Our
aim in this work with the permit of Allâh is to bring forth the
narrations with regards to seeking judgment from Tâghût’s being in
opposition to the Shahâdah (testimony) of La ilaha illallâh (There is no
deity/god worthy of worship but Allâh) which is the Asl’ud Dîn (bases
of the religion) itself.
There are many doubts and views concerning whether seeking judgment from Tâghût is something that nullifies the Asl’ud Dîn or whether it is a matter of Furû (secondary matters of the Dîn) which makes it merely a sin in which there is Ikhtilâf (disagreement) amongst the Ulamâ and contains unclear points concerning it.
In this work we will refute all those views that claim seeking judgment from the Tâghût should not be considered - even if it is said partially - within Tawhîd. We are going to start by summarizing the opposite views.
However before that, it needs to be underlined that the owner of these Bâtil (false) views and deviant creeds concerning the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût are some ignorant contemporary so-called scholars whose views cannot be taken in consideration. None of the views they bring forth can be quoted from any respected scholar.
The reason why we are going to mention these views in detail is not because we take them in consideration seriously, but to cause the Bâtil to be fully seen. It is because many people can only comprehend the issue after it is explained and clarified in detail and they will not be able to realize it being against the general principles which are also possessed by these Bâtil Usûl (methodology) owners.
For the sake of hoping to be a Wasîlah (means) to Hidâyah (guidance) for those who need explanation in detail, we are going to mention all of these Bâtil views and with the help of Allâh we will establish that they are against the principle “seeking judgment from the Tâghût nullifies Asl’ud Dîn”:
- According to some, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not Kufr but Harâm ! Moreover, they assert that those who claim it to be Kufr are distanced from Ahl’us Sunnah and are closer to the Khawârij !
- According to others, some scholars have the view that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr and others have the view that it is Harâm ! In short, they claim that the ruling of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a matter of Ikhtilâf amongst the scholars. For them, the one who seeks the judgment of the Tâghût while believing it is Halâl and preferring the ruling of the Tâghût is a Kâfir with Ijmâ (consensus), however for those who seek the judgment of the Tâghût by appointing the Ahkâm (rulings) of Shirk while not affirming it by the heart there is no Ijmâ concerning them and it is a matter of Ikhtilâf !
Those who claim that seeking judgement from the Tâghût is Kufr have divided into many groups amongst themselves:
- While some claim seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr in matters that are in opposition with Islâm, they claim it is not Kufr when the administrative laws are not in opposition with Islâm. Continuing on this, they claim that a Muslim who has been taken to court in matters of administrative laws can defend himself and testify, and he does not have to reject the judgment. To give an example according to these individuals; while it is Kufr to seek judgment in matters that have clear Hukm in Islâm such as divorce, inheritance, and to apply to laws that are characterized, to make Halâl that which is Harâm and to make Harâm that which is Halâl, there is no objection to those who seek judgment from the Kuffâr regarding Ahkâm that do not oppose Islâm. Some claim that if a Muslim is being sentenced by the Tâghût due to living his beliefs and making Da’wah, he could request to be released and does not have to reject the trial/judgment. Since it is a right and obligation for a Muslim to live his Aqîdah (creed) and to call towards it, it is claimed that there would be no inconvenience to ask the Kuffâr to apply the laws they have that claim there is liberty in practicing ones religion because those laws do not oppose Islâm.
There are many doubts and views concerning whether seeking judgment from Tâghût is something that nullifies the Asl’ud Dîn or whether it is a matter of Furû (secondary matters of the Dîn) which makes it merely a sin in which there is Ikhtilâf (disagreement) amongst the Ulamâ and contains unclear points concerning it.
In this work we will refute all those views that claim seeking judgment from the Tâghût should not be considered - even if it is said partially - within Tawhîd. We are going to start by summarizing the opposite views.
However before that, it needs to be underlined that the owner of these Bâtil (false) views and deviant creeds concerning the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût are some ignorant contemporary so-called scholars whose views cannot be taken in consideration. None of the views they bring forth can be quoted from any respected scholar.
The reason why we are going to mention these views in detail is not because we take them in consideration seriously, but to cause the Bâtil to be fully seen. It is because many people can only comprehend the issue after it is explained and clarified in detail and they will not be able to realize it being against the general principles which are also possessed by these Bâtil Usûl (methodology) owners.
For the sake of hoping to be a Wasîlah (means) to Hidâyah (guidance) for those who need explanation in detail, we are going to mention all of these Bâtil views and with the help of Allâh we will establish that they are against the principle “seeking judgment from the Tâghût nullifies Asl’ud Dîn”:
- According to some, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not Kufr but Harâm ! Moreover, they assert that those who claim it to be Kufr are distanced from Ahl’us Sunnah and are closer to the Khawârij !
- According to others, some scholars have the view that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr and others have the view that it is Harâm ! In short, they claim that the ruling of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a matter of Ikhtilâf amongst the scholars. For them, the one who seeks the judgment of the Tâghût while believing it is Halâl and preferring the ruling of the Tâghût is a Kâfir with Ijmâ (consensus), however for those who seek the judgment of the Tâghût by appointing the Ahkâm (rulings) of Shirk while not affirming it by the heart there is no Ijmâ concerning them and it is a matter of Ikhtilâf !
Those who claim that seeking judgement from the Tâghût is Kufr have divided into many groups amongst themselves:
- While some claim seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr in matters that are in opposition with Islâm, they claim it is not Kufr when the administrative laws are not in opposition with Islâm. Continuing on this, they claim that a Muslim who has been taken to court in matters of administrative laws can defend himself and testify, and he does not have to reject the judgment. To give an example according to these individuals; while it is Kufr to seek judgment in matters that have clear Hukm in Islâm such as divorce, inheritance, and to apply to laws that are characterized, to make Halâl that which is Harâm and to make Harâm that which is Halâl, there is no objection to those who seek judgment from the Kuffâr regarding Ahkâm that do not oppose Islâm. Some claim that if a Muslim is being sentenced by the Tâghût due to living his beliefs and making Da’wah, he could request to be released and does not have to reject the trial/judgment. Since it is a right and obligation for a Muslim to live his Aqîdah (creed) and to call towards it, it is claimed that there would be no inconvenience to ask the Kuffâr to apply the laws they have that claim there is liberty in practicing ones religion because those laws do not oppose Islâm.
-
There are others who excuse the ignorant people, claiming that seeking
judgment from the Tâghût has unclear points with regards to matters when
the rule of the Tâghût is not opposing Islâm, and most of the people
may not be able to comprehend this; even though they state that seeking
judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr in all of it. These people claim that,
the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 which has direct relation with the ruling of
seeking judgment of the Tâghût was descended in Madînah - when there was
the Islâmic State - concerning the people who turned their faces from
the Hukm (ruling) of Rasûlullâh (saws) and sought the judgment of the
Tâghût willingly, therefore in the Lands of the Kuffâr where there is no
Islâmic court with regards to the unclear matters of Islâm it is not
Dhannî Dalâlat (speculative meaning) for those who seek judgment of the
Tâghût in order to get his right ! They also state that if two Muslims
seek judgment from the Tâghût with regards to their dispute, it is
definitely Kufr, however there are unclear points concerning seeking
judgment of the Tâghût with regards to the state of a Muslim who seeks
the judgment of the Tâghût concerning a dispute with a Kâfir.
- Some of those who claim such as we have mentioned above assert that those who seek the judgment of the Tâghût cannot be declared Takfîr (excommunication) of and others claim that such person can be declared Takfîr only after the Iqâmat’ul Hujjah (establishment of the proof i.e. proof is established to him) ! They claim that - especially for the administrative rules- even though the Tashrî (lawmaking) right is given to other than Allâh, it seems that they (i.e. the administrative rules) are not in opposition to the laws of Islâm then seeking the judgment of the Tâghût regarding this is not Kufr, or that it is from amongst the Khafî (unclear) matters and not Dhâhir (apparent) even if it is Kufr, therefore whoever seeks the judgment of the Tâghût in such manner can only be declared Takfîr of, after Iqâmat’ul Hujjah!
- Again, there are some who although accept that seeking judgment of the Tâghût is Kufr, they bring Bâtil exceptions to it and claim that the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 is not Dhannî Dalâlat (speculative meaning) for those who live in Dâr’ul Harb (the Abode of War) and seek judgment of the Tâghût in order to get their right!.. They claim while pointing out that this Âyah is related with those who sought the judgment of the Tâghût while they were in Dâr’ul Islâm (the Abode of Islâm) where there was the court of Islâm, therefore those who live in Dâr’ul Harb and seek judgment of the Tâghût in order to get their right are not Kâfir ! And also according to them, those who appeal to the Tâghût and the laws of Kufr willingly are Kâfir but those who appeal to get back their rights and also those who defend themselves when they are taken to court are not included in this Hukm, meaning they are not Kâfir !
- Amongst those who claim to be Ahl’ul Ilm (People of Knowledge) while they accept that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Shirk, they claim that in those countries of the Kuffâr where the Islâmic court is not available, since people have no other choice and alternative to get their rights back, therefore their state will be evaluated as Dharûrah (necessity). Since Dharûrah makes Harâm to be Mubâh (permissible), there is no responsibility for those who seek judgment from the Tâghût while living in Dâr’ul Harb!
- By taking the Dhâhir of the statements and Fatâwâ (verdicts) of the scholars concerning the loss of wealth and imprisonment being Ikrâh (coercion, duress), they allow seeking judgment from the Tâghût because when one does not go to court, these things may happen. This view is also similar to the previous view.
- There are also groups that claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr in all circumstances and all places and seem to be have a clear Aqîdah concerning the issue in the Dhâhir, yet they claim that things which are evaluated as seeking judgment from the Tâghût known by both reason and custom such as hiring a lawyer, appealing to “the Higher (!) Court”, participating in the judgment, and defending oneself against the court, to testify before the court etc. cannot be evaluated as seeking judgment from the Tâghût. Likewise, they also claim that the one who had been taken to the court by force does not need to reject the court. In order to eliminate the Sharî’ah, these people use Hîla’i Shar’iyyah (a juristic trick that aims at circumventing the legislative intent behind a certain rule) and play with words.
- Some of those who claim such as we have mentioned above assert that those who seek the judgment of the Tâghût cannot be declared Takfîr (excommunication) of and others claim that such person can be declared Takfîr only after the Iqâmat’ul Hujjah (establishment of the proof i.e. proof is established to him) ! They claim that - especially for the administrative rules- even though the Tashrî (lawmaking) right is given to other than Allâh, it seems that they (i.e. the administrative rules) are not in opposition to the laws of Islâm then seeking the judgment of the Tâghût regarding this is not Kufr, or that it is from amongst the Khafî (unclear) matters and not Dhâhir (apparent) even if it is Kufr, therefore whoever seeks the judgment of the Tâghût in such manner can only be declared Takfîr of, after Iqâmat’ul Hujjah!
- Again, there are some who although accept that seeking judgment of the Tâghût is Kufr, they bring Bâtil exceptions to it and claim that the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 is not Dhannî Dalâlat (speculative meaning) for those who live in Dâr’ul Harb (the Abode of War) and seek judgment of the Tâghût in order to get their right!.. They claim while pointing out that this Âyah is related with those who sought the judgment of the Tâghût while they were in Dâr’ul Islâm (the Abode of Islâm) where there was the court of Islâm, therefore those who live in Dâr’ul Harb and seek judgment of the Tâghût in order to get their right are not Kâfir ! And also according to them, those who appeal to the Tâghût and the laws of Kufr willingly are Kâfir but those who appeal to get back their rights and also those who defend themselves when they are taken to court are not included in this Hukm, meaning they are not Kâfir !
- Amongst those who claim to be Ahl’ul Ilm (People of Knowledge) while they accept that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Shirk, they claim that in those countries of the Kuffâr where the Islâmic court is not available, since people have no other choice and alternative to get their rights back, therefore their state will be evaluated as Dharûrah (necessity). Since Dharûrah makes Harâm to be Mubâh (permissible), there is no responsibility for those who seek judgment from the Tâghût while living in Dâr’ul Harb!
- By taking the Dhâhir of the statements and Fatâwâ (verdicts) of the scholars concerning the loss of wealth and imprisonment being Ikrâh (coercion, duress), they allow seeking judgment from the Tâghût because when one does not go to court, these things may happen. This view is also similar to the previous view.
- There are also groups that claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr in all circumstances and all places and seem to be have a clear Aqîdah concerning the issue in the Dhâhir, yet they claim that things which are evaluated as seeking judgment from the Tâghût known by both reason and custom such as hiring a lawyer, appealing to “the Higher (!) Court”, participating in the judgment, and defending oneself against the court, to testify before the court etc. cannot be evaluated as seeking judgment from the Tâghût. Likewise, they also claim that the one who had been taken to the court by force does not need to reject the court. In order to eliminate the Sharî’ah, these people use Hîla’i Shar’iyyah (a juristic trick that aims at circumventing the legislative intent behind a certain rule) and play with words.
-
There are also others who give the Hukm of Kufr without distinction but
claim that they take things that we have listed above as an acceptable
Ikhtilâf or at least a matter that one would be excused due to his
Ta’wîl (interpretation) therefore the principle of whoever does not
declare Takfîr of a Kâfir is himself a Kâfir aka. “Silsilah Takfîr;
at-Takfîr bi’t Tasalsul (Chain Takfîr)” shall not be applied to them!
For this reason, it cannot be said that they accept that seeking
judgment from the Tâghût is a matter of Asl’ud Dîn. Likewise whoever
excuses ignorance concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût partially
or as a whole cannot be said to have fulfilled the necessities of Asl’ud
Dîn.
These are all the Bâtil Madhhab (school of thought) and views (opinions) concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût which we have gathered from amongst the most widely spread views.
Surely, there are many more views that can be found amongst the so-called Islâmic groups and it will not be a mistake or exaggeration if it is said that -unfortunately- there are as many views as the quantity of people, as it was with other issues of Islâm. Almost each person has his own view and Madhhab concerning the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût. Moreover, it is even possible to find people among the same Jamâ’ah to have different views and Madhhab with regards to the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
As we had stated above, it is not limited with the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût but almost every matter of Aqîdah, people - even within the same Jamâ’ah - have different views and Madhhab. These dissidence and Ikhtilâf are not Rahmah (mercy), but the source of Adhâb (punishment) and Ghadhab (wrath) as Allâh stated,
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." [Al-An'am 6:159]
Ikhtilâf concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût which is such a clear matter is due to no other then following the Hawâ (desire) and turning away from the Nass (explicit text). Even though sometimes the owners of these views declare Takfîr of each other when it is taken in consideration attentively, it is seen that they are all almost the same and differences are very inconsiderable. It is easily seen that all of these people who have such deviant beliefs concerning the matter do not decide and settle their views but because they are not able to make their mind up they rather defend one view and Madhhab one day and another view and Madhhab the next day so on so forth.
In the beginning they would defend that the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a matter of Ikhtilâf amongst the Ulamâ right after their view is disproved they would start saying that seeking judgment from Tâghût is Kufr in general however there is Rukhsah (permission) for it in Dâr’ul Harb. Right after their (new) view is dis-proofed they would start saying that what they are allowing is not seeking judgment from the Tâghût but merely Talab’un Nusrâ (request of help) and Himâyah (protection) which are permissible in Islâm!
So all of these show how insincere those Jamâ’ah and people who bring such Bâtil exceptions to the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût are. It is because their aim is not looking for the Haqq (truth) but to legitimize the Kufr that they commit for the sake of Maslahat’id Dunyâ (worldly benefit). They just made all these theories up so that they can escape from the hardship of avoiding seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
There are other people who invent all these Bâtil theories -even though they do not perform it- just to not declare Takfîr of those who perform such. What those who invent all these Bâtil theories have in common is that they do not comprehend the common Da’wah of all of the Rusul (messengers) which is Tawhîd, due to not understanding it they do not take it as their Aqîdah, even though they do not understand what seeking judgment from the Tâghût is, they do not ponder upon it.
These are all the Bâtil Madhhab (school of thought) and views (opinions) concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût which we have gathered from amongst the most widely spread views.
Surely, there are many more views that can be found amongst the so-called Islâmic groups and it will not be a mistake or exaggeration if it is said that -unfortunately- there are as many views as the quantity of people, as it was with other issues of Islâm. Almost each person has his own view and Madhhab concerning the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût. Moreover, it is even possible to find people among the same Jamâ’ah to have different views and Madhhab with regards to the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
As we had stated above, it is not limited with the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût but almost every matter of Aqîdah, people - even within the same Jamâ’ah - have different views and Madhhab. These dissidence and Ikhtilâf are not Rahmah (mercy), but the source of Adhâb (punishment) and Ghadhab (wrath) as Allâh stated,
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." [Al-An'am 6:159]
Ikhtilâf concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût which is such a clear matter is due to no other then following the Hawâ (desire) and turning away from the Nass (explicit text). Even though sometimes the owners of these views declare Takfîr of each other when it is taken in consideration attentively, it is seen that they are all almost the same and differences are very inconsiderable. It is easily seen that all of these people who have such deviant beliefs concerning the matter do not decide and settle their views but because they are not able to make their mind up they rather defend one view and Madhhab one day and another view and Madhhab the next day so on so forth.
In the beginning they would defend that the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a matter of Ikhtilâf amongst the Ulamâ right after their view is disproved they would start saying that seeking judgment from Tâghût is Kufr in general however there is Rukhsah (permission) for it in Dâr’ul Harb. Right after their (new) view is dis-proofed they would start saying that what they are allowing is not seeking judgment from the Tâghût but merely Talab’un Nusrâ (request of help) and Himâyah (protection) which are permissible in Islâm!
So all of these show how insincere those Jamâ’ah and people who bring such Bâtil exceptions to the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût are. It is because their aim is not looking for the Haqq (truth) but to legitimize the Kufr that they commit for the sake of Maslahat’id Dunyâ (worldly benefit). They just made all these theories up so that they can escape from the hardship of avoiding seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
There are other people who invent all these Bâtil theories -even though they do not perform it- just to not declare Takfîr of those who perform such. What those who invent all these Bâtil theories have in common is that they do not comprehend the common Da’wah of all of the Rusul (messengers) which is Tawhîd, due to not understanding it they do not take it as their Aqîdah, even though they do not understand what seeking judgment from the Tâghût is, they do not ponder upon it.
They
do not back up with any Shar’î Dalîl (evidence) while they are doing
Takhsîs (allocating) the clear Nass of the Kitâb (Book; Qur’ân) and the
Sunnah (of the Prophet). Their bases are either Mujarrad Hawâ (merely
desire) and their own views or results that they extracted from the
sayings of Ulamâ by their own views. This issue will be clearer when we
bring the Dalâ’il (evidences) for it.
The Haqq Aqîdah concerning the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût according to what the Kitâb and the Sunnah lead and the Salaf’us Sâlihîn (Pious Predecessors) say and the Ulamâ amongst the Khalaf (later day scholars) who follow them in goodness state and all of the Muwahhidîn amongst the Ahl’ul Qiblah (People of Qiblah i.e. Ka'bah in prayer) believe is:
In the opposition to all of these that we have listed above, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Shirk and Kufr in all forms. Whoever does so whether believing it to be Halâl or accepting the rules; whether believing it to be Harâm and claiming that he has hatred towards it by heart he is Kâfir.
Likewise, whether the matter of judgment is against the Islâmic law or seems to suit Islâm it does not matter; it is Kufr.
Also, whether it appears in the Islâmic State or appears in Dâr’ul Harb wherein there is no Islâmic court to get ones rights back, the Hukm is the same; Kufr.
The ignorance of one that it is Kufr or having Ta’wîl to do so is not an excuse and those who apply to the courts of Tâghût are all Kuffâr in total.
Those who pause on the Takfîr of these people or those who claim that ignorance or Ta’wîl are excuses for not making Takfîr, are Kâfir and Mushrik as those who do not declare Takfîr of the doer of other types of Shirk. Meaning, the principle of “whoever does not declare Takfîr of a Kâfir is himself a Kâfir” is valid for all actions which are included in seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
The reason for all of these Ahkâm is; seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is a matter that is constant with Ijmâ, Dhâhir and Muhkam (firm). It is a matter of Asl’ud Dîn and one who seeks the judgment from the Tâghût destroys the Asl of Îmân (faith).
What does “Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût is from the Asl’ud Dîn” Mean?
The issue "seeking judgment from the Tâghût" or any other being from Asl’ud Dîn means that; the very issue itself is Shart (condition of) Sihhah (validity) and not Shartu Kamâl (stipulation of perfection). So, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not only Harâm, but also Shirk. Shirk as it is known, is a sin that will never be forgiven as Allâh said:
For this reason, there is no benefit for uttering the Kalimah by tongue when one commits Shirk by seeking judgment from the Tâghût. This Âyah and its likes show that the one who violates Asl’ud Dîn by committing Shirk cannot be evaluated as being excused due to his Jahl (ignorance), Ta’wîl or anything else. The only excuse for this state is Ikrâh. Allâh has stated,
“Whoever disbelieved in Allāh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allāh, and theirs will be a great torment. That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allāh guides not the people who disbelieve.” [An-Nahl 16:107-107]
As the person who commits Shirk by seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a Mushrik, those who do not declare Takfîr of him are Kâfir and Mushrik as well. It is because with it he gives the attribute of Muslim to the one who committed Shirk in Hukm and Tashrî (lawmaking).
The Haqq Aqîdah concerning the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût according to what the Kitâb and the Sunnah lead and the Salaf’us Sâlihîn (Pious Predecessors) say and the Ulamâ amongst the Khalaf (later day scholars) who follow them in goodness state and all of the Muwahhidîn amongst the Ahl’ul Qiblah (People of Qiblah i.e. Ka'bah in prayer) believe is:
In the opposition to all of these that we have listed above, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Shirk and Kufr in all forms. Whoever does so whether believing it to be Halâl or accepting the rules; whether believing it to be Harâm and claiming that he has hatred towards it by heart he is Kâfir.
Likewise, whether the matter of judgment is against the Islâmic law or seems to suit Islâm it does not matter; it is Kufr.
Also, whether it appears in the Islâmic State or appears in Dâr’ul Harb wherein there is no Islâmic court to get ones rights back, the Hukm is the same; Kufr.
The ignorance of one that it is Kufr or having Ta’wîl to do so is not an excuse and those who apply to the courts of Tâghût are all Kuffâr in total.
Those who pause on the Takfîr of these people or those who claim that ignorance or Ta’wîl are excuses for not making Takfîr, are Kâfir and Mushrik as those who do not declare Takfîr of the doer of other types of Shirk. Meaning, the principle of “whoever does not declare Takfîr of a Kâfir is himself a Kâfir” is valid for all actions which are included in seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
The reason for all of these Ahkâm is; seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is a matter that is constant with Ijmâ, Dhâhir and Muhkam (firm). It is a matter of Asl’ud Dîn and one who seeks the judgment from the Tâghût destroys the Asl of Îmân (faith).
What does “Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût is from the Asl’ud Dîn” Mean?
The issue "seeking judgment from the Tâghût" or any other being from Asl’ud Dîn means that; the very issue itself is Shart (condition of) Sihhah (validity) and not Shartu Kamâl (stipulation of perfection). So, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not only Harâm, but also Shirk. Shirk as it is known, is a sin that will never be forgiven as Allâh said:
“ Verily,
Allāh forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship,
but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and
whoever sets up partners with Allāh in worship, he has indeed invented a
tremendous sin.” [an-Nisâ 4:48]
For this reason, there is no benefit for uttering the Kalimah by tongue when one commits Shirk by seeking judgment from the Tâghût. This Âyah and its likes show that the one who violates Asl’ud Dîn by committing Shirk cannot be evaluated as being excused due to his Jahl (ignorance), Ta’wîl or anything else. The only excuse for this state is Ikrâh. Allâh has stated,
“Whoever disbelieved in Allāh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allāh, and theirs will be a great torment. That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allāh guides not the people who disbelieve.” [An-Nahl 16:107-107]
As the person who commits Shirk by seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a Mushrik, those who do not declare Takfîr of him are Kâfir and Mushrik as well. It is because with it he gives the attribute of Muslim to the one who committed Shirk in Hukm and Tashrî (lawmaking).
The
Ulamâ would never have Ikhtilâf concerning Shirk. Allâh would never
ever permit committing Shirk whether it is in Dâr’ul Islâm or Dâr’ul
Harb. Allâh stated,
“Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords (gods). Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allāh's Will? (Tafsir At-Tabarī).” [Âl’i Imrân 3:80]
“If you disbelieve, then verily, Allāh is not in need of you, He likes not disbelief for His slaves...” [az-Zumar 39:7]
It should be known that Nâsikh (abrogating) and Mansûkh (abrogated) would never appear concerning a matter of Shirk. Matters such as seeking judgment from the Tâghût was Kufr in the Sharî’ah of all of the prophets and in the Sharî’ah of Muhammad (saws); whether it was during Makkah or Madînah. Since rejecting the Tâghût; those lawmakers other than Allâh, is the common Da’wah of all the Rusul. Allâh said,
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allāh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tāghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tāghût besides Allāh)"...” [an-Nahl 16:36]
The one who has not rejected the Tâghût has no Îmân as Allâh stated:
“…Whoever disbelieves in Tāghût and believes in Allāh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break...” [al-Baqarah 2:256]
Seeking judgment from the Tâghût is conflicting with the claim of Kufr bi’t Tâghût. Allâh said:
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
What Does “Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût” Mean?
At this point, for the sake of clarifying the issue which we are discussing here so that it is understood more clearly, we would like to explain what seeking judgment from the Tâghût is. It is a compound of two words “Tâghût” and “Muhâkamah (trial)”.
Imâm Mâlik described the term Tâghût as: “Tâghût is that which is worshiped besides Allâh.” [Imâm al-Qurtubî quoted this from him in his Tafsîr of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/51]
Ibn’ul Qayyim gave the most detailed and comprehensive definition of the Tâghût where he said, “Tâghût is all that which causes the person to exceed the limits with regards to what is worshiped, followed, or obeyed.
So the Tâghût in any nation is whosoever turns to other than Allâh and His Messenger for matters of judgment; or is pleased to be worshiped besides Allâh; or is blindly followed without a clear proof from Allâh; or is obeyed in that which is not know to be a command from Allâh.
The
term Muhâkamah is mentioned in a Hadîth as a part of a prayer of
Rasûlullâh (saws) during Night Prayer which both al-Bukhârî and Muslim
have transmitted. According to the narration, when the Nabî (saws) got
up at night to offer the Night Prayer, he used to say:
“And I take You as a Hâkam (Judge to judge between us).” [al-Bukhârî, Thahajjud, Hadîth no: 1]
Aynî explained this term in the following manner in his Sharh to the Sahîh of al-Bukhârî, Umdat’ul Qârî, “I take You as a judge” meaning, “I left the Hukm (ruling) of all who reject the Haqq and I choose You (o Allâh) as a judge between us and not other than You; which the Ahl’ul Jâhiliyyah appeal to the Hukm from idol, soothsayer, fire and etc. ...” Muhâkamah, is taking the issue to the judge.” [Umdat’ul Qârî, 7/167]
The term يَتَحَاكَمُوا “yatahâkamû” which is mentioned in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 is taken from the word تَحَاكَم “tahâkum” which has the same meaning with Muhâkamah. Both of them are from Mushârakah (partnership, a cooperation, a collaboration) Bâb (chapter) meaning at least the two parties asking for Hukm, to be trialed. According to these explanations, the meaning of being judged by the Tâghût is taking an issue of Ikhtilâf to the Tâghût so that he resolves it.
The Reason Why Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr !
“Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords (gods). Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allāh's Will? (Tafsir At-Tabarī).” [Âl’i Imrân 3:80]
“If you disbelieve, then verily, Allāh is not in need of you, He likes not disbelief for His slaves...” [az-Zumar 39:7]
It should be known that Nâsikh (abrogating) and Mansûkh (abrogated) would never appear concerning a matter of Shirk. Matters such as seeking judgment from the Tâghût was Kufr in the Sharî’ah of all of the prophets and in the Sharî’ah of Muhammad (saws); whether it was during Makkah or Madînah. Since rejecting the Tâghût; those lawmakers other than Allâh, is the common Da’wah of all the Rusul. Allâh said,
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allāh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tāghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tāghût besides Allāh)"...” [an-Nahl 16:36]
The one who has not rejected the Tâghût has no Îmân as Allâh stated:
“…Whoever disbelieves in Tāghût and believes in Allāh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break...” [al-Baqarah 2:256]
Seeking judgment from the Tâghût is conflicting with the claim of Kufr bi’t Tâghût. Allâh said:
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
What Does “Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût” Mean?
At this point, for the sake of clarifying the issue which we are discussing here so that it is understood more clearly, we would like to explain what seeking judgment from the Tâghût is. It is a compound of two words “Tâghût” and “Muhâkamah (trial)”.
Imâm Mâlik described the term Tâghût as: “Tâghût is that which is worshiped besides Allâh.” [Imâm al-Qurtubî quoted this from him in his Tafsîr of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/51]
Ibn’ul Qayyim gave the most detailed and comprehensive definition of the Tâghût where he said, “Tâghût is all that which causes the person to exceed the limits with regards to what is worshiped, followed, or obeyed.
So the Tâghût in any nation is whosoever turns to other than Allâh and His Messenger for matters of judgment; or is pleased to be worshiped besides Allâh; or is blindly followed without a clear proof from Allâh; or is obeyed in that which is not know to be a command from Allâh.
So,
these are the Tawâghît of this world. When attention is paid to what is
included into the term Tâghût and the state of the people with them, it
will be clearly seen that most of them (i.e. people) turned their faces
from being slaves of Allâh and became slaves of Tâghût; turned their
faces from obedience to Allâh and His Rasûl (saws) and turned to
obedience to the Tawâghît.”
[Ibn’ul Qayyim, I’lâm’ul Muwaqqi’în, 1/40]
Accordingly, every authority and court which rules the people with the man-made laws and not with the Kitâb and the Sunnah is a Tâghût.
Accordingly, every authority and court which rules the people with the man-made laws and not with the Kitâb and the Sunnah is a Tâghût.
“And I take You as a Hâkam (Judge to judge between us).” [al-Bukhârî, Thahajjud, Hadîth no: 1]
Aynî explained this term in the following manner in his Sharh to the Sahîh of al-Bukhârî, Umdat’ul Qârî, “I take You as a judge” meaning, “I left the Hukm (ruling) of all who reject the Haqq and I choose You (o Allâh) as a judge between us and not other than You; which the Ahl’ul Jâhiliyyah appeal to the Hukm from idol, soothsayer, fire and etc. ...” Muhâkamah, is taking the issue to the judge.” [Umdat’ul Qârî, 7/167]
The term يَتَحَاكَمُوا “yatahâkamû” which is mentioned in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 is taken from the word تَحَاكَم “tahâkum” which has the same meaning with Muhâkamah. Both of them are from Mushârakah (partnership, a cooperation, a collaboration) Bâb (chapter) meaning at least the two parties asking for Hukm, to be trialed. According to these explanations, the meaning of being judged by the Tâghût is taking an issue of Ikhtilâf to the Tâghût so that he resolves it.
The Reason Why Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr !
Appointing
the Tâghût as an arbitrator during an Ikhtilâf is in opposition to
Allâh’s command to take the Kitâb and the Sunnah as an arbitrator while
there is Ikhtilâf. Allâh stated,
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65]
Commenting on the same Âyah (an-Nisâ 4/65), Ibnu Hazm stated, “Allâh has taken oath by Himself that one cannot be a believer until he seeks the judgment of the Prophet (saws) in everything that he (saws) came with, and then submits to it totally and bears no grudge against his (saws) judgment. The Îmân clarifies that seeking judgment and submitting the heart to the judgment are two separate issues, and that this is the Îmân which there is no Îmân for the one who does not put it forth.” [Ibnu Hazm, al-Fisal fi’l Milal wa’l Ahwâ’i wa’n Nihal, 3/109]
Allâh stated,
“O you who believe! Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allāh and His Messenger (SAW), if you believe in Allāh and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.” [an-Nisâ 4:59]
When explaining this Âyah, Ibnu Kathîr says that this means, anyone who does not go to Allâh and His Prophet (saws) in times of dispute is not a believer in Allâh and the Day of Judgment.
Ibn’ul Qayyim stated, “Whoever takes his disputes to other than Allâh and His Prophet (saws) has definitely sought the judgment of the Tâghût, while he has been ordered to reject it, and that the person can never reject the Tâghût until he excludes all judgment for Allâh Alone.” [Ibn’ul Qayyim, Tarîq’ul Hijratayn, 37]
These explanations of the Ulamâ point out the Illah (reason) of seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr. The person who seeks judgment from the Tâghût does not appoint neither Allâh nor His Rasûl (saws) as an arbitrator and then appoints the one (i.e. Tâghût) who is in opposition to Allâh and His Rasûl. It is Fardh (obligatory) in every time and place to take the dispute to Allâh and His Rasûl and it is a must for the slave to validate his Îmân.
No one can be exempt from this general Hukm, there is no Dalîl for it and nothing indicates it. So all of these clearly show that; appointing a Tâghût as an arbitrator is an act that nullifies Asl’ud Dîn, this will never happen to a slave that has Îmân in Allâh and cannot be compared with some issues that are unclear in the Dîn. However, we would like to quote some more statements from the Ulamâ so that the connection between this matter and Asl’ud Dîn becomes clearer.
Imâm ash-Shawkânî stated in the Tafsîr of an-Nisâ 4/60, “In the statement, “Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you?” Rasûlullâh (saws) asked to be astonished of those whom claim to have Îmân in Rasûlullâh (saws) and all of the prophets then do something that contradicts their claim yet it (i.e. the act) destroys the claim of Îmân from its bases.
So this statement of Allâh explains that they have none of the Asl of Îmân. (The act that destroys their Îmân) is their wish of seeking judgment from the Tâghût. Whereas they were commanded to reject the Tâghût in that which was revealed upon Rasûlullâh (saws) and revealed upon those who were before him.”
[ash-Shawkânî, Fath’ul Qadîr]
The purpose of this statement is that some individuals had sought judgment from the Ahl’ut Tughyân (i.e. Tâghût) and did not want to be trialed by Muhammad (saws). Al-Qâdhî stated, “It is necessary that just as it is Kufr to be judged by this Tâghût, the absence of consent to the Hukm of Muhammad (saws) is also a Kufr.
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65]
Commenting on the same Âyah (an-Nisâ 4/65), Ibnu Hazm stated, “Allâh has taken oath by Himself that one cannot be a believer until he seeks the judgment of the Prophet (saws) in everything that he (saws) came with, and then submits to it totally and bears no grudge against his (saws) judgment. The Îmân clarifies that seeking judgment and submitting the heart to the judgment are two separate issues, and that this is the Îmân which there is no Îmân for the one who does not put it forth.” [Ibnu Hazm, al-Fisal fi’l Milal wa’l Ahwâ’i wa’n Nihal, 3/109]
Allâh stated,
“O you who believe! Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allāh and His Messenger (SAW), if you believe in Allāh and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.” [an-Nisâ 4:59]
When explaining this Âyah, Ibnu Kathîr says that this means, anyone who does not go to Allâh and His Prophet (saws) in times of dispute is not a believer in Allâh and the Day of Judgment.
Ibn’ul Qayyim stated, “Whoever takes his disputes to other than Allâh and His Prophet (saws) has definitely sought the judgment of the Tâghût, while he has been ordered to reject it, and that the person can never reject the Tâghût until he excludes all judgment for Allâh Alone.” [Ibn’ul Qayyim, Tarîq’ul Hijratayn, 37]
These explanations of the Ulamâ point out the Illah (reason) of seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr. The person who seeks judgment from the Tâghût does not appoint neither Allâh nor His Rasûl (saws) as an arbitrator and then appoints the one (i.e. Tâghût) who is in opposition to Allâh and His Rasûl. It is Fardh (obligatory) in every time and place to take the dispute to Allâh and His Rasûl and it is a must for the slave to validate his Îmân.
No one can be exempt from this general Hukm, there is no Dalîl for it and nothing indicates it. So all of these clearly show that; appointing a Tâghût as an arbitrator is an act that nullifies Asl’ud Dîn, this will never happen to a slave that has Îmân in Allâh and cannot be compared with some issues that are unclear in the Dîn. However, we would like to quote some more statements from the Ulamâ so that the connection between this matter and Asl’ud Dîn becomes clearer.
Imâm ash-Shawkânî stated in the Tafsîr of an-Nisâ 4/60, “In the statement, “Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you?” Rasûlullâh (saws) asked to be astonished of those whom claim to have Îmân in Rasûlullâh (saws) and all of the prophets then do something that contradicts their claim yet it (i.e. the act) destroys the claim of Îmân from its bases.
So this statement of Allâh explains that they have none of the Asl of Îmân. (The act that destroys their Îmân) is their wish of seeking judgment from the Tâghût. Whereas they were commanded to reject the Tâghût in that which was revealed upon Rasûlullâh (saws) and revealed upon those who were before him.”
[ash-Shawkânî, Fath’ul Qadîr]
Fakhr’ud Dîn ar-Râzî stated the following as the explanation of an-Nisâ 4/60:
“Know that the Mufassirîn (Tafsîr Scholars) made Ittifâq (agreement)
that this Âyah had been revealed concerning a Munâfiq (hypocrite). And
then Abû Muslim said: “The Dhâhir of this Âyah is about a man amongst the Ahl’ul Kitâb (People of the Book) who used to be a Jew and hypocritically (as a Munâfiq) became Muslim. Since Allâh statement, “Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that
which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before
you?” Would only suit a Munâfiq who is in that state.”
The purpose of this statement is that some individuals had sought judgment from the Ahl’ut Tughyân (i.e. Tâghût) and did not want to be trialed by Muhammad (saws). Al-Qâdhî stated, “It is necessary that just as it is Kufr to be judged by this Tâghût, the absence of consent to the Hukm of Muhammad (saws) is also a Kufr.
These indicate the following:
a)
Allâh stated, “Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in
their disputes) to the Tâghût, though they were ordered to reject him!”
and accepted being trialed in the presence of the Tâghût to be Îmân in
him (i.e. the Tâghût). Whereas there is no doubt that when the rejection
of the Tâghût means Îmân in Allâh, Îmân in the Tâghût will mean the
rejection of Allâh.
b) Haqq (i.e. Allâh) had stated, “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you
(O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in
themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with
full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65] This is a Nass (clear proof) that those who are not consent to the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) will be accounted as Kâfir.
c) Allâh stated, “...And let those who oppose the Messenger's (Muhammad SAW) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements, etc.) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them.” [an-Nûr 24:63] This Âyah shows that it is a great sin to oppose the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws).
c) Allâh stated, “...And let those who oppose the Messenger's (Muhammad SAW) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements, etc.) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them.” [an-Nûr 24:63] This Âyah shows that it is a great sin to oppose the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws).
In all of these Âyah there is evidence which show the Hukm given regarding an individual who rejects any command of Allâh or His Messenger (saws) regardless of the reason whether it is because of a doubt, or out of stubbornness he will depart from Islâm and it shows how correct the Hukm that was given by the Sahâbah when they gave the ruling of Murtad to the ones who did not pay the Zakâh, that they must be killed and their children must be taken as prisoners.” [Fakhr’ud Dîn ar-Râzi, Tafsîr]
We must mention here that ar-Râzî was amongst the Ash’ariyyah and had been occupying himself with Kalâm (theology). He opposed the Ahl’us Sunnah wa’l Jamâ’ah in matters like his Ta’wîl of the Asmâ wa’s Sifât (Names and Attributes) of Allâh. However, he being a man of Kalâm does not necessitate him being mistaken in the matters of Asl’ud Dîn. Rather, the statement he quoted from Qâdhî - and it is said that he is Qâdhî Abû Ya’lâ al-Hanbalî - is one of the clearest statements from the Ulamâ concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr.
This is because even though some comprehend that it is Kufr to oppose the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws), they cannot comprehend the fact that it is Kufr to seek judgment from the Tâghût. For this reason, they cannot comprehend that those who seem to affirm Rasûlullâh in the Dhâhir become a Kâfir only because of seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Whereas as ar-Râzî stated, a person seeking judgment from the Tâghût shows his Îmân in the Tâghût. The one who does not believe in the Tâghût would never accept his Hukm. Îmân in the Tâghût could not be present with Îmân in Allâh. Therefore, the one who sought judgment from the Tâghût proved that he does not have Îmân in Allâh, meaning he proved himself being a Kâfir. Explanations of ar-Râzî are also well coordinated with the statements of the scholars of Ahl’us Sunnah.
Shaykh Sulaymân bin Abdillâh Âl’ush Shaykh in his Sharh to the book his grandfather Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammed bin Abd’il Wahhâb wrote Kitâb’ut Tawhîd said the following concerning the Bâb regarding the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60: “Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
“Tawhîd, which is the meaning of the Shahâdah of La ilaha illallâh, also includes and necessitates Îmân in Rasûlullâh (saws) - so both of these compose the Kalima-i Shahâdah- the Nabî (saws) explained both of these Shahâdât as one Rukn (pillar). As it was in this Hadîth, Rasûlullâh (saws) said: “Islâm is based on (the following) five (principles): To testify that there is no deity worth of worship except Allâh and that Muhammad (saws) is Rasûlullâh, to establish the Salâh (compulsory congregational prayers), to pay the Zakâh (i.e. obligatory charity), to perform Hajj (i.e. Pilgrimage to Makkah), and to observe fast during the month of Ramadhân.”
For this reason the Musannif (i.e. Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb) under this heading points out the matter of appointing the Rasûl (saws) as a judge which includes and necessitates Tawhîd. Since this is both the Muktazâ (requirement) and Lâzim (requisite) of the Shahâdah of La ilaha illallâh, then every Mu’min should fulfill it. It is a condition for those who know the meaning of La ilaha illallâh to submit to the Hukm of Allâh and to surrender to everything which comes from Him by the way of His Rasûl (saws).
The one who testifies that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allâh becomes a liar if he appoints anyone other than Allâh and His Rasûl (saws) when there is Ikhtilâf.”
Then he said, “The statement of Allâh, “...while they have been ordered to reject them...” means that seeking judgment from the Tâghût destroys Îmân and it is the opposite of it. This is because the Îmân of the one who does not reject the Tâghût and the one who does not reject seeking judgment from it will not be Sahîh (sound) and valid. The one who does not reject the Tâghût cannot be considered as one who has Îmân in Allâh.”
The following are understood from the statements of the Ulamâ:
1- Seeking judgment from the Tâghût contradicts the first Rukn of the Kalima-i Shahâdah which is La ilaha illallâh, since this Kalimah (statement) contains the meaning of rejecting all lawmakers other than Allâh. The one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût is committing Shirk to Allâh in his Hukm.
2- The one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût also contradicts the second Rukn of the Shahâdah which is “Muhammadun Rasûlullâh”, since this Kalimah contains the meaning that appointing the Rasûl (saws) as a judge in every Ikhtilâf and submitting to every Hukm that he passed on.
3- The one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût has not rejected the Tâghût. The one who does not reject the Tâghût meaning those who claim Ulûhiyyah (Lordship) other than Allâh is not considered to believe in Allâh.
The one who ponders upon these three matters which were mentioned by the Ulamâ would easily see that the one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût has no Îmân because the act he commits contradicts with Îmân and therefore as the claim of Îmân is not accepted from those who make fun with the Dîn of Islâm, the claim of Îmân would not be accepted as well from those who seek judgment from the Tâghût.
It is crystal clear that excuses such as Jahl, Ta’wîl, or that he does not make Istihlâl (permitting the unlawful) would not change the reality that the doer of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a Kâfir.
Likewise, every person who has intelligence would see that the Hukm of the one who nullifies Asl’ud Dîn by seeking judgment from the Tâghût whether he is in Dâr’ul Islâm or Dâr’ul Harb is the same.
After it is clarified that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is an act that contradicts with Tawhîd itself, this leaves one issue: Why is seeking judgment from the Tâghût Kufr? Essentially the three matters mentioned above give the reason for seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr. However, the following statements of the Ulamâ gather all the reasons in one and it is:
The one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût meaning other than the Sharî’ah of Allâh and His Rasûl (saws) with this turns his face from the Sharî’ah of Islâm, rejects submitting and Iltizâm (favoring) to it (i.e. the Sharî’ah) and subjects to a Dîn other than the Dîn of Allâh and a Sharî’ah other than the Sharî’ah of Muhammad (saws). It is constant with Ijmâ that this is Kufr and there is no Ikhtilâf of the Ulamâ concerning it.
It is Constant with the Ijmâ of the Ulamâ that Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr !
Now,
with the permit of Allâh, we would like to mention the statements of
the Ulamâ with regards to; the Ittifâq (agreement) between the Ulamâ
that appealing to the judges and the courts who/which rule with man-made
laws being Kufr and Shirk that takes one out of fold of Islâm and that
it is a matter which is “Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah” meaning
“necessarily known to be part of the religion”.
Ibnu Hazm al-Andalûsî said, “There is no Ikhtilâf amongst two Muslim that whoever rules by the Injîl (Gospel) in issues where there is no Nass (text) or Wahy (revelation) in the Sharî’ah of Islâm is a Kâfir and Mushrik who goes out of fold of Islâm.” [Ibnu Hazm, al-Ihkâm fî Usûl’il Ahkâm, 5/173]
Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah said, “It is not permissible to perform according to the copies of the Tawrâh (Torah) which are manipulated. Whoever performs according to the Ahkâm of the Tawrâh today which are changed and Naskh (abrogation) is applied to them, then he is Kâfir.” [Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû’ul Fatâwâ, 35/200]
Hâfidh Ibnu Kathîr in his “al-Bidâyah wa’n Nihâyah” said the following concerning the Tatars and their king Genghis Khan, “When it comes to his book al-Yâsaq, it is two volume books which was written in bold. This voluminous two volume book was carried by a camel. According to some, Genghis Khan would go to the mountain then came back and he would repeat this going up (to the mountain) and coming back many times until he would get tired and faint and fell down. In the meantime, he would dictate to the scribe near him to write what he says as laws.
If it was like that, then the Shaytân would narrate what is in it (the Yasâq) upon his tongue. (13/139, Ihyaut Turath). According to what (Imâm) al-Juwaynî narrated, one man amongst the Tatar would go to the mountain for the sake of Ibâdah (worship) during the extreme cold weather. Once when he was on the mountain, he heard a voice out of nowhere stating to him, “We made Genghis Khan and his son’s dominant to the earth.” The elder Mongols and their scholars would affirm this and took it as sound.”
After this, Imâm al-Juwaynî mentioned a section of al-Yâsaq (Tâghût law at the time of the Tatars), some of which judged that; “The adulterer should be killed regardless of him being married or not, likewise homosexuals should be killed, anyone who lies deliberately should be killed.
Performers of witchcraft should be killed.
The one who spies should be killed. If someone intervenes between two disputants and aid one against the other, he should be killed.
If one sees a fugitive and does not inform him to his owner or the state, should be killed.
The one who urinates in still water; should be killed.
If one gives a captive food, drink or clothes, without the permission of the masters, should be killed.
If one feeds a captive or throws food to him; should be killed, rather he should hand it to him.
And if one feeds someone, then he should taste the food first regardless of the fact that his guest is an Amîr (i.e. nobleman) and he should not let the slave eat.
And if one eats by himself and does not feed the people with him, he should be killed.
