There are many verses in the Holy Qur’an which oblige Muslims to judge and rule by the sharia. Three of these verses contain commands which are identical except for their endings, which is why the mufasireen (interpreters of the Qur’an) linked them together. Allah (ta’ala) says in Surah al-Ma’ida verses 44, 45 and 47,

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

“Those who do not judge/rule by what Allah has sent down, such people are disbelievers (kafirun).”[1]

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

“Those who do not judge/rule by what Allah has sent down, such people are oppressors (dhalimun).”[2]

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“Those who do not judge/rule by what Allah has sent down, such people are deviators (fasiqun).”[3]

These verses are political in nature, because they address the governments and judiciaries in the Muslim world, and so can be controversial to those academics and ulema who want to maintain the existing status quo, or aim to ‘reform’ Islam by secularising it and removing it from the public sphere. Ibn Ashur in his Tafseer of “Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are disbelievers” says,

وهَذِهِ الآيَةُ والَّتِي بَعْدَها في شَأْنِ الحاكِمِينَ

“This verse, and the one after it, is about the rulers.”[4]

A number of questions may be raised concerning these verses such as, “does hukm mean judging or ruling?”, “these were revealed concerning the Jews so are they even applicable to Muslims?”, “does kafirun mean major or minor kufr (fisq)?” and “where does it say rule by ‘all’ of what Allah revealed?” All these questions have been answered by the mufasireen, and so we can derive several usuli (foundational) principles, by explaining the meaning of these verses that will help in understanding other commands in the Qur’an.

We can summarise the main issues regarding this verse in to four:

Contention 1: Hukm means judging not ruling

This was addressed in the article Does حُكْم (hukm) mean judging or ruling or both? which discusses this contention in depth, but in summary, the term حُكْم (hukm) means both judging and ruling, and this was its meaning among the Arabs at the time of revelation. The Qur’an itself used hukm to mean ruling and the sahaba interpreted hukm in the Qur’an to mean ruling.

This difference between ruling and judging is subtle because in early times the kings, rulers and tribal chiefs would perform both حُكْم (hukm) and قَضاء (qadaa’), issuing decrees relating to disputes between people, and decrees affecting all their subjects, and this was the case among the Arab tribes including Quraysh. The separation between the two branches of government which occurred in more modern times simply wasn’t there in the early times.

It is well-known that the majority of Arabic words have more than one meaning, and are referred to as mushtarak (homonyms).[5] “Specifying the Mushtarak to one of its meanings requires a Qareenah (indication) that specifies that meaning, and if no Qareenah is found…then it is obligatory to understand it according to all of its meanings.”[6]

With regards to the word حُكْم (hukm), since there is no Qareenah to restrict it to judiciary in the majority of the ayaat of Qur’an, then the meaning will apply equally to both a judge (haakim) in a court of law issuing a hukm (judgement), and a ruler (hakeem)[7] executing a hukm (law) on the people. There are exceptions to this, which is why we refer to the experts in the Qur’an and Arabic language who are the mufasireen. In the hadith the correct usage will be evident from the context as in in the letter from the sahabi Abi Bakrah to his son Ubaidullah ibn Abi Bakrah, who took up the post of Qadi in Sijistan. The hadith “The judge should not judge between two people while he is angry,”[8]thereforeclearly applies to a Qadi in a court of law.

Contention 2: The address is to the Jews and Christians, not the Muslims

The full wording of the verses 44, 45 and 47, of which the last sentence contains the command “those who do not judge…” are as follows. Allah (ta’ala) says,

إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ ۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ ۚ فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۚ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

We sent down the Torah containing guidance and light, and the Prophets who had submitted themselves gave judgement by it for the Jews – as did their scholars and their rabbis – by what they had been allowed to preserve of Allah’s Book to which they were witnesses. Do not be afraid of people, be afraid of Me. And do not sell My Signs for a paltry price. Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are kafirun.[9]

وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالْأَنْفَ بِالْأَنْفِ وَالْأُذُنَ بِالْأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٌ ۚ فَمَنْ تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَهُ ۚ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

