(1) Cited by al-Zamakhshari, al-Faiq, 1:251; and Ibn al-Athir, al-Nihayah, 1:327. (2) Reported by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, 2:313, who declared it sound according to the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim. (3) In manuscript B: “kufr” (disbelief). (4) In manuscript B: “bi-bad” (some of). (5) Shaykh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir and his brother Mahmud Shakir commented on these reports in Umdat al-Tafsir and in Tafsir al-Tabari, in their commentary on this verse. We reproduce it here in full. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir wrote in Umdat al-Tafsir, 4:156-158: “These reports, from Ibn Abbas and others, are among those manipulated in our time by misguided people who claim learning, as well as by others who are bold against religion. They use them as an excuse for, or a justification of, the man-made pagan laws imposed upon Muslim lands. There is also a report concerning Abu Mijlaz and his debate with the Ibadis regarding the injustice committed by certain rulers, who, in some of their judgments, ruled contrary to the Sharia, either deliberately in pursuit of whim or out of ignorance of the ruling. The Kharijites hold that the perpetrator of a major sin is a disbeliever; thus, they debated Abu Mijlaz, seeking his agreement with their view that these rulers were disbelievers, so that this might serve as a pretext for their view that they should rise against them by the sword. These two reports were transmitted by al-Tabari, nos. 12025 and 12026. My brother, Sayyid Mahmud Muhammad Shakir, wrote a most valuable, forceful, and explicit commentary on them. I therefore considered it appropriate to record here the text of the first of al-Tabari’s two reports, followed by my brother’s commentary on both reports. Al-Tabari narrated, no. 12025, from Imran ibn Hudayr, who said: ‘Some men from Banu Amr ibn Sadus came to Abu Mijlaz and said: “O Abu Mijlaz, is the saying of Allah, “Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers,” true?” He replied, “Yes.” They asked, “And, ‘Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the wrongdoers,’ is it true?” He replied, “Yes.” They asked, “And, ‘Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the defiantly disobedient,’ is it true?” He replied, “Yes.” They then said, “O Abu Mijlaz, do these people judge by what Allah has revealed?” He said: “It is the religion by which they profess devotion, which they uphold, and to which they call. If they abandon any part of it, they recognize that they have committed a sin.” They said, “No, by Allah; rather, you are making distinctions!” He replied, “You are more deserving of this charge than I am! I do not hold this view, yet you do, and you feel no constraint in doing so! Rather, these verses were revealed concerning the Jews, the Christians, and the polytheists,” or words to that effect.’ Al-Tabari then narrated no. 12026 with a similar meaning. Both chains of transmission are sound. My brother, Sayyid Mahmud, wrote the following concerning these two reports: ‘O Allah, I declare myself innocent before You of misguidance. To proceed: the people of doubt and tribulation who have set themselves up to speak in our time have sought excuses for those in authority who abandon judging by what Allah has revealed, who pass judgment concerning blood, honor, and wealth according to other than the law of Allah that He revealed in His Book, and who adopt the laws of the disbelievers as the governing law in Muslim lands. When they came across these two reports, they took them as support for the supposed correctness of judging concerning wealth, honor, and blood by other than what Allah has revealed, and for the claim that contravening the Sharia of Allah in public adjudication does not render the one who approves of it or acts upon it a disbeliever. Anyone who considers these two reports must necessarily know the identity of the questioners and the one questioned. Abu Mijlaz, Lahik ibn Humayd al-Shaybani al-Sadusi, was a reliable Tabi'i and loved Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. Abu Mijlaz’s people were Banu Shayban, who were among Ali’s supporters at the Battles of the Camel and Siffin. When the arbitration took place at Siffin and the Kharijites seceded, a group from Banu Shayban and from Banu Sadus ibn Shayban ibn Duhl was among those who rose against Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. Those who questioned Abu Mijlaz were men from Banu Amr ibn Sadus, as stated in report no. 12025, and a group of Ibadis, as stated in report no. 12026. The Ibadis are a group among the Harurite Kharijites, the followers of Abdullah ibn Ibad al-Tamimi. They hold the same doctrine as the other