Question:
During the discussion on the prohibition of a Muslim's participation in current ruling systems that do not rule by Islam, someone mentioned that he heard a scholar permitting this participation. He argued that Yusuf (as) ruled by the law of the King in Egypt... and that the Negus (Najashi) remained for years ruling by kufr while being a Muslim, and the Messenger (saw) performed the funeral prayer in absentia for him... Furthermore, Maslahah (interest), which is a Shari’ah evidence, necessitates this, as a Muslim in power looks after the interests of Muslims more than a secularist...
The question is: what is the validity of this deduction? Also, are there really scholars who say this? Please answer us, and may Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
Yes, some of the scholars of the rulers (mashayikh al-salatin) express these views. These views do not constitute a valid proof because the evidences for ruling by what Allah has revealed are explicit, clear, definitive in transmission (qat’i al-thubut), and definitive in meaning (qat’i al-dalalah); they are not a matter of dispute among the Imams. Ruling by what Allah has revealed is an obligation (fard). Allah (swt) says:
فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ
"So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 48)
And He (swt) says:
وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ
"And judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 49)
The texts with this meaning are numerous. As for not ruling by what Allah has revealed and resorting to ruling by man-made laws, it is kufr (disbelief) if the ruler believes in it, and it is zulm (oppression) or fisq (transgression) if the ruler does not believe in it. This is mentioned in the saying of Allah (swt):
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 44)
And the saying of Allah (swt):
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 45)
And the saying of Allah (swt):
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 47)
As for what the scholars of the rulers use as evidence, as we said, it does not constitute a valid proof for the following reasons:
1- Using the action of Yusuf (as) as evidence—based on the claim of those who say he ruled in some matters by the law of the King of Egypt, i.e., by other than what Allah revealed—is misplaced. This is because we are commanded to follow the Islam brought by Muhammad (saw) through revelation from Allah (swt), and we are not commanded to follow the Shari’ah of Yusuf (as) or any other Prophet (as). This is because the Shari’ah of those before us is not a Shari’ah for us (shar'u man qablana laysa shar'an lana), as it was abrogated by Islam. Allah (swt) says:
وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا
"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 48)
The meaning of "muhayminan" (a criterion/witness) is abrogating (nasikhan). Islam abrogated the laws of previous books; therefore, the Shari’ah of those before us is not a Shari’ah for us.
Some Imams of Usul (principles of jurisprudence) have adopted the principle in another form, which is: "The Shari’ah of those before us is a Shari’ah for us as long as it has not been abrogated." This specifies that deducing from previous laws is only for rulings that were not abrogated from those laws. As for the rulings that our Shari’ah came and abrogated, it is not permissible to take them from previous laws; rather, we are required to follow what is in our Shari’ah. Ruling by what Allah has revealed is explicit in Islam and it abrogates every previous law that contradicts it. Consequently, all reputable scholars of Usul, whether they hold the first principle ("The Shari’ah of those before us is not a Shari’ah for us") or the second ("The Shari’ah of those before us is a Shari’ah for us as long as it has not been abrogated"), both require ruling by what Allah has revealed because it is explicitly stated in Islam in a way that is clear, definitive in transmission, and definitive in meaning, and it abrogates previous laws if they contradict it.
We say this on the assumption that Yusuf (as) ruled in some matters by the law of the King of Egypt, although the truth is that Yusuf (as) was a Prophet and was infallible (ma’sum). He would only rule by what Allah revealed to him. As Allah (swt) says in Surah Yusuf, he was debating his two companions in prison, stating that legislation belongs to Allah:
يَا صَاحِبَيِ السِّجْنِ أَأَرْبَابٌ مُتَفَرِّقُونَ خَيْرٌ أَمِ اللَّهُ الْوَاحِدُ الْقَهَّارُ (39) مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِهِ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءً سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنْتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُمْ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِنْ سُلْطَانٍ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
"O two companions of prison, are separate lords better or Allah, the One, the Prevailing? You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah; He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know." (QS. Yusuf [12]: 39-40)
So Yusuf (as) says: "Legislation (al-hukm) is not but for Allah." Thus, sovereignty belongs to the Lord of the worlds, whom the Muslim worships and from whom alone he takes his legislation, taking no lord besides Him.