The person who slaughters an animal should be slaughtered as he slaughtered the animal. He should not slaughter the animal, rather he first should split the animal’s stomach and pull out its heart from its stomach with his hands…”
And all of these laws completely contradict all the Sharâ’i (legislations) Allâh has revealed to His slaves the Prophets. So whoever leaves the clear Sharî’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad bin Abdillâh, the Seal of the Prophets and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So how about a person who is judged by the Yâsâ (laws of Genghis Khan) and puts it before it?! Whoever does this has disbelieved by the Ijmâ of the Muslimîn. Since Allâh stated,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allāh for a people who have firm Faith.” [al-Mâ’idah 5:50]
Ibnu Hazm al-Andalûsî said, “There is no Ikhtilâf amongst two Muslim that whoever rules by the Injîl (Gospel) in issues where there is no Nass (text) or Wahy (revelation) in the Sharî’ah of Islâm is a Kâfir and Mushrik who goes out of fold of Islâm.” [Ibnu Hazm, al-Ihkâm fî Usûl’il Ahkâm, 5/173]
Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah said, “It is not permissible to perform according to the copies of the Tawrâh (Torah) which are manipulated. Whoever performs according to the Ahkâm of the Tawrâh today which are changed and Naskh (abrogation) is applied to them, then he is Kâfir.” [Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû’ul Fatâwâ, 35/200]
Hâfidh Ibnu Kathîr in his “al-Bidâyah wa’n Nihâyah” said the following concerning the Tatars and their king Genghis Khan, “When it comes to his book al-Yâsaq, it is two volume books which was written in bold. This voluminous two volume book was carried by a camel. According to some, Genghis Khan would go to the mountain then came back and he would repeat this going up (to the mountain) and coming back many times until he would get tired and faint and fell down. In the meantime, he would dictate to the scribe near him to write what he says as laws.
If it was like that, then the Shaytân would narrate what is in it (the Yasâq) upon his tongue. (13/139, Ihyaut Turath). According to what (Imâm) al-Juwaynî narrated, one man amongst the Tatar would go to the mountain for the sake of Ibâdah (worship) during the extreme cold weather. Once when he was on the mountain, he heard a voice out of nowhere stating to him, “We made Genghis Khan and his son’s dominant to the earth.” The elder Mongols and their scholars would affirm this and took it as sound.”
After this, Imâm al-Juwaynî mentioned a section of al-Yâsaq (Tâghût law at the time of the Tatars), some of which judged that; “The adulterer should be killed regardless of him being married or not, likewise homosexuals should be killed, anyone who lies deliberately should be killed.
Performers of witchcraft should be killed.
The one who spies should be killed. If someone intervenes between two disputants and aid one against the other, he should be killed.
If one sees a fugitive and does not inform him to his owner or the state, should be killed.
The one who urinates in still water; should be killed.
If one gives a captive food, drink or clothes, without the permission of the masters, should be killed.
If one feeds a captive or throws food to him; should be killed, rather he should hand it to him.
And if one feeds someone, then he should taste the food first regardless of the fact that his guest is an Amîr (i.e. nobleman) and he should not let the slave eat.
And if one eats by himself and does not feed the people with him, he should be killed.
The person who slaughters an animal should be slaughtered as he slaughtered the animal. He should not slaughter the animal, rather he first should split the animal’s stomach and pull out its heart from its stomach with his hands…”
And all of these laws completely contradict all the Sharâ’i (legislations) Allâh has revealed to His slaves the Prophets. So whoever leaves the clear Sharî’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad bin Abdillâh, the Seal of the Prophets and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So how about a person who is judged by the Yâsâ (laws of Genghis Khan) and puts it before it?! Whoever does this has disbelieved by the Ijmâ of the Muslimîn. Since Allâh stated,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allāh for a people who have firm Faith.” [al-Mâ’idah 5:50]
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you
(O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in
themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with
full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65]
"Allâh has said the truth.” [Ibnu Kathîr, al-Bidâyah wa’n Nihâyah, 13/139]
Allâh stated,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allāh for a people who have firm Faith.” [al-Mâ’idah 5:50]
Ibnu Kathîr said the following in the Tafsîr of the Âyah al-Mâ’idah 5/50, “Allâh makes Inkâr (i.e. vehemently objects to, criticizes) those who ignore Allâh’s Sharî’ah, which includes every type of righteous good thing and prohibits every type of evil, but they refer instead to opinions, desires, and customs that people themselves invented, all of which have no basis in Allâh’s religion.
Allâh also makes Inkâr of the ignorance and misguidance of the ruling of the time of Jâhiliyyah which was built by the hands of the people, which was not based upon the Sharî’ah of Allâh. He informs that these misguidances were invented by sheer opinion and lusts.
The Tatar (Mongols) we were speaking about abide by the law that they inherited from their king -known as Genghis Khan- who wrote al-Yâsaq, for them. This book contains some rulings that were derived from various religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islâm. However, many of these rulings were derived from his own opinion and desires. He made these rulings the followed law amongst his children, who preferred it to the Law of the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His Messenger.
Therefore, whoever does this from amongst them is a Kâfir who deserves to be fought against, until he reverts to Allâh's and His Messenger's decisions, none can be referred to other than Him be it minor or major. Allâh stated,
Who is more just in decision than Allâh for those who comprehend Allâh's Law, believe in Him, who are certain that Allâh is the best among those who give decisions, and that He is more merciful with His creation than the mother with her own child. Allâh has perfect knowledge of everything, is able to do all things, and He is just in all matters.”
[Ibnu Kathîr, Tafsîr’ul Qur’ân’il Adhîm, 3/131, Tahqîq: M. Salâmah, Dâru Tayyibah 1420 / 1999H]
Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah said while mentioning the Mongols, “As it is known by necessity from the Dîn of the Muslimîn and also with the Ittifâq of the Muslimîn; whoever permits to submit to a religion other than Islâm or a Sharî’ah other than the Sharî’ah of Muhammad Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam he is Kâfir. And the Kufr of his is as same as the Kufr of the one who accepts a part from the Kitâb and rejects a part of it.”
He continues and said in the same Fatwâ regarding the Tatars: “They, meaning the Tatars do not rule between them with the Ahkâm of Allâh, rather they rule with some made up/invented laws which belongs to them and sometimes it suits with Islâm and sometimes not.”
Then Ibnu Taymiyyah said, “It is Wâjib (obligatory) to fight with them with the Ijmâ of the Muslimîn. The one who knows the religion of Islâm and knows their interior state will not have doubts concerning this (ruling).”
[Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû’ul Fatâwâ, 28/501-553]
Allâh said,
“...And whosoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the Kāfirûn (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allāh's Laws).” [al-Mâ’idah 5:44]
Ibnu Kathîr said the following in the Tafsîr of this Âyah, “The correct opinion is that this Âyah was revealed about two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the Book of Allâh with their own hands regarding the matter of punishment for adultery for the one who is married from stoning to death to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey while their faces are painted black.” [Ibnu Kathir, Tafsir]
According to what Ibnu Hajar quoted from Ismâ’îl al-Qâdhî amongst the Mâlikî scholars, he said the following concerning this Âyah, “The Dhâhir of the Âyah indicates that whoever commits what they (i.e. the Jews) did and invents a Hukm which is in opposition to the Hukm of Allâh and makes it a Dîn (law) which is performed (accordingly) then the same threat is valid for him as well. No matter if it is the governor or someone other than him.” [Ibnu Hajar, Fath’ul Bârî, 13/120]
If the reason of the revelation of this Âyah is to be investigated and pondered upon the following would be seen clearly:
Allâh stated,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allāh for a people who have firm Faith.” [al-Mâ’idah 5:50]
Ibnu Kathîr said the following in the Tafsîr of the Âyah al-Mâ’idah 5/50, “Allâh makes Inkâr (i.e. vehemently objects to, criticizes) those who ignore Allâh’s Sharî’ah, which includes every type of righteous good thing and prohibits every type of evil, but they refer instead to opinions, desires, and customs that people themselves invented, all of which have no basis in Allâh’s religion.
Allâh also makes Inkâr of the ignorance and misguidance of the ruling of the time of Jâhiliyyah which was built by the hands of the people, which was not based upon the Sharî’ah of Allâh. He informs that these misguidances were invented by sheer opinion and lusts.
The Tatar (Mongols) we were speaking about abide by the law that they inherited from their king -known as Genghis Khan- who wrote al-Yâsaq, for them. This book contains some rulings that were derived from various religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islâm. However, many of these rulings were derived from his own opinion and desires. He made these rulings the followed law amongst his children, who preferred it to the Law of the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His Messenger.
Therefore, whoever does this from amongst them is a Kâfir who deserves to be fought against, until he reverts to Allâh's and His Messenger's decisions, none can be referred to other than Him be it minor or major. Allâh stated,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?”
“And who is better in judgement than Allāh for a people who have firm Faith.”
“And who is better in judgement than Allāh for a people who have firm Faith.”
Who is more just in decision than Allâh for those who comprehend Allâh's Law, believe in Him, who are certain that Allâh is the best among those who give decisions, and that He is more merciful with His creation than the mother with her own child. Allâh has perfect knowledge of everything, is able to do all things, and He is just in all matters.”
[Ibnu Kathîr, Tafsîr’ul Qur’ân’il Adhîm, 3/131, Tahqîq: M. Salâmah, Dâru Tayyibah 1420 / 1999H]
Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah said while mentioning the Mongols, “As it is known by necessity from the Dîn of the Muslimîn and also with the Ittifâq of the Muslimîn; whoever permits to submit to a religion other than Islâm or a Sharî’ah other than the Sharî’ah of Muhammad Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam he is Kâfir. And the Kufr of his is as same as the Kufr of the one who accepts a part from the Kitâb and rejects a part of it.”
He continues and said in the same Fatwâ regarding the Tatars: “They, meaning the Tatars do not rule between them with the Ahkâm of Allâh, rather they rule with some made up/invented laws which belongs to them and sometimes it suits with Islâm and sometimes not.”
Then Ibnu Taymiyyah said, “It is Wâjib (obligatory) to fight with them with the Ijmâ of the Muslimîn. The one who knows the religion of Islâm and knows their interior state will not have doubts concerning this (ruling).”
[Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû’ul Fatâwâ, 28/501-553]
Allâh said,
“...And whosoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the Kāfirûn (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allāh's Laws).” [al-Mâ’idah 5:44]
Ibnu Kathîr said the following in the Tafsîr of this Âyah, “The correct opinion is that this Âyah was revealed about two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the Book of Allâh with their own hands regarding the matter of punishment for adultery for the one who is married from stoning to death to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey while their faces are painted black.” [Ibnu Kathir, Tafsir]
According to what Ibnu Hajar quoted from Ismâ’îl al-Qâdhî amongst the Mâlikî scholars, he said the following concerning this Âyah, “The Dhâhir of the Âyah indicates that whoever commits what they (i.e. the Jews) did and invents a Hukm which is in opposition to the Hukm of Allâh and makes it a Dîn (law) which is performed (accordingly) then the same threat is valid for him as well. No matter if it is the governor or someone other than him.” [Ibnu Hajar, Fath’ul Bârî, 13/120]
If the reason of the revelation of this Âyah is to be investigated and pondered upon the following would be seen clearly:
Those
Jews who did forgery of the Hukm of Rajm (stoning to death) were a
community of the past. The same Hukm of Kufr also continued for the
generation after them even though they did nothing but show consent to
this Bâtil and to follow it. This situation is the same as the situation
of the Ahl’ul Kitâb who obeyed the Bâtil laws of their Rabbis and Monks
as mentioned in the Âyah at-Tawbah 9/31.
Adiy bin Hâtim said that “I heard Rasûlullâh (saws) reciting this Âyah, “They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allāh (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allāh)...” [at-Tawbah 9:31]
And I said, “We did not worship them.” Rasûlullâh (saws) said, “Did you not obey them when they (i.e. the Rabbis and Monks) prohibited what Allâh had allowed them (Christians and Jews) and allowed what Allâh had prohibited?” I said, “Yes!” Then Rasûlullâh (saws) said, “This is how they worshiped them.” [at-Tirmidhî, Tafsîr, Hadîth no: 10; at-Tabarî, 14/210, Hadîth no: 61632-61634]
This is what was meant by Muhâkamah. Meaning submitting to the Bâtil laws of the Tâghût is the same as Muhâkamah. Seeking judgment from the Tâghût means worshiping the Tâghût who claims his Lordship beside Allâh while making laws in the opposition of Sharî’ah. We can summarize the indications of the statements of the Ulamâ in the following manner:
1- The one who acts according to the laws whether it is an abrogated Sharî’ah such as the Tawrâh and Injîl or man-made invented laws such as the al-Yâsaq of Genghis Khan or laws of todays’ states other than the laws of the Islâmic Sharî’ah are three types:
a) Musharri meaning the law maker.
b) Those Judges and administrators who rule with these laws.
c) Those who are trialed and perform accordingly to with these laws meaning the public.
The Kitâb, Sunnah and Ijmâ indicates that all these three types are Kâfir.
Those who declare Takfîr of the first two types of people without any differentiation and believe that there should be Tafsîlât (details) and differentiates the Hukm of the third type have no basis other than their own Hawâ (desire) and personal thoughts; they have no Dalîl for their acts and these people are in a contradiction. Since consent to Kufr is Kufr.
There is no difference between those who invent and apply the laws of Kufr and those who are trialed with it. As an example, those who make laws in the parliament without looking at whether the laws are suitable to Islâm or not would be declared Takfîr of.
Most of those who claim that there are exceptions for Muhâkamah would declare Takfîr of those lawmakers without looking at their Jahl or Ta’wîl. It is the same for the judge who rules with this law. This is because they accept a source of Tashrî (lawmaking) and Hukm other than Allâh and His Rasûl (saws).
The reason of their falling into Kufr is -before its being in the opposition of Islâm - their reliance upon the people’s sovereignty as a source of law and not the sovereignty of Allâh. When it is like that, then how can one look for details and differentiate those who are trialed in court with the Kufrî laws invented by such people meanwhile (at least) in the Dhâhir they publicly accept the Bâtil laws? This is because in these courts everyone who is trialed willingly or not submits to the laws that had been invented with sovereignty given to other than Allâh. Even if it suits the Islâmic ruling, the Illah (reason) of accepting the Tashrî (lawmaking) and Hukm right of other than Allâh remains existent.
2- All of these quotes we have narrated from Ibnu Kathîr and scholars other than him indicate that; seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is amongst the issues of “Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah” meaning “necessarily known to be part of the religion”, just as Îmân in Allâh, His Angels, and His Books are amongst the issues of Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah so it is a matter of Dhâhir and the Ulamâ do not have Ikhtilâf regarding it, rather there is Ittifâq concerning it. This reality being forgotten by the later generations does not change the fact that this is a Hukm of Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah.
Adiy bin Hâtim said that “I heard Rasûlullâh (saws) reciting this Âyah, “They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allāh (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allāh)...” [at-Tawbah 9:31]
And I said, “We did not worship them.” Rasûlullâh (saws) said, “Did you not obey them when they (i.e. the Rabbis and Monks) prohibited what Allâh had allowed them (Christians and Jews) and allowed what Allâh had prohibited?” I said, “Yes!” Then Rasûlullâh (saws) said, “This is how they worshiped them.” [at-Tirmidhî, Tafsîr, Hadîth no: 10; at-Tabarî, 14/210, Hadîth no: 61632-61634]
This is what was meant by Muhâkamah. Meaning submitting to the Bâtil laws of the Tâghût is the same as Muhâkamah. Seeking judgment from the Tâghût means worshiping the Tâghût who claims his Lordship beside Allâh while making laws in the opposition of Sharî’ah. We can summarize the indications of the statements of the Ulamâ in the following manner:
1- The one who acts according to the laws whether it is an abrogated Sharî’ah such as the Tawrâh and Injîl or man-made invented laws such as the al-Yâsaq of Genghis Khan or laws of todays’ states other than the laws of the Islâmic Sharî’ah are three types:
a) Musharri meaning the law maker.
b) Those Judges and administrators who rule with these laws.
c) Those who are trialed and perform accordingly to with these laws meaning the public.
The Kitâb, Sunnah and Ijmâ indicates that all these three types are Kâfir.
Those who declare Takfîr of the first two types of people without any differentiation and believe that there should be Tafsîlât (details) and differentiates the Hukm of the third type have no basis other than their own Hawâ (desire) and personal thoughts; they have no Dalîl for their acts and these people are in a contradiction. Since consent to Kufr is Kufr.
There is no difference between those who invent and apply the laws of Kufr and those who are trialed with it. As an example, those who make laws in the parliament without looking at whether the laws are suitable to Islâm or not would be declared Takfîr of.
Most of those who claim that there are exceptions for Muhâkamah would declare Takfîr of those lawmakers without looking at their Jahl or Ta’wîl. It is the same for the judge who rules with this law. This is because they accept a source of Tashrî (lawmaking) and Hukm other than Allâh and His Rasûl (saws).
The reason of their falling into Kufr is -before its being in the opposition of Islâm - their reliance upon the people’s sovereignty as a source of law and not the sovereignty of Allâh. When it is like that, then how can one look for details and differentiate those who are trialed in court with the Kufrî laws invented by such people meanwhile (at least) in the Dhâhir they publicly accept the Bâtil laws? This is because in these courts everyone who is trialed willingly or not submits to the laws that had been invented with sovereignty given to other than Allâh. Even if it suits the Islâmic ruling, the Illah (reason) of accepting the Tashrî (lawmaking) and Hukm right of other than Allâh remains existent.
2- All of these quotes we have narrated from Ibnu Kathîr and scholars other than him indicate that; seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is amongst the issues of “Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah” meaning “necessarily known to be part of the religion”, just as Îmân in Allâh, His Angels, and His Books are amongst the issues of Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah so it is a matter of Dhâhir and the Ulamâ do not have Ikhtilâf regarding it, rather there is Ittifâq concerning it. This reality being forgotten by the later generations does not change the fact that this is a Hukm of Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah.
“al-Yâsaq”
which Hâfidh Ibnu Kathîr mentioned was a man-made law which was not
based upon Wahy. (Even today it is possible to see the same words in
some of the so-called Islâmic countries referring to the law and the
constitution of the state. As seen in the Turkey such that Mustafa Kemal
changed the laws of the Sharî’ah and called his made up Kufr laws as
“yasa/anayasa”.) Where the Illah is the same, the Hukm would be the same
as well. So as those who were trialed by the “al-Yâsaq” of the past
were Kâfir, those who are trialed with today’s “al-Yâsaq” are also
Kâfir. Whereas, al-Yâsaq of the past used to contain some Islâmic
rulings in it, however, none of the scholars ever got into details of
the issue and said that those who are trialed to al-Yâsaq with regards
to the laws that suit Islâm are not Kâfir, yet those who are trialed to
al-Yâsaq with regards to the laws that do not suit the Islâmic law are
Kâfir.
It is very beneficial and meaningful to see that Ibnu Kathîr is referring to the Ijmâ which Ibnu Hazm narrated due to proving the Kufr of those who were trialed to the Laws of Genghis Khan. This is very important in order to comprehend the reason the Hukm had been given.
If someone today claims that it is permissible to rule with those laws that suit Islâm from the manipulated forms of the Tawrâh and Injîl available to us today; anyone who has intelligence would not doubt this to be Kufr.
But unfortunately, many people while making Takfîr of those who are trialed to the abrogated Sharî’ah of Allâh do not declare Takfîr of those who are trialed to the man-made laws and they claim that one can submit to the administrative laws of these man-made laws which are not based upon the Wahy when they are not in opposition with the Islâmic law. Yet it is not important whether or not the laws suit Islâm.
Ibnu Taymiyyah while speaking about the state of the Tatars refers to this fact. This is because these laws -whether or not suiting the Islâmic law- are made while giving the right of Tashrî to other than Allâh. Even if they do somehow suit the Islâmic law or even if they are %100 suitable to Islâmic laws, they are still the laws of the Tâghût. None of the Ulamâ made such distinction amongst those who were trialed with such laws.
When it comes to the claim that this is an unclear matter, there is no difference between the one who doubts the Kufr of a person who is trialed with the man-made laws and the one who doubts the Kufr of a person who is trialed with the Tawrâh and Injîl. Both of them (i.e. the doubters) are persons who cannot differentiate between Kufr and Îmân. And also both of them are persons who cannot comprehend the fact that in order for one to be Muslim, he needs to distant hımself from all the Bâtil Sharâ’i and needs to submit to the Sharî’ah of Muhammad (saws). Therefore, such a person is unaware of the Asl of Islâm and a man who cannot fulfill the requirements of being a Muslim.
It does not fit to compare this issue with other Khafî (unclear) matters such as Khalq’ul Qur’ân (claim that the Qur’ân is created) or Istiwâ upon the Arsh (Allâh’s rising upon the Mighty Throne in a manner that suits His Majesty), since seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a matter related with Tawhîd itself which is amongst the Dhâhir matters. On the other hand, the I’tiqâd of Ahl’ul Bid’ah such as the latter matters (i.e. Khalq’ul Qur’ân and Istiwâ upon the Arsh) and their likes -even though they are related with the Kamâl (perfection) of Tawhîd - are not related with the Asl of Tawhîd.
How can Muhâkamah to the Tâghût be evaluated amongst the secondary matters of Dîn while it is constant that it is an act that indicates Îmân in the Tâghût by the Nass of the Qur’ân itself?
So, the Muhkam Nass of the Kitâb and Sunnah and the explanations of the Ulamâ of these Nass bring out the fact that Muhâkamah to the Tâghût in all types is Kufr’ul Akbar which takes one completely out of the religion of Islâm and that this reality is constant with the Ittifâq of all of the Ulamâ. After all these quotes and the Ijmâ of the Ulamâ, it also became clear that the claim concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is a matter of Ikhtilâf amongst the Ulamâ is also Bâtil.
These Dalâ’il concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût being an act that nullifies the Asl’ud Dîn have disproved all the views of those who bring - some more some less - exceptions and also those who claim that Jahl or Ta’wîl would be an excuse. In the light of these, we also want to add the following:
It is very beneficial and meaningful to see that Ibnu Kathîr is referring to the Ijmâ which Ibnu Hazm narrated due to proving the Kufr of those who were trialed to the Laws of Genghis Khan. This is very important in order to comprehend the reason the Hukm had been given.
If someone today claims that it is permissible to rule with those laws that suit Islâm from the manipulated forms of the Tawrâh and Injîl available to us today; anyone who has intelligence would not doubt this to be Kufr.
But unfortunately, many people while making Takfîr of those who are trialed to the abrogated Sharî’ah of Allâh do not declare Takfîr of those who are trialed to the man-made laws and they claim that one can submit to the administrative laws of these man-made laws which are not based upon the Wahy when they are not in opposition with the Islâmic law. Yet it is not important whether or not the laws suit Islâm.
Ibnu Taymiyyah while speaking about the state of the Tatars refers to this fact. This is because these laws -whether or not suiting the Islâmic law- are made while giving the right of Tashrî to other than Allâh. Even if they do somehow suit the Islâmic law or even if they are %100 suitable to Islâmic laws, they are still the laws of the Tâghût. None of the Ulamâ made such distinction amongst those who were trialed with such laws.
When it comes to the claim that this is an unclear matter, there is no difference between the one who doubts the Kufr of a person who is trialed with the man-made laws and the one who doubts the Kufr of a person who is trialed with the Tawrâh and Injîl. Both of them (i.e. the doubters) are persons who cannot differentiate between Kufr and Îmân. And also both of them are persons who cannot comprehend the fact that in order for one to be Muslim, he needs to distant hımself from all the Bâtil Sharâ’i and needs to submit to the Sharî’ah of Muhammad (saws). Therefore, such a person is unaware of the Asl of Islâm and a man who cannot fulfill the requirements of being a Muslim.