Kharijites concerning arbitration and their declaring Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, a disbeliever because he accepted the arbitration, claiming that he did not judge by what Allah revealed in the matter of arbitration. Abdullah ibn Ibad then maintained that whoever opposed the Kharijites was a disbeliever but not a polytheist, thereby differing from his companions; whereas the Kharijites held that the rulings applicable to polytheists applied to their opponents. After the death of their imam Abdullah ibn Ibad, the Ibadis split into factions to such an extent that, regarding these two reports, we cannot determine to which faction these questioners belonged. Nevertheless, all Ibadis hold that the lands of those who oppose them are lands of tawhid (monotheism), except for the ruler’s camp, which they regard as a land of kufr (disbelief). They also maintain that everything Allah has made obligatory upon His creation is faith, that every major sin constitutes kufr al-nimah (disbelief in divine favor), not kufr al-shirk (polytheistic disbelief), and that those who commit major sins will abide eternally in the Fire. It is evident that the Ibadi questioners wanted to compel Abu Mijlaz to declare the rulers disbelievers, because they belonged to the ruler’s camp and because they might have disobeyed Allah or committed some act which He prohibited. For this reason, he said to them in the first report, no. 12025: “If they abandon any part of it, they recognize that they have committed a sin”; and he said to them in the second report: “They do what they know to be sinful.” Thus, their question was not about what the innovators of our age cite as proof: judging concerning wealth, honor, and blood by a law contrary to the Sharia of the Muslims, or promulgating a law binding Muslims to seek judgment according to other than the judgment of Allah in His Book and upon the tongue of His Prophet. Such an act is turning away from the judgment of Allah, forsaking His religion, and preferring the rulings of the disbelievers to the judgment of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He. This is disbelief, and no one among the people of the qiblah, despite their differences, doubts that the one who advocates it and calls to it is a disbeliever. What we face today is the abandonment of Allah’s rulings altogether, without exception; the preference of rulings other than those contained in His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet; and the suspension of everything in the Sharia of Allah. Indeed, matters have reached the point where people argue that man-made laws are superior to the revealed rulings of Allah, claiming that the rulings of the Sharia were revealed for a time other than ours and for causes and circumstances that have passed away, and that all the rulings therefore lapsed with the passing of those circumstances. What does this have to do with what we have explained regarding the report of Abu Mijlaz and the group of Ibadis from Banu Amr ibn Sadus? Even if the matter in Abu Mijlaz’s report were as they suppose, namely that the questioners meant a ruler’s contravention of one of the rulings of the Sharia, no ruler in Islamic history ever enacted a ruling and made it a binding law by which judgment had to be given. This is one point. Another is that a ruler who judges in a particular case by other than Allah’s ruling may have done so out of ignorance, in which case his case is that of one ignorant of the Sharia; or he may have done so out of whim and disobedience, in which case it is a sin that may be removed through repentance and followed by forgiveness; or he may have done so on the basis of an interpretation in which he differed from all other scholars, in which case his status is that of every interpreter whose interpretation rests upon affirming the text of the Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. But for there to have been, in the time of Abu Mijlaz, before him, or after him, a ruler who judged in a matter while rejecting one of the rulings of the Sharia, or preferring the rulings of the disbelievers to those of the Muslims, this never occurred. Therefore, the words of Abu Mijlaz and the Ibadis cannot be applied to such a case. Whoever cites these two reports, or others, outside their proper context and assigns them a meaning other than their own, out of a desire to support a ruler or as a device to justify judging by other than what Allah has revealed and imposed upon His servants, then his ruling in the Sharia is the ruling of one who rejects one of Allah’s rulings: he is to be called to repent; and if he persists stubbornly, denies Allah’s ruling, and accepts the substitution of the rulings = Written by Mahmud Muhammad Shakir.”