A lesser disbelief?
A common retort made by small sections of the Muslim community when confronted with the Ayāt al-Ḥukm, the verses of ruling, which are set out in the Qur’ān [5: 41/50] is to mention a report, mistakenly attributed to the Companion and interpreter of the Qur’ān, Abdullah ibn ‘Abbās. Contained within the text of this report is an interpretation that tries to explain the terms expressed in the verses for those who do not rule or judge by what Allah has revealed, namely kufr (disbelief) fisq (evil-doing) and dhulm (oppression), which are accompanied with the definite article al [ال] (the) as not being on par with, or to be equated with disbelief in Allah, His Angels, Books and His Messengers. In other words, the terms being referred to represent a lesser form of those being expressed by the verses themselves.
While an interesting scholarly point of view which is worthy of deliberation in itself, its proponents are not necessarily marshalling this for that reason. Rather, more often than not, they are doing so because they are the defenders of the appalling status quo that we find ourselves in, and they marshal this from amongst their armoury to try and shield the political leadership and elites, which brazenly do not judge nor rule by what Allah the Exalted has revealed. Appealing to the Companion Abdullah ibn ‘Abbās may Allah be pleased with him seeks to cloak this approach, which is not uncommon as we have seen as much with other narratives that are mistakenly attributed to him, such as the story of al-Lāt and the purported idols from the era of Nuḥ (Noah) peace be upon him.
Often at other times reference to this narrative is used to try and beguile others seeking to undermine any questioning of why the status quo as it is has completely removed ruling and judgment by the final revelation of Islam from the rubric of the modern state. A flimsy prop which seeks to divert attention away from those in power lest even questions arising over their governance and regime. Yet under this very subject there doesn’t even seem to be mention let alone reference to the authentic the Prophetic instruction where he directed his Companions not to dispute with those in authority ‘except if you see manifest kufr concerning which you have a clear proof from Allah.’[1] Naturally the exception to this is where the major international powers, notably the United States advocates targeted regime change. When that happens no such argument arises.
To address the matter of the narrative itself and its substantive wording, we hereby set out a short analysis of the statement ‘Kufr duna kufr’ from the original Arabic work entitled al–Ḥākimiyyah wa Siyadāt al-Shar’.[2] Literally the phrasing means ‘disbelief lesser than disbelief,’ but it is often referred to in English also as being ‘minor disbelief.’ While Volume 4 (Part IX) of Kitāb al-Tawḥeed makes reference to the phrase, the analysis there focuses more upon the wider issues surrounding the nature of sovereignty and how this concept of al–Ḥākimiyyah is rooted within Tawḥeed itself.[3] Given its length, we opted to have this short analysis available here, rather than adding it on to the book itself as an appendix.[4]
Analysing the statement ‘Kufr duna kufr’ [كفر دون كفر]
Origin of the statement
The statement itself is established by reporting channels from reliable and trustworthy scholars including the likes of Ibn Jurayj, ‘Aṭā, Kaysan, Ayub ibn Abi Tameema and perhaps even Ṭāwus.[5] To begin, one can discern this from what has been reported in the following channel:
حدثنا إسحاق أنا وكيع عن سفيان عن ابن جريج عن عطاء قال: كفر دون كفر وظلم دون ظلم، وفسق دون فسق
Isḥāq narrated to us Waki’ reported to us from Sufyan from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā he said: ‘Disbelief lesser than disbelief, oppression lesser than oppression and evil-doing lesser than evil-doing.’[6]
Thereafter, we have the channels of reporting which were recorded in this respect by Imām al-Ṭabari in his Tafsir, which are set against the interpretation arising from the verses of ruling [5: 44/49].
حدثنا محمد بن بشار قال حدثنا عبد الرحمن قال حدثنا سفيان عن ابن جريج عن عطاء قوله: ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْـزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْـزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ قال: كفر دون كفر، وفسق دون فسق، وظلم دون ظلم
Muḥammad ibn Bashār narrated to us he said ‘Abd al-Raḥman narrated to us he said Sufyān narrated to us from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā (with regards to) His saying: ‘Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers,’ [5: 44] and ‘Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the oppressors,’ [5: 45] and ‘Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the evil doers,’ [5: 47], he said: ‘Disbelief lesser than disbelief, oppression lesser than oppression and evil-doing lesser than evil-doing.’
Muḥammad ibn Bashār narrated to us he said ‘Abd al-Raḥman narrated to us he said Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us from Ayub from ‘Aṭā similarly.
Al-Muthanna narrated to me he said al-Ḥajjāj narrated to us he said Ḥammād narrated to us from Ayub ibn Abi Tameemah from ‘Aṭā ibn Abi Rabbāḥ narrating similarly.
