Did you say "Kufr"?

In an earlier posting, it was suggested that the area of dispute between the active advocates of an Islamic state (referred to here as the Islamists) and between the mainstream Muslims (who I've called the secular majority) is in fact not as large as it might first appear. Dogma, rhetoric, exaggeration, mistrust and conflicts of interest all serve to polarise opinions and entrench positions. The disagreement is seen to boil down to 3 fundamental areas:

• Should Islam be used as the reference for all actions, or are some areas not covered by the jurisdiction of the Shariah? Critically, the role of Islam in organising affairs of ruling and politics is disputed.


• Does man have the right to legislate, or is legislation for Allah alone?


• Can legislation be taken from "other than Islam", and is that "ruling by Kufr"?

Here, I'd like to pursue the third point, about ruling by Kufr, as this is used by some groups as a trigger to justify armed rebellion against the state, and by others as the fulcrum upon which they rest the (Islamic) validity of a ruler or state, thus taking action to bring about unrest, disobedience and a change of ruler. Whatever their differences, the Islamists are united in their conviction that this particular point is critical, and justifies the spilling of Muslim blood.

"Ruling by other than what Allah revealed" and "ruling by Kufr" are pretty much synonmous, but are by no means self-explanatory. It's almost impossible to obtain a clear statement explicating what exactly ruling by Kufr involves. Indeed, neither is it clear why "judging" is confused with "ruling", nor is it understood how Kufr can be attributed to a rule.

Given the critical nature of this matter, it's worth looking at it more closely. Note that this is a rational (as opposed to a textual) discussion. Here are some plausible interpretations of actions (carried out by a ruler) which may or may not fall under this "Kufr" category:

• Inflicting unwarranted harm or suffering upon the subjects.


• Passing legislation to inflict the same.


• Failing to punish subjects for committing sins for which there is no Hadd (Sharia punishment).


• Ordering subjects to carry out such sins, but without compulsion.


• Punishing people for not carrying out such sins.


• Passing legislation for the same.


• Failing to implement a Hadd.


• Delivering a punishment other than the Hadd for the same offence.


• Passing legislation for the same.


• Passing judgement in a matter not explicitly contained within the Sharia, without reference to the Sharia texts.


• Passing judgement in a matter with an explicit Sharia ruling, without reference to the Sharia texts.


• ...(there must be others)

To give an idea about the degree of ambiguity involved, less than a third of the cases listed involve judgement, less than a third involve legislation, and less than a third involves a direct contradiction of a known Sharia ruling. None of the actions, in themselves, would cause the ruler to leave Islam, as actions alone are insufficient for this.

As for what the ruler's beliefs regarding the legitimacy of those laws which contradict explicit Sharia rules, these can only be known if explicated directly by the ruler. If the ruler were to declare unequivocally that his laws were superior to the Sharia laws, then he ruler himself - and not his laws - would be labelled a disbeliever (Kaafir), and the legitimacy of his authority would be nullified by this. As for the laws themselves, they might well be referred to as "Kufr laws", in recognition of the fact that the ruler is a Kaafir, but the laws themselves do not have the characteristic of Islam and Kufr, they're simply laws.

However, if the ruler does not make such a public statement, then he must continue to be considered a Muslim, and the above would no longer apply. His actions alone can only be described as halaal or haraam, and clearly (almost) all the actions in the list above are haraam, causing the ruler to be sinful (and in a functional state, accountable), but a sinful ruler is nevertheless a legitimate ruler, and is still owed obedience, provided he qualified for this at some point.

The details of each of these cases warrants a separate discussion; suffice here to make the general point that "ruling by other than what Allah revealed" and "ruling by Kufr" are ambiguous statements, bordering on the meaningless, and their use by the unqualified or the unscrupulous, can not only be misleading, but can have disastrous consequences. However, it is the Islamists themselves who suffer from the ambiguity of this statement, and I hope that by working together to clarify and qualify it, both sides can come to appreciate that the gulf dividing them is, in fact, not that wide after all.

Related Thought For The Day postings at tftd.ws:

• Illegal or Haraam?
• Which is worse?
• "Lash their backs!"