We prescribed for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and retaliation for wounds. But if anyone forgoes that as a sadaqa, it will act as expiation for him. Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are dhalimun.[10]

وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنْجِيلِ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ ۚ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

The people of the Gospel should judge by what Allah sent down in it. Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are fasiqun.[11]

Muhammad Amarah says: “The ‘book’ to which these [verses] refer wherein al-hukm is demanded…is not the Quran as the advocates of the theory of ‘al-hakamiyah belongs to Allah’ whimsically imagine, but rather it is the Torah or the Gospels (al-injil)…the desired meaning of ‘al-hukm’ in these verses is ‘adjudication’ (al-qada’) because the occasion for the revelation of the verses decisively confirms that they came and referred to the occurrence of a ‘case’ (qada’iyah) in reality wherein a group of Jews applied to the Messenger for adjudication, and he ruled and judged in it according to what Allah had sent down in their book, the Torah…We are not face-to-face with discussion of political systems or political legislation of society, even if it were correct to extract the theory of ‘divine political hakamiyah’ from these verses; but rather we are confronting a ‘case’ brought by a group from amongst the people of the Book (ahl al-kitab) before the Messenger ‘in order that he adjudicate and judge’ for them in it, so he adjudicated for them [in the matter] in accordance with their book…subsequently most of the communities and Quranic exegetes (muffasirin) – according to al-Qurtubi – agree that these verses pertained to these people of the Book.”[12]

What are the circumstances of revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul) of these verses?

Yousef Meri says, “One of these sciences of the Qur’an is the Asbab al-Nuzul, i.e. the occasions, reasons or causes of revelation. The Qur’an, as is well known, was revealed in instalments over a period of nearly twenty-three years. Muslim scholars agree that the revelations of the Qur’an can be divided into two broad types.

One type includes passages of the Qur’an which were revealed in response to specific events, incidents or questions put forward to the Prophet ﷺ.

The second type includes passages of the Qur’an which were not direct responses to any historical or social development in the life of the Muslim community.”[13]

If we look to the Asbab al-Nuzul of these verses then it’s clear that they were revealed on incidents related to the people of the book.

Al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib said: “One day, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed by a Jewish man who had just been flogged and had his face darkened with coal. He summoned the Jews and asked them: ‘Is this what your Scripture decrees as punishment for the adulterer?’ ‘Yes!’ they replied. He then summoned one of their scholars and asked him: ‘I implore you by Allah who has sent the Torah to Moses, is this what your Scripture decrees as punishment for the adulterer?’

He (the scholar) said: ‘No! And if you had not implored me by Allah, I would not tell you. Our Scripture rules that the punishment of the adulterer is stoning. But it became widespread among our notables. Initially, when one of the notables committed adultery, we left him unpunished while we applied stoning on the communality in cases of adultery. Then we decided to look for a punishment that was applied on both the notables and communality of people. And so we agreed on darkening the face with coal and flogging to replace stoning.’

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘O Allah! I am the first to reapply your command after they had suspended it.’ And he ordered that the Jewish man be stoned.

Allah, exalted is He, then revealed يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ لاَ يَحْزُنْكَ الَّذِينَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْكُفْرِ “O Messenger! do not be grieved by those who rush headlong into kufr”up to His words ‏‏إِنْ أُوتِيتُمْ هَذَا فَخُذُوهُ “If you are given this, then take it”.[14]

They (the Jews) said: ‘Go to Muhammad; if he directs you to flog the adulterer and darken his face with coal and apply flogging, then follow him. But do not follow him if he directs you to apply stoning on him.’

It was then that Allah revealed: “Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are kafirun.”[15] He (the narrator Al-Bara’) said: “This relates to the Jews.”

Up to[16] His words وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ “Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are dhalimun.”[17] Al-Bara’ said: “This relates to the Christians.”

Up to His words وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ “Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, such people are fasiqun.” [18] Al-Bara’ said: “This relates to all disbelievers.”[19]

This seems to indicate that these verses are related to the people of the book i.e. Jews and Christians, and not the Muslims, so is it the case that we cannot use them as a shar’a daleel (divine evidence) that ruling by other than Islam, as all Muslim governments do today, is prohibited and therefore the contention is correct?

