Taken From

Ahlu Sunnah Wal

Jamaah.Com

Is It An Essential
Condition For A Muslim
Ruler To Rule By Allahs
Law

By Abdul Kareem Ibn

Ozzie
The takfires and those who not takfir but have been influenced by
their dawah argue that it is an essential condition (requirement) for a
Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law. By a essential condition what is
meant is it is a condition that if a ruler does not fulfil it he is not to be
regarded as the legitimate ruler, he is an illegitimate ruler so he does
not need to be listened to or obeyed and must either step down as the
ruler, rule by Allahs law or be removed by force (his citizens and the
army) if he choose not to rule by Allahs law (the majority of them
make takfir of the rulers if they choose to rule by Allahs law) or step
down.

However the Quran and Sunnah indicate otherwise, they both

indicate that to be Muslim ruler it is not an essential condition to rule
by Allahs law but only a highly desirable condition for the Muslim
ruler to rule by Allahs law.

The prophet Mohammed knew (because Allah let him know) that in
his ummah there would be a period of rule in which there would be
biting Kingship, then oppressive Kingship .The prophet said,
"Prophethood will be amongst you for as long as Allah
wills, then Allah will raise it up when He wills, then there
will be Khilaafah upon the way of Prophethood, then Allah
will raise it up when He wills, then there will be biting
Kingship, then oppressive Kingship, then Khilaafah upon
the way of the Prophethood." Decleared saheeh by Shaykh
Saleem al-Hilaalee
Therefore if it was a essential condition (requirement) for a Muslim
ruler to rule by Allahs law then the prophet would have told his
ummah that as he knew there would be this period of un-Islamic
rulers as they are biting kings (meaning not upon the way of the
prophet or four rightly guided khalifahs rulership) and after that
there would be oppressive Kingship (meaning they do not rule by
Allahs law due to there oppression as oppressive rule is not in line
with ruling by the shariah). The reason the prophet would have told
us is because all the prophets including the prophet Mohammed
always disclosed what is best for their ummahs and warned from
what is evil for their ummahs. The prophet said, “Never was a
prophet before me, but he disclosed to his people what he
knew to be best for them, and warned them of what he
knew to be evil for them.” Recorder by Muslim.
Plus if it was a essential condition (requirement) for a Muslim ruler to
rule by Allahs law and the prophet failed to tell us or indicate that,
then it would mean that he failed in his prophet hood as he never told
about something which would bring his ummah closer to paradise
and farther from the hell. The prophet said, “There is nothing
that would bring you closer to Jannah (Gardens of
Paradise) and farther from the Fire (hell) but it has been
clarified [by me] to you.” Recorded by Ahmad and others;
authenticated by al-Albaanee and others.

Furthermore those takfires who claim it is an essential condition

(requirement) for a Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law this would
mean it is not obligatory to here and obey the Muslim rulers of today
as they do not rule by Allahs law. However this understanding is
incorrect and because it is obligatory to hear and obey the Muslim
rulers of today, as the Prophet indicated this ummah must listen and
obey the Muslim ruler even if he does not follow the prophets
guidance and does not follow his Sunnah in ruling by the shariah and
by being a just ruler. The prophet said, "There will be after me
leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow
my Sunnah, and there will be among them men whose
hearts are like those of Satan in the body of a human
being". And Hudhaifa (bin al-Yaman) asked the Prophet,
'What we should do at that time if we reach it?' He said,
'listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back
(unjustly) and took your money (unjustly)". Recorded by
Muslim.
From this hadeeth it is very clear that it is not a needed condition
(requirement) for a Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law because if it
was the prophet Mohammed would not have commanded this
ummah to listen and obey rulers:
1. who do not follow the prophets guidance,
2. do not follow his Sunnah,
3. lash your back unjustly,
4. take your money unjustly
5. And have hearts like those of Satan when it comes to ruling by
the shariah and by being a just ruler (i.e. they are unjust rulers
who rule by other than Allahs law).

In a similar hadeeth to the one above, the Prophet said “Listen

and obey, even if the ruler seizes you and beats your
back.” Saheeh Muslim. So again in this hadeeth the prophet
orders this ummah to listen and obey the Muslim rulers who size us
and beat us with out any right. Again this hadeeth like the previous
hadeeth proves that it is not a needed condition (requirement) for a
Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law as sizing and beating citizens with
out any right opposes ruling by Allahs law.