It does not fit to compare this issue with other Khafî (unclear) matters such as Khalq’ul Qur’ân (claim that the Qur’ân is created) or Istiwâ upon the Arsh (Allâh’s rising upon the Mighty Throne in a manner that suits His Majesty), since seeking judgment from the Tâghût is a matter related with Tawhîd itself which is amongst the Dhâhir matters. On the other hand, the I’tiqâd of Ahl’ul Bid’ah such as the latter matters (i.e. Khalq’ul Qur’ân and Istiwâ upon the Arsh) and their likes -even though they are related with the Kamâl (perfection) of Tawhîd - are not related with the Asl of Tawhîd.
How can Muhâkamah to the Tâghût be evaluated amongst the secondary matters of Dîn while it is constant that it is an act that indicates Îmân in the Tâghût by the Nass of the Qur’ân itself?
So, the Muhkam Nass of the Kitâb and Sunnah and the explanations of the Ulamâ of these Nass bring out the fact that Muhâkamah to the Tâghût in all types is Kufr’ul Akbar which takes one completely out of the religion of Islâm and that this reality is constant with the Ittifâq of all of the Ulamâ. After all these quotes and the Ijmâ of the Ulamâ, it also became clear that the claim concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is a matter of Ikhtilâf amongst the Ulamâ is also Bâtil.
These Dalâ’il concerning seeking judgment from the Tâghût being an act that nullifies the Asl’ud Dîn have disproved all the views of those who bring - some more some less - exceptions and also those who claim that Jahl or Ta’wîl would be an excuse. In the light of these, we also want to add the following:
First of all, the Asl for
the Ahkâm of the Sharî’ah is not the name of this Hukm but the Illah
which it is based upon. Therefore, whatever the Illah is that makes an
act Kufr or Harâm, as long as the Illah continues the Hukm also will
continue.
With
this regard, Shaykh Abû Butayn, who is from amongst the Ulamâ of Najd,
said the following in his priceless book “al-Intisâr li Hizbillâh’il
Muwahhidîn”, “If the human being knows and verifies the meaning of
al-Ilah (deity) and that it means al-Ma’bûd (the one who is worshiped),
then he will recognize the reality of Ibâdah. It becomes clear for him
that whoever directs anything from Ibâdah to other than Allâh becomes a
slave of whatever he took as an Ilah. Whether he refrains from naming it
as a Ma’bûd or an Ilah and names the act that, he commits it as
Tawassul (mediation), Shafâ’ah (intermediary), Iltijâ (seeking refuge),
and its likes.
The Mushrik is a Mushrik whether he wants (to have this attribute) or not. Just as the usurer is an usurer whether he wants (to have this attribute) or not and even if he does not name his act as Ribâ (interest); or as the Khamr (alcoholic beverages) drinker is a drinker of Khamr even if he names it as something other than its name. It is stated in the Hadîth narrated from the Nabî (saws), “A people of my Ummah (nation) will drink Khamr (wine and other alcoholic drinks), calling it by another name.” [Abû Dâwûd, Hadîth no: 3688 and others]
As change in the name does not change the reality of the Musammâ (the thing that is named), it will also not lift its Hukm. As the Bedouin’s named their Bâtil traditions as Haqq and named what they wrongfully took with something other than its name (such as tax etc. that does not change its reality, it is the same).”
For example, the reason Khamr is Harâm is due to it making one drunk, it conceals intelligence and sweeps it away. As it was mentioned in the Ahâdîth, if much intoxicates, then even a little is Harâm. If one claims that whatever he drinks is not Khamr but soda pop and if there is alcohol in it; even if it is named as soda pop and not wine, it is still the same, its Hukm is the same, Harâm.
In the matter of Tahâkum ila’t Tâghût; the reason it is Kufr is because - as we have quoted from the Ulamâ before in the previous pages - due to giving the Tashrî right to other than Allâh. Therefore, as long as it is Kufr; to take the laws of Jâhiliyyah such as “al-Yâsaq” as a main source of law, honoring it, accepting it even if it is only outwards, and performing in accordance to these laws then as long as these acts continue, the Hukm of Kufr will continue as well.
If this point is comprehended, then it will become clear how big the Dalâlah (heresy) and confusion are of those who quit giving the Hukm of Kufr due to the change in the names. For example, the state of those who claim that appealing to the High court and hiring an advocate is Jâ’iz (permissible) and the claim that one cannot seek the judgment from the Tâghût but if a trial is started for him then he can defend himself and testify before the court, is this. Since the Illah of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr, meaning taking the Ahkâm of Shirk as a main source of law and performing accordingly continues. As long as this Illah is not lifted, there is no need for additional Dalîl to name these acts with the attribute of Kufr.
Likewise, there is no need for additional Dalîl for the one does not reject the court when he was taken to court, to be Kâfir. Those who do not disapprove it, should have to explain how they gave the ruling Kufr to seeking judgment from the Tâghût. For those who fulfill the general principles with regards to Tahâkum ila’t Tâghût, there is no need for them to explain every matter that is under this heading in detail.
This should be taken in consideration while bringing forth evidences for the matter. Actually, in such a matter which is “Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah” meaning submitting to the Ahkâm of Shirk being Kufr; no one whether an Âlim (scholar) or a Jâhil has the right to bring exceptions. It is even worse when he who brings exceptions is not on the level of a Mujtahid (one who has the ability to extract Hukm from the Nass), to extract Hukm from the Nass, meaning not having any right to speak about it. (Here we do not extract Hukm from the Nass meaning making Ijtihâd - i.e. extracting Hukm from the Nass - but to remind the Hukm of a matter which is Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah).
Those who have no right to make Ijtihâd should leave the Dhâhir Nass aside and extracting Hukm by their own views from the Nass that are not Dhâhir such as the Qissah (story) of Yûsuf (as) or the story of Negus and make Takhsîs over the general principles of Islâm is wrong from the bases and it is even worse and wrong above another wrong to take the Nass independently from one another and clashing them.
The Mushrik is a Mushrik whether he wants (to have this attribute) or not. Just as the usurer is an usurer whether he wants (to have this attribute) or not and even if he does not name his act as Ribâ (interest); or as the Khamr (alcoholic beverages) drinker is a drinker of Khamr even if he names it as something other than its name. It is stated in the Hadîth narrated from the Nabî (saws), “A people of my Ummah (nation) will drink Khamr (wine and other alcoholic drinks), calling it by another name.” [Abû Dâwûd, Hadîth no: 3688 and others]
As change in the name does not change the reality of the Musammâ (the thing that is named), it will also not lift its Hukm. As the Bedouin’s named their Bâtil traditions as Haqq and named what they wrongfully took with something other than its name (such as tax etc. that does not change its reality, it is the same).”
For example, the reason Khamr is Harâm is due to it making one drunk, it conceals intelligence and sweeps it away. As it was mentioned in the Ahâdîth, if much intoxicates, then even a little is Harâm. If one claims that whatever he drinks is not Khamr but soda pop and if there is alcohol in it; even if it is named as soda pop and not wine, it is still the same, its Hukm is the same, Harâm.
In the matter of Tahâkum ila’t Tâghût; the reason it is Kufr is because - as we have quoted from the Ulamâ before in the previous pages - due to giving the Tashrî right to other than Allâh. Therefore, as long as it is Kufr; to take the laws of Jâhiliyyah such as “al-Yâsaq” as a main source of law, honoring it, accepting it even if it is only outwards, and performing in accordance to these laws then as long as these acts continue, the Hukm of Kufr will continue as well.
If this point is comprehended, then it will become clear how big the Dalâlah (heresy) and confusion are of those who quit giving the Hukm of Kufr due to the change in the names. For example, the state of those who claim that appealing to the High court and hiring an advocate is Jâ’iz (permissible) and the claim that one cannot seek the judgment from the Tâghût but if a trial is started for him then he can defend himself and testify before the court, is this. Since the Illah of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr, meaning taking the Ahkâm of Shirk as a main source of law and performing accordingly continues. As long as this Illah is not lifted, there is no need for additional Dalîl to name these acts with the attribute of Kufr.
Likewise, there is no need for additional Dalîl for the one does not reject the court when he was taken to court, to be Kâfir. Those who do not disapprove it, should have to explain how they gave the ruling Kufr to seeking judgment from the Tâghût. For those who fulfill the general principles with regards to Tahâkum ila’t Tâghût, there is no need for them to explain every matter that is under this heading in detail.
This should be taken in consideration while bringing forth evidences for the matter. Actually, in such a matter which is “Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah” meaning submitting to the Ahkâm of Shirk being Kufr; no one whether an Âlim (scholar) or a Jâhil has the right to bring exceptions. It is even worse when he who brings exceptions is not on the level of a Mujtahid (one who has the ability to extract Hukm from the Nass), to extract Hukm from the Nass, meaning not having any right to speak about it. (Here we do not extract Hukm from the Nass meaning making Ijtihâd - i.e. extracting Hukm from the Nass - but to remind the Hukm of a matter which is Ma’lûm min’ad Dîni bi’dh Dharûrah).
Those who have no right to make Ijtihâd should leave the Dhâhir Nass aside and extracting Hukm by their own views from the Nass that are not Dhâhir such as the Qissah (story) of Yûsuf (as) or the story of Negus and make Takhsîs over the general principles of Islâm is wrong from the bases and it is even worse and wrong above another wrong to take the Nass independently from one another and clashing them.
As
an example; claims are made that since it is Shirk to accept the Hukm
other than Allâh, Yûsuf (as) while asking his prison mates to mention
himself in the presence of the king, committed Shirk and therefore this
is introduced as an exception to perform Shirk!.. If the will of Yûsuf
(as) has nothing to do with Tahâkum - surely it has nothing to do with
Tahâkum- then there is nothing to worry about. If those who bring this
as a Dalîl had any Khayr (goodness), they would never clash the Nass by
claiming that Tahâkum ila’t Tâghût is Jâ’iz in some cases.
In short, the one who is to criticize and oppose what we have written is to prove both sides of the matter by Aql (intelligence) and Naql (narration) that their action/belief is not seeking the Hukm of Tâghût.
“But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.” [al-Baqarah 2:24]
Âthâr (Sayings, Actions, and Consent of the Sahâbah) and Akhbâr (Narrations and Reports) Regarding the Hukm of Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût
With the permit of Allâh, we have provided evidence with Dalâ’il from the Kitâb, Sunnah and Ijmâ regarding the fact that Muhâkamah bi’t Tâghût nullifies the Asl’ud Dîn.
Now, we will take in hand various claims about seeking judgment from the Tâghût. However, in order to verify the Bâtil of these claims and so that the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût, is generally understood well, we’d like to mention the Asbâb’un Nuzûl (reasons and occasions of revelation) for the Âyah (verse) an-Nisâ 4/60 and its Tafsîr (exegesis) by the Salaf which is amongst the greatest evidences for this matter.
If we are going to comprehend the Kitâb and the Sunnah with the Fahm (comprehension) of the Salaf and not with our Hawâ; the Salaf’us Sâlihîn, who are the first three generations of Islâm which Rasûlullâh (saws) had praised on many occasions, made Takfîr of those who seek judgment from the Tâghût without any exception. This is understood better once the following narrations are read Inshâllâh.
The Imâm of the Mufassirîn Ibnu Jarîr at-Tabarî, started the Tafsîr of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 - as he usually does - by explaining the meaning of the Âyah briefly:
“Have you seen those...”
In their disputes they “resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût.”
By Tâghût meaning: those who they revere and respect their statements and consent to their rulings, which are rulings that are other than Allâh’s.
“Though they were ordered to reject him (i.e. Tâghût)”
Meaning, He says: Allâh commanded them to reject whatever the Tâghût - which they seek judgment from - bring. Whereas they leave the command of Allâh and submit to the command of the Shaytân. “But Satan's wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right)” meaning: Shaytân wishes to withhold those who seek the judgment from Tâghût from the way of truth and Hidâyah and misguide them with far misguidance meaning turning them away harshl
In short, the one who is to criticize and oppose what we have written is to prove both sides of the matter by Aql (intelligence) and Naql (narration) that their action/belief is not seeking the Hukm of Tâghût.
“But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.” [al-Baqarah 2:24]
Âthâr (Sayings, Actions, and Consent of the Sahâbah) and Akhbâr (Narrations and Reports) Regarding the Hukm of Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût
With the permit of Allâh, we have provided evidence with Dalâ’il from the Kitâb, Sunnah and Ijmâ regarding the fact that Muhâkamah bi’t Tâghût nullifies the Asl’ud Dîn.
Now, we will take in hand various claims about seeking judgment from the Tâghût. However, in order to verify the Bâtil of these claims and so that the issue of seeking judgment from the Tâghût, is generally understood well, we’d like to mention the Asbâb’un Nuzûl (reasons and occasions of revelation) for the Âyah (verse) an-Nisâ 4/60 and its Tafsîr (exegesis) by the Salaf which is amongst the greatest evidences for this matter.
If we are going to comprehend the Kitâb and the Sunnah with the Fahm (comprehension) of the Salaf and not with our Hawâ; the Salaf’us Sâlihîn, who are the first three generations of Islâm which Rasûlullâh (saws) had praised on many occasions, made Takfîr of those who seek judgment from the Tâghût without any exception. This is understood better once the following narrations are read Inshâllâh.
The Imâm of the Mufassirîn Ibnu Jarîr at-Tabarî, started the Tafsîr of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 - as he usually does - by explaining the meaning of the Âyah briefly:
“Have you seen those...”
This
addressing is the same as in the Âyah, “Did you (O Muhammad ) not think
of those who went forth...”[al-Baqarah 2:243] meaning: “you know”.
Meaning: You know “those who declare that they believe in the
revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee.”
By Tâghût meaning: those who they revere and respect their statements and consent to their rulings, which are rulings that are other than Allâh’s.
“Though they were ordered to reject him (i.e. Tâghût)”
Meaning, He says: Allâh commanded them to reject whatever the Tâghût - which they seek judgment from - bring. Whereas they leave the command of Allâh and submit to the command of the Shaytân. “But Satan's wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right)” meaning: Shaytân wishes to withhold those who seek the judgment from Tâghût from the way of truth and Hidâyah and misguide them with far misguidance meaning turning them away harshl
It
was said that this Âyah had been revealed due to a Munâfiq and a Jew.
The Munâfiq -even though Rasûlullâh (saws) was with them- called the Jew
for the judgment of a soothsayer and for that instance the Âyah had
been revealed. In this regard, the following was narrated: (Chain of the
narration…) Âmir ash-Sha’bî said, “One certain Munâfiq had a dispute
with a Jewish man. The Munâfiq called the Jewish man to take their
dispute to their own (i.e. Jew) arbitrators because he knew that they
took bribery for the judgments they issued. The Jew, on the other hand,
invited the hypocrite to take their dispute to the Muslimîn because he
knew that they did not accept bribery. (When they both rejected each
other's choice,) they made a compromise and decided to take their
dispute to a soothsayer from Juhaynah. Therefore, Allâh revealed this
Âyah regarding this."
In another report from ash-Sha’bî the following was given as additional information: In the Âyah, “Have you seen those who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you...” [an-Nisâ 4:60] refers to the Munâfiq who claims to have Îmân. (The Âyah) “…that which was sent down before you...” is in reference to the Jew who claims Îmân. The Tâghût referred to in (the Âyah) “Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût” is the soothsayer. “…though they were ordered to reject him” since both the (holy) books of the Munâfiq and the Jew had commanded them to reject the soothsayer.
Again, in another report from ash-Sha’bî it stated, “There was a dispute between a man who claimed to be Muslim and a Jew. The Jew said, ‘I will seek judgment of those in your Dîn.’ Or he said, ‘I will seek judgment of your Nabî.’ Since he knew that Rasûlullâh (saws) did not take bribery for the judgments (he issued). They disagreed then agreed to take it (the dispute) to a soothsayer in Juhaynah. Therefore, the Âyah, “Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you...” had been revealed. In the Âyah:
“…that which has been sent down to you” referred to a man from the Ansâr. With (the statement in the Âyah),
“...and that which was sent down before you...” in reference to the Jew. The Tâghût referred to in (the Âyah):
“Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût” is the soothsayer.
“Though they were ordered to reject him” since both the (holy) books of the Munâfiq and the Jew had commanded them to reject the soothsayer. After stating, this ash-Sha’bî recited the end of the Âyah, “But Satan's wish is, to lead them astray far away (from the right)” and then recited the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/65, reciting from,
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.”
(...) “Hadramî claimed that a man from the Jews became Islâm (i.e. Muslim). There was a dispute between him and a Jew regarding the rights. The Jew said, ‘Let’s go to the Nabî of Allâh.’ Since he (the Jew) knew that, he (Rasûlullâh) would rule against the other one (the Munâfiq). (For this reason,) the other man (the Munâfiq) did not want it. They both went to a soothsayer and they both sought the judgment of him. Allâh said,
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
According to the narration from Qatâdah, “This Âyah, “ Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you...” up to (the end of the Âyah) “But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” was revealed about two men. One was from the Ansâr and it was said that his name was Bishr. And regarding a man from the Jews who had a dispute regarding the rights of a certain property in which both were involved. They took their dispute to a soothsayer in Madînah to judge between them while leaving (the judgment of) the Nabî (saws). Allâh rebuked them for doing so. In fact, the Jew was urging (the Muslim) to take their dispute to the Nabî (saws), because he knew the Nabî (saws) will not wrong him. But (the Munâfiq from the) Ansâr refused to, even though he claimed to be a Muslim, and insisted to go to the soothsayer. So Allâh revealed this Âyah censoring the person who was pretending to be Muslim as well as the Jew who belonged to Ahl’ul Kitâb (the People of the Book i.e. Jews and the Christians), saying,
In another report from ash-Sha’bî the following was given as additional information: In the Âyah, “Have you seen those who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you...” [an-Nisâ 4:60] refers to the Munâfiq who claims to have Îmân. (The Âyah) “…that which was sent down before you...” is in reference to the Jew who claims Îmân. The Tâghût referred to in (the Âyah) “Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût” is the soothsayer. “…though they were ordered to reject him” since both the (holy) books of the Munâfiq and the Jew had commanded them to reject the soothsayer.
Again, in another report from ash-Sha’bî it stated, “There was a dispute between a man who claimed to be Muslim and a Jew. The Jew said, ‘I will seek judgment of those in your Dîn.’ Or he said, ‘I will seek judgment of your Nabî.’ Since he knew that Rasûlullâh (saws) did not take bribery for the judgments (he issued). They disagreed then agreed to take it (the dispute) to a soothsayer in Juhaynah. Therefore, the Âyah, “Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you...” had been revealed. In the Âyah:
“…that which has been sent down to you” referred to a man from the Ansâr. With (the statement in the Âyah),
“...and that which was sent down before you...” in reference to the Jew. The Tâghût referred to in (the Âyah):
“Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût” is the soothsayer.
“Though they were ordered to reject him” since both the (holy) books of the Munâfiq and the Jew had commanded them to reject the soothsayer. After stating, this ash-Sha’bî recited the end of the Âyah, “But Satan's wish is, to lead them astray far away (from the right)” and then recited the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/65, reciting from,
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.”
“(…) and accept (them) with full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65]
(...) “Hadramî claimed that a man from the Jews became Islâm (i.e. Muslim). There was a dispute between him and a Jew regarding the rights. The Jew said, ‘Let’s go to the Nabî of Allâh.’ Since he (the Jew) knew that, he (Rasûlullâh) would rule against the other one (the Munâfiq). (For this reason,) the other man (the Munâfiq) did not want it. They both went to a soothsayer and they both sought the judgment of him. Allâh said,
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
According to the narration from Qatâdah, “This Âyah, “ Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you...” up to (the end of the Âyah) “But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” was revealed about two men. One was from the Ansâr and it was said that his name was Bishr. And regarding a man from the Jews who had a dispute regarding the rights of a certain property in which both were involved. They took their dispute to a soothsayer in Madînah to judge between them while leaving (the judgment of) the Nabî (saws). Allâh rebuked them for doing so. In fact, the Jew was urging (the Muslim) to take their dispute to the Nabî (saws), because he knew the Nabî (saws) will not wrong him. But (the Munâfiq from the) Ansâr refused to, even though he claimed to be a Muslim, and insisted to go to the soothsayer. So Allâh revealed this Âyah censoring the person who was pretending to be Muslim as well as the Jew who belonged to Ahl’ul Kitâb (the People of the Book i.e. Jews and the Christians), saying,
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you...” [an-Nisâ 4:60] up to (the end of the next Âyah), “...you (Muhammad SAW) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad SAW) with aversion..” [an-Nisâ 4:61]
According to the narration of as-Suddî, this Âyah had been revealed regarding the Munâfiqîn who were from the Jews of the Quraydhah and Nadhîr and claimed to be Muslim and people amongst these two clans (i.e. Nadhîr and Quraydhah) who became Muslim in real sense. The hypocrites wanted to seek judgment of a soothsayer namely Abû Barzah al-Aslamî, however, the Muslimîn wanted to seek the judgment of Rasûlullâh (saws). For this instance, this Âyah was revealed and rebuked the hypocrites. As-Suddî said, “Some Jewish people had embraced Islâm while others had Nifâq in them. In Jâhiliyyah (the pre-Islâmic period), the custom between the clans of Quraydhah and Nadhîr was that if a man from Banu’n Nadhîr was killed, the killer was killed in retaliation. However, when a man from Banû Quraydhah killed another from Nadhîr, the killer was not killed in retaliation and only sixty Wasq (about hundred and eighty kg) of fruits were paid as blood money.
After some people amongst the clans of Banû Quraydhah and an-Nadhîr became Muslim, then it happened that a man from Banu’n Nadhîr killed a man amongst Banû Quraydhah. Both parties sought the judgment from the Nabî (saws). (The Clan of) Nadhîr said, ‘In (the era of) Jâhiliyyah we were paying Diyah (blood money) in a day like this (similar occasions)’. Therefore, Quraydhah said, ‘No we do not accept it. We are brothers with you in both Nasab (genealogy) and Dîn (religion). Our blood is the same as yours. However, you had dominated over us (since you were greater in number and we were few) during the Jâhiliyyah’. Allâh brought Islâm, therefore Allâh revealed (this Âyah) to rebuke what they did. So (Allâh) stated,
“And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal"...” [al-Mâ’idah 5:45]
Allâh rebuked them (for taking Diyah and not perform Qisâs) then said regarding the statement of Nadhîr,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?...” [al-Mâ’idah 5:50]
And, (Rasûlullâh) killed the one amongst Nadhîr who was the murderer. Then both the Nadhîr and Quraydhah (clans) praised themselves. The Nadhîr said, ‘We are better then you’ so the Quraydhah they said, ‘We are better then you.’ (The Hypocrites) went into Madînah to Abû Barzah al-Aslamî the soothsayer. The Munâfiq amongst the Quraydhah and the Nadhîr said, ‘Let us go to Abû Barzah al-Aslamî, to judge between us.’ The Muslimîn amongst the Quraydhah and the Nadhîr said, ‘No, but rather let us go to the Nabî (saws) to judge between us.’ The hypocrites refused and went instead to Abû Barzah to ask him to judge between them. He said, ‘Increase the mouthful (i.e. bribe)’. They said, ‘We will give you ten Awsuq’. He (i.e. Abû Barzah) said, ‘No, rather I will take a hundred as a Diyah for I fear if I judge in favour of the Nadhîr, Quraydhah will kill me or if I judge in favour of the man from Quraydhah, the Nadhîr will kill me’. However, they (hypocrites) refused to give him more than ten Awsuq, he refused to judge between them. Therefore Allâh had revealed,
“...and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.)...” [an-Nisâ 4:60] which is Abû Barzah and “while they have been ordered to reject them...” up to (the end of Âyah) “...and accept (them) with full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65]
According to the narration of as-Suddî, this Âyah had been revealed regarding the Munâfiqîn who were from the Jews of the Quraydhah and Nadhîr and claimed to be Muslim and people amongst these two clans (i.e. Nadhîr and Quraydhah) who became Muslim in real sense. The hypocrites wanted to seek judgment of a soothsayer namely Abû Barzah al-Aslamî, however, the Muslimîn wanted to seek the judgment of Rasûlullâh (saws). For this instance, this Âyah was revealed and rebuked the hypocrites. As-Suddî said, “Some Jewish people had embraced Islâm while others had Nifâq in them. In Jâhiliyyah (the pre-Islâmic period), the custom between the clans of Quraydhah and Nadhîr was that if a man from Banu’n Nadhîr was killed, the killer was killed in retaliation. However, when a man from Banû Quraydhah killed another from Nadhîr, the killer was not killed in retaliation and only sixty Wasq (about hundred and eighty kg) of fruits were paid as blood money.
