Shaykh Ar Rajihi (a student of Shaykh Mohammed Ibn Ibraaheem and Shaykh Bin Baz) said “
(1) If someone rules by man-made laws and believes that they (the man made laws) are better than ruling by the Shariah, he has disbelieved.
(2) And if he rules by man-made laws and believes that they are equal to ruling by the Shariah, he has disbelieved.
(3) And if he rules by man-made laws but yet believes that ruling by the Shariah is better than ruling by man-made laws, however it is permissible to rule by man-made laws, he too has disbelieved.” Ref: Taken from his Explanation of Nawaaqid al-Islam of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab
Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ar-Rajihi was asked, “This person asks about the shariah ruling concerning the ruler who rules by French secular laws alongside the knowledge that he claims Islam, Salaah (he prays), Saum (he fast in the month of Ramadan), and makes Hajj?
The Shaykh said, “When he believes in (the) permissibility (to rule by French secular laws), when he believes that the judgment by the French laws is permissible (i.e. halaal), then he is a kaafir. When he believes that it is permissible for him (to rule by these man made law)…”
Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ar-Rajihi said about a Muslim ruler who changes all the shariah laws in his country to man made laws and therefore only rulers by man made laws, “…Some of the people of knowledge have held that when he (the Muslim ruler) alters the religion in ALL OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE STATE, then he is a kaafir, because he has changed the religion, and al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer rahimahullah has gone to this in his tafsir, and also Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem rahimahullah, in his treatise ‘Tahkeemul-Qaaaneen’.
So when he changes the religion, the whole of it, from head to heal, in all of the affairs of the state, in everything, NOT PART OF IT (i.e. he replaced some shariah laws for man made laws and not all of the shariah laws had been replaced by man made laws), then he is a kaafir, because he has altered the religion these (by changing all the shariah laws to man made laws).”
Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ar-Rajihi said in reference to the Muslim ruler who changes all the shariah laws for man made laws, that “If a person establishes all of the man-made laws and removes the Shariah in its ENTIRETY, changing it COMPLETELY around, this is considered changing the Religion.
A group amongst the scholars have taken the view that such a person that does this he has disbelieved because he has changed the Religion of Allaah.
This is the verdict that was given by Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem, may Allaah have mercy on him, the former Muftee of the lands of Saudi Arabia.
He said: “This is changing the Religion completely around – IT IS NOT IN ONE ISSUE ONLY RATHER IT IS CHANGING ALL OF THE LAWS.
So it means removing the Shariah in its entirety and replacing it with man-made laws in every small or large affair.”” Ref: Explanation of Nawaaqid al-Islam of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab
Shaykh Ar Rajihi said in reference to a Muslim ruler replacing SOME of THE shariah laws for man made laws and not replacing ALL OF THE shariah for man made laws “Our teacher, Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz, may Allaah grant him success, held the view that even though he changes the Religion, he must believe that it is permissible to rule by man-made laws so that the proof can be established against him.” Ref: Explanation of Nawaaqid al-Islam of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab
Shaykh Ar Rajihi said “when one rules by man-made laws or by a man made law in one issue or in one judicial affair*, but yet he believes that judging by the Shariah is obligatory and that it is not permissible to judge by man-made laws and that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed, and he believes that he is doing wrong and that he deserves to be punished.
However his inner whims, desires and devil have overtaken him and so he rules by other than what Allaah has revealed…Such a person has committed minor disbelief and he does not leave from the fold of Islaam.” Ref: Explanation of Nawaaqid al-Islam of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab
* (My Words) Some Muslims have taken this comment and based upon it have held (plus do hold) that if a Muslim ruler only in one or two cases or one or two judicial affairs rules by other than Allahs law for the reasons Shaykh Rajihi outlined this is minor kufr.
But they held if he does it in more than one or two cases or judicial affairs he has fallen into major kufr by which he could be ruled to be a kafir.
It is correct that before Shaykh Rajihi his teacher Shaykh Mohammed Ibraheem held that ruling by man made laws due to the reasons Shaykh Rajihi layed out is minor kufr but ONLY IF DONE, IN ONE OR TWO CASES by the ruler.
However this issue of restriction to one or two cases or one or two judicial affairs has no evidence from the Quran, authentic sunnah nor ijmah (consensus of the sahaba or scholars) nor is their any reference to this number restriction in the statements of the sahaba or salaf on this issue.
So before a person takes this view and uses this restriction he must present his proof for this restriction. As nothing in Islam is restricted to a specific number or amount unless their is a evidence from the Quran, authentic sunnah or ijmah. A scholars statement even a sahabas statement by itself can not restrict anything from the deen especially something that if the person goes beyond that specified number he would become a kafir.
In addition scholars from the past and contemporary times like Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Jawzee, Ibn al Qayyium, Ibn Abdil Izz, Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Albaani, Shaykh al Fawzaan and Shaykh Uthaymeen and other scholars from the past and contemporary times have not mentioned this restriction to one or two cases or one or two judicial affairs. IN FACT THEY HAVE NOT RESTRICTED THIS ISSUE AT ALL due to their being no evidence for restriction in this issue.
Thus they have held that if a Muslim ruler does rule by other than Allahs law for the reasons Shaykh Rajihi states in one or two affairs or in numerous cases or judicial affairs he is ruled with minor kufr and major sin and is not expelled from Islam and ruled to have fallen into major kufr.
But as explained in the main article the Muslim ruler who in ALL cases or in ALL judicial affairs rules by other than Allahs law is a kafir with major kufr.
Moreover though Shaykh Mohammed Ibn Ibraheem and Shaykh Rajihi held this view based UPON THEIR OWN IJTIHAD (AND NOT THE QURAN, AUTHENTIC SUNNAH OR IJMAH) they did not it seems for whatever reason act upon this view, because they both are not known for making takfeer of the Muslim rulers who rule by other than Allahs law in more than one or two cases or in more than one or two judicial affairs (like most rulers do) (i.e. they didn’t consider these Muslim rulers to be kuffar).
Posted by Abdul Kareem Ibn Ozzie