Yusuf's (as) actions would never contradict his words; you would not find him calling for the sovereignty of Allah (swt) and then ruling by kufr. Such a claim is an attack on the infallibility of a Prophet of Allah and a fabrication against him, which is a grave matter... Therefore, Yusuf (as) was not ruling by kufr, but was ruling by what Allah revealed to him, being truthful and sincere to Allah (swt). Even if we assume that Allah (swt) permitted Yusuf (as) in his Shari’ah to rule in some matters by the laws of the King of Egypt, Islam has abrogated previous laws. What became obligatory upon us after the message of the Messenger (saw) is ruling by Islam and nothing else.
2- As for using the stance of the Negus (Najashi) as evidence, it is also misplaced. Anyone who examines the matter will find that the Negus was a king before his conversion to Islam. He embraced Islam secretly and died shortly after his conversion. He was not able to implement Islam nor did he dare to announce his Islam, as his people were kuffar... This does not apply to someone who is a Muslim, known for his Islam among the people. To elaborate further:
a) The word "Negus" (Najashi) is not the personal name of the ruler of Abyssinia, but rather a title for whoever ruled Abyssinia, just as the ruler of the Persians was called Chosroes (Kisra) and the Romans Caesar (Qaysar)... The Negus who converted and for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed did not spend years in Islam as mentioned in the question, but rather a short period not exceeding days or a month or two... He is not the Negus to whom the Muslims migrated from Makkah, nor is he the Negus to whom the Messenger (saw) sent Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah when he sent messengers to the rulers. Rather, he is another Negus who took power after the Negus to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter along with other rulers. The narrations on this subject are in Bukhari and Muslim. Those who think the Negus who converted is the same Negus of Abyssinia to whom the Muslims migrated from Makkah, or the one to whom the Messenger (saw) sent Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri after Hudaybiyah, are mistaken. Narrations that contradict what is in Bukhari and Muslim are rejected. Among the evidences for what we mentioned above are:
Muslim narrated from Qatadah, from Anas:
«أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَتَبَ إِلَى كِسْرَى، وَإِلَى قَيْصَرَ، وَإِلَى النَّجَاشِيِّ، وَإِلَى كُلِّ جَبَّارٍ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى اللهِ تَعَالَى»، وَلَيْسَ بِالنَّجَاشِيِّ الَّذِي صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
"The Prophet of Allah (saw) wrote to Chosroes, to Caesar, to the Negus, and to every tyrant, calling them to Allah the Almighty; and he (the Negus he wrote to) was not the Negus for whom the Prophet (saw) performed the funeral prayer." (Sahih Muslim)
Tirmidhi narrated from Qatadah, from Anas:
«أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَتَبَ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ إِلَى كِسْرَى وَإِلى قَيْصَرَ وَإِلَى النَّجَاشِيِّ وَإِلَى كُلِّ جَبَّارٍ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ» وَلَيْسَ بِالنَّجَاشِيِّ الَّذِي صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
"The Messenger of Allah (saw) wrote before his death to Chosroes, to Caesar, to the Negus, and to every tyrant calling them to Allah; and he was not the Negus for whom the Prophet (saw) performed the funeral prayer." (This is a Hasan Sahih Hadith).
It is clear from the Hadith of Muslim and Tirmidhi that the Negus who converted and for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed is not the Negus to whom the Messenger sent his letters with the other rulers.
b) Since the Messenger (saw) sent the letters to the rulers after his return from Hudaybiyah, i.e., after Dhu al-Qi'dah in the 6th year of Hijrah, and since this Negus who converted is not the one to whom the Messenger (saw) sent letters with the other rulers but a Negus after him, he would have assumed power around the 7th year of Hijrah.
c) Because Abu Hurayrah was with the Messenger (saw) during his prayer for the Negus who converted, as in the Hadiths of the prayer for the Negus, and it is known that Abu Hurayrah, after embracing Islam, arrived in Madinah with the delegation of Daws—around seventy or eighty people—while the Messenger (saw) was at Khaybar. They traveled to him and met him there. The Messenger (saw) gave them a share of the spoils of Khaybar, and Khaybar was in the 7th year of Hijrah. This means that the Negus who converted took over the rule of Abyssinia around the 7th year of Hijrah and died in the 7th year of Hijrah, meaning he did not stay for more than a few days or months...
d) The Abyssinians at that time were kuffar following the Christian religion, and their ruler, the Negus, embraced Islam secretly without them knowing, and indeed without anyone knowing, until the Messenger (saw)—as understood from the Hadiths of the prayer for this Negus—learned of the Negus's death through revelation. The meaning of the Hadiths regarding the prayer for him indicates this:
- Bukhari narrated from Abu Hurayrah (ra):
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَعَى النَّجَاشِيَّ فِي اليَوْمِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ خَرَجَ إِلَى المُصَلَّى، فَصَفَّ بِهِمْ وَكَبَّرَ أَرْبَعًا
"The Messenger of Allah (saw) announced the death of the Negus on the day he died. He went out to the place of prayer, lined them up in rows, and said Takbir four times."