The Opinion of a sahabi is not a binding shar’a daleel

The majority of the ulema agreed that the consensus (ijma) of the sahaba can be used as a hujjah (evidential proof) in extracting sharia rules (ijtihad)[20], but they differed on whether the individual opinion of a sahabi can be used as a hujjah or not.

The opinion of the sahabi emanating from a ra’y (opinion) and ijtihad was considered as a hujjah by Imam Maalik, his followers and the majority of the Hanafis in addition to Ar-Razi and Ash-Shaatibi. As for the Mu’tazilah, some of the Mutakallimeen (philosophers), Ash-Shaafi’i, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Al-Aamadi and Ash-Shawkaani, then they held that the madh’hab (school of thought) of the sahabi is not legally valid as a daleel.[21]

Al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib was a great sahabi and well-known narrator of hadith who interpreted the above ayaat as being related to the Jews, Christians and disbelievers. This is his individual interpretation which someone may follow, but other sahabi differed with him along with many of the mufasireen. This difference of opinion (ikhtilaaf) in the branches (furu’) of Islam is part of Islamic Jurisprudence (fiqh) and not a problem so long as it’s within the acceptable parameters of the foundations (usul) laid down by the ulema.

Our approach to legitimate difference of opinion should be as Taqiuddin an-Nabhani mentions, “Therefore, the da’awah carriers should consider their understanding of the rules as correct, with the possibility that they may be wrong, while the understanding of other people wrong, with the possibility that they may be correct. This is in order to proceed with the da’wah for Islam and its rules according to their understanding and derivation of them, trying to change the opinions of others which they consider wrong, but could possibly be correct. It is totally incorrect for the da’wah carriers to view their understanding as if it is the opinion of Islam, rather they have to present their opinion as an Islamic opinion.

The mujtahids who established the schools of Fiqh (madh’habs) used to consider their deduction of the rules as correct, accepting the possibility of it being wrong. Each one of them used to say: ‘If a hadith was correct then it will be my madhab, and don’t consider my opinion.’

Likewise the carriers of the da’wah should also consider their opinions which they adopt or derive from Islam in terms of their understanding of such opinions, as being correct but open to error, but their belief in Islam as an ‘aqeedah must not contain any doubt whatsoever.”[22]

This approach is also taken from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ where he said,

إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ ‏.‏ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ

“If a judge performs ijtihad to the best of his ability and knowledge and gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he performs ijtihad to the best of his ability and knowledge but gets it wrong, he will have one reward.”[23]

What did other sahabi and mufasireen say about this verse?

Ibn Mas’ood and Al-Hasan said:

قَالَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ وَالْحَسَنُ: هِيَ عَامَّةٌ فِي كُلِّ مَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْيَهُودِ وَالْكُفَّارِ أَيْ مُعْتَقِدًا ذَلِكَ وَمُسْتَحِلًّا لَهُ،

“It is general for anyone who does not judge/rule by what Allah reveals from the Muslims, and the Jews and the disbelievers.” meaning believing in that and making it permissible.”[24]

Ibn Ashur says:

فالمَقْصُودُ اليَهُودُ وتَحْذِيرُ المُسْلِمِينَ مِن مِثْلِ صُنْعِهِمْ

“What is meant is the Jews and warning the Muslims against something similar to what they did.”[25]

Abu Hibban says,

ظاهِرُ هَذا العُمُومُ، فَيَشْمَلُ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ وغَيْرَهم مِمَّنْ كانَ قَبْلَهم، وإنْ كانَ الظّاهِرُ أنَّهُ في سِياقِ خِطابِ اليَهُودِ، وإلى أنَّها عامَّةٌ في اليَهُودِ وغَيْرِهِمْ

“It is apparent that this is general and includes this Ummah and others who were before them. What is apparent is: that it is in the context of addressing the jews and generally applies to them and others.”[26]

