknowledges Allah’s laws but rules or judges with something else, he is considered a dhalim and a fasiq.

Ibn Abbas explained: "Oh Muslims, if you do not rule or judge by what Allah has revealed, you have become kafirun, dhalimun, and fasiqun. All of them are intended in the minor form (unless accompanied with juhud): Kufr duna Kufr, Dhulm duna Dhulm, Fusuq duna Fusuq."

Al-Sha'bi explained: "Oh Muslims, who do not rule or judge by what Allah has revealed, you have become disbelievers (minor form, but major when accompanied with juhud). Oh Jews who do not rule or judge by what Allah has revealed, you are dhalimun. Oh Christians who do not rule or judge by what Allah has revealed while denying it, you are fasiqun."

Abu Mijliz explained: "Those among you, oh Ahl al-Kitab, whenever you rule or judge with other than what Allah has revealed while denying or rejecting any part of His revelation, you are kafirun, dhalimun, fasiqun."

10. "But the Salaf Saliheen said 'Dhaak al-Kufr', implying major kufr"

The Salaf Saliheen did state that committing injustice in judgment, or when a judge accepts bribes in judgment, is considered al-Kufr, and they explicitly said "ذاك الكفر".

Ibn Mas'oud conveyed this, meaning that anyone who takes bribes in judging or commits injustice in judgment has committed kufr.

أَخْبَرَنَا حميد بْن الربيع؛ قال: حَدَّثَنَا يحيى بْن آدم، عَن عمار الدهني، عَن سالم، عَن مسروق، أنه سأل ابن مسعود عَن الجور في الحكم؛ قال: ذاك الكفر؛ ثم تلا: {وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ [المائدة: ٤٤} .
[أخبار القضاة - الجزء ١ - صفحة ٤٠]

Waki' al-Qadi mentioned: Ḥumayd ibn al-Rabīʿ informed us; he said: Yaḥyā ibn Ādam narrated to us, from ʿAmmār al-Duhnī, from Sālim, from Masrūq, that he asked Ibn Masʿūd about injustice in judgement. He said: “That is al-Kufr.” Then he recited: {And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is they who are the disbelievers} [al-Mā’idah: 44]. [Akhbaar al-Qudaa - Volume 1 - Page 40]

Did Ibn Mas'oud mean that such a judge becomes a kafir for taking bribes, or that the judge has committed minor kufr?

We say that Ibn Mas'oud meant minor kufr, not major kufr. The wording "ذاك الكفر" does not automatically indicate major kufr. The evidence for this is that "الكفر" was also used when referring to anal sexual intercourse, which the scholars understood as minor kufr.

(20953) - أخبرنا عبد الرزاق قال: أخبرنا معمر عن ابن طاوس عن أبيه قال: سئل ابن عباس عن الذي يأتي امرأته في دبرها، فقال: هذا يسائلني (5) عن الكفر.
[المصنف - عبد الرزاق الصنعاني - ج ١١ - الصفحة ٤٤٢]

Abdurrazzaq al-San'ani mentioned: Maʿmar reported to us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about a man who approaches his wife from her anus. He replied: “This one is asking me about al-Kufr.” [Musannaf Abdurrazzaq - Volume 11 - Page 442]

باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به عن الملة
1015 - حدثنا إسحاق الكاذي ، قال : حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد ، قال : حدثني أبي ، وحدثنا الصفار ، قال : حدثنا الرمادي ، قال : حدثنا عبد الرزاق ، قال : أخبرنا معمر ، عن ابن طاوس ، عن أبيه ، قال : سئل ابن عباس ، عن الذي يأتي امرأته في دبرها ، فقال : هذا يسألني عن الكفر .
[الإبانة الكبرى - ابن بطة - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ٧٣٨]

Ibn Battah mentioned: Chapter: Mention of sins that lead a person to kufr, without taking them out of the fold of Islam. ... Isḥāq al-Kādhī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad narrated to us, he said: my father narrated to me, and al-Ṣaffār narrated to us, he said: al-Ramādī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, he said: Muʿammar informed us, from Ibn Ṭāwus, from his father, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about a man who approaches his wife from her anus. He said: “This one is asking me about al-Kufr.” [Al-Ibanatul Kubrah - Ibn Battah - Volume 2 - Page 738]

Having sexual intercourse through the anus is considered an action characteristic of disbelievers. That is why it is also said that this act is from none but a disbeliever.

باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به عن الملة
1016 - حدثنا إسحاق الكاذي ، قال : حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد ، قال : [ ص: 739 ] حدثني أبي ، قال : حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد ، عن قتادة ، عن عقبة بن وساج ، عن أبي الدرداء ، قال : لا يفعل ذلك إلا الكافر .
[الإبانة الكبرى - ابن بطة - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ٧٣٩]

Ibn Battah mentioned: Chapter: Mention of sins that lead a person to kufr, without taking them out of the fold of Islam. ... Isḥāq al-Kādhī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad narrated to us, he said: [p. 739] my father narrated to me, he said: Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd narrated to us, from Qatādah, from ʿUqbah ibn Wasāj, from Abū al-Dardā, who said: “No one does that except a disbeliever.” [Al-Ibanatul Kubrah - Ibn Battah - Volume 2 - Page 739]

Therefore, the phrase 'ذاك الكفر' does not automatically indicate major kufr. Furthermore, Ibn Battah included the narration of Ibn Mas'oud under the chapter titled 'sins that do not expel one from the religion'.

باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به عن الملة
1013 - حدثنا إسحاق الكاذي ، قال : حدثنا عبد الله ، قال : حدثني أبي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن جعفر ، قال : حدثنا شعبة ، عن منصور ، عن سالم بن أبي الجعد ، عن مسروق ، عن عبد الله ، قال : الجور في الحكم كفر والسحت الرشى ، قال : فسألت إبراهيم ، فقلت : أفي قول عبد الله السحت رشى ؟ قال : نعم .
[الإبانة الكبرى - ابن بطة - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ٧٣٧]

Ibn Battah mentioned: Chapter: Mention of sins that lead a person to kufr, without taking them out of the fold of Islam. ... Isḥāq al-Kādhī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd Allāh narrated to us, he said: my father narrated to me, he said: Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us, he said: Shuʿbah narrated to us, from Manṣūr, from Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd, from Masrūq, from ʿAbd Allāh, who said: “Injustice in judgment is kufr, and illicit earnings (al-suḥt) are bribery (al-rishwā).” I asked Ibrāhīm, and said: “Does ʿAbd Allāh mean that illicit earnings (al-suḥt) are bribery?” He said: “Yes.” [Al-Ibanatul Kubrah - Ibn Battah - Volume 2 - Page 737]

Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that Ibn Mas'oud declared takfīr on those who take bribes in judgments.

Another point often cited is that Ibn Abbas said, "that is enough kufr":

حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَن بْن أبي الربيع الجرجاني؛ قال: أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْد الرزاق، عَن مَعْمَر، عَن ابن طاوس، عَن أبيه؛ قال: سئل ابْن عَبَّاس عَن قوله: {وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ [المائدة:٤٤} قال: كفى به كفره.
[أخبار القضاة - الجزء ١ - صفحة ٤١]

Waki' al-Qadi mentioned: Al-Ḥasan ibn Abī al-Rabīʿ al-Jurjānī narrated to us: He said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq informed us, from Maʿmar, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about Allah’s saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is they who are the disbelievers} [al-Mā’idah: 44]. He said: “It is enough to reach the level of kufr.” [Akhbaar al-Qudaa - Volume 1 - Page 41]

Meaning, such a person has reached the level of kufr due to not ruling or judging/ruling by what Allah has revealed. Is it minor or major? Ibn Abbas holds that this constitutes minor kufr, not major, as has been acknowledged by Imam Ahmad and other scholars from the Salaf Saliheen.

قال الخلال: أخبرني موسى بن سهل، قال: حدثنا محمد بن أحمد الأسدي، حدثنا إبراهيم بن يعقوب، عن إسماعيل بن سعيد قال: سألت أحمد عن المُصرِّ على الكبائر بجهده، إلا أنه لم يترك الصلاة والزكاة ¬ والصوم والحج والجمعة، هل يكون مصرًّا أمن كانت هذِه حاله؟ قال: هو مصرُّ في مثل قوله -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم-: "لا يَزْنِي الزّانِي حِينَ يَزْنِي وَهُوَ مُؤمِنٌ"، من يخرج من الإيمان ويقع في الإسلام، ومن نحو قوله: "وَلا يَشْرَبُ الخَمْرَ حِينَ يَشْرَبُها وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ، وَلا يَسْرِقُ حين يسرق وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ، وَلا يَنْتَهِبُ نُهْبَةً. . " (¬1)، ومن نحو قول ابن عباس {وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ} (¬2)، فقلت له: فما هذا الكفر؟ قال: كفر لا ينقل من الملة، مثل بعضه فوق [بعض]، فكذلك الكفر، حتى يجيء من ذلك أمر لا يختلف الناس فيه. فقلت له: أرأيت إن كان خائفًا من إصراره، ينوي التوبة، ويسأل ذلك، ولا يدع ركوبها؟ قال: الذي يخاف أحسن حالًا. "أحكام النساء" للخلال (91)