After some people amongst the clans of Banû Quraydhah and an-Nadhîr became Muslim, then it happened that a man from Banu’n Nadhîr killed a man amongst Banû Quraydhah. Both parties sought the judgment from the Nabî (saws). (The Clan of) Nadhîr said, ‘In (the era of) Jâhiliyyah we were paying Diyah (blood money) in a day like this (similar occasions)’. Therefore, Quraydhah said, ‘No we do not accept it. We are brothers with you in both Nasab (genealogy) and Dîn (religion). Our blood is the same as yours. However, you had dominated over us (since you were greater in number and we were few) during the Jâhiliyyah’. Allâh brought Islâm, therefore Allâh revealed (this Âyah) to rebuke what they did. So (Allâh) stated,
“And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal"...” [al-Mâ’idah 5:45]
Allâh rebuked them (for taking Diyah and not perform Qisâs) then said regarding the statement of Nadhîr,
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?...” [al-Mâ’idah 5:50]
And, (Rasûlullâh) killed the one amongst Nadhîr who was the murderer. Then both the Nadhîr and Quraydhah (clans) praised themselves. The Nadhîr said, ‘We are better then you’ so the Quraydhah they said, ‘We are better then you.’ (The Hypocrites) went into Madînah to Abû Barzah al-Aslamî the soothsayer. The Munâfiq amongst the Quraydhah and the Nadhîr said, ‘Let us go to Abû Barzah al-Aslamî, to judge between us.’ The Muslimîn amongst the Quraydhah and the Nadhîr said, ‘No, but rather let us go to the Nabî (saws) to judge between us.’ The hypocrites refused and went instead to Abû Barzah to ask him to judge between them. He said, ‘Increase the mouthful (i.e. bribe)’. They said, ‘We will give you ten Awsuq’. He (i.e. Abû Barzah) said, ‘No, rather I will take a hundred as a Diyah for I fear if I judge in favour of the Nadhîr, Quraydhah will kill me or if I judge in favour of the man from Quraydhah, the Nadhîr will kill me’. However, they (hypocrites) refused to give him more than ten Awsuq, he refused to judge between them. Therefore Allâh had revealed,
“...and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.)...” [an-Nisâ 4:60] which is Abû Barzah and “while they have been ordered to reject them...” up to (the end of Âyah) “...and accept (them) with full submission.” [an-Nisâ 4:65]
“Others
said: The Tâghût mentioned in this (Âyah) is Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf. (Chain
of the narration ...) Ibnu Abbâs said: The Tâghût (in the Âyah) “Their
(real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to
the Tâghût, though they were ordered to reject him.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
is a man amongst the Jews called Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf. When they were
called to seek judgment of Allâh and His Rasûl, rather they sought the
judgment of Ka’b (Ibn’ul Ashraf) and this Âyah had been revealed, “while they have been ordered to reject them...” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
At-Tabarî then narrated this Âyah had been revealed regarding those who sought judgment from Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf; from Mujâhid, Rabî bin Anas, and ad-Dahhâk. The Ikhtilâf at-Tabarî narrated is merely an Ikhtilâf regarding which Tâghût the judgment was sought from. The essence of the matter is that all the narrations and the statements the Âyah points to the fact that; some of the hypocrites sought judgment from the Tâghût instead of the Nabî (saws).
Getting Rid of the Doubts with Regards to Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût
After narrating from the Book and the Sunnah and from the Mujtahid scholars regarding seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr and Shirk, we are going to take the doubts which are related with this matter in hand as our Ilm suffices, in the same manner and Usûl.
Even though seeking judgment from the Tâghût, requesting judgment from him is a nullifier of Îmân and it is an act that contradicts the Kalima-i Shahâdah per se; people amongst the misguided sects have been cultivating various doubts. The reason for this is that they -with no doubt- refrain from living according to Islâm and Tawhîd in order to insure their luxury in the Dunyâ.
As we have mentioned in the beginning of our Risâlah, some of these misguided groups claim that; the Kufr of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is limited within Dâr’ul Islâm and that it is Jâ’iz when there is no Islâmic court since it is Dharûrah.
And some of them accept seeking judgment from the Tâghût as a general principle in Dâr’ul Harb.
Some of them claim that two Muslimîn cannot take their dispute to the Tâghût but a Muslim can seek judgment from the Tâghût to take his rights back from a Kâfir.
And others collect all these doubts together.
There are people who seem to oppose these doubts, but bring forth many other doubts such as there being no problem if the laws of the Tâghût does not conflict with the Islâmic laws.
There are also others claiming that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is prohibited however, it is Harâm and not Shirk.
In addition, others claim appealing to the high court is different from seeking judgment from Tâghût, which is against both sanity and the religious narrations.
We can add those who claim that a Muslim cannot take his dispute to the Tâghût but if someone else took the dispute to the court of the Tâghût, he can defend himself as well.
Moreover, we can mention others who claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr; however, one can hire an attorney for him and defend himself if the other party takes the dispute to the court of the Tâghût.
There are many more doubts that had been innovated in this regards -some of them which comes to our minds and others which do not. Recently the doubt, which is based upon the word “يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna” meaning “wish” in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, had been added to the doubts. In the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, where Allâh stated, “Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût.” They claim that due to the word “يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna (wish)” used in the Âyah, the one who wishes to seek judgment from the Tâghût will be Kâfir but the one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût without wishing won’t be Kâfir.
At-Tabarî then narrated this Âyah had been revealed regarding those who sought judgment from Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf; from Mujâhid, Rabî bin Anas, and ad-Dahhâk. The Ikhtilâf at-Tabarî narrated is merely an Ikhtilâf regarding which Tâghût the judgment was sought from. The essence of the matter is that all the narrations and the statements the Âyah points to the fact that; some of the hypocrites sought judgment from the Tâghût instead of the Nabî (saws).
Getting Rid of the Doubts with Regards to Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût
After narrating from the Book and the Sunnah and from the Mujtahid scholars regarding seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr and Shirk, we are going to take the doubts which are related with this matter in hand as our Ilm suffices, in the same manner and Usûl.
Even though seeking judgment from the Tâghût, requesting judgment from him is a nullifier of Îmân and it is an act that contradicts the Kalima-i Shahâdah per se; people amongst the misguided sects have been cultivating various doubts. The reason for this is that they -with no doubt- refrain from living according to Islâm and Tawhîd in order to insure their luxury in the Dunyâ.
As we have mentioned in the beginning of our Risâlah, some of these misguided groups claim that; the Kufr of seeking judgment from the Tâghût is limited within Dâr’ul Islâm and that it is Jâ’iz when there is no Islâmic court since it is Dharûrah.
And some of them accept seeking judgment from the Tâghût as a general principle in Dâr’ul Harb.
Some of them claim that two Muslimîn cannot take their dispute to the Tâghût but a Muslim can seek judgment from the Tâghût to take his rights back from a Kâfir.
And others collect all these doubts together.
There are people who seem to oppose these doubts, but bring forth many other doubts such as there being no problem if the laws of the Tâghût does not conflict with the Islâmic laws.
There are also others claiming that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is prohibited however, it is Harâm and not Shirk.
In addition, others claim appealing to the high court is different from seeking judgment from Tâghût, which is against both sanity and the religious narrations.
We can add those who claim that a Muslim cannot take his dispute to the Tâghût but if someone else took the dispute to the court of the Tâghût, he can defend himself as well.
Moreover, we can mention others who claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr; however, one can hire an attorney for him and defend himself if the other party takes the dispute to the court of the Tâghût.
There are many more doubts that had been innovated in this regards -some of them which comes to our minds and others which do not. Recently the doubt, which is based upon the word “يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna” meaning “wish” in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, had been added to the doubts. In the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, where Allâh stated, “Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût.” They claim that due to the word “يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna (wish)” used in the Âyah, the one who wishes to seek judgment from the Tâghût will be Kâfir but the one who seeks judgment from the Tâghût without wishing won’t be Kâfir.
These
people who innovated such doubt mentioned this doubt as an additional
doubt on top of other doubts -especially the claim that seeking judgment
from the Tâghût is not Kufr if he is in Dâr’ul Harb- which we had
listed above. This doubt that is based upon the word " يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna (wish)"
is a Bid’ah which was innovated recently and we have not come across
any one amongst the Salaf nor the Khalaf not even the contemporaries
that made Tafsîr of the Âyah in this manner. This argument which nobody
had done Tafsîr of the Âyah in this manner for more than fourteen
hundred years is alone sufficient to prove their delusion. Since any
view that has no (base, example) Salaf is condemned in the following
Hadîth,
“My nation will not unite upon Dalâlah (misguidance).” (Ibnu Mâjah, Hadîth no: 3950)
Let alone, this is not a discussion of Tafsîr but beyond it, it is a claim that nullifies the Asl of Tawhîd.
The common point of all these doubts and doubters is the ignorance in the meaning of both the Tâghût and the meaning of seeking judgment and also their ignorance of Tawhîd - the call of the Prophets. Before we start refuting all these claims in detail, we want to give a concise and brief response towards all of them and it is as follows:
As it is known by all those who attribute themselves to Tawhîd; one of the principles that the Shahâdah La ilaha illallâh comprises is the reality that none other than Allâh has the right of judgment and Tashrî (law making). Those who commit acts such as seeking judgment from the Tâghût which means giving this right to other than Allâh, worshiping other than Allâh and taking a second Ilah (deity) similar to those Ahl’ul Kitâb who worship other than Allâh by giving the right of Tashrî to their Rabbis (priests) and Monks (anchorites).
In short, those who seek judgment from the Tâghût, those who submit to the ruling of the Tâghût are Mushrikîn who associate partners to Allâh. Shirk is a sin that Allâh will never forgive. Since Allâh commands,
“Verily! Allāh forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allāh, has indeed strayed far away.” [an-Nisâ 4:116]
“...Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allāh, then Allāh has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zālimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.” [al-Mâ’idah 5:72]
“... "If you join others in worship with Allāh, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers.” [az-Zumar 39:65]
The sole exception for Shirk to be forgiven is Ikrâh; meaning coercion, which is the opposite of will. The statement: “If seeking judgment from the Tâghût takes places without the will then it is not Kufr” is correct if Ikrâh is intended with it and we speak according to the Shar’î Istilâh (literature), not in accordance to our Hawâ. The person cannot claim that his will is taken from him unless he is under Ikrâh. Allâh stated concerning Ikrâh,
“Whoever disbelieved in Allāh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allāh, and theirs will be a great torment.” [an-Nahl 16:106]
As it is seen, the sole exception for the doer of Kufr to receive the wrath of Allâh is Ikrâh. If we had agreed with all our opponents by submitting to the ruling of this Âyah, many Ikhtilâf would have been solved.
This is because almost all of the groups of Dalâlah bring other exceptions such as the Dhahûrah , Maslahah, being in Dâr’ul Harb, being a spy etc. and permit committing Kufr for the one who is not under Ikrâh. Even those who claim to have Ilm like “Ebu Hanzala (of Turkey)” who states in his tape recording named “Ehli Sünnetin Vela-Bera anlayışı (The Ahl’us Sunnahs’ Understanding of al-Walâ wa’l Barâ)” that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is taking the Tâghût as a Walî, that it nullifies Kalima-i Shahâdah, that such person does not reject the Tâghût in an extremely long way, then gives a Fatwâ that in Dâr’ul Harb, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not Kufr based on the word “يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna (wish)” which was mentioned in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 and by narrating some statements of Sarahsî and other scholars while explaining them with his own Ray (opinion).
“My nation will not unite upon Dalâlah (misguidance).” (Ibnu Mâjah, Hadîth no: 3950)
Let alone, this is not a discussion of Tafsîr but beyond it, it is a claim that nullifies the Asl of Tawhîd.
The common point of all these doubts and doubters is the ignorance in the meaning of both the Tâghût and the meaning of seeking judgment and also their ignorance of Tawhîd - the call of the Prophets. Before we start refuting all these claims in detail, we want to give a concise and brief response towards all of them and it is as follows:
As it is known by all those who attribute themselves to Tawhîd; one of the principles that the Shahâdah La ilaha illallâh comprises is the reality that none other than Allâh has the right of judgment and Tashrî (law making). Those who commit acts such as seeking judgment from the Tâghût which means giving this right to other than Allâh, worshiping other than Allâh and taking a second Ilah (deity) similar to those Ahl’ul Kitâb who worship other than Allâh by giving the right of Tashrî to their Rabbis (priests) and Monks (anchorites).
In short, those who seek judgment from the Tâghût, those who submit to the ruling of the Tâghût are Mushrikîn who associate partners to Allâh. Shirk is a sin that Allâh will never forgive. Since Allâh commands,
“Verily! Allāh forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allāh, has indeed strayed far away.” [an-Nisâ 4:116]
“...Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allāh, then Allāh has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zālimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.” [al-Mâ’idah 5:72]
“... "If you join others in worship with Allāh, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers.” [az-Zumar 39:65]
The sole exception for Shirk to be forgiven is Ikrâh; meaning coercion, which is the opposite of will. The statement: “If seeking judgment from the Tâghût takes places without the will then it is not Kufr” is correct if Ikrâh is intended with it and we speak according to the Shar’î Istilâh (literature), not in accordance to our Hawâ. The person cannot claim that his will is taken from him unless he is under Ikrâh. Allâh stated concerning Ikrâh,
“Whoever disbelieved in Allāh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allāh, and theirs will be a great torment.” [an-Nahl 16:106]
As it is seen, the sole exception for the doer of Kufr to receive the wrath of Allâh is Ikrâh. If we had agreed with all our opponents by submitting to the ruling of this Âyah, many Ikhtilâf would have been solved.
This is because almost all of the groups of Dalâlah bring other exceptions such as the Dhahûrah , Maslahah, being in Dâr’ul Harb, being a spy etc. and permit committing Kufr for the one who is not under Ikrâh. Even those who claim to have Ilm like “Ebu Hanzala (of Turkey)” who states in his tape recording named “Ehli Sünnetin Vela-Bera anlayışı (The Ahl’us Sunnahs’ Understanding of al-Walâ wa’l Barâ)” that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is taking the Tâghût as a Walî, that it nullifies Kalima-i Shahâdah, that such person does not reject the Tâghût in an extremely long way, then gives a Fatwâ that in Dâr’ul Harb, seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not Kufr based on the word “يُرِيدُونَ yurîdûna (wish)” which was mentioned in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 and by narrating some statements of Sarahsî and other scholars while explaining them with his own Ray (opinion).
According
to this claim, while Allâh obligated both humanity and the Jinnî with
Tawhîd in Dâr’ul Islâm, He permitted them (seeking refuge from this view
of Dalâlah) to commit Shirk in Dâr’ul Harb. Therefore, according to
this, it is not Wâjib to reject the Tâghût - those (fake) deities who
deemed to have the right to lawmaking other than Allâh - in Dâr’ul Harb.
We seek refuge in Allâh from all of these claims and views What kind of Ilm and Fiqh is this that they bring exceptions to Tawhîd, which is the reason for all humanity and the Jinnî to be created and they also permit committing Shirk with a few unclear statements of the Ulamâ?
When would the hearts of these contenders with this view or others that direct to the doubt, tremble with the fear of Allâh?
When would the hearts of these contenders of this view or others that direct to the doubt, leave speaking regarding Allâh without knowledge?
Everyone should check their condition and make sincere Tawbah before the wrath of Allâh reaches.
There is more that could be said but even those who solely ponder upon the Kalimat’ut Tawhîd; La ilaha illallâh would understand all these views and doubts are Bâtil. Since all of these contenders bring exceptions after accepting the fact that seeking judgment from the Tâghût nullifies the Asl of Tawhîd.
“Have
you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which
has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and
they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false
judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān
(Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb - if the narration is correct - killed those who sought the judgment of the Tâghût before this Âyah was revealed. He -no doubt- ruled this act to be Kufr from the Kalimah, La ilaha illallâh. The statement: “...while they have been ordered to reject them...” mentioned in the Âyah also indicates this.
In short, those who claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not Kufr have to explain the Asl of Tawhîd and not the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60. The state of, those who defend judgement to the Tâghût and their opponents who try to refute them on the internet, by publishing books etc. shows that there is no Khayr in them. This is because none of them debate the issue from the right point of view; meaning Tawhîd.
After this Mujmal (concise) response, we are going to try to give detailed answers to the doubts regarding the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
The First Doubt: The View of Those Who Claim that Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût Regarding Administrative Laws When the Laws of the Tâghût are not Against Islâm, is not Kufr or the View of Those Who Claim it is not an Open Issue and that There is Tafsîlât (Details) and Ambiguousness on the Takfîr of Those Who Commit Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût
The owner of these claims say:
We seek refuge in Allâh from all of these claims and views What kind of Ilm and Fiqh is this that they bring exceptions to Tawhîd, which is the reason for all humanity and the Jinnî to be created and they also permit committing Shirk with a few unclear statements of the Ulamâ?
When would the hearts of these contenders with this view or others that direct to the doubt, tremble with the fear of Allâh?
When would the hearts of these contenders of this view or others that direct to the doubt, leave speaking regarding Allâh without knowledge?
Everyone should check their condition and make sincere Tawbah before the wrath of Allâh reaches.
There is more that could be said but even those who solely ponder upon the Kalimat’ut Tawhîd; La ilaha illallâh would understand all these views and doubts are Bâtil. Since all of these contenders bring exceptions after accepting the fact that seeking judgment from the Tâghût nullifies the Asl of Tawhîd.
Actually, both
these doubters and their opponents who try to refute them have not
comprehended the Asl of Tawhîd. This is because most of the time their
debate is about the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60: its Ta’wîl as seeking judgment
from the Tâghût was not Kufr before the mentioned Âyah had been
revealed. Whereas this Âyah is not of those Âyât that bring a new
ruling, rather it is of the kind informative which informs the ruling
that already exists.
Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb - if the narration is correct - killed those who sought the judgment of the Tâghût before this Âyah was revealed. He -no doubt- ruled this act to be Kufr from the Kalimah, La ilaha illallâh. The statement: “...while they have been ordered to reject them...” mentioned in the Âyah also indicates this.
In short, those who claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is not Kufr have to explain the Asl of Tawhîd and not the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60. The state of, those who defend judgement to the Tâghût and their opponents who try to refute them on the internet, by publishing books etc. shows that there is no Khayr in them. This is because none of them debate the issue from the right point of view; meaning Tawhîd.
After this Mujmal (concise) response, we are going to try to give detailed answers to the doubts regarding the matter of seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
The First Doubt: The View of Those Who Claim that Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût Regarding Administrative Laws When the Laws of the Tâghût are not Against Islâm, is not Kufr or the View of Those Who Claim it is not an Open Issue and that There is Tafsîlât (Details) and Ambiguousness on the Takfîr of Those Who Commit Seeking Judgment from the Tâghût
The owner of these claims say:
“The
Dalaalat of the Ayah Nisa 60 especially concerning the Muslim who lives
in Daarul-Harb where there is no Islamic court and who is oppressed and
rights were taken by the Kuffaar is Dhanni and not Qati. It is because
this Ayah was revealed regarding those who prefer the courts of the
Taghout while there was an Islamic court in Madinah. We learned it was
Kufr with research and verification however there is no need to make
Takfeer of our past when we did not rule with Kufr. We can not make
Takfeer of a person who accepts Tawheed while not realizing such
detailed matter was Kufr without Iqaamatul-Hujjah. As the Ulamaa did not
perform Takfeer against those sects of Dalaalah such as, those claiming
the Quran was created and those who denied that Allah is above Arsh. We
also cannot perform Takfeer against those who believe that it is not
Kufr since they apply to the court of Taghout such that the ruling of a
matter does not oppose the Islamic Sharee’ah without establishing the
proofs and the statements of the Ulamaa to them. On the other hand we
will make Takfeer of such person who applies to the courts of the
Taghout so that the ruling of a matter is in opposition with the Islamic
Sharee’ah even if he is Jaahil since he wanted to seek judgment of
Taghout who ruled a Halaal as Haraam or vice verse. In the same manner,
we will make Takfeer of those Muslimeen who took their dispute to the
court of the Taghout and made him judge between them, without looking
over the Tafseel. However, the Kufr of the Muslim who took his dispute
with a Kaafir to the court of the Taghout is not as clear as the first
scenario where both the parties are Muslim. It is because in the Ayah
Nisa 65, Allah addressed the Mu’mineen by stating: “But no, by your
Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge
in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance
against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission..”
[an-Nisâ 4:65] However, the Kaafir does not accept the ruling of Islam.”
With the Idhn (permit) and Karam (beneficence) of Allâh, we want to respond to and refute the owner of such claim in the light of the quotations from the Ulamâ that we had narrated before.
They claim that the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 had been revealed in Madînah regarding those who turned away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh by preferring the court of the Tâghût while there was an Islâmic court existing; the Dalâlat (indication) of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 concerning the Muslim who lives in Dâr’ul Harb where there is no Islâmic court since he applies to the court of Tâghût such that the ruling of a matter does not oppose the Islâmic Sharî’ah is Dhannî (speculative) and not Qat’î (decisive). We can say the following regarding the owner of such claims:
1- First of all, none amongst the Ulamâ have stated that the ruling of this Âyah is restricted within the Islâmic state and restricted with the availability of the court of the Islâmic state and also seeking judgment from the Tâghût in Dâr’ul Kufr is not Kufr and there is Tafsîl on the Takfîr of person who sought the judgment of Tâghût in Dâr’ul Kufr while the court of Islâmic State in not available.
This is stated and claimed merely by some of the ignorant of today. One of the greatest Qarînah (indication) of such claim being Bâtil is its having no roots and Salaf in the Ummah...
2- The indication of the Âyah is clear in regards to seeking judgment from the Tâghût is - without bringing any exception - the opposite of Îmân. Statements of the scholars, as we quoted above also indicate it being Kufr without any exception. There is no base to reckon without the clear indication regarding the Hukm of the Âyah by using the argument that the Âyah had been revealed in Madînah about those who turned away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) nor to restrict the ruling of the Âyah with incidents like Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah or similar incidents.
Indeed there is no difference between such person and the one who claims that all Âyât which inform the Ahkâm that had been revealed in Madînah (period) shall be applied only in the Islâmic State.
As it is impossible to claim that the Hijâb of the Muslim womenfolk is Fardh in Dâr’ul Islâm and it is not Fardh in Dâr’ul Harb due to the fact that the Ahkâm concerning the matter had been revealed in Madînah while the Muslimîn had the power; it is impossible to claim that keeping distance from the court of Tâghût is only Fardh in Dâr’ul Islâm.
The Illah being Khusûsî (particular) does not prevent the Hukm being Amm (general).
Asbâb’un Nuzûl is a mean and a Qarînah to understand the Âyah and it is not to devote, to restrict the ruling with the particular incident.
With the Idhn (permit) and Karam (beneficence) of Allâh, we want to respond to and refute the owner of such claim in the light of the quotations from the Ulamâ that we had narrated before.