Imam Al-Razi says,

أنَّ هَذِهِ الآيَةَ نَزَلَتْ في اليَهُودِ فَتَكُونُ مُخْتَصَّةً بِهِمْ، وهَذا ضَعِيفٌ؛ لِأنَّ الِاعْتِبارَ بِعُمُومِ اللَّفْظِ لا بِخُصُوصِ السَّبَبِ

“This verse was revealed about the Jews, so it is specific to them, and this is weak. Because consideration is given to the generality of the wording, not to the specificity of the cause.”[27]

Imam Al-Razi also mentions the use of مَن carries the meaning of a general address,

كَلامٌ أُدْخِلَ فِيهِ كَلِمَةُ (مَن) في مَعْرِضِ الشَّرْطِ، فَيَكُونَ لِلْعُمُومِ،

“The speech in which the word (مَن) is included in the presenting of the condition, will be for the generality [of the address].”[28]

Consideration is with the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause

This brings us to the well-known principle in usul ul-fiqh which Imam Al-Razi mentioned,

العِبْرَةُ بِعُمومِ اللفْظِ لَا بِخُصوصِ ال سبَبِ

“The importance or consideration is with the generality of the wording and not with the specificity of the cause”[29]

Muhammad Hussein Abdullah explains this principle. “The Wahy, manifested in the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth, descended upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to explain the Ahkaam of specific incidents. For example, the Aayah of Saraqah (theft) was revealed in respect to the theft of the shield or cloak of Safwaan, the Aayah of Zhihaar (Al-Mujaadalah) was revealed in respect to Salamah Bin Sakhr or Khawlah Bint Tha’labah the wife of Aws Bin As-Saamit and the Aayah of Al-Li’aan (swearing a curse) was revealed in respect to Hilaal Bin Umayyah.” [30]

“The Nabi ﷺ passed by a dead sheep and then said: هَلاَّ انْتَفَعْتُمْ بِجِلْدِهَا “You could have taken its hide (skin), tanned it and then utilised (or benefit from) it.”[31] In another narration the Messenger ﷺ said: أَيُّمَا إِهَابٍ دُبِغَ فَقَدْ طَهُرَ “Whatever (أيُّما ) hide (animal skin) is tanned then it has become purified.”[32] In this example the statement of the Nabi ﷺ was connected to a specific Sabab (cause) which was that dead sheep that he passed by which was said to have been the sheep of Maymoona. However, the Alfaazh (wordings) of the Hadeeth came in a general manner i.e. with a Lafzh that is indicative of Al-‘Umoom (generality). The Lafzh in this Hadeeth was أيُّ (whatever or whichever) and so this Lafzh encompasses every hide or animal skin in respect to it becoming purified by way of the process of tanning. That is based upon the principle: ‘The importance (or consideration) is found with the generality of the wording and not in the specificity of the cause’.

In the same way every Lafzh ‘Aamm (general wording) that has been mentioned related to a specific Sabab (cause) in relation to a question (that was asked or arose) or an incident (that happened), works in accordance to its generality whilst there is no ‘Ibrah (significance) in respect to the specificity of the Sabab (cause). That is because as Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’i said: “The Sabab does not produce anything, rather it is the wordings (Alfaazh) that produce (i.e. benefited from). And it was in accordance to this that the Fuqahaa’ of the Muslims in the era of the Nabi ﷺ and the era of the Sahaabah (rah) proceeded.”[33]

Therefore, regardless of the asbab al-nuzul which relates to the jews, the address in the command is general and so will apply to everyone – Muslim or otherwise – who does not judge/rule by whatever Allah has revealed.

Contention 3: The verse doesn’t mention judging by ‘all’ of revelation

Some modernists have questioned whether the verse orders Muslims to judge/rule by ‘all’ of revelation or only part of it. This attempt at limiting the scope of the revelation is aimed at interpreting the Qur’an in a secular manner, so it excludes government and mu’amilaat (societal transactions), following the Christian model of “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This paves the way for a secular civil state to be established where Islam is the official religion, but relegated to the private sphere.