However the prophet Mohammed still commanded us to listen and

obey this sort of ruler. If it was a needed condition (requirement) for
a Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law then a ruler who sizes and beats
his citizens unjustly would be an oppressive ruler so he would be not
be considered to be ruling by Allahs law (as ruling by Allahs law
would automatically make a Muslim ruler a just ruler as Allahs law is
based on justice to all mankind and animals). He (the Muslim ruler)
would be an illegitimate ruler thus he would have no right to be
listened to and obeyed in what is halaal.
Also if it is it is an essential condition (requirement) for a Muslim
ruler to rule by Allahs law then the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia) in the
time of the prophet an-Najaashi was allowed by Allah and his prophet
to be a ruler and he was not considered an illegitimate ruler even
though he did not rule by Allahs law.
But it is known that not all of the shariah was revealed during the life
of Najaashi, so when it is said he did not rule by Allahs law what is
meant is he did not rule by what had already been revealed during his
reign as the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia). Zakat, the five prayers,
jummah prayer, the jummah khutbah, hijra, jihad, fasting in
Ramadan, building mosques, creating a musalla for eid prayers, the
two eids, wudoo, calling the athan out loud, some of the hadood
(Islamic punishments like cutting off the thieves right hand) and
other all that had been revealed in the time of Najaashi and explained
in great detailed by the prophet Mohammed.

Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah stated in the fifth volume of

Minhaj us-Sunnah on page 112: “Many of the symbols and
institutions of Islam, or most of them, were not established in
Habasha (Ethiopia). He (an-Najaashi) did not make hijra, he did not
make jihad, he did not make Hajj, indeed it is even stated that he did
not even pray the five daily prayers, fast or give the Divinely
Legislated Zakat!”

Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also said in the fifth volume of

Minhaj us-Sunnah on page 112:, “We know absolutely that it was not
possible for him to rule amongst his people with the Quran (Meaning:
to rule with what Allah has revealed) and Allah obligated His
Messenger in Madeenah that if the People of the Book come to him he
should not judge between them except with what Allah had revealed…
So an-Najaashi was not able to rule with the rule of the Quran.”
Futhermore after the death of the prophet but during time
some of the sahaba and the taabieen were alive there was a
governor of Iraq and some of the provinces in Persia known as
al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf al-Thaqafi.
He was known for oppression, repression, excessiveness in spilling
the blood (of the Muslims), desecration of the Sanctities of Allah
(killing people even though they sought refuge in the Haram), the
killing of sahaba and taabieen unjustly.
He killed Sa’eed ibn Jubair, besieged Ibn az-Zubair (sahabi) even
though he had sought refuge in the Haram he then killed Ibn az-
Zubair, even though Ibn az-Zubair had given obedience to him
already.
Also he took the Muslims wealth unjustly, this is why when his
oppression became too much for some of the Muslims to bear with
patient, they went to al-Hasan al-Basree (one of the greatest taabieen)
and said “What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has
unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and
that?" So al-Hasan said, "I hold that he should not be fought.” Ibn
Sa'd relates this in Tabaqaat al-Kubraa (7/163-165)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said (summarised from his Book Al-
Fataawa al-Kubra Part 5), “It is reported in Saheeh Muslim
that the Prophet of Allah said: “In (the tribe of) Thaqeef
there will be a liar (the liar was al-Mukhtaar ibn Abi
'Ubayd al-Thaqafi who was a Shia) and an oppressor.”
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also said (summarised from his
Book Al-Fataawa al-Kubra Part 5), “As for the oppressor (in the above
hadeeth), this was al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf al-Thaqafi, who was opposed
to Ali and his companions. Al-Hajjaaj was a Naasibi …”
In addition Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The Naasibi group hated Ali and
his companions (mainly the prophets family), because of the troubles
and killings that had occurred, (between the sahaba along with Ali as
their head and the sahaba along with Muwiyaah as their head).”
The Naasibi sect backed Muwiyaah and the sahaba with him over Ali
and the sahaba with him. So they hated the Shia because they rejected
the Muwiyaah and the sahaba with him and made takfir of them. Plus
the Shia overly loved, supported and praised Ali and the rest of the
prophet’s family. This lead them to hate Ali which lead them to hate
all of the prophets family, not give them due right of praise and love.”
Shaykh Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaanee said “We (the scholars past
and present) bear witness that Al-Hajaaj was an evildoer, an
oppressor.” Al-Asaalah No. 10
From the above it is clear that al-Hajjaj did not rule (his province)
with the shariah as a whole, he ruled by other than Allahs law plus he
was a Naasibi (innovator) who hated Ali and the prophets family,