They claim that the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 had been revealed in Madînah regarding those who turned away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh by preferring the court of the Tâghût while there was an Islâmic court existing; the Dalâlat (indication) of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 concerning the Muslim who lives in Dâr’ul Harb where there is no Islâmic court since he applies to the court of Tâghût such that the ruling of a matter does not oppose the Islâmic Sharî’ah is Dhannî (speculative) and not Qat’î (decisive). We can say the following regarding the owner of such claims:
1- First of all, none amongst the Ulamâ have stated that the ruling of this Âyah is restricted within the Islâmic state and restricted with the availability of the court of the Islâmic state and also seeking judgment from the Tâghût in Dâr’ul Kufr is not Kufr and there is Tafsîl on the Takfîr of person who sought the judgment of Tâghût in Dâr’ul Kufr while the court of Islâmic State in not available.
This is stated and claimed merely by some of the ignorant of today. One of the greatest Qarînah (indication) of such claim being Bâtil is its having no roots and Salaf in the Ummah...
2- The indication of the Âyah is clear in regards to seeking judgment from the Tâghût is - without bringing any exception - the opposite of Îmân. Statements of the scholars, as we quoted above also indicate it being Kufr without any exception. There is no base to reckon without the clear indication regarding the Hukm of the Âyah by using the argument that the Âyah had been revealed in Madînah about those who turned away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) nor to restrict the ruling of the Âyah with incidents like Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah or similar incidents.
Indeed there is no difference between such person and the one who claims that all Âyât which inform the Ahkâm that had been revealed in Madînah (period) shall be applied only in the Islâmic State.
As it is impossible to claim that the Hijâb of the Muslim womenfolk is Fardh in Dâr’ul Islâm and it is not Fardh in Dâr’ul Harb due to the fact that the Ahkâm concerning the matter had been revealed in Madînah while the Muslimîn had the power; it is impossible to claim that keeping distance from the court of Tâghût is only Fardh in Dâr’ul Islâm.
The Illah being Khusûsî (particular) does not prevent the Hukm being Amm (general).
Asbâb’un Nuzûl is a mean and a Qarînah to understand the Âyah and it is not to devote, to restrict the ruling with the particular incident.
While
reckoning without all the evidences regarding the matter and making
Tafsîr of the Âyah only with the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah is a great
ignorance. The aforementioned Âyah openly informs that the absolute
reason for their Kufr is “...Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût...”
as it was stated in the Âyah. If the reason for their Takfîr which was
informed in the Âyah was only turning away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh
(saws), the Âyah would have stated it clearly, rather the Kufr which was
informed in the Âyah is seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Ibnu Kathîr said the following in the Tafsîr of the Âyah,
“Allâh chastises those who claim to believe in what Allâh has sent down to His Messenger and to the earlier Prophets, yet they refer to other than the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes.
It was reported that the reason behind revealing this Âyah was that a man from the Ansâr and a Jew had a dispute, and the Jew said, “Let us refer to Muhammad to judge between us.” However, the Muslim man said, “Let us refer to Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf (a Jew) to judge between us.”
It was also reported that the Âyah was revealed about some hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims, yet they sought to refer to the judgment of Jâhiliyyah. Other reasons were also reported behind the revelation of the Âyah.
However, the Âyah has a general meaning, as it chastises all those who refrain from referring to the Qur’ân and Sunnah for judgment and prefer the judgment of whatever they chose of falsehood, which befits the description of Tâghût here.”
[Ibnu Kathîr, Tafsîr]
As Ibnu Kathîr stated, even if it is pretended that the Âyah had been revealed for a particular case, the condemnation in the Âyah for seeking judgment from all other Bâtil Sharâ’i (pl. of Sharî’ah) other than the Sharî’ah of Islâm is general. None of the Ulamâ amongst this Ummah had stated the opposite.
Moreover, there are many narrations concerning the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 and there is no agreement between the scholars concerning the soundness of many of these reports.
Even, one of the famous incidents concerning the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, the incident of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb which some try to make Bâtil Istidlâl (the methodology of the evidencing) with, is a weak report. As much as we verified, it is the weakest of all the reports concerning the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60. Even though this incident and others had been related with different Turuq (means of transmission) and Matn (text), the report that stated Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb had said, “This is how I judge for he who does not accept Allâh’s judgement and the judgement of His Messenger” is related with the Isnâd (chain of narration) of Kalbî - Abû Sâlih - Ibnu Abbâs. This Riwâyah (narration) related with this chain of narration and the text by Tha’labî in his “Tafsîr” and Wâhidî in his “Asbâb’un Nuzûl”. This very Riwâyah is not presented in any of the esteemed Hadîth books.
Muhammad bin Saib bin Bishr al-Kalbî, one of the narrators of the report of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb Radiyallâhu Anh, as Ibnu Hajar mentioned, was condemned to be a liar and amongst the Râfidhah. Ibnu Hajar in his book “Tahdhîb’ut Tahdhîb” quoted the critique of the Ulamâ regarding al-Kalbî. It seems there is none amongst the Ulamâ who praised him. Abû Hâtim said regarding him, “People made Ijmâ regarding leaving his Âhâdith.”
Moreover, Ibnu Hajar quoted from some of the Ulamâ that they declared Takfîr of him. Those who declare Takfîr of him condemned him that he had the belief that when angel Jibrîl brought the Wahy to Rasûlullâh (saws) and was not able to find him so Jibrîl gave the Wahy to Alî.
Ibnu Hajar mentioned that al-Kalbî - who was from Kûfa - confessed that he himself, was one of the followers of Abdullâh bin Saba the Jew who established the Shiite sect. Ibnu Hajar also quoted from Sufyân ath-Thawrî that al-Kalbî said, “All the reports that I narrated by the way of Abû Sâlih from Ibnu Abbâs are lies and do not ever narrate anything from me.” [Ibnu Hajar, Tahdhîb’ut Tahdhîb, 9/152-154]
Therefore, this very incident of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb and the Munâfiq had not reached with us an Isnâd that Istidlâl can be made out of it or to extract Hukm out of it. This incident in some books is mentioned as a witness and as an extra Qarînah. For this reason, many Âlim who placed this incident in their books narrated it while stating “qîla (it is said)” or “yurwâ (it was narrated)” which indicates its Isnâd being not esteemed.
One of them is Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb. In his book Kitâb’ut Tawhîd, under the Bâb of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 he quoted a Riwâyah from ash-Sha’bî as an Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah first and then mentioned this Riwâyah -by stating “qîyla (it is said)”- of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb, “It was also claimed that the verse was revealed in connection with two disputants, one of whom said, “Let us have Rasûlullâh (saws) arbitrate between us!” And the other said, “Let us go to Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf for that purpose.” Finally, they went to Umar to adjudicate between them. Umar asked if it is true that one of them rejected the arbitration of Rasûlullâh (saws). When the disputant in question answered in the affirmative, Umar had him executed on the spot.” [Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb, Kitâb’ut Tawhîd, 184-185]
Shaykh Muhammad did not even mention the famous statement attributed to Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb, “This is how I judge for he who does not accept Allâh's judgement and the judgement of His Messenger.”
Indeed not all of the scholars of Tafsîr placed this statement that is attributed to Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb in their books. (For example,) Hâfidh Ibnu Kathîr mentioned this incident as Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/65, which he narrated it from Abû Hâtim and others however; he had not quoted this part of the statement.
Some of the scholars of Tafsîr mentioned that while Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb explained to Rasûlullâh (saws) the reason that he killed the Munâfiq, he said, “(O Rasûlullâh!) He rejected your Hukm!..” I did not find a Sanad for this particular Riwâyah. Only some of the Tafsîr had quoted this Riwâyah by stating with “yurwâ (it was narrated)”. [Zajjâj, Ma’ân’il Qur’ân; ar-Râghib al-Asfahânî, Tafsîr; Ibn’ul Arabî, Ahkâm’ul Qur’ân etc.]
Ar-Râzî added, “many of the Mufassirîn said” to the beginning of the Riwâyah without attributing it to anyone.
Even though they based their claim upon these incidents that the Âyah had been revealed, they do not understand these incidents. There is nothing in these incidents to be taken as evidence in their part. Even if it is constant that Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb accounted the Munâfiq to be killed because he (the Munâfiq) was not content with the Hukm of Allâh and Rasûlullâh (saws), this reason is not sufficient to restrict the Kufr that was mentioned in the Âyah only for those who turn away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws). Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb might have said this statement due to turning away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) being a second Kufr in the Âyah aside from the first Kufr which is seeking judgment from Tâghût.
Also, some of the Mufassirîn mentioned the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to the soothsayer and others mentioned Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to fortune arrows and others mentioned Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to the guards of the idols.
Moreover, many others mentioned the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf to seek his judgment as it was stated in the incident of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb. [Refer back to the Tafsîr of ar-Râzî for his listing of many different incidents as Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah]
As far as we know, the soundest report concerning being the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah is the incident that those who sought judgment from the Jewish soothsayer Abû Barzah al-Aslamî and it was related by at-Tabarânî. Haythâmî stated that its Rijâl (reporters) is sound. [Haythâmî, Majmû’uz Zawâ’id, 7/6]
Taking only one incident from those related as being the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah, then picking a statement from it which Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb claimed to have said, “This is how I judge for he who does not accept Allâh's judgment and the judgment of His Messenger” to restrict seeking judgment from Tâghût to only turning away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) while reckoning with the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 and the Âyât continuing also clear Nass of the Qur’ân shows the concealed thoughts or at the best the Jahl.
From what part of this incident do they deduct that the Hukm of the Âyah is restricted with those who turn away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws). Which Âlim had ever said so? Is there a base for this claim from the Ulamâ amongst the Salaf?
By Allâh! This is a statement that was uttered by Ra’y (opinion) and Jahl. Whereas Rasûlullâh (saws) said, “Whoever says (something) about the Qur’ân according to his (own) opinion, then let him take his seat in the Fire.” [at-Tirmidhî, Tafsîr: 1, Hadith no: 2951; at-Tirmidhî said, “ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ This is a Hasan Hadîth.”]
As a fact, many narrations that reached us in the books of Tafsîr do not reach us with a Sahîh Isnâd (chain of narration), they are not available to deduct Hukm from. For this reason, Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah said the following, “It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsîr is similar to narrations reporting Maghâzî (or Sîrah) and battles, promoting Imâm Ahmad to state that, “Three matters do not have Isnâd: Tafsîr, Malâhim (i.e. great battles), and Maghâzî.” This statement was also narrated as “do not have a source” meaning Isnâd.
Ibnu Kathîr said the following in the Tafsîr of the Âyah,
“Allâh chastises those who claim to believe in what Allâh has sent down to His Messenger and to the earlier Prophets, yet they refer to other than the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes.
It was reported that the reason behind revealing this Âyah was that a man from the Ansâr and a Jew had a dispute, and the Jew said, “Let us refer to Muhammad to judge between us.” However, the Muslim man said, “Let us refer to Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf (a Jew) to judge between us.”
It was also reported that the Âyah was revealed about some hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims, yet they sought to refer to the judgment of Jâhiliyyah. Other reasons were also reported behind the revelation of the Âyah.
However, the Âyah has a general meaning, as it chastises all those who refrain from referring to the Qur’ân and Sunnah for judgment and prefer the judgment of whatever they chose of falsehood, which befits the description of Tâghût here.”
[Ibnu Kathîr, Tafsîr]
As Ibnu Kathîr stated, even if it is pretended that the Âyah had been revealed for a particular case, the condemnation in the Âyah for seeking judgment from all other Bâtil Sharâ’i (pl. of Sharî’ah) other than the Sharî’ah of Islâm is general. None of the Ulamâ amongst this Ummah had stated the opposite.
Moreover, there are many narrations concerning the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 and there is no agreement between the scholars concerning the soundness of many of these reports.
Even, one of the famous incidents concerning the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, the incident of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb which some try to make Bâtil Istidlâl (the methodology of the evidencing) with, is a weak report. As much as we verified, it is the weakest of all the reports concerning the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60. Even though this incident and others had been related with different Turuq (means of transmission) and Matn (text), the report that stated Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb had said, “This is how I judge for he who does not accept Allâh’s judgement and the judgement of His Messenger” is related with the Isnâd (chain of narration) of Kalbî - Abû Sâlih - Ibnu Abbâs. This Riwâyah (narration) related with this chain of narration and the text by Tha’labî in his “Tafsîr” and Wâhidî in his “Asbâb’un Nuzûl”. This very Riwâyah is not presented in any of the esteemed Hadîth books.
Muhammad bin Saib bin Bishr al-Kalbî, one of the narrators of the report of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb Radiyallâhu Anh, as Ibnu Hajar mentioned, was condemned to be a liar and amongst the Râfidhah. Ibnu Hajar in his book “Tahdhîb’ut Tahdhîb” quoted the critique of the Ulamâ regarding al-Kalbî. It seems there is none amongst the Ulamâ who praised him. Abû Hâtim said regarding him, “People made Ijmâ regarding leaving his Âhâdith.”
Moreover, Ibnu Hajar quoted from some of the Ulamâ that they declared Takfîr of him. Those who declare Takfîr of him condemned him that he had the belief that when angel Jibrîl brought the Wahy to Rasûlullâh (saws) and was not able to find him so Jibrîl gave the Wahy to Alî.
Ibnu Hajar mentioned that al-Kalbî - who was from Kûfa - confessed that he himself, was one of the followers of Abdullâh bin Saba the Jew who established the Shiite sect. Ibnu Hajar also quoted from Sufyân ath-Thawrî that al-Kalbî said, “All the reports that I narrated by the way of Abû Sâlih from Ibnu Abbâs are lies and do not ever narrate anything from me.” [Ibnu Hajar, Tahdhîb’ut Tahdhîb, 9/152-154]
Therefore, this very incident of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb and the Munâfiq had not reached with us an Isnâd that Istidlâl can be made out of it or to extract Hukm out of it. This incident in some books is mentioned as a witness and as an extra Qarînah. For this reason, many Âlim who placed this incident in their books narrated it while stating “qîla (it is said)” or “yurwâ (it was narrated)” which indicates its Isnâd being not esteemed.
One of them is Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb. In his book Kitâb’ut Tawhîd, under the Bâb of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 he quoted a Riwâyah from ash-Sha’bî as an Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah first and then mentioned this Riwâyah -by stating “qîyla (it is said)”- of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb, “It was also claimed that the verse was revealed in connection with two disputants, one of whom said, “Let us have Rasûlullâh (saws) arbitrate between us!” And the other said, “Let us go to Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf for that purpose.” Finally, they went to Umar to adjudicate between them. Umar asked if it is true that one of them rejected the arbitration of Rasûlullâh (saws). When the disputant in question answered in the affirmative, Umar had him executed on the spot.” [Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb, Kitâb’ut Tawhîd, 184-185]
Shaykh Muhammad did not even mention the famous statement attributed to Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb, “This is how I judge for he who does not accept Allâh's judgement and the judgement of His Messenger.”
Indeed not all of the scholars of Tafsîr placed this statement that is attributed to Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb in their books. (For example,) Hâfidh Ibnu Kathîr mentioned this incident as Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/65, which he narrated it from Abû Hâtim and others however; he had not quoted this part of the statement.
Some of the scholars of Tafsîr mentioned that while Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb explained to Rasûlullâh (saws) the reason that he killed the Munâfiq, he said, “(O Rasûlullâh!) He rejected your Hukm!..” I did not find a Sanad for this particular Riwâyah. Only some of the Tafsîr had quoted this Riwâyah by stating with “yurwâ (it was narrated)”. [Zajjâj, Ma’ân’il Qur’ân; ar-Râghib al-Asfahânî, Tafsîr; Ibn’ul Arabî, Ahkâm’ul Qur’ân etc.]
Ar-Râzî added, “many of the Mufassirîn said” to the beginning of the Riwâyah without attributing it to anyone.
Even though they based their claim upon these incidents that the Âyah had been revealed, they do not understand these incidents. There is nothing in these incidents to be taken as evidence in their part. Even if it is constant that Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb accounted the Munâfiq to be killed because he (the Munâfiq) was not content with the Hukm of Allâh and Rasûlullâh (saws), this reason is not sufficient to restrict the Kufr that was mentioned in the Âyah only for those who turn away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws). Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb might have said this statement due to turning away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) being a second Kufr in the Âyah aside from the first Kufr which is seeking judgment from Tâghût.
Also, some of the Mufassirîn mentioned the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to the soothsayer and others mentioned Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to fortune arrows and others mentioned Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to the guards of the idols.
Moreover, many others mentioned the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah for those who went to Ka’b Ibn’ul Ashraf to seek his judgment as it was stated in the incident of Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb. [Refer back to the Tafsîr of ar-Râzî for his listing of many different incidents as Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah]
As far as we know, the soundest report concerning being the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah is the incident that those who sought judgment from the Jewish soothsayer Abû Barzah al-Aslamî and it was related by at-Tabarânî. Haythâmî stated that its Rijâl (reporters) is sound. [Haythâmî, Majmû’uz Zawâ’id, 7/6]
Taking only one incident from those related as being the Asbâb’un Nuzûl of the Âyah, then picking a statement from it which Umar Ibn’ul Khattâb claimed to have said, “This is how I judge for he who does not accept Allâh's judgment and the judgment of His Messenger” to restrict seeking judgment from Tâghût to only turning away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws) while reckoning with the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 and the Âyât continuing also clear Nass of the Qur’ân shows the concealed thoughts or at the best the Jahl.
From what part of this incident do they deduct that the Hukm of the Âyah is restricted with those who turn away from the Hukm of Rasûlullâh (saws). Which Âlim had ever said so? Is there a base for this claim from the Ulamâ amongst the Salaf?
By Allâh! This is a statement that was uttered by Ra’y (opinion) and Jahl. Whereas Rasûlullâh (saws) said, “Whoever says (something) about the Qur’ân according to his (own) opinion, then let him take his seat in the Fire.” [at-Tirmidhî, Tafsîr: 1, Hadith no: 2951; at-Tirmidhî said, “ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ This is a Hasan Hadîth.”]
As a fact, many narrations that reached us in the books of Tafsîr do not reach us with a Sahîh Isnâd (chain of narration), they are not available to deduct Hukm from. For this reason, Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah said the following, “It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsîr is similar to narrations reporting Maghâzî (or Sîrah) and battles, promoting Imâm Ahmad to state that, “Three matters do not have Isnâd: Tafsîr, Malâhim (i.e. great battles), and Maghâzî.” This statement was also narrated as “do not have a source” meaning Isnâd.
This
is because most of their narrations are of the Marâsil (missing link on
the Sahâbah) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn’uz Zubayr,
ash-Sha’bî, az-Zuhrî, Musâ bin Uqbah, and Ibnu Ishâq and those came
later them; Yahyâ al-Umayyid, al-Walîd bin Muslim, al-Waqîdhî and
others.”
[Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû’ul Fatâwâ, 13/346]
Whereas, the primarily sources for us shall be the Sahîh Hadîth books which have unbroken narration chains up to Rasûlullâh (saws) and esteemed verifier Ulamâ that wrote their books of Aqîdah and Fiqh books in accordance to the Sahîh Hadîth books. Narrations that are narrated in the books of Tafsîr, only those that are determined as Sahîh by the scholars of Hadîth can be used as an evidence. The rest of them can only be used as reports, which are taken as a witness or supportive evidence to Sahîh evidence. All these are known by those who have knowledge of it.
3-
The sole Dalîl for seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is not
the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60. Rather this Âyah had been revealed in an
informative manner to show that the Munâfiqîn performed against this
known principle of Tawhîd and not to build a new ruling that the
Muslimîn had not known. The statement of “...while they have been ordered to reject them...”
which is mentioned in the Âyah points out this reality. This is because
even though the Munâfiqîn knew that judgment belongs to Allâh; by
seeking judgment from Tâghût they nullify Asl’ut Tawhîd.
In short, seeking judgment from the Tâghût being Kufr is known with the Kalima-i Tawhîd per se, since rejecting other (fake) gods includes rejecting at-Tawâghît that pass judgment other than Allâh. Those who claim to explain the issue of seeking judgment from Tâghût by bringing explanation that does not fit the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60, How could they explain the matter in regards to Tawhîd which is Asl’ud Dîn? Let’s say you restricted the Âyah with its Asbâb’un Nuzûl,
How could you explain Nass related with rejecting the Tâghût while there is ascription to these Nass in the Âyah an-Nisâ 4/60 itself? Likewise, how could you restrict all the Nass in regards to being the right of Tashrî (lawmaking) and passing Hukm to belong to Allâh?
In conclusion:
Seeking judgment from the Tâghût, appealing to the courts that are managed according to the man-made laws is a type of deed that nullifies Asl’ud Dîn and a deed that opposes Asl’ud Dîn. No matter what the intention or state of the doer was, this Hukm does not change.
Likewise, the ruling of the matter that one appeals for being the same with the Sharî’ah of Islâm or the person who sought the judgment from the Tâghût being in Dâr’ul Harb and there was no Islâmic court being available does not change this Hukm. The person who makes differentiation regarding seeking judgment from the Tâghût or the one, who restricts the Hukm, does not understand Tawhîd and he shall make Tawbah from this Kufr to salvation. Any view that we had at the past that opposes this, we declare -once more- that we made open Tawbah (repentance) and asked for Istighfâr (seek for forgiveness).
The Second Doubt: The Doubt of the Two Courts, the View of Those Who Claim that; In Dâr’ul Harb one May Seek Judgment from the Tâghût if There is no Islâmic Court Available!
We previously explained that the statements of those who claim that “seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Shirk, however, it is Jâ’iz in Dâr’ul Kufr” means: giving permissibility to have other deities in Dâr’ul Kufr and we mentioned those who claim such with the Âyah being revealed in Madînah as a base for their claims. It is very clear that those people, who claim such, oppose the Shahâdah of La ilaha illallâh and they claim such a view that does not fit in any Usûl or Qâ’idah (principle) in the Sharî’ah.
Those who claim that it is permissible to seek judgment from the Tâghût in Dâr’ul Kufr just try to support their claim narration wise because their claim is very weak from the Usûl point of view. For this, they are trying to take advantage of some of the Nass and the statements of the Ulamâ insomuch that for the sake of gaining worldly benefit they accuse Rasûlullâh (saws) and his Ashâb. These Mal’ûn (cursed) ones subordinate themselves by commenting the Nass with their Ray (view) and accused some of the Prophets to seek judgment from the Tâghût in Dâr’ul Kufr ?!
We are going to get rid of this doubt first, since it includes accusation against the Prophets of Allâh and Kitâbullâh.
We
are going to give a Mujmal (concise) respond first and it is: The
Kalimah La ilaha illallâh which includes rejection of all the lawmakers
other than Allâh is the common Da’wah of the Prophets: As Allâh informs,
“And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad SAW) but We inspired him (saying): Lā ilāha illa Ana [none has the right to be worshipped but I (Allāh)], so worship Me (Alone and none else).” [al-Anbiyâ 21:25]
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allāh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tāghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tāghût besides Allāh)."...” [an-Nahl 16:36]
As seen, the matters concerning Tawhîd and Shirk are the same in all religions of the Rusul and that rejecting the Tâghût is the mutual principle in the call of all the prophets and the messengers. Seeking judgement from the Tâghût is an action which contradicts the Fardh rejecting the Tâghût. This is why in the Âyah which condemns those who seek judgement from the Tâghût, it is stated,
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
Even it is not possible for an ordinary Muslim to oppose the first Rukn of Tawhîd which is rejection of Tâghût by seeking judgment from the Tâghût, how could it be possible for the Prophets who are the callers of this Aqîdah, to give Hâshâ wa Kallâ (never ever, god forbid) the right of lawmaking to other than Allâh by seeking judgment from the Tâghût?
These people speak a word -which they are not aware how much misguidance it is- would take them into the fire meaning Jahannam (Hell). The claims of these people regarding the Prophets are weaker than the spider web but we want to explain the matter in summary, in order to make the ignorant people aware who do not know the Dîn and fooled with such claims.
These distorters in regards to the courts evaluated the speech of Prophets such as Mûsâ (as) and Yûsuf (as) against the Tâghût of the day as seeking judgment Hâshâ deemed that these Prophets sought the judgment of Tâghût.