Professor Abdullah Saeed says, “Another example is provided by the phrase, ‘what God has revealed’ (bima anzala allahu), in the same verse. Can we simply say that it is the Qur’an ‘as it was revealed’? What is meant by the ruling according to what has been revealed? There are many rulings in the scripture: theological, moral, spiritual, and commandments and exhortations. What aspect of the scripture is thus referred to by this verse? Again, who is the intended audience? How are they to act on this? If this verse refers to the legal aspects of the Qur’an, what exactly are these? Are they specifically related to hudud (prescribed punishments), as many Textualists[34] take it to mean today, or is the issue much broader? Are there any specific rulings on this in the Qur’an, or are they matters of interpretation that we think are clear, unambiguous and legally binding? Again, answers to these questions are not always clear.”[35]

Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, clarifies the correct approach towards interpreting the Qur’an as opposed to the modernist ‘contextualist’ approach advocated by Professor Saeed. He says, “Therefore, we view that the method of performing tafsīr of the Qur’ān is that the Arabic language and the Prophet’s ﷺ Sunnah should be adopted as the only tool in understanding the Qur’ān and its tafsīr in terms of its vocabulary and construction, in terms of the Sharī’ah meanings, Sharī’ah rules, and the thoughts that have a legal reality.

The method of explaining the Qur’ān is that we understand the texts to the extent as is indicated by the speech of the Arabs and their customary usages and whatever the expressions indicate in terms of Sharī’ah meanings mentioned in a Sharī’ah text of the Qur’ān or Sunnah which is not restricted to the understanding of the previous forebearers such as the ‘Ulama, Tabi’un or even the Sahabah because all of these are Ijtihāds which may be mistaken or correct.

Maybe the mind is guided to the understanding of an ayah whose reality becomes conspicuous to the mufassir during an extensive perusal of the Arabic language or it becomes apparent to him during the changing of things, progress of material forms (ashkal madaniyya), realities, events.

By opening the mind to creativity, by understanding & not invention, the creativity in tafsīr takes place within the limits demanded by the word ‘tafsīr’ while at the same time protecting oneself from misguided invention of meanings which has absolutely no relationship to the text being explained.”[36]

Where do we get the meaning of ‘all’ in the verse?

If we follow the traditional approach of Taqiuddin an-Nabhani and interpret the verse through the Arabic language, then the meaning of ‘all’ or ‘whatever’ in the phrase بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ  ‘whatever Allah has sent down’ comes from the particle ما (maa) which is a relative pronoun and particle of generality (‘umoom). Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “Allah ta’ala has labelled in these three verses those who do not rule by all the rules He ta’ala  has revealed as being kafirun, dhalimun and fasiqun. This is because ما in the verses is of a general form, so it includes all the Shari’ah rules that Allah ta’ala has revealed, whether they were commands or prohibitions.”[37]

ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz ibn Yaḥyá Kinānī (d.854CE) says:

والرّابِعُ: قالَ عَبْدُ العَزِيزِ بْنُ يَحْيى الكِنانِيُّ: قَوْلُهُ ﴿بِما أنْزَلَ اللَّهُ﴾ صِيغَةُ عُمُومٍ، فَقَوْلُهُ ﴿ومَن لَمْ يَحْكم بِما أنْزَلَ اللَّهُ﴾ مَعْناهُ مَن أتى بِضِدِّ حُكْمِ اللَّهِ تَعالى في كُلِّ ما أنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الكافِرُونَ، وهَذا حَقٌّ لِأنَّ الكافِرَ هو الَّذِي أتى بِضِدِّ حُكْمِ اللَّهِ تَعالى في كُلِّ ما أنْزَلَ اللَّهُ،

“His speech بِما أنْزَلَ اللَّه “by what Allah has sent down” is on the form of generality, so His speech ومَن لَمْ يَحْكم بِما أنْزَلَ اللَّه “Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down” its meaning is whoever arrives contrary to the rule of Allah ta’ala in ALL (كُلِّ) what He revealed then those are from the disbelievers, and this is correct because the disbeliever is the one who comes to contrary to the rule of Allah ta’ala in ALL what He has revealed.”[38]

The use of the particle of generality ما is found in other verses of the Holy Qur’an.