• killed the sahaba unjustly,

• he killed the taabieen unjustly
• he took the Muslims wealth unjustly
• violate the Haram (by killing in the Haram)
• and the prophet called him an oppressor when he said in
Saheeh Muslim “In (the tribe of) Thaqeef there will
be…an oppressor.” . Ibn Taymiyyah said (in his Book Al-
Fataawa al-Kubra Part 5), “As for the oppressor (in the above
hadeeth), this was al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf al-Thaqafi…”
But none of the sahaba nor the taabieen alive in his time considered
him to be an illegitimate leader because he did not rule by shariah.
Ibn Umar and whoever met al-Hajjaaj were from amongst the
companions of Allah’s Messenger and they never contested with him
about his leadership being illegitimate because he did not rule by
Allahs law and nor did they prevent obedience to him in that by which
Islam is established.
Likewise for those who were also in the era of al-Hajjaaj from among
the taabieen such as Ibn al-Musayyih, al-Hasan al-Basree, Ibn
Seereen, Ibraaheem at-Taimee and those like them from among the
leaders of the Ummah.
Therefore if it is an essential condition (requirement) for a Muslim
ruler to rule by Allahs law like the takfires claim then why did the
companions of Allah’s Messenger and taabieen in the era of al-Hajjaaj
ibn Yoosuf al-Thaqafi not declare his rule illegitimate as he did not
rule by Allahs law.
Instead they never contested with him about his leadership and they
listen and obey him in that by which Islam is established and is
halaal. This indicates that they believed he was a legitimate leader
otherwise there would not have listened to him or obeyed him. This
incident and the stance of the sahaba and the taabieen proofs it is not
an essential condition (requirement) for a Muslim ruler to rule by
Allahs law it is only a highly desirable condition to be full filled by the
ruler.
Moreover in the time of the salaf (around Imam Ahmads time) the
rulers al-Ma'mun after his death al-Mu’tasim and after him al-Wathiq
carried out the Mutazilah inquisition.
The Mutazilah were a heretical Muslim sect, who sanctified their
intelligence above the revelation and espoused the belief that, even
though, the Quran is the speech of Allah, He created that speech
The Mutazilah inquisition systematically placed many scholars on
trial until they were forced (through imprisonment or torcher,
normally both, some were even killed) to acknowledge that the Quran
was created by Allah and not the speech of Allah. When they had
forced a scholar to submit to their belief and they would make his new
belief that the Quran was created by Allah and not his speech known
in all major cities they controlled.
Nearly all of the scholars of Baghdad from the scholars of fiqh and
hadeeth were tested in what is commonly know as the trial of the
Quran, and all of them acknowledged the doctrine of the created
Quran, with the exception of the two; Ahmad b. Hanbal and
Muhammad b. Nuh.
The rulers al-Ma'mum, al-Mu’tasim and al-Wathiq were Mutazilah
and forced people to adopt their innovate beliefs, killed (with out
right), imprisoned (unjustly) and torched any scholar who rejected
their deviant belief. Ruling in such a way is against Islam as killing a
Muslim or imprisoning him just because he rejects your innovator
belief is haram and can not be founded in the shariah. Also torching
Muslims is haram in Islam as the prophet never even torched the
kuffaar he took as prisoners of war neither did the sahaba.
However even though they did all this, these scholars from Ahlus
Sunnah they killed, torched and imprisoned never claimed these
deviant Mutazilah rulers were illegitimate rulers due to their not
ruling by the shariah. But if it was an essential condition
(requirement) for a Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law and not a
highly desirable condition to be full filled by the ruler, they have been
the first to declare these rulers as illegitimate.
It is clear (from the whole article) that the Quran and Sunnah, the
actions of the sahaba and taabieen towards al-Hajjaj and the actions
of the salaf, the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah in the time of the
oppressive deviant Mutazilah rulers al-Ma'mum, al-Mu’tasim and al-
Wathiq, prove that to be Muslim ruler it is not an essential condition
to rule by Allahs law it is only highly desirable condition for a Muslim
ruler to rule by Allahs law.

