Ibn `Abbas, the Sea of Knowledge, and the one whose understanding of the Qur’an was enlightened by the du’aa of the Prophet ï·º said, “Whoever rejects what Allah has revealed, will have committed Kufr, and whoever accepts what Allah has revealed, but did not rule by it, is a Dhalim (unjust) and a Fasiq (rebellious) and a sinner.” This is as true for a ruler as it is for a normal citizen, for both of them may commit acts which contradict what Allah has revealed; the citizen when he sins and the ruler when he does not punish the sin, for example. Both are actions which contradict what Allah has revealed, both have made a conscious decision to perform the actions; but this does not nullify their Islam as long as they recognize that the sin is a sin.
It is noteworthy that the ayah is not directed exclusively towards heads of state, but to “whoever”. It applies to everyone. If a man drinks alcohol, he is ruling by other than what Allah revealed, insofar as he is the ruler of his own actions. If he regards what he is doing as permissible, he is denying what Allah revealed, and has left the religion. If he knows and believes in what Allah has revealed, but he disobeys anyway, he is a sinner, not a kaifir. It is really a very straightforward issue.
A number of brothers have raised the issue of loyalty and disavowal, and claim that the loyalty of their governments to the interests of the Kuffar, including participating with them in, or facilitating for them the killing of Muslims, constitutes blatant kufr.
First of all, as I have mentioned, any Muslim has been given an excuse in this matter if they are in a state of fear; if they anticipate or are already subject to coercion and force from the Kuffar, which causes them to act cooperatively with them to protect themselves from harm. We may not agree with them about their excuse; we may feel that they are not in danger, but that is our opinion and it does not invalidate their excuse.
Secondly, it is plausible that any ruler who has chosen this policy has done so because he genuinely believes that it is in the best interests of his nation; he may believe that he is cooperating in a war against terrorists and extremists, not in a campaign to massacre innocent Muslims. Again, we will reject this, but it is nevertheless highly likely that this is what he believes, and Shaytaan makes evil appear fair-seeming to all of us.
Thirdly, the issue of al-Walaa wal-Baraa is not absolute, it is by degrees. We make walaa to the good we perceive in anyone, and we make baraa’ from the evil we perceive from them. We show loyalty to the good and make disavowal from the bad in accordance with the extent of each; and each are present in everyone. We do not, for instance, make absolute disavowal of a person because of his sins; rather we disavow the sins, and disassociate ourselves from that person to the degree to which their sinfulness prevails over their character. In relation to the ruler who sins, we have the clear text of the Prophet ï·º telling us that we should disavow whatever we see from them that contradicts the religion, and we will thereby be free from his sin. Again, these are actually very straightforward issues.