Hannād ibn al-Sari narrated to us he said Waki’ narrated to us from Sufyān from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā narrating similarly.
Ibn Waki’ narrated to us my father narrated to us from Sufyān from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā narrating similarly.[7]
Further to the above, Imām al-Ṭabari also cited the following in his Tafsir concerning the same matter:
حدثنا الحسن بن يحيى قال أخبرنا عبد الرزاق قال أخبرنا الثوري، عن رجل عن طاوس فأولئك هم الكافرون، قال كفر لا ينقل عن الملة قال وقال عطاء كفر دون كفر وظلم دون ظلم، وفسق دون فسق
al-Ḥasan ibn Yaḥya narrated to us he said ‘Abd al-Razzāq reported to us he said al-Thawri narrated to us from a man from Ṭāwus (regarding the portion of the verse): ‘They are the disbelievers,’ he said: ‘Kufr that doesn’t expel one from the Millah (the fold of Islam). And ‘Aṭā said – Disbelief lesser than disbelief, oppression lesser than oppression and evil-doing lesser than evil-doing.’[8]
In all likelihood, the one outlining what ‘Aṭā said here is Ṭāwus. There is an isnād purportedly from Ibn ‘Abbās which carries the sentence under examination here, ‘disbelief lesser than disbelief,’ however this is ḍaef (weak) and substantive proof cannot be built upon this. The first, is cited by al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak:
أخبرنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ ثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَرْبٍ ثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ حُجَيْرٍ عَنْ طَاوُسٍ قَالَ: قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِالْكُفْرِ الَّذِي يَذْهَبُونَ إِلَيْهِ، إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ كُفْرٌ يَنْقِلُ عَنْ مِلَّةٍ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ كُفْرٌ دُونَ كُفْرٍ
Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān al-Mawṣili reported to us Ali ibn Ḥarb narrated to us Sufyān ibn Uyaynah narrated to us from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr from Ṭāwus he said – ‘Ibn Abbās said: ‘It is not the kufr they are taking it to. It is not kufr which takes one outside the Millah; “And those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers,” [5: 44], it is kufr duna kufr (disbelief lesser than disbelief).’[9]
In his follow-on comment al-Ḥākim said: ‘This ḥadith has a Ṣaḥīḥ isnād but they did not cite it.’ Writing in al-Talkeeṣ al-Dhahabi said, ‘(It is) Ṣaḥīḥ.’ The narrative is also recorded by al-Bayhaqy in Sunan al-Kubra from al-Ḥākim’s pathway of reporting: ‘Abu Abdullah al-Ḥāfiz reported to us, Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān al-Mawṣili reports, etc’ and carrying the same wording.[10] Further to this, Ibn Kathir recorded the following in his Tafsir:
وقال ابن أبي حاتم حدثنا محمد بن عبد الله بن يزيد المقري حدثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن هشام بن حجير عن طاوس عن ابن عباس في قوله ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون قال: ليس بالكفر الذي يذهبون إليه
Ibn Abi Ḥātim said – Muḥammad ibn Abdullah ibn Yazeed al-Muqra narrated to us Sufyān ibn Uyaynah narrated to us from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr from Ṭāwus from ‘Ibn Abbās in relation to where He says: ‘And those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers,’ [5: 44] he said: ‘It is not the kind of kufr that they claim it is.’[11]
But he won’t tell you the statement is not authentically connected to Ibn ‘Abbas, nor mention other authentic statements from the Companions which run counter to this
Analysis of the reporting channel and narrators
In light of the above, I would argue that the judgment made by al-Ḥākim, being followed in that by al-Dhahabi, that the ḥadith is Ṣaḥīḥ is not sustainable nor can it be relied upon. The reason for this, is that the narrator within the isnād, Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, has been judged to be ḍaef by many senior scholars within the discipline of ḥadith sciences and none of the trustworthy narrators have carried his narration at all. Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal has issued two-statements concerning Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, stating: ‘Laysa bil’qawi (he is not strong),’ and ‘Makki, ḍaef al-ḥadith (Meccan, weak in ḥadith).’[12] Moreover, Yaḥya ibn Sa’eed al-Qaḥṭān judged him to be very weak, discarding his ḥadith.’[13] His ḥadith were rejected and deemed as being ḍaef by the renowned Imām, Ali ibn al-Madini, who is one of the foremost scholars of concerning the judgement of men, known for his moderation and fairmindedness. He is mentioned by al-‘Uqayli in his work on ḍaef narrators.[14] As for Ibn ‘Adi, he remained silent with respect to a judgement upon him given his lenience and moderation. Moreover, Yaḥya ibn Ma’een said that he is ḍaef jiddan (very weak) with respect to his ḥadith, yet Ṣaliḥ (righteous) with respect to his Deen and devotional worship. For that reason, Ibn Shubrumah said: ‘There is not the like of him in Mecca,’ meaning in respect to his ‘Ibādah (worship) and zuhd (asceticism).[15]