Abdullah (bin Masood) narrated that Allah had cursed those women who tattooed and who have themselves tattooed, those who pluck hair from their faces and those who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created. This news reached a woman of the tribe of Asad who was called Umm Ya’qub and she used to recite the Holy Qur’an. She came to him and said: “What is this news that has reached me from you that you curse those women who tattooed and those women who have themselves tattooed, the women who pluck hair from their faces and who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created?” Thereupon Abdullah said: “Should I not curse one upon whom Allah’s Messenger ﷺ has invoked curse and that is in the Book also.” Thereupon that woman said: “I read the Qur’an from cover to cover, but I did not find that in it.” Whereupon he said: “If you had read (thoroughly) you would have definitely found this in that as Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has said:

وَمَآ ءَاتَىٰكُمُ ٱلرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَىٰكُمْ عَنْهُ فَٱنتَهُوا۟ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ

“Whatever the Messenger brought you take it; and whatever he forbids you abstain from it. And fear Allah, for Allah’s punishment is very severe.”[39] [40]

Abdul-Qadeem Zallum comments on this ayah, “This means to take and act by whatever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has brought to you, and abstain and keep away from whatever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has forbidden you. This is because the relative pronoun مَا in the verse is of a general form. It therefore, contains the obligation to perform all the duties, and to abstain from and avoid all the prohibitions. The command mentioned in the verse is a decisive request, thus it is obligatory. This is deduced from the following command to observe piety and the threat of severe punishment for he who does not take whatever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ brought and does not abstain from whatever he forbade.”[41]

Contention 4: Kufr does not mean major kufr but minor kufr (fisq)

In response to the takfiris who use this verse to label Muslim leaders, governments, and all those assisting them as apostates, a book was written called ‘A Study of the Tafseer of Abdullaah ibn Abbbas (ra) “kufr doona kufr”’ by SalafiManhaj where it examines the opinion of Ibn Abbas, to say that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed doesn’t necessarily make someone an apostate, because kufr in this ayah means minor kufr (fisq). Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas says, “It is not the kufr that you are going towards (in your minds), it is not the kufr that expels one from the religion…[it] is kufr less than kufr (كُفْرٌ دُونَ كُفْرٍ).”[42]

The word كَافِرُونَ doesn’t necessarily mean the person is a disbeliever as Ibn Abbas mentions, because the subject matter of the verse is action not iman. In usul ul-fiqh (the science which governs the actions of people), any text of the Qur’an and Sunnah related to actions which negate Iman, is considered a decisive qareenah (linking indicator) which indicates an obligation or prohibition, not kufr.

Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says “If the daleel (evidence) indicates that leaving, or not doing the action has a punishment built upon that in the dunya (the life of this world) or in the akhirah (the hereafter), or the hate (detestation) or anger of Allah is attached to it or the negation of Imaan (belief),”[43] then it is a decisive qareenah in the command or prohibition which means it’s either fard or haram. An indecisive qareenah would only indicate the action being mandub (recommended) or makruh (disliked). This is similar to the hadith where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

إِذَا قَالَ الرَّجُلُ لأَخِيهِ يَا كَافِرُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهِ أَحَدُهُمَا

“If a man says to his brother, O Kafir! Then surely one of them is such.”[44]

This doesn’t mean the man saying this is a kafir. Rather it means because it is related to an action it is a decisive qareenah that saying to a believer “O Kafir” is a major sin.

Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallam (d.224H/838CE) comments on such hadith saying, “These reports are not to be interpreted as meaning that the one who commits sin is to be labelled as belonging to the people of jahiliyah, a kafir or a hypocrite when he believes in Allah and the message sent by Him, and he fulfils the obligatory duties. What these reports mean is that these sins are part of the actions of the kuffar which are forbidden in the Qur’an and Sunnah, so that the Muslims can avoid these things and steer clear of them, and not imitate the kuffar in any of their attitudes or ways.”[45]

Having said this, if the text is applicable to both actions and iman then depending on the context it may indicate kufr. In the verse under discussion, it will indicate major kufr if the person judging or ruling by other than Islam believes what they are ruling by is better than Islam. This is a meaning that can be extracted related to ‘aqeedah, and is an understanding agreed upon across the different schools of thought.

Taqiuddin an-Nabhani says, “if he [the Khaleefah] adopted rules from other than the Islamic rules and he knew that what he had adopted was something other than the Islamic Shari’ah then the words of Allah (swt): “Those who do not rule by what Allah has sent down, such people are disbelievers” apply to him, so if he believed in the rule that he adopted then he has committed disbelief and apostatised from Islam. If he did not believe in it but he took it upon the basis that it did not contradict Islam, in the same manner that the Ottoman Khulafaa acted during their final days, then it is forbidden for him but he has not committed disbelief.”[46]

This position is the same as the salafiyya position mentioned by Abdul-Azeez bin Baz who says, “Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed does not escape from four issues:

1- The one who says “I rule by this (i.e. man-made laws) because they are better than the Divine Legislation of Islam (i.e. sharia)” then such a person is a disbeliever, who has committed major kufr.

2- The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws as they are like the Divine Legislation of Islam, and ruling by it is permitted, just as ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islam is also permitted” such a person is a disbeliever who has committed major kufr.

3- The one who says “I rule by these laws, but the Divine Legislation of Islam is better, but ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is permitted” such a person is a disbeliever who has committed major kufr.

4- The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a person is a believer[sic] who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins.”[47]

Conclusion

The Prophet ﷺ foretold of this current situation the Muslim ummah is living in, when he ﷺ said,

لتنقضن عرى الإسلام عروة عروة ، فكلما انتقضت عروة تشبث الناس بالتي تليها ، فأولهن نقضاً الحكم وآخرهن الصلاة

“The knots of Islam will be undone one by one, each time a knot is undone the next one will be grasped, the first to be undone will be the Ruling and the last will be the Prayer.”[48]

Sheikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says, “The meaning of the phrase “the first bond/knot to be undone will be ruling (al-hukm)” is apparent; it refers to the failure to rule according to the shari’ah of Allah. This is what is happening today in most of the so-called Muslim countries. It is known that what is obligatory upon all is to rule according to the shari’ah of Allah in all things, and to beware of ruling according to laws and customs which go against the shari’ah, because Allah says:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا۟ فِىٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًۭا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا۟ تَسْلِيمًۭا

“By your Lord, they will not be true believers until they let you (O Muhammad) decide between them in all matters of dispute, and find no resistance in their souls to your decisions, accepting them totally”[49] [50]

A return to Islamic rule is the vital issue for the Muslim ummah and serious thinking is required among the intellectuals and influentials of this ummah on how to proceed in this. Only then can we retie the knots of Islam.

Notes

---

[1] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 44

[2] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 45

[3] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 47

[4] Ibn Ashur, Tahrir wa Tanwir, https://tafsir.app/ibn-aashoor/5/44

[5] Mushtarak is being used here in a general sense rather than Al-Mushtarak, so includes all the different types of Arabic meanings such as metaphorical (majaz) and technical (istilahi). Abdul-Qadeem Zallum and Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah refer to the word hukm as a technical term (istilah). Sheikh Ata says, “the term Hukm is not a homonym (mushtarak) in the definitions Qadaa’ (execution) and Sultaan (Authority), but is a linguistic reality (haqeeqah lughawiyah) when it holds the meaning of Qadaa, and is a specified common reality (haqeeqah ‘urfiyah khassah) i.e. istilah in the meanings of Ruling and Authority.”  Khilafah.com, 20/6/2012, https://www.khilafah.com/qaa-the-meaning-of-the-word-hukm-judgingruling/ Regardless of which opinion someone adopts here (mushtarak or haqeeqah ‘urfiyah khassah), the word hukm in the Qur’an and Sunnah means judging and ruling so the commands will apply to both.

