The Islamic Hotline Phone _______ was created in Egypt __ the year 2000 with ___ vision of becoming the _____'_ foremost source of information ___ centrist Islamic teachings utilizing ___ mediums of telephone, and ___ internet..
Home Q & A About us FAQ Advertise Contact us   URDU Arabic
 
Q & A --> Faith and Doctrine --> Replacing what has been Revealed by God with Man-Made Laws

Question : A question was asked about the rulings that contradict [the meanings of] God’s Revelation.

Fatwa in Brief: Changing God’s Revelation with other rulings [that are not derived from revelation] constitutes an act of disbelief. This act evicts one from the fold of Islam.

 

Shaykh Al-Fawzan: The Religion of Tawhid, 116.

 

Response:

Passing a law that renders legal what is certainly illegal – such as the charging of interest on borrowed money (riba), or the permission to drink alcohol – is certainly forbidden. But the person who does this is not to be accused of disbelief, unless s/he is convinced that God’s ruling is incorrect and his ruling is correct.

 

“If any do fail to judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers”. (Q. 5:44)

 

Following such laws [i.e. those which make legal that which God’s law has made illegal] is a breach of Islamic law, and this transgression should be changed. However, the attempts to change these laws should only occur through legally permitted channels that do not lead to sedition (fitna) in Muslim societies. Rather, the above opinion that changing God’s ruling is an act of disbelief and its concommittant that neglect to change these transgressions would constitute unbelief, in itself throws open the door for sedition in these societies.

 

Commentary:

The charge of passing a ruling that contradicts the Revelation of God should not be limited to rulers, or judges. In fact, it includes every human being that gives a ruling to the effect that God’s Revelation is contradicted. This ruling may occur through an independent legal opinion (fatwa) or judgment on [actions like the abovementioned prohibition on] charging interest or drinking alcohol.

 

Denying or mocking God’s rulings is an act of disbelief. However, when one of God’s rulings is not denied, or mocked, but rather overemphasized or lessened (taqsir), this is not disbelief; rather, it should be considered an act of injustice or oppression (zulm) or deviancy (fisq). Accordingly, a Muslim must not rush into making an accusation of disbelief against someone who rules against God’s laws, be it an individual, a society, or a country, until s/he has made sure that their ruling stems from disbelief, or mockery. Such decisions are based on intentions that are often hidden and not explicitly stated [i.e. within governments or groups] and the reasons for them are rarely announced. If it is announced [that God’s law needs to be changed] without any form of explanation, then the accusation of disbelief holds. If the matter cannot be answered with certainty [as to what the motivation is], however, then it is obligatory not to accuse [the relevant parties] of disbelief. For, as one hadith observes: “If a Muslim calls another Muslim ‘a disbeliever’, then either the original speaker or his brother fits this category [of disbelief]. If his brother is not, in fact, a disbeliever, then the original speaker becomes as such [i.e. a disbeliever]. Muslim narrated a similar hadith. Al-Fakhr al-Razi (d. 606 CE) mentions a report from ‘Akrama, in which it is made clear that only the person who consciously denies [an obvious truth of Islam] may legitimately be accused of disbelief. According to al-Razi’s logic, whoever believes in God’s laws, but breaks them is [merely] a sinner. He also said that disbelief occurs when someone attempts to limit God’s Truth (al-taqsir fi haq Allah); while injustice occurs when someone attempts to restrict the rights of people.

 

Al-Badawi (d. 685 CE) accused them [i.e. non-Muslims] of disbelief for their denial [of God’s Truth]; and of injustice because of their ruling through other criteria [than those revealed by God]; and of deviancy because of their straying [from God’s Truth]. Al-Zamakhshari (d. 528 CE) argued that whoever denies God Revelation becomes an unbeliever; in contrast, someone who does not follow Revelation, though he accepts [its perfection] is unjust (zalim) and dissolute (fasiq). Al-Alusi (d. 1270 CE) said: Perhaps these three categories of description pertain to different fundamental causes. Hence, for the denial of God’s Revelation, they are called “unbelievers”; for not implementing God’s rulings, they are described as “unjust”; and for not following the truth, they are described as “dissolute”.

 

The Theologians / Dr. ‘Abdullah ibn Abih:

The accusation of disbelief cannot be made with any degree of certainty unless [with the change to God’s laws] there is an accompanying statement of contempt for the law; and the intention to debase and degrade it [is similarly made known]. In this case, the person implementing the [new] law must state that God’s law is invalid, and so on. Yet, if the new law is accompanied by the conviction that God’s law constitutes the truth and anything else is not true, then, merely implementing [false] laws, out of weakness, or ignorance or the desire to imitate does not constitute disbelief. That is why in commenting on Gods words:

 

“If any do fail to judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers”. (Q. 5:44)

 

Ibn ‘Abbas (r.a.) remarked that not all acts of disbelief and deviancy are the same. [Meaning that kufr in this verse is not intended in the absolute sense]. Rather, in God’s words:

“If any do fail to judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are those who rebel”. (Q. 5: 47)

 

Here [once again] the interpretation is that, by ruling outside of God’s law, one does not leave Islam. [Rather, one merely “rebels” against it.] This is supported by a number of other opinions, among which is that of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya. He observes that the most obvious result of disbelief (kufr) in this context [in Q.5:44 and as it pertains to ruling through something other than God’s laws] is that it does not necessarily entail a Muslim leaving his religion. Indeed, contra the opinions of some Muftis and Shaykhs during the last century – who state that the simple act of following a ruling other than that declared through Revelation constitutes proof of disbelief – we have conducted independent research. This research is entitled “Regarding the Declaration of Disbelief for Basing Regulations on that which has not been Revealed by God”. It can be found in the Current Law Research Magazine, where the consequences of this idea in terms of conflict and crisis are also discussed.

 

Ultimately, our priority should be to raise people’s awareness of the importance of God’s law (Shari‘ah), and of the great benefits that this law provides. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many Muslim countries were colonized and, as a result, inherited the colonists’ laws. Accordingly, these countries have continued to practice such laws, without the awareness or the courage to change them. Such actions may not be described as constituting disbelief because they are not verbally accompanied by an attempt to disgrace or to mock Shari‘ah.

And God’s Praises on our Prophet Muhammad.

 

Dr. Yassir ‘Abd al-‘Azim