But it is narrated by al-Ajiri from Abu Dāwud that he had been subject to the Ḥadd (prescribed punishment) in Mecca. Following this al-Ajiri said: ‘For what? He replied: For what the people of Mecca are beaten for!’[16] This appears quite reprehensible and indeed far-fetched as a claim. It does seem more likely that Abu Dāwud had taken this from a narrator that isn’t necessarily trustworthy, or that it may have happened in his youth, after which he repented and significantly improved himself. If the latter was the case, then why even mention it at all? After an individual has repented for a matter it is not reasonable to further hold him to account over it. Abu Ḥātim said: ‘Write his ḥadith,’ namely, narrations stemming from him are recorded for consideration and examination. As an expression, this is from the forms of Tamreeḍ [تمريض] Abu Ḥātim utilises from the standpoint of reservation, meaning that his ḥadith are not accepted independently, but rather only utilised in corroborating reports. Sufyān ibn Uyaynah said concerning him: ‘We only took from him what we could not find from anyone else.’[17]
Drawing out the correct conclusions
Given the analysis above, we can therefore draw out the following conclusions: firstly, that this athar (narrative report) stemming from the narrator Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, he is alone in narrating. Secondly, the statement from Sufyān ibn Uyaynah is telling, suggesting avoidance except from necessity. Therefore this represents a classification of weakness to the narrator Hishām ibn Ḥujayr from Imām Sufyān ibn Uyaynah, may Allah have mercy upon them both. Both al-Bukhāri and Muslim didn’t narrate from him, apart from a few corroborative channels, despite which these aḥādith were from the array of what other scholars criticised regarding the two-Ṣaḥīḥ collections.
Yet for the sake of fairness and balance, it should be said at this juncture that Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Ḥibbān and al-‘Ijli judged him to the thiqah (trustworthy), however these scholars are known for their leniency in this judgement and classification. Renowned for his strictness al-Sāji said ‘(He is) ṣaduq (truthful).’[18] Such a commendation is of some weight, although it must be said that al-Sāji is not considered to be among the first-rank authorities within this discipline. Ibn Ḥajar sought to provide a summary of this narrators status with his usual fairness, judging him to be ‘Ṣaduq lahu awhām (truthful, but he has delusionary errors/mistakes).’[19] Perhaps the judgement could be refined to outline that he is actually slightly lower than that, a better phrasing would be along the lines of ‘Ṣaduq, kathir ul-Wahm wal’ Khaṭā (truthful, with a great many delusions and mistakes).’ May Allah have mercy upon the narrator Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, and pardon us and him by His magnanimity, and Allah is wisest in judgement.
In the round, the strongest viewpoint concerning this matter at hand is that the two statements ‘Kufr duna kufr’ [كفر دون كفر] (disbelief lesser than disbelief) and ‘Kufr that doesn’t expel one from the Millah,’ are from the wording and speech of Ṭāwus. The narrator Hishām ibn Ḥujayr had mistakenly attributed this to Ibn ‘Abbās. Here this is like what was established by way of the Ṣaḥīḥ isnād that was recorded by al-Tabari in his Tafsir which we previously mentioned:
حدثنا هناد قال حدثنا وكيع وحدثنا ابن وكيع قال حدثنا أبي عن سفيان عن سعيد المكي عن طاوس ومن لم يحكم بما أنـزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون قال: ليس بكفرٍ ينقل عن الملّة
Hannād narrated to us he said Waki’ narrated to us and Ibn Waki’ narrated to us he said my father narrated to me from Sufyān from Sa’eed al-Makki from Ṭāwus (regarding the verse): ‘Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers,’ [5: 44]; he said: ‘It is not kufr which takes one outside the Millah.’[20]
Endnotes
[1] As per the famous tradition cited in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri [Vol. 9, no. 7055] which reads: Ismā’il narrated to us Ibn Wahb narrated to me from ‘Amr from Bukeer from Busr ibn Sa’eed from Junāda ibn Abi Umayya, he said: ‘We entered upon Ubādah ibn al-Ṣāmit and he was ill. We said, “May Allah grant you health; will you tell us a ḥadith you heard from the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him and by which Allah may make you benefit?” He said, “The Prophet peace and blessings be upon him called us and we gave him the Pledge of Allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (those in authority) in times of ease and hardship, in matters that we liked and disliked, even if others were given preference over us. And that we wouldn’t dispute with the authority of people unless we see clear manifest kufr, for which we would have a clear proof with us from Allah.”