HOWEVER TO RULE BY OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW IS MINOR

KUFR IN MOT CASES AND AT TIMES IT COULD BE MAJOR KUFR
(EXPELLS THE DOER FROM ISLAM), SO IT IS HARAM TO RULE
BY OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW IF U ARE A MUSLIM RULER
EVEN THOUGH RULING BY ALLAHS LAW IS NOT A CONDTION
TO BE A MUSLIM RULER.

Ibn Abil Azz al-Hanafee stated in Sharh ul-Aqeedah at-

Tahawiyyah, pp.323-324: “Here there is a matter which has to be
understood and that is: ruling by other than what Allah has revealed
can be kufr which expels one from the religion; it can be
disobedience, major or minor.

So this all depends on the condition of the ruler: if he believes that

ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is not an obligation, or
that he has a choice in a matter, or that he mocks it while admitting
that it is the rule of Allah, then this is major kufr;
If he believes that it is an obligation to rule by what Allah has revealed
and this is his knowledge of the situation, yet he does not rule by it,
along with his admittance that he deserves punishment, then this is
disobedience and such a person is a disbeliever for committing kufr in
the figurative sense or has committed minor kufr (which does not
expel a ruler/person from Islam);

If he is ignorant of the rule of Allah, while he exerts great efforts in

trying to know the ruling yet makes a mistake, then this is one who
has been mistaken (so he is not sinful). He has a reward for his ijtihad
and his error is forgiven.”

Imam as-Saadi stated in Tafseer ul-Kareem ur-Rahmaan, vol.2,

pp.296-297: “Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is from
the actions of the people of kufr. It can be (major) kufr which expels
one from the religion, if he believes that it is halaal and permitted for
him to rule by it(other than Allahs law); or it could be a major sin. Of
the actions of kufr are that which deserve a severe punishment (as he
would have committed minor kufr which does not expel him from
Islam).”

Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz said: And whoever ruled by other

than what Allah has revealed then he will not be in other than one of
four situations:

1. The one who says: "I rule by this because it is superior to the
Shariah of Islam." Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the major
disbelief (i.e. ejected from the Religion).

2. The one who says: "I rule by this because it is like the Shariah of
Islam, so ruling by it is permissible and ruling by the Shariah is
permissible." Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the major
disbelief.
 3. The one who says: "I rule by this and ruling by the Shariah of
Islam is superior but ruling by other than what Allah has
revealed is permissible. Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the
major disbelief.

4. The one who says: "I rule by this" while he believes that ruling by
other than what Allah has revealed is not permissible and who
says that "the Shariah of Islam is superior and it is not
permissible to rule by other than it" but he is neglectful, or treats
matters lightly, or does this action due to a reason that proceeds
from his rulers, then he is a disbeliever in the sense of minor
disbelief which does not eject from the Religion - and it is
considered one of the greatest of major sins. Al-Hukmu bi-Ghairi
Maa Anzalallaahu wa Usool ut-Takfeer pp. 71/72

Shaykh Fawzaan said “The scholars have clarified this (issue,

ruling by man-made laws) and the closest thing (to being correct) is
the tafsir of Ibn Kathir wherein it is stated that the one who rules by
other than what Allah has revealed then if he views that as being
better than the Books of Allah, or that his rule is better than the rule
of Allah, or that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is the
same as the rule of Allah or that the he has a choice to rule by what
Allah has revealed or not based on choice-then such an individual is
judged with Kufr. There is no doubt that such an individual is a
disbeliever according to the Ijma.

As for the individual who believes that the rule of Allah is the truth
and that the man-made law is false but he rules by it due to desire or
due to a temptation that has overcome him-then such an individual is
sinful and a transgressor yet is not judged with Kufr. This because he
believes that the rule of Allah is obligatory and ruling by other than it
is false but has done it in order to obtain a career or due to a
temptation. In this instance his Aqeedah remains, as he still has his
belief in the Book of Allah and that it is the truth and has to be ruled
by, then in this case his Aqeedah remains.
Such an individual is judged to be sinful and not judged with having
kufr because this is Kufr Amali (Kufr of actions, Kufr less than Kufr is
minor kufr which does not expel a person from Islam). Session
question-answer of the lecture "Takfir: Between excess and neglect"
delivered at Masjid ar-Raajihee in Hayy ul-Jazeerah, Riyadh, KSA
dated 10/10/1428 AH (21/10/2007 CE)