Similar doubts brought by them are regarding the Sahâbah who migrated to Habash (Abyssinia; modern-day Eritrea and Ethiopia) who spoke in front of Najâshî (Negus).
They also bring statements of Sarahsî regarding the Muslimîn who asked for their rights from the Kuffâr as a proof for defending ones rights by seeking judgment from Tâghût is permitted in Dâr’ul Kufr.
The common point for all these doubts is that those who claim such do not know what seeking judgment from the Tâghût is. They do not even know what the meaning of seeking judgment is in the dictionaries. For this reason, they deem that any speech of a Muslim in the presence of the Tâghût regarding himself or for other Muslimîn, is seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Whereas, we quoted the statements of the Ulamâ in the beginning of the Risâlah concerning what Muhâkamah (trial) is “taking the dispute to the judge”. Where does “taking the dispute to the judge” take place in these events brought as proof for seeking judgment from the Tâghût being permissible in Dâr’ul Kufr? The Muslim is obligated to explain - regarding the matters of religion and worldly life - what truth and justice necessitates to speak in every gathering including the gatherings of the Tâghût. This has nothing to do with seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Moreover, as we had stated in the beginning, the reason why seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr is because it is giving the right of lawmaking to other than Allâh. For this reason, the person who seeks judgment from a Sharî’ah other than the Sharî’ah of Allâh is a Kâfir and a Mushrik.
All these events that they mentioned - while keeping the Prophets and the Ashâb distant from their claims - there is not a single evidence indicating them being judged with or them having accepted to be judged with any other Bâtil religion other than Islâm let it be the religion of Fir’awn (Pharaoh) or religions that have falsified Sharî’ah: Christianity or Judaism.
Both Yûsuf (as) and the Sahâbah in the leadership of Ja’far bin Abî Tâlib who spoke in the presence of Negus are distant from all the Kufr and Shirk including the Kufr and Shirk of seeking judgment from the Tâghût. May Allâh’s La’nah (curse) be upon those who accuse them with seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
“And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad SAW) but We inspired him (saying): Lā ilāha illa Ana [none has the right to be worshipped but I (Allāh)], so worship Me (Alone and none else).” [al-Anbiyâ 21:25]
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allāh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tāghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tāghût besides Allāh)."...” [an-Nahl 16:36]
As seen, the matters concerning Tawhîd and Shirk are the same in all religions of the Rusul and that rejecting the Tâghût is the mutual principle in the call of all the prophets and the messengers. Seeking judgement from the Tâghût is an action which contradicts the Fardh rejecting the Tâghût. This is why in the Âyah which condemns those who seek judgement from the Tâghût, it is stated,
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tāghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitān (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.” [an-Nisâ 4:60]
Even it is not possible for an ordinary Muslim to oppose the first Rukn of Tawhîd which is rejection of Tâghût by seeking judgment from the Tâghût, how could it be possible for the Prophets who are the callers of this Aqîdah, to give Hâshâ wa Kallâ (never ever, god forbid) the right of lawmaking to other than Allâh by seeking judgment from the Tâghût?
These people speak a word -which they are not aware how much misguidance it is- would take them into the fire meaning Jahannam (Hell). The claims of these people regarding the Prophets are weaker than the spider web but we want to explain the matter in summary, in order to make the ignorant people aware who do not know the Dîn and fooled with such claims.
These distorters in regards to the courts evaluated the speech of Prophets such as Mûsâ (as) and Yûsuf (as) against the Tâghût of the day as seeking judgment Hâshâ deemed that these Prophets sought the judgment of Tâghût.
Similar doubts brought by them are regarding the Sahâbah who migrated to Habash (Abyssinia; modern-day Eritrea and Ethiopia) who spoke in front of Najâshî (Negus).
They also bring statements of Sarahsî regarding the Muslimîn who asked for their rights from the Kuffâr as a proof for defending ones rights by seeking judgment from Tâghût is permitted in Dâr’ul Kufr.
The common point for all these doubts is that those who claim such do not know what seeking judgment from the Tâghût is. They do not even know what the meaning of seeking judgment is in the dictionaries. For this reason, they deem that any speech of a Muslim in the presence of the Tâghût regarding himself or for other Muslimîn, is seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Whereas, we quoted the statements of the Ulamâ in the beginning of the Risâlah concerning what Muhâkamah (trial) is “taking the dispute to the judge”. Where does “taking the dispute to the judge” take place in these events brought as proof for seeking judgment from the Tâghût being permissible in Dâr’ul Kufr? The Muslim is obligated to explain - regarding the matters of religion and worldly life - what truth and justice necessitates to speak in every gathering including the gatherings of the Tâghût. This has nothing to do with seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Moreover, as we had stated in the beginning, the reason why seeking judgment from the Tâghût is Kufr is because it is giving the right of lawmaking to other than Allâh. For this reason, the person who seeks judgment from a Sharî’ah other than the Sharî’ah of Allâh is a Kâfir and a Mushrik.
All these events that they mentioned - while keeping the Prophets and the Ashâb distant from their claims - there is not a single evidence indicating them being judged with or them having accepted to be judged with any other Bâtil religion other than Islâm let it be the religion of Fir’awn (Pharaoh) or religions that have falsified Sharî’ah: Christianity or Judaism.
Both Yûsuf (as) and the Sahâbah in the leadership of Ja’far bin Abî Tâlib who spoke in the presence of Negus are distant from all the Kufr and Shirk including the Kufr and Shirk of seeking judgment from the Tâghût. May Allâh’s La’nah (curse) be upon those who accuse them with seeking judgment from the Tâghût.
Those
who have no fear of Allâh, accuse the Prophets and the prominent
Sahâbah in order to legalize their own deeds. These people do these
without observance of any Âdâb (manner) of the Ilm (knowledge), by
straight reasoning and clinging to the apparent and by using
similarities in the appearance as a fact to fool those amongst the lay
people who do not have Ilm and whose reasoning is limited.
Whereas, there is a great difference between Yûsuf (as) rejecting the accusation of Zinâ (fornication) and proving his innocence and one of the contemporaries to seek judgment from the Tâghût while accepting to be judged accordingly to the laws of the Tâghût and defends himself in the same manner.
Likewise, the situation of the one who exclaims the truth and Tawhîd in the presence of Negus and the one who begs freedom from the laws of the Tâghût is completely different.
The greatest difference is, those who defend themselves in the courts of Tâghût is doing this in a court environment and accepting with it that the Tâghût has a right over him to judge him accordingly by his laws of Kufr. The one whom the Kuffâr slandered would obviously defend himself. Nevertheless, the Kufr in defending oneself against the slander is, doing it while accepting the court, accepting to be judged as a defendant in the presence of the Tâghût. Just because both of these acts are called defense does not mean that both incidents are the same in Hukm.
In addition, none is able to prove that both the situation of Yûsuf (as) and the Muhâjir (emigrants) in Habash had their speech in the same manner as the courts of today which are generated with the Bâtil laws and there is no evidence for it. Since this cannot be proven, it becomes clear that comparing these events with today’s reality is Bâtil. This is because two things that are compared must have the same Illah.
Whereas, every gathering that the Tâghût speaks at is not a gathering of Muhâkamah. Muhâkamah to the Tâghût is the gathering where the Tâghût judges according to his Bâtil Sharî’ah and none of the two examples we have taken in hand carry this characteristic.
Even if we supposedly accept that there occurs Qiyâs (analogy), Qiyâs is a duty of a Mujtahid (expert of Islâmic law). None of the Ulamâ from the past had deducted from these events that one could defend himself in a court that was arranged by the laws of Kufr. There is not a single narration regarding this that could be found. This is a Bâtil view which the ignorant of today have innovated according to their own Hawâ.
In short, those who perform Qiyâs between these events and today’s reality do not have the license to make Qiyâs or Ijtihâd; rather they are amongst the Awâm (laypeople). To reject such claim, merely knowing that this view belongs to the ignorant people is sufficient.
In addition, this view includes the claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is permissible, therefore, it opposes the first Rukn of Tawhîd which is the rejection of the Tâghût, which every Muslim knows is Bâtil.
This is our concise response for the claims against the Prophets and the Sahâbah. For the owners of intellect, even this concise explanation is sufficient but we will still take these events in hand one by one and respond to each of them in brief.
Getting Rid of the Doubt that Mûsâ (as) Sought Judgment of the Tâghût!!!
Allâh stated in Sûrat’ul A’râf,
“And Mûsa (Moses) said: "O Fir'aun (Pharaoh)! I am a Messenger from the Lord of the 'Alamīn (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "Proper it is for me that I say nothing concerning Allāh but the truth. Indeed I have come unto you from your Lord with a clear proof. So let the Children of Israel depart along with me."” [al-A’râf 7:104-105]
In this group of Âyât, Mûsâ (as) asked Fir’awn to let the Children of Isrâ’îl depart along with him. This causes a great Fitnah (trial) for some people as they bring this passage of the Qur’ân to their claim that there is no problem for asking the Tâghût to pass a judgment. Mûsâ (as) is far from such guilt of seeking judgment from the Tâghût and we keep him and all of the Prophets of Allâh distant from such claim.
Speaking with a Tâghût and asking him for things is not seeking judgment from the Tâghût. One can only fall into such Kufr when/if he asks the judgment of the Tâghût who passes judgment which opposes the Sharî’ah of Allâh, or even if he does not ask but keeps silent in order to be judged with the Bâtil laws of Tâghût and shows consent to it.
Whereas, there is a great difference between Yûsuf (as) rejecting the accusation of Zinâ (fornication) and proving his innocence and one of the contemporaries to seek judgment from the Tâghût while accepting to be judged accordingly to the laws of the Tâghût and defends himself in the same manner.
Likewise, the situation of the one who exclaims the truth and Tawhîd in the presence of Negus and the one who begs freedom from the laws of the Tâghût is completely different.
The greatest difference is, those who defend themselves in the courts of Tâghût is doing this in a court environment and accepting with it that the Tâghût has a right over him to judge him accordingly by his laws of Kufr. The one whom the Kuffâr slandered would obviously defend himself. Nevertheless, the Kufr in defending oneself against the slander is, doing it while accepting the court, accepting to be judged as a defendant in the presence of the Tâghût. Just because both of these acts are called defense does not mean that both incidents are the same in Hukm.
In addition, none is able to prove that both the situation of Yûsuf (as) and the Muhâjir (emigrants) in Habash had their speech in the same manner as the courts of today which are generated with the Bâtil laws and there is no evidence for it. Since this cannot be proven, it becomes clear that comparing these events with today’s reality is Bâtil. This is because two things that are compared must have the same Illah.
Whereas, every gathering that the Tâghût speaks at is not a gathering of Muhâkamah. Muhâkamah to the Tâghût is the gathering where the Tâghût judges according to his Bâtil Sharî’ah and none of the two examples we have taken in hand carry this characteristic.
Even if we supposedly accept that there occurs Qiyâs (analogy), Qiyâs is a duty of a Mujtahid (expert of Islâmic law). None of the Ulamâ from the past had deducted from these events that one could defend himself in a court that was arranged by the laws of Kufr. There is not a single narration regarding this that could be found. This is a Bâtil view which the ignorant of today have innovated according to their own Hawâ.
In short, those who perform Qiyâs between these events and today’s reality do not have the license to make Qiyâs or Ijtihâd; rather they are amongst the Awâm (laypeople). To reject such claim, merely knowing that this view belongs to the ignorant people is sufficient.
In addition, this view includes the claim that seeking judgment from the Tâghût is permissible, therefore, it opposes the first Rukn of Tawhîd which is the rejection of the Tâghût, which every Muslim knows is Bâtil.
This is our concise response for the claims against the Prophets and the Sahâbah. For the owners of intellect, even this concise explanation is sufficient but we will still take these events in hand one by one and respond to each of them in brief.
Getting Rid of the Doubt that Mûsâ (as) Sought Judgment of the Tâghût!!!
Allâh stated in Sûrat’ul A’râf,
“And Mûsa (Moses) said: "O Fir'aun (Pharaoh)! I am a Messenger from the Lord of the 'Alamīn (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "Proper it is for me that I say nothing concerning Allāh but the truth. Indeed I have come unto you from your Lord with a clear proof. So let the Children of Israel depart along with me."” [al-A’râf 7:104-105]
In this group of Âyât, Mûsâ (as) asked Fir’awn to let the Children of Isrâ’îl depart along with him. This causes a great Fitnah (trial) for some people as they bring this passage of the Qur’ân to their claim that there is no problem for asking the Tâghût to pass a judgment. Mûsâ (as) is far from such guilt of seeking judgment from the Tâghût and we keep him and all of the Prophets of Allâh distant from such claim.
Speaking with a Tâghût and asking him for things is not seeking judgment from the Tâghût. One can only fall into such Kufr when/if he asks the judgment of the Tâghût who passes judgment which opposes the Sharî’ah of Allâh, or even if he does not ask but keeps silent in order to be judged with the Bâtil laws of Tâghût and shows consent to it.
In
this event, Mûsâ (as) had not attended the court of Fir’awn nor had he
asked Hukm according to the court of Fir’awn which judges accordingly to
the Bâtil laws of Fir’awn. Fir’awn enslaved Banî Isrâ’îl and settled
his sovereignty over them by the way of oppression. As it is permissible
to ask a Kâfir or a Dhâlim (oppressor) to free his Muslim slave, it is
also a permissible act for Mûsâ (as) to ask Fir’awn to free his slaves
amongst the Banî Isrâ’îl.
This Hukm cannot be compared to seeking judgment from the Tâghût while applying to his Bâtil laws in order to free the one in prison or the one who is enslaved. This is because in the latter there is the crime to take the laws of Shirk to a judge between the parties, however, the first scenario is merely asking a Kâfir to help. Actually, in this scenario, there is nothing related to the court and making Istidlâl with this event to the issues of court is an act of Bâtil upon Bâtil.
Getting Rid of the Doubt that Yûsuf (as) Sought Judgment from the Tâghût !
Some people claim that some of the Tafsîr scholars evaluated this witnessing as passing Hukm while bringing the above mentioned Âyah related with the accusation of Yûsuf (as) with Zinâ and witnessing the witness and also some of the statements of the Mufassirîn. As an example, at-Tabarî said the following in the Tafsîr of the Âyah Yûsuf 12/26: “It is said that the meaning of the statement “bore witness” is; a judge passed judgment. This was narrated to me by the way of al-Farrâ - Muallâ bin Hallâl - Abû Yahyâ from Mujâhid.”
After mentioning that meaning of witnessing in the Âyah is judging, al-Mâwardî then mentioned four statements with regards to the characteristics of the witness or the judge:
1- This witness is a baby in swaddle.
2- A creature amongst the creatures of Allâh other than a man or Jinnî.
3- A wise person amongst the family of the woman or her cousin.
4- It is the ripped shirt itself.
For the details of these statements, refer back to the Tafsîr of the Âyah Yûsuf 12/26 by al-Qurtubî.
Our intention is not to discuss these details, however, we believe at least the following question should be asked - Usûl wise -: How could this statement in the Âyah “...and a witness of her household bore witness…” [Yûsuf 12:26] and its explanation by some of the Ulamâ as “a judge passed a judgment” be taken as evidence to the permissibility of seeking judgment from the Tâghût? From which Usûl did this person who keeps talking pretentiously about the Usûl and Qawâ’id (the Rulings) deduct that defending oneself in the court of the Tâghût is Jâ’iz?
Do these people evaluate themselves as Mujtahid? If they do - then this is nothing but delirium - then they should know - as all the Mujtahid know - that all evidences for a matters’ Dalâlat should be Qat’î (definite) and if there is possibility then Istidlâl with such Dalîl is Bâtil.
In the above-mentioned Âyah, there are many different views concerning the witness to be a baby or an adult or a shirt. Moreover, this is only one of the views concerning the matter. This is a sufficient proof that the Dalîl is problematic (doubtful), and with such a problematic Dalîl, Hukm cannot be given. Even if we evaluate that she passed judgment as a judge with following statement: “...If it be that his shirt is torn from the front, then her tale is true and he is a liar!” [Yûsuf 12:26] then we need to define what kind of Hukm is intended with this.
As an example, amongst the scholars of Lughah, al-Akhfash in his Ma’ân’il Qur’ân mentions that this person made a Sulh (mediator-ship) between them. Sulh is different from passing judgment and Muhâkamah.
At this point, the following questions must be asked:
This Hukm cannot be compared to seeking judgment from the Tâghût while applying to his Bâtil laws in order to free the one in prison or the one who is enslaved. This is because in the latter there is the crime to take the laws of Shirk to a judge between the parties, however, the first scenario is merely asking a Kâfir to help. Actually, in this scenario, there is nothing related to the court and making Istidlâl with this event to the issues of court is an act of Bâtil upon Bâtil.
If these
distorters had not brought this as a proof and had not caused Fitnah
with the doubts, we would have never taken this matter into hand.
Allâh said,
“He
[Yûsuf (Joseph)] said: "It was she that sought to seduce me," - and a
witness of her household bore witness (saying): "If it be that his shirt
is torn from the front, then her tale is true and he is a liar!” [Yûsuf
12:26]Some people claim that some of the Tafsîr scholars evaluated this witnessing as passing Hukm while bringing the above mentioned Âyah related with the accusation of Yûsuf (as) with Zinâ and witnessing the witness and also some of the statements of the Mufassirîn. As an example, at-Tabarî said the following in the Tafsîr of the Âyah Yûsuf 12/26: “It is said that the meaning of the statement “bore witness” is; a judge passed judgment. This was narrated to me by the way of al-Farrâ - Muallâ bin Hallâl - Abû Yahyâ from Mujâhid.”
After mentioning that meaning of witnessing in the Âyah is judging, al-Mâwardî then mentioned four statements with regards to the characteristics of the witness or the judge:
1- This witness is a baby in swaddle.
2- A creature amongst the creatures of Allâh other than a man or Jinnî.
3- A wise person amongst the family of the woman or her cousin.
4- It is the ripped shirt itself.
For the details of these statements, refer back to the Tafsîr of the Âyah Yûsuf 12/26 by al-Qurtubî.
Our intention is not to discuss these details, however, we believe at least the following question should be asked - Usûl wise -: How could this statement in the Âyah “...and a witness of her household bore witness…” [Yûsuf 12:26] and its explanation by some of the Ulamâ as “a judge passed a judgment” be taken as evidence to the permissibility of seeking judgment from the Tâghût? From which Usûl did this person who keeps talking pretentiously about the Usûl and Qawâ’id (the Rulings) deduct that defending oneself in the court of the Tâghût is Jâ’iz?
Do these people evaluate themselves as Mujtahid? If they do - then this is nothing but delirium - then they should know - as all the Mujtahid know - that all evidences for a matters’ Dalâlat should be Qat’î (definite) and if there is possibility then Istidlâl with such Dalîl is Bâtil.
In the above-mentioned Âyah, there are many different views concerning the witness to be a baby or an adult or a shirt. Moreover, this is only one of the views concerning the matter. This is a sufficient proof that the Dalîl is problematic (doubtful), and with such a problematic Dalîl, Hukm cannot be given. Even if we evaluate that she passed judgment as a judge with following statement: “...If it be that his shirt is torn from the front, then her tale is true and he is a liar!” [Yûsuf 12:26] then we need to define what kind of Hukm is intended with this.
As an example, amongst the scholars of Lughah, al-Akhfash in his Ma’ân’il Qur’ân mentions that this person made a Sulh (mediator-ship) between them. Sulh is different from passing judgment and Muhâkamah.
At this point, the following questions must be asked:
Is
there any indicator in the Âyah or the statements of the Mufassirîn
that this gathering - Hâshâ - is a gathering of court that settled
according to the Ahkâm of Shirk?
Would they be able to bring a single scholar from the past other than these ignorant contemporaries that by making Istidlâl with this Âyah stated that seeking judgment from Tâghût is permissible?
Also, what is the description of this judge? If this judge which is mentioned in the story is a baby or a shirt then how could they take the qualification of Tâghût?
If this judge is a relative of the woman, then is there any evidence that this relative of the woman did the witnessing or judgment not as a mediator but with the qualification of being Tâghût who passed Hukm according to Ahkâm of Shirk?
All of these even from the Usûl point of view show that their Istidlâl is Bâtil. Yet, these people who bring this parable as a doubt might know the reality they just throw doubts - as usual - at the ignorant laypeople without explaining or verifying the narration.
Moreover, they do not even explain how this Âyah could be a Dalîl in their favor. This is because if they verify the issue Ilm wise then it will appear that it cannot be a Dalîl for anything. Such things do happen due to not having the intention of finding the truth but gilding the pill of the laypeople with some good fashion of speech.
In short; the accusation that Yûsuf (as) sought judgment of the Tâghût is the same as all other accusations it has no basis and it is gilding the pill of the laypeople with similarities. There is no evidence indicating that Yûsuf (as) showed consent to the judgment as it happens today in the courts of the Tâghût judging with the laws of the religion of the Kuffâr.
Those who claim this have proved their ignorance regarding Tawhîd and have spoken ill of the innocence of the Prophets.
Refuting the Slander Made to the Sorcerers/Magicians Who Believed and Ibrâhîm (as) Regarding Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût !
Previously, we tried to respond to the defamation of the prophets of Allâh. In reality, these are deliriums not even worthy of response. However, because ignorance is on the rise today and the fear of Allâh has decreased, some individuals do take these serious and fall into doubt. For this reason, we would like to respond to these slanders.
First, we need to emphasize that those who bring forth such claims are indeed those who do not comprehend “the mutual call of all of the prophets and the messengers”. If it was the other way around, meaning, if they had comprehended Tawhîd, then they would have comprehended the reality that a matter as evident as Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût would never be permitted in any Sharî’ah. They would also comprehend that the prophets and the messengers especially and their Ashâb (those who submit to them and their call during their era including others) are far distant from an act of Shirk namely Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût. How is this possible, while you claim that you believe in the reality that all of the Messengers came with the command, Serve Allâh, and eschew Tâghût! (Refer back to the Âyah, an-Nahl 16/36) you also claim that all of these Messengers’ (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût, although they were ordered to reject him. (Refer back to the Âyah, an-Nisâ 4/60)
The person whom claims that anyone from amongst the A’immah (pl. Imâm) of Islâm including the prophets and the messengers performed Muhâkamah bi’t Tâghût, will be asked, “what is the Hukm of Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût?” If he responds and says, “It is Kufr” then he is replied to, “Do you attribute Kufr to the prophets and the messengers?” If he says, “we believe that Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût is Kufr, however, we believe that defending oneself in the court of the Tâghût is not Kufr.” Then he is asked, “What is it that separates defending oneself in the court of the Tâghût from seeking judgment from the Tâghût? What difference therein between this two?” They would have no acceptable response to this question since defending oneself in the court is a process that is an element of seeking judgment.
Thus, they would have to claim that these messengers and A’immah sought judgment from the Tâghût, which is ascribing Kufr to them. Otherwise, they would allege Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût is permissible in some cases which is in opposition to the principle ‘the only exemption to Kufr is coercion’ consequently this would be claiming that Aqîdah could change according to time and place. Alternatively, they would just have to admit they did not perform the act of Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût, which will leave no difficulty.
Things such as; debating with the Kuffâr, bringing Hujjah against them, requesting they expel the persecution etc. does not mean Muhâkamah b’it Tâghût. The definition of Muhâkamah b’it Tâghût is clear. As mentioned before, Muhâkamah b’it Tâghût is to present conflict and demand judgment from it.
Would they be able to bring a single scholar from the past other than these ignorant contemporaries that by making Istidlâl with this Âyah stated that seeking judgment from Tâghût is permissible?
Also, what is the description of this judge? If this judge which is mentioned in the story is a baby or a shirt then how could they take the qualification of Tâghût?
If this judge is a relative of the woman, then is there any evidence that this relative of the woman did the witnessing or judgment not as a mediator but with the qualification of being Tâghût who passed Hukm according to Ahkâm of Shirk?