[2] Professor al-Mass’ari al–Ḥākimiyyah wa Siyadāt al-Shar’ (2002), [pp. 177/180].
[3] Readers can refer to the many chapters in Volume 4 (Part IX) of Kitāb al-Tawḥeed which detail the textual evidences surrounding the scope of political rule and the Prophetic instructions which accompany it. Chapter 9 [pp. 67/79] extends the arguments further as a response to those who seek to marshal the statement of ‘kufr duna kufr’ in response to political ruling by other than the revelation of Islam.
[4] Several structural additions have also been made to the translation of this section. These include adding sub-headers, footnotes and providing the additional source referencing for the analysis of the narratives and narrators which appear in the reporting channels, many of which are absent from the original Arabic edition.
[5] Ṭāwus ibn Kaysān, d. 106AH [approx. 724CE]. ‘Ṭāwus’ meaning peacock in Arabic.
[6] Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazi (2013) Ta’zeem Qudr al-Ṣalāt [p. 522, no. 575].
[7] Tafsir al-Ṭabari [Vol. 4, pp. 592/593 (print edition)]
[8] Ibid. In the narration quoted immediately before this, Imām al-Ṭabari records the following: al-Ḥasan ibn Yaḥya narrated to us he said ‘Abd al-Razzāq reported to us he said Ma’mar reported to us from Ibn Ṭāwus from his father, he said: ‘Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about where He says: ‘Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers,’ [5: 44]. He said: ‘It constitutes kufr (disbelief).’ Ibn Ṭāwus said: ‘It is not akin to disbelief in Allah, His angels, His Books and His Messengers.’ The narration clearly marking out the difference between the reported wording from Ibn ‘Abbās and the prosaic response thereafter from Ibn Ṭāwus. In his Kitāb al-‘Imān, Ibn Taymiyyah cites seven-narrations concerning the statement of Kufr duna kufr. Among them is the narration via the narrator Hishām ibn Hujaryr, but also the channel cited by al-Ṭabari which has an anonymous unnamed narrator. English translations of the this work omit to mention that in the translation of the isnād, as well as any mention regarding the judgment on Hishām ibn Hujaryr as a narrator. See: Ibn Taymiyyah (2009) Kitāb al-‘Imān: The Book of Faith, translated by Salman Hassan al-Ani and Shadia Ahmed Tel (Islamic Book Trust: Kuala Lumpur), pp. 323/325. Moreover, there isn’t mention or analysis of the authentic channels from other senior Companions, like that narrated upon the authority of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him and recorded in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la [Vol. 4, no. 5244, pp. 437/438]: Muḥammad narrated to me Uthmān ibn ‘Amr narrated to us Fiṭr ibn Khalifa narrated to us from Mansur from Sālim ibn Abi al-Ja’d from Masruq he said: ‘I was sitting with Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ud) when a man asked him, ‘What is al-Suḥt?’ He replied, ‘Bribery!’ The man then asked, ‘(And) in matters of al-Ḥukm?’ Abdullah said: ‘That is kufr!’ Then he recited (the verse): ‘Those who do not judge according to what Allah they are the disbelievers,’ [5: 44].
[9] al-Ḥākim Mustadrak [Vol. 2, no. 3219]
[10] al-Bayhaqy Sunan al-Kubra [Vol. 8, no. 15853]
[11] Tafsir Ibn Kathir [Vol. 5, pp. 231/232 (print edition)]
[12] al-‘Ilal wa Marifatul’Rijāl [Vol. 1, p. 345, no. 752]. See also: al-Jawzi al-Ḍu’āfa wal’Matrukīn [Vol. 3, p. 174, no. 3593]
[13] Ibn Abi Ḥātim al-Rāzi al-Jarḥ wa’Tadeel [Vol. 9, p. 37, no. 228]
[14] al-‘Uqayli al-Ḍu’āfa [p. 1458/1459, no. 1947]
[15] See: Ibn Sa’d Ṭabaqāt al-Kubra [Vol. 6, p. 32]
[16] See: al-Mizzi Tahzeeb [Vol. 9, p. 415, no. 7205]
[17] See: Ibn Ḥajar Tahzeeb [Vol. 4, p. 258 (Shamela edition)]
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibn Ḥajar Taqreeb [p. 679, no. 7288]
[20] Tafsir al-Ṭabari [Vol. 4, p. 596 (print edition)]