Imam Ahmad said: "As for the one who commits major sins many times and persists in them: Such a person is described in the Hadith as the person who is not a believer while consuming alcohol or while stealing. This Hadith is understood as minor disbelief,like what Ibn Abbas said concerning {whoever does not rule/judge with what Allah has revealed}." [Ahkam an-Nisaa page 57 from Abu Bakr al-Khallal, Masail Al-Shaalanji pages 78-79]

So, one should understand the statement of Ibn Abbas as referring to minor kufr, not major kufr.

11. "But al-Suddi said leaving the judgement of Allah is major kufr"

This is actually a misunderstanding of al-Suddi's statement. At first glance, one might think that al-Suddi is implying that such a person becomes a kafir.

But the reality is that al-Suddi understood it to mean minor kufr, not major. The evidences will be presented below.

وقال آخرون: بل نـزلت هذه الآيات في أهل الكتاب، وهى مرادٌ بها جميعُ الناس، مسلموهم وكفارهم.
ذكر من قال ذلك: 12062 - حدثني محمد بن الحسين قال، حدثنا أحمد بن مفضل قال، حدثنا أسباط، عن السدي: " ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله "، يقول: ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزلتُ، فتركه عمدًا وجار وهو يعلم، فهو من الكافرين.
[تفسير الطبري - سورة المائدة الآية ٤٤]

Imam al-Tabari mentioned: “And others said: Rather, these verses were revealed concerning Ahl al-Kitab, yet they are intended for all people — both the Muslims and disbelievers.” Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn narrated to me: He said: Aḥmad ibn Mufaḍal narrated to us, who said: Asbāṭ narrated to us, from al-Suddī: “{And whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed} — And whoever does not judge by what I have revealed, and abandons it deliberately while acting unjustly and knowing it, he is from the disbelievers.” [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44]

A similar explanation was reported by Ibn Abbas, as narrated by al-Suddi:

أَخْبَرَنِي علي بْن العباس الحضري؛ قال: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن مروان القطان؛ قال: حَدَّثَنَا إبراهيم بْن الحكم بْن ظهير، عَن أبيه، عَن السدي؛ قال: قَالَ: ابْن عَبَّاس: من جار في الحكم وهو يعلم، ومن حكم بغير علمه، ومن أخذ الرشوة في الحكم، فهو من الكافرين. وهَذَا في أهل التوحيد.
[أخبار القضاة - الجزء ١ - صفحة ٤١]

Waki' al-Qadi mentioned: ʿAlī ibn al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥaḍrī narrated to me: He said: Muḥammad ibn Marwān al-Qaṭṭān narrated to us, from Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Ẓuhayr, from his father, from al-Suddī, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās said: “Whoever rules unjustly while knowing (the truth), whoever rules without knowledge, and whoever takes a bribe in judgment – he is from the disbelievers. This (the verse) is (applicable) regarding Ahl al-Tawḥeed.” [Akhbaar al-Qudaa - Volume 1 - Page 41]

If we examine this statement, it also says "he is from the disbelievers." However, taking it literally presents a problem, because Ibn Abbas’ statement includes anyone who takes a bribe in judgement or is unjust in it, and Ibn Abbas understood this to be minor kufr (Kufr duna Kufr), not major kufr.

So if taking bribes in judgement is minor kufr, how should we understand the statements of al-Suddi and Ibn Abbas that "he is from the disbelievers"?

Its explanation is quite simple, as Ibn Abbas stated that the verse 'fa-ulaika humul kafirun' does not mean what automatically comes to mind when reading it.

باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به عن الملة
1010 - حدثنا أبو الحسين إسحاق بن أحمد الكاذي ، قال : حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد ، قال : حدثني أبي ، قال : حدثنا سفيان ، عن هشام بن حجير ، عن طاوس ، قال : قال ابن عباس : ليس بالكفر الذي تذهبون إليه قال سفيان : أي ليس كفرا ينقل عن الملة :
ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون .
[الإبانة الكبرى - ابن بطة - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ٧٣٦]

Ibn Battah mentioned: Chapter: Mention of sins that lead a person to kufr, without taking them out of the fold of Islam. ... Abū al-Ḥusayn Isḥāq ibn Aḥmad al-Kādhī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad narrated to us, he said: my father narrated to me, he said: Sufyān narrated to us, from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, from Ṭāwus, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās said: “It is not the kufr that you usually think of.” Sufyān (ibn Uyaynah) said: “It is not kufr that removes one from the fold of Islam: {And whoever does not judge/rule by what Allah has revealed – then it is they who are the disbelievers.} (Qur’ān 5:44)” [Al-Ibanatul Kubrah - Ibn Battah - Volume 2 - Page 736]

Ibn ʿAbbas clarifies that this verse should not be understood as referring to major kufr. The Khawārij would read this verse and claim, "See? Allah says 'disbelievers,' so anyone who rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a kafir."

They would point to a ruler acting unjustly—whether by withholding judgment or by replacing a law with another—and assert: "Whoever does not judge or rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers."

Some claim that the Khawārij only applied this verse to cases of withholding judgment, but this is not accurate. They extended its application to multiple situations, including replacing the Shariah with other laws.

Ibn ʿAbbas warns Muslims to avoid interpreting this verse in the extreme manner of the Khawārij.

So when we read 'they are the disbelievers', we should understand it as minor kufr, as Ibn Abbas' famous saying, "Kufr that doesn't expel one from the religion."

We should have the same approach regarding the Prophet's saying: "Do not become disbelievers after me by killing each other".

اَ تَرْجِعُوا بَعْدِي كُفَّارًا يَضْرِبُ بَعْضُكُمْ رِقَابَ بَعْضٍ

Imam al-Bukhari mentioned: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Beware! Do not become disbelievers after me by killing each other." [Sahih al-Bukhari 7078]

We understand that murder does not constitute major kufr, although the Prophet used the term 'Kuffar' here.

The Arabic language sometimes expresses ideas in a manner that may seem to indicate actual disbelief, but the intended meaning here is rather: "do not emulate the disbelievers."

One might still object, saying, "But Allah said 'al-Kafirun', so surely it must refer to actual disbelievers as we commonly understand the term." However, this reasoning is flawed. If we applied it consistently, we would also interpret the Prophet’s statement on killing as referring to actual disbelievers, which is not correct.

So how should we understand Allah’s statement, "they are the disbelievers"? We should interpret it according to the understanding of the Salaf Saliheen. Just as we follow their understanding of the Prophet’s statements regarding acts like killing, the same approach applies to interpreting Allah’s words.

How did the Salaf Saliheen understand the phrase 'fa-ulaika humul Kafirun'? They interpreted it as: "these are the actions of the disbelievers, so do not imitate them, or else you would commit minor kufr."

The verse was understood as minor kufr, as Ibn Battah noted when he included this verse in the chapter on "sins that do not expel one from the religion."

Similarly, it has been reported that Ibn ʿAbbas understood the verse as referring to minor kufr.

Abu ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallam also explained that this verse does not mean that one becomes a kafir; rather, it indicates that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is the practice of the disbelievers, which Muslims should avoid. Imitating them does not render one a kafir.

This is the correct understanding: the term 'al-Kafirun' in this verse does not mean actual disbelievers, but rather refers to minor kufr.

Conclusion: This act is not kufr unless accompanied by denial or rejection

The act of ruling by something other than what Allah has revealed does not, in itself, amount to major disbelief (kufr akbar), unless it is accompanied by a clear denial or rejection of Allah’s laws.

In other words, a ruler who governs using man-made laws — whether in some matters or many — while implementing tawheed and the rejection of shirk, is not automatically a disbeliever.

Major kufr occurs only when the ruler internally denies Allah’s legislation or outwardly declares statements such as, “We reject the Shariah,” or, “Allah’s laws are not binding upon us.”

For example, rulers who completely abolished the Shariah and replaced it entirely with man-made laws have committed major kufr.

Once the truth becomes evident and doubts are removed, it becomes obligatory for a person to follow what they now recognize as the truth, even if it brings discomfort or internal struggle.

The topic of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed has historically sparked significant debate and caused divisions among many groups.

As for us, this matter has become clear. Although we previously held the view that ruling by other than the Shariah is inherently an act of major kufr, we did not hesitate to revise our understanding once our doubts were resolved and the truth became apparent.

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]