In another narration:
نَعَى لَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ النَّجَاشِيَّ صَاحِبَ الحَبَشَةِ، يَوْمَ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ، فَقَالَ: اسْتَغْفِرُوا لِأَخِيكُمْ
"The Messenger of Allah (saw) announced to us the death of the Negus, the ruler of Abyssinia, on the day he died, and said: 'Seek forgiveness for your brother.'"
- Bukhari narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra): The Prophet (saw) said:
قَدْ تُوُفِّيَ اليَوْمَ رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ مِنَ الحَبَشِ، فَهَلُمَّ، فَصَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ
"Today a righteous man from Abyssinia has died, so come and pray for him." Jabir said: "So we lined up, and the Prophet (saw) prayed for him while we were in rows with him." Abu al-Zubayr said: From Jabir: "I was in the second row."
In another narration from Jabir, the Prophet (saw) said when the Negus died:
مَاتَ اليَوْمَ رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ، فَقُومُوا فَصَلُّوا عَلَى أَخِيكُمْ أَصْحَمَةَ
"Today a righteous man has died, so stand and pray for your brother Ashama."
The meaning of the words in the Hadiths: "announced the death of the Negus on the day he died," "announced to us... the death of the Negus... on the day he died," "Today a righteous man has died..." The announcement on the day he died, while the Negus was in Abyssinia and the Messenger (saw) was in Madinah, means that the news was through revelation. Likewise, the saying of the Messenger (saw): "Seek forgiveness for your brother," "Today a righteous man has died..." means that they did not know about his death...
e) Accordingly, the case of the Negus does not apply here. He embraced Islam secretly, his people were kuffar, he died after a short time, and no one knew of his Islam except the Messenger (saw) through revelation... This case does not apply to the participation of a Muslim, known for his Islam, in ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. Those who say it applies have no evidence, nor even a semblance of evidence (shubhat dalil).
3- As for deducing from Maslahah (interest) and that it is a proof, it is also misplaced, and we review it as follows:
Among the scholars of Usul al-Fiqh, there are those who considered Maslahah as a proof, but they stipulated that no command or prohibition should have been revealed in the Shari’ah regarding it. However, if a command or prohibition has been revealed, then the ruling of Maslahah is not taken; rather, what was revealed in the Shari’ah is taken. No reputable scholar of Usul has ever suggested suspending the texts brought by revelation on the pretext that Maslahah requires it.
For example, Riba (usury/interest) is haram; the Shari’ah prohibited it through texts brought by revelation. So if interests (masalih) require it, the Shari’ah rejects and forbids it. If some who are called scholars issue a fatwa for it, then their fatwa is rejected and it clashes with the Shari’ah brought by revelation.
The issue of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is definitively haram, just like the prohibition of Riba, because the texts from revelation came with that. So there remains no room for applying Maslahah. Where there is Shari’ah, there is Maslahah, and not the other way around.
In this discussion, we are addressing the scholars of Usul who were lenient and spoke of Masalih Mursalah (unrestricted interests). Even according to their school of thought, there is no room for deducing from Maslahah here. However, the truth is that Masalih Mursalah do not exist; they exist in the view of those who said the Shari’ah left some matters without commanding or prohibiting them and said they use Maslahah in this field. The reality is that the Shari’ah did not leave any matter without clarifying its ruling; rather, it clarified the rulings for everything:
تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ
"...as an explanation for all things." (QS. An-Nahl [16]: 89)
مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ
"We have not neglected in the Register a thing." (QS. Al-An'am [6]: 38)
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 3)
4- In conclusion, participating in systems of kufr and ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is kufr if the ruler who rules by other than what Allah revealed believes in this ruling. It is zulm (oppression) and fisq (transgression) if the ruler who rules by other than what Allah revealed does not believe in this ruling, as stated in the Noble Verses:
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 44)
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 45)
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." (QS. Al-Ma'idah [5]: 47)
Those who say it is permissible for a Muslim to participate in ruling by other than what Allah has revealed have no evidence nor even a semblance of evidence, because the texts prohibiting it are definitive in transmission and definitive in meaning.
I hope the answer is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive by the will of Allah (swt).