[6] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.505

[7] A judge is referred to as a حاكم (haakim), but a ruler is referred to as a حكيم (hakeem) because of the frequent rules he executes. حكيم is on the pattern (wazn) of فعيل which is used for exaggeration (mubalagha). This is similar to the attribute of Allah – الرَحِيم (ar-raheem)

[8] Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 1334, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1334

[9] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 44

[10] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 45

[11] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 47

[12] Muhammad Amarah, ‘Al-Dawlah Al-Islamiya—Bayan Al-Ilmaniyah Wa Al-Sultah Al-Diniyah’ (The Islamic State: On Understanding Secularism and Religious Authority), Cairo: Dar al-Shuruk. 1988, pp.44–45 quoted in Abdelilah Belkeziz, ‘The State in Contemporary Islamic Thought,’ p.250

[13] Ali Ibn Ahmad, al-Wahidi; Translated by Mokrane Guezzou; Introduction by Yousef Meri (2008). Asbab al-Nuzul. Amman, Jordan: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, p.iii

[14] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 41

[15] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 44

[16] Meaning the whole verse as this sentence is part of a wider group of sentences (ayah)

[17] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 45

[18] Holy Quran Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 47

[19] Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wāhidī, Op.cit., p.68; Sahih Muslim 1700a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1700a

[20] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.294

[21] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.295

[22] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir’ translation of Mafahim Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khilafah Publications, p.65

[23] Agreed upon. Sahih Muslim 1716a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1716a ; Sahih al-Bukhari 7352, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7352

[24] Imam Qurtubi, Al Jaami li Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan, https://tafsir.app/qurtubi/5/44

[25] Ibn Ashur, Tahrir wa Tanwir, https://tafsir.app/ibn-aashoor/5/44

[26] Abu Hibban, Bahr ul-Muheet, https://tafsir.app/albahr-almuheet/5/44

[27] Imam Al-Razi, Tafsir Al-Kabir, https://tafsir.app/alrazi/5/44

[28] Ibid

[29] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.501

[30] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.501

[31] Sahih al-Bukhari 1492, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1492

[32] Sunan an-Nasa’i 4241, https://sunnah.com/nasai:4241

[33] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.502

[34] Abdullah Saeed, ‘Interpreting the Qur’an: Towards a Contemporary Approach,’ Routledge, 2005, p.3. He says, “Textualists argue for a strict following of the text and adopt a literalistic approach to the text. For Textualists, it is the Qur’an that should guide Muslims, rather than any so-called modern ‘needs’. They consider the meaning of the Qur’an to be fixed and universal in its application. For instance, if the Qur’an says that a man may marry four wives, then this should apply forever, without any need to consider the socio-historical context in which this text was ‘revealed’. For them, why the Qur’an allowed a man to marry four wives in the first/seventh-century Hijaz is not important. The clearest examples of Textualists are found today among those referred to as Traditionalists and Salafis.”

[35] Ibid, p.112

[36] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘Islamic Personality,’ translation of Shakhsiya Islamiya, Vol.1, Dar al-Ilm, 6^th Edition, 2005, p.241

[37] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.267

[38] Imam Al-Razi, Tafsir Al-Kabir, https://tafsir.app/alrazi/5/44

[39] Holy Qur’an Surah Al-Hashr, ayah 7

[40] Sahih Muslim 2125a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:2125a

[41] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, Op.cit., p.266

[42] A Study of the Tafseer of Abdullaah ibn Abbbas (ra) “kufr doona kufr”, SalafiManhaj 2008, p.20

[43] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.525

[44] Sahih al-Bukhari 6103, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6103

[45] Kitaab al-Eemaan by Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallam, p.94; Quoted in Umar al-Ashqar, ‘Belief in Allah in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah,’ International Islamic Publishing House, p.61

[46] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘An Introduction to the Constitution and its obligation’ translation of Muqadimatud-Dustur Aw al-Asbabul Mujibatulah, Article 38, p.115

[47] Standing Committee for Research and Legal Verdicts, fatwa no.5741 quoted in Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ar-Rayyis, ‘The Clear Proofs for refuting the doubts of the people of Takfeer and Bombing!’, SalafiManhaj, 2007, p.7

[48] Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih with a good chain of narrators on the authority of Abu Umamah al-Bahili

[49] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Nisaa’, ayah 65

[50] https://islamqa.info/en/answers/8034/the-meaning-of-the-bonds-of-islam-will-be-undone-one-by-one