All of these even from the Usûl point of view show that their Istidlâl is Bâtil. Yet, these people who bring this parable as a doubt might know the reality they just throw doubts - as usual - at the ignorant laypeople without explaining or verifying the narration.
Moreover, they do not even explain how this Âyah could be a Dalîl in their favor. This is because if they verify the issue Ilm wise then it will appear that it cannot be a Dalîl for anything. Such things do happen due to not having the intention of finding the truth but gilding the pill of the laypeople with some good fashion of speech.
In short; the accusation that Yûsuf (as) sought judgment of the Tâghût is the same as all other accusations it has no basis and it is gilding the pill of the laypeople with similarities. There is no evidence indicating that Yûsuf (as) showed consent to the judgment as it happens today in the courts of the Tâghût judging with the laws of the religion of the Kuffâr.
Those who claim this have proved their ignorance regarding Tawhîd and have spoken ill of the innocence of the Prophets.
Refuting the Slander Made to the Sorcerers/Magicians Who Believed and Ibrâhîm (as) Regarding Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût !
Previously, we tried to respond to the defamation of the prophets of Allâh. In reality, these are deliriums not even worthy of response. However, because ignorance is on the rise today and the fear of Allâh has decreased, some individuals do take these serious and fall into doubt. For this reason, we would like to respond to these slanders.
First, we need to emphasize that those who bring forth such claims are indeed those who do not comprehend “the mutual call of all of the prophets and the messengers”. If it was the other way around, meaning, if they had comprehended Tawhîd, then they would have comprehended the reality that a matter as evident as Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût would never be permitted in any Sharî’ah. They would also comprehend that the prophets and the messengers especially and their Ashâb (those who submit to them and their call during their era including others) are far distant from an act of Shirk namely Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût. How is this possible, while you claim that you believe in the reality that all of the Messengers came with the command, Serve Allâh, and eschew Tâghût! (Refer back to the Âyah, an-Nahl 16/36) you also claim that all of these Messengers’ (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Tâghût, although they were ordered to reject him. (Refer back to the Âyah, an-Nisâ 4/60)
The person whom claims that anyone from amongst the A’immah (pl. Imâm) of Islâm including the prophets and the messengers performed Muhâkamah bi’t Tâghût, will be asked, “what is the Hukm of Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût?” If he responds and says, “It is Kufr” then he is replied to, “Do you attribute Kufr to the prophets and the messengers?” If he says, “we believe that Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût is Kufr, however, we believe that defending oneself in the court of the Tâghût is not Kufr.” Then he is asked, “What is it that separates defending oneself in the court of the Tâghût from seeking judgment from the Tâghût? What difference therein between this two?” They would have no acceptable response to this question since defending oneself in the court is a process that is an element of seeking judgment.
Thus, they would have to claim that these messengers and A’immah sought judgment from the Tâghût, which is ascribing Kufr to them. Otherwise, they would allege Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût is permissible in some cases which is in opposition to the principle ‘the only exemption to Kufr is coercion’ consequently this would be claiming that Aqîdah could change according to time and place. Alternatively, they would just have to admit they did not perform the act of Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût, which will leave no difficulty.
Things such as; debating with the Kuffâr, bringing Hujjah against them, requesting they expel the persecution etc. does not mean Muhâkamah b’it Tâghût. The definition of Muhâkamah b’it Tâghût is clear. As mentioned before, Muhâkamah b’it Tâghût is to present conflict and demand judgment from it.
Now,
in the mentioned parables of the sorcerers who believed or that of
Ibrâhîm (as) where conflict occurs in his debate with the pagans, when
is the Tâghût appointed as an arbitrator and when is animosity resolved
under the laws of shirk, when are the shirk laws taken as foundation? It
seems that in order to satisfy their conscience, and to find a sheath
to their Bâtil, these men attempt to bring evidence for their Shirk
actions they accrue today without verifying whether or not it is giving
someone other than Allâh the power of legislating and give judgment, due
to acting upon shapely similarities, by implanting everything in
question regarding presenting evidence and making a witness available
into the scope of Muhâkamah.
If the sorcerers or Ibrâhîm (as) did not give the rights of Tashrî to other than Allâh -and we consider them to be free of such claims- then it is Bâtil to compare this to the situation of the procedure of Muhâkamah of our day wherein a person gives the right of judging to other than the Lord of the Worlds. But if these people claim that these leaders of Tawhîd sought judgement from their Bâtil laws while ascribing partners to Allâh in His Kingship due to Maslahah, then we do not have anything other to say to such people, “May the curse of Allâh be upon the likes of you !”
In short, the answer to give these people is in Asl’ud Dîn which is Tawhîd. The Kalimah La ilaha illallâh is the mutual call of all Rusul and rejecting those who claim rulership other than Allâh is also included in this. The Rusul are not to call to this Dîn and then do something which is in opposition to this, for Allâh has preserved them from this.
Another question to ask these people from an Usûl angle is, “Who is your Salaf in these claims?”, which means “Which Rabbânî (learned religious) Âlim -before these claimants- made Istidlâl from these Âyât claiming seeking judgement from the Tâghût is Jâ’iz in some circumstances? It is out-of-sight for the Rabbânî Ulamâ to say such and the issue that these Juhhâl do not bring anything to support their views except for their personal arguments is a Qarînah on its own which shows how Bâtil these claims are.
As for the Tafsîlât of the Âyât we have mentioned, the parable of the sorcerers of Fir’awn, mentions that they said to Fir’awn after having believed,
“They said: "We prefer you not over the clear signs that have come to us, and to Him (Allāh) Who created us. So decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree (regarding) this life of the world.” [Tâ-Hâ 20:72]
As for the incident of Ibrâhîm (as), Allâh narrated in Sûrat’ul Anbiyâ what he said to the Kuffâr after breaking their idols,
If the sorcerers or Ibrâhîm (as) did not give the rights of Tashrî to other than Allâh -and we consider them to be free of such claims- then it is Bâtil to compare this to the situation of the procedure of Muhâkamah of our day wherein a person gives the right of judging to other than the Lord of the Worlds. But if these people claim that these leaders of Tawhîd sought judgement from their Bâtil laws while ascribing partners to Allâh in His Kingship due to Maslahah, then we do not have anything other to say to such people, “May the curse of Allâh be upon the likes of you !”
In short, the answer to give these people is in Asl’ud Dîn which is Tawhîd. The Kalimah La ilaha illallâh is the mutual call of all Rusul and rejecting those who claim rulership other than Allâh is also included in this. The Rusul are not to call to this Dîn and then do something which is in opposition to this, for Allâh has preserved them from this.
Another question to ask these people from an Usûl angle is, “Who is your Salaf in these claims?”, which means “Which Rabbânî (learned religious) Âlim -before these claimants- made Istidlâl from these Âyât claiming seeking judgement from the Tâghût is Jâ’iz in some circumstances? It is out-of-sight for the Rabbânî Ulamâ to say such and the issue that these Juhhâl do not bring anything to support their views except for their personal arguments is a Qarînah on its own which shows how Bâtil these claims are.
As for the Tafsîlât of the Âyât we have mentioned, the parable of the sorcerers of Fir’awn, mentions that they said to Fir’awn after having believed,
“They said: "We prefer you not over the clear signs that have come to us, and to Him (Allāh) Who created us. So decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree (regarding) this life of the world.” [Tâ-Hâ 20:72]
The statement which these Juhhâl make Istidlâl out of “...So decree whatever you desire to decree...”
is explained by many Mufassirîn - firstly Ibnu Abbâs - as “Do whatever
you are to do.” It is known that this statement is a statement said to
challenge Fir’awn. Where is the similarity between this statement and
seeking judgement and forgiveness from the Tâghût in a state of
humility? Whereas, this is just like what Nûh (as) said to his people,
“And
recite to them the news of Nûh (Noah). When he said to his people: "O
my people, if my stay (with you), and my reminding (you) of the Ayāt
(proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allāh
is hard on you, then I put my trust in Allāh. So devise your plot, you
and your partners, and let not your plot be in doubt for you. Then pass
your sentence on me and give me no respite.” [Yûnus 10:71]
Al-Baghawî said the following in his Tafsîr, “Then pass your sentence on me.” This is just like the statement of the sorcerers to Fir’awn, “...So decree whatever you desire to decree..”,
which means “Do whatever you are to do! Do not consider, nor delay (the
punishment you are to give us)!” This is upon helplessness. Allâh
mentioned Nûh (as)h that he used to be confident in the Help of Allâh
without fearing the plot of his people because he knew that neither they
nor their deities can benefit nor harm without the will of Allâh.
As seen, the statement “Then pass your sentence on me”; “...So decree whatever you desire to decree..” in the both incidents meaning in the incident of the sorcerers of Fir’awn and in the incident of Nûh (as) saying this to his people are statements which depict challenging the Kuffâr, the Tawakkul of the one who said the statement, and that he does not fear the Kuffâr. It is clear that this has no relation with the Zanâdiqah (heretics) of our day seeking judgement from the Kuffâr and seeking judgement from his laws.
As seen, the statement “Then pass your sentence on me”; “...So decree whatever you desire to decree..” in the both incidents meaning in the incident of the sorcerers of Fir’awn and in the incident of Nûh (as) saying this to his people are statements which depict challenging the Kuffâr, the Tawakkul of the one who said the statement, and that he does not fear the Kuffâr. It is clear that this has no relation with the Zanâdiqah (heretics) of our day seeking judgement from the Kuffâr and seeking judgement from his laws.
As for the incident of Ibrâhîm (as), Allâh narrated in Sûrat’ul Anbiyâ what he said to the Kuffâr after breaking their idols,
”They
said: "Who has done this to our āliha (gods)? He must indeed be one of
the wrong-doers." They said: "We heard a young man talking (against)
them who is called Ibrāhim (Abraham)." They said: "Then bring him before
the eyes of the people, that they may testify." They said: "Are you the
one who has done this to our gods, O Ibrāhim (Abraham)?" [Ibrāhim
(Abraham)] said: "Nay, this one, the biggest of them (idols) did it. Ask
them, if they can speak!"” [al-Anbiyâ 21:59-63]
In the Tafsîr of al-Qurtubî, there is no statement referring to Ibrâhîm (as) defending himself in the court of the Kuffâr. What is narrated in Qurtubî’s Tafsîr is as follows,
Their is one issue in the statement of Allâh, “They said, Then bring him before the eyes of the people”, and it is that when the news regarding this (the breaking of the idols) reached Namrûd and the nobles from amongst his people, they disliked to take him (to question him) without any proof. So they said, “Bring him in a clear manner to an eyes distance from the people, until they see him “that they may testify” against what he said, so that this may be a Hujjah (proof/evidence) against him.”
It was also said that “that they may testify” to his punishment so that nobody does what he did. Or that the people may “bear witness” that they saw him breaking the idols, or “that they may testify.” his defaming of their gods so that they know that he deserves the punishment.
I say: in this is an evidence that nobody was held responsible with a mere claim by another, this is due to Allâh’s statement, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may testify." The issue is also like this in our Sharî’ah and there is no Ikhtilâf regarding it.”
We think that these claimants say this because of what Qurtubî mentions of the Kuffâr gathering evidences and witnesses regarding whether Ibrâhîm broke the idols or not and them not giving a ruling with only one claim and investigating about the issue - which is only one of the explanations of the Âyah - and they claim that the people who asked Ibrâhîm (as) these questions were judging him.
Firstly, Qurtubî did not mention that this Majlis (gathering) was a Majlis of judgement. He only mentioned that they looked for evidences and witnesses against Ibrâhîm (as). So the claim that Ibrâhîm (as) went to the court of the Tâghût and defended himself is only an interpretation which these claimants have made-up.
As we have mentioned many times above, all of the Ahkâm (pl. of Hukm) given in Islâm is tied to the Illah of it being in terms of presence and absence.
The Illah of seeking judgement from the Tâghût is giving the right of Tashrî to other than Allâh. This only happens when these people give judgement in the name of their deities, idols, or laws they establish by their own Hawâ.
Now, where in the occurrence of Ibrâhîm (as) is the acceptance of judgement from or giving the right of Tashrî to other than Allâh? By no means did Ibrâhîm (as) accept such a Shirk. The issue here is what can arise in daily life, amongst the Muslimîn or the Kuffâr. Without taking the issue to court people can verify occurrences in daily life, incidences such as theft, broken things, or wasting an item etc. they’ll investigate whether anyone saw it and with this they try to find out who did it.
There is no problem in regards to a Muslim to speak some words to make the Bâtil of the Dîn of the Mushrikîn explicit, just as Yûsuf (as) responded to the claim of Zinâ thrown upon him or Ibrâhîm (as) speaking to silence the Kuffâr. This is because this is not seeking judgement from the Tâghût, since these are not gatherings of Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût and are not binding.
Whereas, the courts of today see themselves as the divine ruling authority and the person who is charged with an offense or the claimant who opens the case has - without doubt - subjected his Ikhtilâf to the Tâghût who resolves the conflict according to the present Shirk laws.
The defendant who is charged with an offense also defend themselves against the claimant who has filed a lawsuit/opened the case against them - whether it is the state or individuals - defend themselves according to the Shirk Ahkâm and with this, they again present their Ikhtilâf to the Tâghût.
With this, the action of Shirk cannot be claimed to be “Mubâh” according to some possible statements in the Âyah and with some statements of the scholars which does not have anything to do with the matter. This means that while dependent upon such Mutashâbih (unclear) evidences, seeking judgement from the Tâghût, which is Kufr according to many Muhkam (clear) Nass, cannot be claimed to be Mubâh. Similarly, making some acts which are Kufr, Mubâh with some Mutashâbih statements of the scholars is only a description possessed by those with warped hearts. Moreover, the statements of the scholars cannot be a Hujjah (evidence) in regards to Usûl’ud Dîn.
In the Tafsîr of al-Qurtubî, there is no statement referring to Ibrâhîm (as) defending himself in the court of the Kuffâr. What is narrated in Qurtubî’s Tafsîr is as follows,
Their is one issue in the statement of Allâh, “They said, Then bring him before the eyes of the people”, and it is that when the news regarding this (the breaking of the idols) reached Namrûd and the nobles from amongst his people, they disliked to take him (to question him) without any proof. So they said, “Bring him in a clear manner to an eyes distance from the people, until they see him “that they may testify” against what he said, so that this may be a Hujjah (proof/evidence) against him.”
It was also said that “that they may testify” to his punishment so that nobody does what he did. Or that the people may “bear witness” that they saw him breaking the idols, or “that they may testify.” his defaming of their gods so that they know that he deserves the punishment.
I say: in this is an evidence that nobody was held responsible with a mere claim by another, this is due to Allâh’s statement, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may testify." The issue is also like this in our Sharî’ah and there is no Ikhtilâf regarding it.”
We think that these claimants say this because of what Qurtubî mentions of the Kuffâr gathering evidences and witnesses regarding whether Ibrâhîm broke the idols or not and them not giving a ruling with only one claim and investigating about the issue - which is only one of the explanations of the Âyah - and they claim that the people who asked Ibrâhîm (as) these questions were judging him.
Firstly, Qurtubî did not mention that this Majlis (gathering) was a Majlis of judgement. He only mentioned that they looked for evidences and witnesses against Ibrâhîm (as). So the claim that Ibrâhîm (as) went to the court of the Tâghût and defended himself is only an interpretation which these claimants have made-up.
As we have mentioned many times above, all of the Ahkâm (pl. of Hukm) given in Islâm is tied to the Illah of it being in terms of presence and absence.
The Illah of seeking judgement from the Tâghût is giving the right of Tashrî to other than Allâh. This only happens when these people give judgement in the name of their deities, idols, or laws they establish by their own Hawâ.
Now, where in the occurrence of Ibrâhîm (as) is the acceptance of judgement from or giving the right of Tashrî to other than Allâh? By no means did Ibrâhîm (as) accept such a Shirk. The issue here is what can arise in daily life, amongst the Muslimîn or the Kuffâr. Without taking the issue to court people can verify occurrences in daily life, incidences such as theft, broken things, or wasting an item etc. they’ll investigate whether anyone saw it and with this they try to find out who did it.
There is no problem in regards to a Muslim to speak some words to make the Bâtil of the Dîn of the Mushrikîn explicit, just as Yûsuf (as) responded to the claim of Zinâ thrown upon him or Ibrâhîm (as) speaking to silence the Kuffâr. This is because this is not seeking judgement from the Tâghût, since these are not gatherings of Muhâkamah Bi’t Tâghût and are not binding.
Whereas, the courts of today see themselves as the divine ruling authority and the person who is charged with an offense or the claimant who opens the case has - without doubt - subjected his Ikhtilâf to the Tâghût who resolves the conflict according to the present Shirk laws.
The defendant who is charged with an offense also defend themselves against the claimant who has filed a lawsuit/opened the case against them - whether it is the state or individuals - defend themselves according to the Shirk Ahkâm and with this, they again present their Ikhtilâf to the Tâghût.
With this, the action of Shirk cannot be claimed to be “Mubâh” according to some possible statements in the Âyah and with some statements of the scholars which does not have anything to do with the matter. This means that while dependent upon such Mutashâbih (unclear) evidences, seeking judgement from the Tâghût, which is Kufr according to many Muhkam (clear) Nass, cannot be claimed to be Mubâh. Similarly, making some acts which are Kufr, Mubâh with some Mutashâbih statements of the scholars is only a description possessed by those with warped hearts. Moreover, the statements of the scholars cannot be a Hujjah (evidence) in regards to Usûl’ud Dîn.
Written by Brother Abdulhakim Hanif
Assalmualikum, I have a question concerning this issue. I know that the general ruling on the one who seeks judgement from the taghut is major shirk. However, what is the ruling of the individual person when he goes to seek judgment. Brother Abdulhakim Hanif said "The ignorance of one that it is Kufr or having Ta’wîl to do so is not an excuse and those who apply to the courts of Tâghût are all Kuffâr in total. Those who pause on the Takfîr of these people or those who claim that ignorance or Ta’wîl are excuses for not making Takfîr, are Kâfir and Mushrik as those who do not declare Takfîr of the doer of other types of Shirk. Meaning, the principle of “whoever does not declare Takfîr of a Kâfir is himself a Kâfir” is valid for all actions which are included in seeking judgment from the Tâghût. But Shaykh Nasir Al-Fahd gave an answer to a question that if very different to what this brother said:
ReplyDeleteThe Ruling on Making Taḥākum
to the Ṭāghūt Courts Based on
Ḍarūrah (Necessity)
QUESTION. About the principle mentioned in previous whoever is not able to solve an issue except by going through to the Ṭāghūt courts – then this is a necessity. Therefore, necessities make lawful the muḥarramāt (ḥarām acts), not the mukaffirāt (kufr acts). So, what is the tafsīl(explanation) regarding this issue?
ANSWER. It is not permissible to go towards the Ṭāghūt for judgement, except in the case of ikrāh (coercion) alone, because it is kufr. However, some Students of Knowledge view that the
necessity here permits that (i.e. going to the court of Ṭāghūt),using the ḥadīth of al-Ḥajjāj Ibn ʿalaṭ as evidence. Just as some of the scholars have entered ‘ḍarūrah’ (necessity) into ‘ikrāh’ (coercion), as it was mentioned in the previous answer. But what is correct is that it is not permissible. However, if he had taʾwīl (misinterpretation) such as these taʾwīlāt
(misinterpretations), and he was in necessary need of that (i.e. going to the Ṭāghūt courts), then he does not become a Kāfir.
And Allāh وتعالى سبحانه knows best.
so the shaykh here gave one of the preventives of takfir in this matter and preventives of takfir are only given in unclear matters. So what is the correct ruling on the individual?
Waalaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullah Umm Kawlah,
DeleteJazak Allah khair for your detailed comment with the Fatawa of Shaykh Nasr Al-Fahd (fakk Allahu asrah), BarakAllahu feeki Sis... but regarding this Topic in general there are differences of opinion amongst the righteous Scholars on that which can result to it being Kuffr Akbar and thats why we leave it open for our Muslim readers to Insha’Allah follow whichever Shaykh’s Fatawa or in general whichever opinion they believe is more closer to the haqq especially since we are speaking about various Scholars of haqq and their opinions and so we are not in position to say who is right and/or who isn’t rather they all have their reasonings to backup their belief in this matter and so Insha’Allah like our disclaimer says the readers are open to accept or reject that which they believe is more closer to Quraan and Sunnah.
And indeed the rest Allah knows best !
1. Suppose a person is doubtful about the shirk of the grave worshippers because he believes they are excused for their ignorance.
ReplyDeleteIs such a person himself a mushrik for doubting the shirk of the mushrik?
2. Suppose a person obeys the traffic laws of a democratic country.
Is he a mushrik thereby?
1. If you are asking the view and that which the admins of this blog follows then yes such a person has himself become a kafir if he doubts the kufr of the grave worshipers since the blog admins believe and follow the aqeedah matter that there is no excuse of ignorance in matters of major shirk. You may find some articles related to such topics under the “Imaan and Kuffr” section in the Contents/Index page.
DeleteOn the other hand yes you will also find other scholars who give excuse of ignorance on such matters and in-fact on all matters. So it all depends on whom one is taking knowledge from in matters of aqeedah and what one truly believes are the authentic evidences that are being provided from the Quran and sunnah.
2. No such a person can never be considered as a mushrik. Obeying laws of any country that does not contradict the shariah is not kufr especially in matters of ones safety. If there was shariah in place in whichever country you are there would definitely would’ve been the same traffic laws, i.e stop at red signal, park at the right spot, do not drive through one way traffic, etc. Such laws do not contradict Allah’s deen if anything such laws should be placed for everyones safety or else there’ll be accidents and deaths everywhere. Shariah does not tell us by any means to push ourselves upon harm so for example if a person says “so what if I drive through one way traffic I do not obey their law anyways!” and so he ends up having an accident and harming himself, family and others around him-this is actually going against shariah, i.e bringing harm upon oneself and others around him on purpose and he will be held accountable for as such by any muslim on authority.
Assalamu Allaikum
ReplyDeleteWhat's the rulling on signing End User Licensing Agreements that has this clause that all disputes would be resolved in courts that follow man made laws?
Because almost all of the software like Windows and Word have these kind of clauses (BTW I only use 2 types of softwares that are either essential without which I could not get my work done and the other ones are those softwares which eventhough are not essential but do help me in making my tasks easy and avoid hardship). Also apps like Uber also have such clause. And they are also available in contracts for things things like cellphone providers, to gain electricity etc. What should a Muslim do under nowadays because alot of things like getting a property, traveling have such conditions? but mostly I sign these contracts with the intention that I live in a Muslim country in Asia and these those companies won't actually come and take me to court as there is not a single example available in my country and also I don't do anything illegal or neither pirate these softwares and also my intention is that I won't agree to their haram conditions and would only agree to those which are permissible in Islam.
Waalaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullah,
DeleteGenerally this ofcourse isn’t allowed in the Shari’ah and so we sent one of our Shaykh your question and he said since it’s something that cannot be avoided and no doubt all such conditions are there in mainly everything we need and use for work or other important dealings then depending on the necessity the Scholars have termed it permissible under the enforced upon rule that cannot be escaped and so just like when one is under duress we must hate it within our heart and what is not required should be avoided Insha’Allah.
The rest indeed Allah alone knows best.
As salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu a sister is being asked to go court for an offence of driving unlicensed if she does not attend she will be arrested without doubt does this come under ikrah? JazaakAllahu Kheiran
ReplyDeleteWaalaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
DeleteBarakAllahu feek.
We referred your question to one of our Ustaadh, below is his response on this issue alhamdulillah:
“Some Mashaykh view that as a form of Duress due to the court being able to arrange arrest and also impose a fine or imprisonment for offences and others view it as allowed to attend a summoning just like how the Sahabah attended the call of Najashi to answer the charges brought by Quraish.”
The rest indeed Allah alone knows best.