Shaykh Abdul-Aziz ar-Rajihee, in his commentary upon "Nawaaqid ul-Islaam" of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, states in relation to the fourth nullifier:

Whoever believes that other than the guidance of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is more perfect than his guidance or that the judgment of [those] besides him is better than his judgment, such as the one who considers the judgment of the tawaagheet to be preferential (i.e. better and preferred) over his (the Prophet's) judgement, then he is a kaafir.

After explaining that whoever considers a guidance such as that of the Sufiyyah, or the Philosophers or the Sabeans, to be better than the guidance of the Prophet (alayhis salaam) that such a one invalidates his Islaam, he comments upon the issue of judgement (al-hukm) with the following:

And likewise, if he believes that there is a judgment better than the judgment of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa alaa aalihi wasallam), such as [a person] believing that judging by the Secular Laws is better than judging by the Sharee'ah, then such a one is an apostate by consensus of the Muslims. And likewise when he believes that judging by the Secular Laws is equivalent to judgment of the Sharee'ah, he also disbelieves.

And likewise, if he believes that judging by the Sharee'ah is better than judging by the Secular Laws but that it is permissible to judge by the Secular Laws, such as when he says, "A person has the choice, it is permissible for him to judge by the Secular Laws, and it is permissible for him to judge by the Sharee'ah, but the Sharee'ah is better", then such a one disbelieves by consensus of the Muslims, for a person does not have the choice, because this one has rejected what is known in the religion by necessity. Judging by the Sharee'ah, this is a matter obligatory upon everybody, yet this one says, "It is not waajib, but that it is permissible for a person to judge by secular laws", this one disbelieves, even if he said, "The laws of the Sharee'ah are better".

Built upon this:

• When he judges by the Secular Laws and believes they are better than the judgment of the Sharee'ah, he disbelieves

• When he judges by the Secular Laws and believes they are equivalent to the judgement of the Sharee'ah, he disbeleives

• When he believes that the judgment of the Sharee'ah is better than judgment by the Secular Laws but [believes] that it is permissible to judge by the Secular Laws, he disbelieves also.

So in all of these three conditions he disbelieves.

And there is a fourth situation, when he judges by the Secular Laws, or by a Secular Law in an issue amongst the issues or in an affair amongst the affairs, whilst he believes that judgment by the Sharee'ah is obligatory, and that it is not permissible for him to judge by the Secular Laws, and that it is not permissible for him to judge by other than what Allaah has revealed, and he believes he is a transgressor, and that is deserving of punishment, but his soul overcomes him and his desire and his devil (overcomes him) and thus he judges by other than what Allaah has revealed, he judges by other than what Allaah revealed in favour of a person such that he benefits the one in whose favour he made the judgment or harms the one against whom the judgment was made, and thus benefits the one in whose favour the judgment was made, because he is a friend of his, or a relative of his, or a neighbour of his, or he harms the one against whom the judgment was made because he is an enemy to him, whilst he knows that judging by what Allaah has ruled is obligatory, and that he is committing disobedience, then this one disbelieves with a minor disbelief which does not expel from the religion.

Therefore, ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed has four conditions, three of them in which he disbelieves with the major disbelief and the fourth in which he disbelieves with the minor disbelief.

Issue: Abolishing the Entire Sharee'ah and Judging by the Secular Laws

When [a person] legislates Secular Laws, all of them, and abolishes the Sharee'ah all of it, [completely] from head to toe, this is changing the religion, and a group from the people of knowledge have gone to [the view] that he disbelieves, because he has changed the deen of Allaah, and this is the verdict that the esteemed Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem (rahimahullaah), the previous Muftee of the Land of Saudiyyah, gave, [he said]: This is changing the religion, from head to toe, not in an issue amongst the issues but he changed all of the laws, and thus he abolished the Sharee'ah all of it, and changed it with the Secular Laws in every small and big matter.

And our esteemed Shaykh, Abdul-Aziz bin Baz (may Allaah grant him success) has gone [to the view] also that even if he changed the religion, it is necessary that he [also] believe that it is permissible to judge by the Secular Laws such that the proof is established upon him. Thus, this is the fifth situation, which is when he changes (the entire) religion.

The absence of Takfir of the one who legislated laws and imposed them upon the people as a dustoor (constitution) to be followed was the last view of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (rahimahullaah) in 1421H, (to be documented with audio) and on this topic, the sayings of Imaam Ibn Baz, Imaam Ibn Uthaymin and Imaam al-Albani are in agreement.

As for the saying of the group of Scholars (such as Ibn Katheer and Ibn Ibraaheem and al-Fawzan), then they are speaking about the entire Sharee'ah, from head to toe, in every matter, small and large.

The Qutbiyyah (Leninist Takfiris) emerged in the 1960s and they made Takfir of all nations and societies due to the absence of complete rule by the Sharee'ah. If it was not 100%, that government, nation, society is apostate. When they were refuted with the tafseel of the Salaf, they then found refuge in these particular verdicts of some of the Scholars, and then they began to argue for their Takfir again. With this polemic they spread much confusion through the 90s. The reality is that there is no ruler today who has abolished the Sharee'ah from head to toe. Most of the Secular Laws present in the Muslim lands have been there for hundreds of years and came from the era of colonialism and imperialism, and rulers come and go in situations in which Secular Laws are already part of the structure of that state.

This means that the actual rulings that would apply to the situation predominant today - if we put aside the issue of other nawaaqid (nullifiers) that may apply to one side - is based upon whether the rulers in those lands in which Secular Laws are found in greater or lesser amounts rule by them a) believing in their superiority over the Sharee'ah b) believing in their equivalence to the Sharee'ah or c) believing in their permissibility. Unfortunately, this does not allow the Qutbiyyah Takfiriyyah to justify their Takfir. From this you can now understand the great necessity for the Qutbiyyah to cause confusion through this particular matter. It's all to do with eliciting Takfir to justify the Leninist methodologies of Qutb and the pluralist, mass-populist methodologies of Banna.

What further exposes their fraud is that despite their use of these verdicts of the Scholars who hold this particular view, none of these Scholars were or are with these Leninist Takfiris in their Takfir of countries such as those in the Gulf, and in their revolutionary methodologies which come from the fikr of Qutb and Banna taken from the prevalent 19th and 20th century ideologies and philosophies (revolutions and mass-populist, pluralist movements) to establish "Social Justice".

And there is a sixth situation which is that the Sharee'ah judge, when he strives, and expends effort to come to know the Sharee'ah ruling [in a matter] but he erred and judged by other than what Allaah revealed, [this is] an error, and this one is not a disbeliever, and nor disobedient, rather he is a mujtahid and he has one reward, due to the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), "When a rule strives (in a judgment) and is correct, he has two rewards, and when he strives (in a judgment) and errs, he has one reward." Thus, the error of this one is forgiven and he has one reward for his ijtihaad, and when he strives and expends effort and arrives at the truth then he has two rewards, the reward of making ijtihaad and the reward of being correct.

Please refer also to: