Shubuhat – Doubts regarding arbitration to taghout

We are not going to give in this topic the concepts of ‘it is obligatory to obey the shari’ah’
or ‘every action is based on hukm’ etc.

Rather if we refute the doubts about these concepts it becomes easier to explain the
concept itself. We know very well, that whatever man utters from his mouth, he will be
accounted for it. Whatever he does willingly he will be accounted. Allah (swt) says,

“Any atoms weight of good you do, you will see it, and any atom’s weight of evil you do,
you will see it.” [Zalzalah]

The prophet (saw) said,

“A man may say a word without to consider it important and it will take him to the
hellfire for 40 decades.”

We have a principle in the shari’ah:

“The reality of a matter cannot be changed by changing its name.”

I.e. the fact of a matter cannot be changed, by calling it a different name, the way we do
not differentiate between civilian and military, all those who can fight are considered
fighters.

The same way that we say Democracy cannot become halal by calling it shura, it is not
shura it is still shirk in the legislation of Allah (swt).

Those who say “we arbitrate to taghout, because …so-and-so…” say:

1- “… it is not arbitration, it is only to seek our haq”:

It is those who say that if you do not go to the taghout to seek the huquq (rights), then
you will lose all your rights.

Al Tahakum is Al Ibadah. The Tawheed is Ifraad ullahi fil ibaadah, to worship Allah
exclusively. Al Tahakum is a form of Ibadah, and the only one worthy to be worshipped
is Allah. Al Tahakum is defined as:

“To refer to and arbitrate to another who will resolve the dispute of any problem between
two or more parties.”

That ‘return’ to seek a hukm, or to solve a problem or to seek Haq is an action of the
limbs and is not an action of the heart.

Changing the word Al Tahakum to ‘seeking the haq’ will not change the reality that it is
arbitration (Al Tahakum). Even if he escapes from calling his action arbitration to
taghout, but calls it ‘seeking haq’ does not change the fact that it is still arbitration.

Doing so is called Al Ta’alluh to Allah, a form of legislation.

The action is a pillar of Imaan, and Tahakum is an action of the limbs not the heart, so his
niyyah in this action has no relevance to the hukm. His going to the taghout cannot be
excused by his saying “my intention was only to …so and so…” because arbitration is
not an action of the heart, but an action of the limbs.

The one who says that he can arbitrate to taghout with a different niyyah, only to ‘seek
the huquq’, is like the one who says you can make sujud to an idol as long as you do not
think that it is god, or he does not have the niyyah to worship the idol but only to respect
it.
In this case, you cannot call anyone Mushrik, because everyone can claim that he was not
really making sujud in his heart.

Ibn Qayyim said,

“One of the types of shirk is the sujud of the student to his sheikh, it is shirk for the one
who makes sujud and the one who accepts it. It is strange that they claim that it is not
sujud, that ‘it is only putting the head between the feet of the sheikh out of respect and a
matter of elevation.’; If you give it any name you like, the reality of the sujud is that you
put your head down in front of the one who you want to make sujud to.” [Al Madaarij Al
Saalikin v1 p374]

The sujud cannot be made to a sheikh with the ‘intention’ of respect that is still shirk and
the sujud is putting your head down in front of the one who you make sujud to, whatever
you call it.

They also claim that “The Prophet (saw) took Mut’ab ibn ‘adiy as a bodyguard and he
was Mushrik, therefore we can arbitrate.”

Those people who use this foolish argument, and it is truly a foolish argument. They try
to raise a doubt that “the messenger arbitrated to mut’ab to protect him and so we can
arbitrate to taghout to protect our rights.”

The messenger Muhammad (saw) never arbitrated to mut’ab, he hired him to protect him.
Al Tahakum is:

“To refer to and arbitrate to another who will resolve the dispute of any problem between
two parties.”

When we speak about Tahakum we are speaking about something else, Allah (swt) says,

ً‫ن تَأْوِيل‬
ُ َ‫خيْرٌ وََأحْس‬
َ َ‫ي ٍء فَ ُردّوهُ إِلَى الّ وَالرّسُولِ إِن كُنتُ ْم تُ ْؤ ِمنُونَ بِالّ وَا ْليَوْمِ الخِ ِر ذَِلك‬
ْ َ‫عتُ ْم فِي ش‬
ْ َ‫فَإِن َتنَاز‬
“If you have Al Niza’, refer back to Allah and his Messenger. If you are believers in Allah
and the last day” [EMQ 4: 59]

Al NIza’ is a problem you face, or it is to leave something. If someone goes to someone

who can solve their problem, and they judge by other than what Allah (swt) revealed, (i.e.
he must be Muslim as well) that is disbelief in Allah, it is arbitration to other than Allah
(swt) and it is shirk Akbar.

That is not the same as paying a kafir to protect you, taking a bodyguard is something
that both Muhammad and Abu Bakr did. Abu Bakr entered with the protection of ibn
daghunna, and the Muslims entered with the protection of Al Najashi, and Muhammad
(saw) did take the protection of Mut’ab ibn ‘Adiy when he came back from Al Taa’if.
You can do the same, you can call the police to protect you, but you cannot press charges
nor take them to court to arbitrate.

If someone asks for their rights in the form of benefits it is not Arbitration, it does not
involve any dispute between two parties.

They also refer to Hilf ul Fudhul,

This is an agreement/contract that happened in the time of jahiliyyah, in the house of ibn
Jad’aan, he called people and said, “You cannot be so bad, we Arabs respect our guests
and we cannot kill them, they come to make hajj we must receive them and give them
protection.” He made an agreement to give protection to the hajjis, the prophet (saw)
said,

“If I was called to make a contract like Hilf ul Fudhul, I will participate.”

He was never there except as a child and was only told about it in Madinah, but people
jump to say he involved in arbitration to taghout. However, Arbitration has nothing to do
with protection of anybody and that protection has nothing to do with the topic of
arbitration.
Furthermore, the people of Hilf ul Fudhul were not Tawagheet, they were not rabbis or
priests or judges. They were only the heads of the tribes who agreed to give protection to
the hajjis. The Tawagheet that the people used to arbitrate to were people like Ka’b ibn
Ashraf and Dar ul Nadwa. Arbitration is not about people who say ‘I give my word’

The prophet (saw) said,

“They were individuals of the mushrikeen who gathered to help the oppressed.”

And he said about it,

“I was young when I went with my uncles to that agreement, By Allah I will not let it
down, even if they give me all the red camels.”

Hilf ul Fudhul is only an agreement of people to help oppressed people, it is not

arbitration, and the prophet (saw) praised any agreement to help the oppressed people.

Those who refer to this as evidence, we ask, did the saying of the prophet (saw) match
with the sayings of Ka’b ibn Ashraf and those people who arbitrated to them?

It does not, and has nothing to do with the issue of arbitration, so why should you use it
to legalise arbitration to taghout?

Some who argue about it contend that the judgement is fair in Britain and so they refer to
it and they use hilf ul fudhul as evidence.

However, we do not reject taghout because it is unjust or takes bribery, Allah ordered us
to reject taghout because it is kafir taghout, and no one can become Muslim without to
reject it, and to keep distance from it let alone to arbitrate to it.
Furthermore, they say that “we arbitrate to them in a matter if they pass a just verdict” as
if the verdict is passed by man, but the verdict is only from Allah (swt), the judge is the
only the one who passes the hukm of Allah. They are claiming that you can arbitrate to
them and accept or reject if it is just or oppression.

Allah (swt) forbade us to arbitrate to them, and the one who arbitrates to them has not
rejected them, Allah (swt) says,

‫ك يُرِيدُونَ أَن َيتَحَا َكمُواْ إِلَى الطّاغُوتِ َو َقدْ ُأمِرُواْ أَن‬ َ ‫ل مِن َقبِْل‬
َ ِ‫عمُونَ َأنّهُ ْم آ َمنُو ْا ِبمَا أُن ِزلَ إَِل ْيكَ َومَا أُنز‬
ُ ْ‫ن يَز‬
َ ‫أَلَ ْم تَرَ إِلَى اّلذِي‬
‫ل َبعِيدًا‬
ً‫ل‬َ َ‫ضّلهُمْ ض‬ ِ ُ‫شيْطَانُ أَن ي‬ّ ‫َيكْفُرُو ْا بِهِ َويُرِيدُ ال‬

“Have you seen those who claim to be believe in what was revealed to you and what was
revealed before you, yet they want to arbitrate to taghout while Allah ordered them to
reject it …” [4: 60]

Allah did not differentiate between arbitration to the taghout if his verdict is ‘just’ or
‘unjust’, and so we cannot look to Hilf ul Fudhul as evidence for arbitration to taghout if
they are ‘just’

Furthermore, those involved in the agreement did not only involve heads of tribes, it
involved individual people also, ibn Ja’daan was not a head of a tribe, the prophet’s uncle
was present and was not a head of a tribe; they were not Tawagheet. To go to people who
are strong and wise, which have respect in order to gain protection or agree to protect
people is not arbitration.

But to go to the Tawagheet, the kufr leaders, the kaafir judges etc for arbitration is kufr
and shirk, except under duress (for some ulema of Ahl Al Sunnah), if someone is certain
that he will face torture or death, he can go to the arbitration. The evidence for that is
Ammar bin Yaasir, Allah (swt) says,

“Whoever declares kufr after they had Imaan except the one under duress whose heart is
full of Imaan – but the one who is satisfied in his heart with kufr, upon him is the anger of
Allah and a severe punishment.”” [EMQ 16: 106]
2- “… The ayat about arbitration to taghout is related to those who do not accept the
hukm of Allah and his Messenger, whereas we arbitrate to taghout but we do accept the
hukm of Allah and his messenger.”

The claim that the Ayat in which Allah cursed those who arbitrate to taghout to be kafir,
to be only applicable for those who meant it and that they reject the hukm of Allah, They
put the condition on the arbitration that you must mean to arbitrate to taghout. They quote
about the two men, the Jew and the Munafiq who wanted to arbitrate to Ka’b ibn Ashraf,
the Jew did not trust Ka’b, because he knew he would take bribes and wanted to go to
Muhammad (saw), but the Munafiq refused and wanted to go to Ka’b. The ayah was
revealed,

‫ك يُرِيدُونَ أَن َيتَحَا َكمُواْ إِلَى الطّاغُوتِ َو َقدْ ُأمِرُواْ أَن‬ َ ‫ل مِن َقبِْل‬
َ ِ‫عمُونَ َأنّهُ ْم آ َمنُو ْا ِبمَا أُن ِزلَ إَِل ْيكَ َومَا أُنز‬
ُ ْ‫ن يَز‬
َ ‫أَلَ ْم تَرَ إِلَى اّلذِي‬
‫ل َبعِيدًا‬
ً‫ل‬َ َ‫ضّلهُمْ ض‬ ِ ُ‫شيْطَانُ أَن ي‬ّ ‫َيكْفُرُو ْا بِهِ َويُرِيدُ ال‬

“Have you seen those who claim to be believe in what was revealed to you and what was
revealed before you, yet they want to arbitrate to taghout while Allah ordered them to
reject it …” [4: 60]

They had Al Irada - they wanted to arbitrate to taghout.

They claim that it means that is only if they actually wanted to arbitrate that it is kufr, but
Allah (swt) did not say ‘if they wanted to arbitrate’ Allah was describing the situation,
describing that they wanted to arbitrate, Allah did not lay it down as a condition, it is
wrong to take this Irada as a condition for arbitration to taghout is kufr.

Another argument used by those people, is that they arbitrate to taghout while they do not
want to do so. This is however two descriptions of the same situation; both arbitrate to
taghout whether they want to or do not.

However, we know that there is no action that you do, that is not in conjunction with the
Irada, except under duress. This is a principle in the shari’ah:

“Any action you do with your free will that action is with choice, any action that is done
without choice is duress.”
Every action is joined with Al Iraada, but not every Iraada is joined with action. The
Iraada could be accompanied by an action and may also not (i.e. they may change their
mind before doing the action).

In this ayah where Allah (swt) says,

‫ك يُرِيدُونَ أَن َيتَحَا َكمُواْ إِلَى الطّاغُوتِ َو َقدْ ُأمِرُواْ أَن‬ َ ‫ل مِن َقبِْل‬
َ ِ‫عمُونَ َأنّهُ ْم آ َمنُو ْا ِبمَا أُن ِزلَ إَِل ْيكَ َومَا أُنز‬
ُ ْ‫ن يَز‬
َ ‫أَلَ ْم تَرَ إِلَى اّلذِي‬
‫ل َبعِيدًا‬
ً‫ل‬َ َ‫ضّلهُمْ ض‬ ِ ُ‫شيْطَانُ أَن ي‬ّ ‫َيكْفُرُو ْا بِهِ َويُرِيدُ ال‬

“Have you seen those who falsely claim to be believe in what was revealed to you and
what was revealed before you, yet they want to arbitrate to taghout while Allah ordered
them to reject it …” [EMQ 4: 60]

Allah (swt) said, “Have you seen …” and he called them liars and dispraised them
because of their action not their intention. Their going to arbitration was their kufr.
Anyone who goes to arbitrate is doing so by choice and that is cursed by Allah (swt) in
this ayah, after that he attacked them further when he (swt) says,

“They want to arbitrate to taghout when they were ordered to reject it…”

If we now go to taghout for arbitration, what could we mean by it other than arbitration?
It is something else to say that they were there and they did not mean it, but simply by
going there, that is an evidence against them.

Furthermore, any apparent worship to other than Allah is shirk Akbar whether you meant
it and accepted it or not except under duress. Arbitration is worship and is an apparent
worship, if someone goes to arbitrate to other than Allah, whether he likes it or dislikes it
is Mushrik, except under duress because Allah (swt) says, “except the one under duress”.
He is Mushrik whether he has iraada or no iraada.

Furthermore, it is not allowed to leave what is so clear cut, that Allah cursed them for
their arbitration in His saying, “have you seen those who falsely claim to believe…” in
order to go to what is doubtful and ambiguous, to go to the later part of the ayah that
says, “they wanted to arbitrate…” in order to cast doubt over it, Allah (swt) says after
that, “they wanted to arbitrate to taghout, while Allah ORDERED them to reject it.”
Allah’s command to reject the taghout cannot be used as an evidence to arbitrate to it,
when we clearly know from the ayah that Allah cursed the arbitration, it is unacceptable
to then go to their intention and all that is unclear.

If someone says that to worship different than Allah is Batil and kufr, but then he did not
leave it we would call him kafir. Their claim is countered by their own actions, you
cannot say it is batil to arbitrate to taghout and then continues to go to arbitration to
taghout.

The one who says he dislikes it but he continues to go to arbitrate to taghout, he did not
reject taghout, or if he does not do it but he likes it, he has not rejected taghout.

If they meant by this argument that the iraada is the niyyah (intention) regardless of the
sayings and actions, then in this case those who worship the graves and make tawwaf and
sujud for the graves, they never meant any shirk – so is that shirk? Ibn Taymiyyah said,

“The one who does or says the kufr, it is kufr even if he did not mean to be kafir because
no one ever means to become kafir except for the one that Allah alone knows.”

The people of batil never believe themselves to be people of batil, even Fir’awn thought
he was on the haq. The one who does kufr, he is kafir whether or not he meant to be kafir
or not. Imam Tabari on the tafseer of Surah Kahf, verse 104 “those who claim … and
those who claim to do the good deeds …”:

“This ayah is an evidence against anybody who claims that nobody becomes kafir in
Allah except the one who has the niyyah to become kafir after the knowledge of tawheed,
because Allah said their deeds are lost though they thought they were doing good deeds.”

Whatever they think is irrelevant and this ayah is evidence that people will become kafir
without to know, that they will be kafir while they think that they are doing the good
deeds. Imam Haafiz ibn Hajar said,

“Some of the Muslims go out from the deen without to mean to go out of it, and without
to choose any other deen than Islam.” [Fath ul Baari’]
It is irrelevant whether you want to become kafir or not, whether you want to arbitrate or
not, if you commit kufr, if you arbitrate to taghout, you are kafir.

Haafiz ibn Hajar also said,

“There is a hadith of the messenger that confirms that, Allah (swt) about the Khawaarij,
they read the haq, they recite the Qur’an, yet they leave the fold if Islam like the arrow
leaves the bow.”

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab said in relation to those who do ritual acts with a
different action,

“what they are doing in front of the graves from going to ask help and to solve their
problems, that is exactly what the Arabs of the mushrikeen did before the bi’tha, to laat
and ‘uzza, they said “we do not worship them, we only go there to be closer to Allah”.”

People today say the same thing; they say we do not go there to worship the taghout, only
to get our huquq. Allah called those Arabs Mushrik because they went to the idols not
because they had intention of worship.

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab continued,

“The question rises about the one from the Muslims who does that, is he kafir? For the
answer we look to the questioning of the grave, the angels will ask “who is your Lord?”
He will say, “Huh? I don’t know, I heard some people saying so and I said it …” and the
angels will hit him on the head …”

They did not know that they were Mushrik, but they were. Nobody is saved from the kufr
just because they did not know, otherwise nobody would become murtad nor would we
give them the chance to repent.
And it has been said,

“If you say that they are ignorant but they are Mushrik by their deeds, I say, written in the
books of the fuqaha of the ummah on the chapter of apostasy, that the one who says a
word of kufr, even if they do not know that it is kufr, and that is evidence that they are
jahil on Islam, if you say that they do not know Islam or kufr, then they are Kafir Asslie.”

Either way they are kafir whether murtad or Asslie. We see in the ayah that Allah cursed
the arbitration itself and further cursed the one who wants to arbitrate let alone to actually
arbitrate himself. Allah cursed them if they go to arbitration, and cursed them if they do
not arbitrate while they want to do so.

3- “… Arbitration is shirk, but shirk Asghar.”

Another argument is that it is shirk Asghar, and it is clear that when they are completely
stuck and cornered to the fact that it is Shirk, they will say, ‘it is shirk Asghar’, yet that
still does not excuse them from doing it.

It is known by necessity that the ritual acts of worship are for none but Allah, the Ibadaat
are in three divisions: the worship of the heart, the worship of the tongue and the worship
of the limbs.

The apparent worships like the du’a – by raising the hands (limbs) and calling with the
tongue. Al Istighatha, Al Ruku’, Al Sujud etc are all apparent worship, including
arbitration to taghout.

Anyone who does any apparent worship to other than Allah is Mushrik, regardless of
what his hidden intention is in his heart. We judge only the apparent, we cannot judge
what is in the hearts; we can only judge what he makes apparent, by speaking or doing
actions.
The belief in Allah is not only in the heart, it is in the heart, the sayings and the limbs.
The one who uses this argument of shirk Asghar made the mistake of making analogy
with the hukm of the qassam by other than Allah, this saying is shirk Asghar, and has
qarina that it is Asghar.

The reason that they make this mistake is because they are Murji’, this irja’ is the most
dangerous thing, even more than the Jews and Christians.

People may ask, ‘why did the fuqaha call swearing by Allah to be ibaadah?” this is
because swearing by Allah is accompanied by ibaadah, the ibaadah of Ta’zeem, to elevate
Allah, by making qassam on Allah you are elevating and glorifying Allah and that is
ibaadah, by making qassam you are declaring that He is the most worthy for ta’zeem and
to make qassam by him. If someone makes qassam by other than Allah, he is not always
making ta’zeem, and so is not always a form of worship. It is worship if it is elevation of
Allah, but is not always worship when he swears by something else.

However, Arbitration has only one possibility that it is ALWAYS worship. Ta’zeem is a
function of the heart, it is I’tiqaad hidden in the heart that we do not see nor judge, it is a
hidden intention; it may be elevation or it may be just to convince someone. However
arbitration is apparent, it is an action of the limbs that we see and judge.

When a man came to the prophet (saw) and swore by his mother, he (saw) declared it
shirk, but did not ask him to repeat his salah. This is the qarina that it is Shirk Asghar
unless he meant it to be as a ritual act, e.g. if he says, “I swear by my mother the greatest
like Allah.” He is committing shirk Akbar.

The ta’zeem is hidden and needs to be shown to be judged as worship, whereas the salah
and arbitration are actions that do not need to be shown, it is apparent.

In Bukhari, the prophet (saw) said,

“Allah forbade you to swear by your fathers and mothers”

However in the beginning of Islam, it was not forbidden to swear by your parents, it was
abrogated later, whereas arbitration was considered shirk and forbidden from the
beginning of Islam and the ayah

‫ك يُرِيدُونَ أَن َيتَحَا َكمُواْ إِلَى الطّاغُوتِ َو َقدْ ُأمِرُواْ أَن‬ َ ‫ل مِن َقبِْل‬
َ ِ‫عمُونَ َأنّهُ ْم آ َمنُو ْا ِبمَا أُن ِزلَ إَِل ْيكَ َومَا أُنز‬
ُ ْ‫ن يَز‬
َ ‫أَلَ ْم تَرَ إِلَى اّلذِي‬
‫ل َبعِيدًا‬
ً‫ل‬َ َ‫ضّلهُمْ ض‬ ِ ُ‫شيْطَانُ أَن ي‬ّ ‫َيكْفُرُو ْا بِهِ َويُرِيدُ ال‬

“Have you seen those who falsely claim to be believe in what was revealed to you and
what was revealed before you, yet they want to arbitrate to taghout while Allah ordered
them to reject it …” [4: 60]

Was revealed in Madinah, it was Shirk Akbar from the beginning to the end and not
abrogated like the hukm of qassam, and there is nothing in Islam that was Shirk Akbar in
the beginning of Islam and then became Shirk Asghar later on; to make analogy between
these two is incorrect.

If you attempt to make analogy you would have to say that in arbitration to taghout, that
it was allowed to arbitrate to the kaahin before in Makkah and was abrogated after. This
kind of claim is very dangerous and has serious implications and it was not the case,
arbitration to taghout was shirk Akbar from the beginning of Islam.

Furthermore, even if it is true and it is shirk Asghar, you are still prohibited from
arbitrating to taghout.

4- “… If we arbitrate and find the hukm contradicts to shari’ah we will not take it, but
if it matches with the shari’ah we will take it."

Those who say that they will arbitrate to taghout and if it contradicts to the shari’ah then
they will reject it because acceptance is the kufr, but if it agrees then they will take it.

This is the doubt cast by most of the Jaamis especially in Europe. They firstly make the
mistake of looking to the outcome of the arbitration and forget that the means of
arbitration is the shirk. Allah (swt) says, “They want to arbitrate to taghout….” The very
fact that they wanted to arbitrate was enough for Allah to call them kafir, it has nothing to
do with whether or not Ka’b will give a just or unjust verdict.

Furthermore, we do not speak about the haq of people over the haq of Allah (swt); we do
not seek our rights and worry about if it will be a just or unjust verdict violating the right
of Allah. The haq of Allah is not to commit shirk.

5- “… nowadays there is no Islamic state to get our rights, so we are under

compulsion.”

Most of the murji’ah use this argument. However, Allah (swt) says,

َ‫ل َيهْدِي ا ْلق‬

َ ‫ل‬
ّ ‫حيَاةَ ا ْلدّ ْنيَا عَلَى الخِرَةِ وَأَنّ ا‬
َ ْ‫حبّواْ ال‬
َ َ‫ست‬
ْ ‫ك بَِأّنهُمُ ا‬
َ ‫ذَِل‬

َ‫وْمَ ا ْلكَافِرِين‬

“Because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not
guide those who disbelieve.” [EMQ Nahl: 107]

Those who use this argument forget about the punishment in the hereafter for the sake to
chase their rights in the dunya. Ibn Kathir said in tafseer,

“The kufr and the punishment promised by Allah for them are not because they hated the
deen or they loved the kufr, only because he has one share of favouring the dunya over
the deen.”

It is not allowed for the believer to favour any dunya matter, like your stolen car etc over
the deen, you cannot claim to be under compulsion over your stolen car or job in order to
leave the deen by arbitration to taghout, it is better to forget about your job and car and
favour the deen over the dunya.

The prophet (saw) said,

“The failure is the one who worships the dinar and the failure is the one who worships the
dirham, the failure is the one who worships the clothes …”

Allah (swt) says,

“Say: if your fathers and your children, your brethren, your wives, your tribes, your
wealth that you have accumulated, your trade that you fear decline, your homes where
you live are dearer to you than Allah and his messenger and Jihad for the sake of Allah,
wait until the punishment of Allah reaches you.” [EMQ 9:23]

Allah (swt) dispraised them for choosing all of these dunya matters (and Allah mentioned
the matters dearest to the people) over the Jihad, that is because they put Jihad on hold for
the sake of the dunya. For neglecting one obligation for the sake of the dunya they were
cursed by Allah let alone to commit Shirk Akbar for the sake of some dunya benefit.

Furthermore, if you believe in compulsion, Allah (swt) never gave a permit for anyone to
commit shirk even under duress, furthermore, duress means that it is a life and death
issue, that he is forced to go and threatened and beaten and after that it is a permit. People
however are not under compulsion and are found walking or driving to the court by their
own free will.

Furthermore, Allah (swt) says,

ِ‫َومَا خََلقْتُ ا ْلجِنّ وَالنْسَ إِل ِل َي ْعبُدُون‬

ِ‫ط ِعمُون‬
ْ ُ‫مَا أُرِيدُ ِم ْنهُ ْم مِنْ رِزْقٍ َومَا أُرِيدُ أَنْ ي‬

ُ‫ق ذُو الْقُوّةِ ا ْل َمتِين‬

ُ ‫إِنّ الَّ هُوَ الرّزّا‬
 “We did not create you except to worship me, No Sustenance do I require of them, nor
do I require that they should feed Me. For Allah is He Who gives (all) Sustenance - Lord
of Power, - Steadfast (for ever).” [EMQ 51: 56-58]

So how can you violate the very purpose of your creation, the purpose of Tawheed for the
sake of obtaining your rizq? Allah (swt) is the provider and guaranteed your rizq and he
put this guarantee in the very context of his command to worship him exclusively to
stress that very point, so that you will never worship other than Allah for the sake of your
rizq. Allah (swt) says in the hadith Qudsi:

“Be subservient to me full-time, I will make your heart full of richness and satisfy your
need, if you do not make yourself subservient to me, I will make you busy all the time
and I will never make you satisfied.”

Furthermore, the compulsion is not the same as duress. It is wrong to say that you can do
kufr or shirk because you are under compulsion; compulsion means that you are facing a
life and death situation because of your material needs e.g. starvation. Duress is different
and requires some form of punishment or torture. Allah (swt) says,

“Whoever was under compulsion neither baghi nor transgression, he has no sin and Allah
forgives.”

That means the one who has no food and is under compulsion, he will take the lesser
fasad, if he has pork and unslaughtered meat, he will take the lesser of the two fasad, and
he will eat a small amount, enough to survive.

The one under duress is different to the one under compulsion. Someone may ask the
question, what is duress? Allah (swt) says,

ْ‫ب مِنَ الِّ وََلهُم‬

ٌ ‫ض‬
َ َ‫صدْرًا َفعََل ْيهِمْ غ‬
َ ِ‫ح بِا ْلكُ ْفر‬
َ ‫ن مَنْ شَ َر‬
ْ ِ‫ط َمئِنّ بِاليمَانِ وََلك‬
ْ ُ‫لّ مِنْ َب ْعدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِل مَنْ ُأكْرِهَ َوقَ ْلبُ ُه م‬
ِ ‫ن كَفَ َر بِا‬
ْ َ‫م‬
‫عذَابٌ عَظِي ٌم‬ َ
“Whoever declares kufr after they had Imaan except the one under duress whose heart is
full of Imaan – but the one who opens his heart to kufr upon him is the anger of Allah and
a severe punishment.” [EMQ Nahl: 106]

this ayah was revealed about Ammar bin Yaasir, the Quraish captured him and his mother
and father, they tortured them, they took his mother Sumayyah and tied her limbs to
camels an stretched her and tortured her and then Umayyah bin khalaf came with the
spear and killed her. His father Yaasir was killed and tortured, putting hot oil on his body.
After all this torture to Ammar bin Yaasir he used the permit to say a word of kufr. He
never committed kufr without to first to be tortured, he said, “I reject Muhammad” but
his heart was full of Imaan, the prophet (saw) said,

“Ammar is full of Imaan from his head to his toes; the Imaan has mixed between his
blood and his flesh.”

Ammar came to Muhammad (saw) and he was crying, the prophet asked why he was
crying, Ammar said,

“I spoke badly about you and I praised them” he (saw) asked “what is in your heart,”
Ammar said, “(I love you and believe in you)…” so the prophet (saw) said, “If they
torture you again, then say it again.”

This ayah is speaking about people who face torture as being under duress, so whoever
faces what Ammar faced will have the permit similar to what Ammar had a permit. To
say the kufr after his mother and father was killed and he was tortured.

However the so-called duress of the people today is not in comparison to Ammar, they
are free to do as they please and only claim to be under duress, Bilal was the same as
Ammar he face torture but never compromised.

Imam Ahmed said when they spoke to Imam Ahmed and asked him to make tuqiyah
because they were under duress, to take the permit like Ammar, he said:

“They beat Ammar and you retreated before you were beaten.”
So the torture is the pre-requisite condition of the permit of duress.

The similitude of their argument is of the Taghout system that takes the money of a man
and refuses to return it until he worships their gods. The question rises, if someone says
like this, “I will never return your money until you worship idols,” can you really do so in
this situation? Is this duress? Is it compulsion?

Furthermore, the one who is truly needy for his lost money and he enters under the
banner of duress, we must compile all the evidences to judge if he was really under
duress, Allah (swt) says,

“Those who die while oppressing themselves, the angels will ask, “why did you oppress
yourselves?” they will say, “we were weak in the earth,” the angels will say, “Was the
earth not wide enough for you to make hijrah?” [EMQ 4: 97]

Ibn Abbas narrated that this ayah was revealed about Muslims who were forced to fight
with the kuffar against the Muslims in Badr, the prophet (saw) captured some of them and
killed some of them, and he treated them as kuffar.

Abul Aswad said,

“From the people of Madinah a group closed the way to Madinah, I made agreement with
them to save my life, I met ibn Abbas and he told me not to do it, it is not allowed to do
so people …”

These people were never under duress like Ammar bin Yaasir, of course the kuffar will
oppress you especially if they have the upper hand over you, but that does not mean it is
duress. These people who fought in Badr were never tortured like Ammar and so the
Muslims treated them as kafir though they claimed to be under duress. Ibn Jareer in his
tafseer, reported that

“When Muhammad (saw) captured Abbas he said, “free yourselves and your nephew”
Abbas said, “Yaa rasulullah, did we not pray your salah and face your Qiblah?” he (saw)
said, “You fought with them and you lost.””
We understand that where there is real compulsion, there must be no choice available for
you, otherwise it is not compulsion. Abbas though he was Muslim in Makkah and was
able to make hijrah but he chose to stay in their camp and then he fought against the
Muslims.

The only remaining shubuha is the one of the Ahnaf, they believe that the duress can also
be applicable if you are threatened with torture; however that duress must be with the
police and authorities. For the Ahnaf the one who has the least amount of doubt that he
was under duress or threatened with it, and is unable to leave he has the permit, but if he
is able to leave, there is no duress and he cannot to take the permit.

Furthermore, the ayah asks the question “which camp were they with,” and they made the
excuse that ‘we were weak in the earth’ and the angels did not accept it, arbitration to
taghout puts you with the kuffar and their camp. The difference was between the
prevention of hijrah; those who were prevented from making hijrah were not sinful for
staying with them because they had no way out, like ibn Abbas. But those who chose to
stay in Makkah with the camp of kufr; they were addressed in this ayah.

6- “… it is only haram if it involves istihlal”

They claim that Allah only cursed those people because they made the halal haram and
the haram halal, whereas they claim that they are actually only following what Allah said.
The argument they use is based on the saying of ibn Taymiyyah about the ayah,

“They take their rabbis and priests as Lords besides Allah.” [EMQ 9: 31]

ibn Taymiyyah said,

“Those who took their rabbis and priests as lords instead of Allah, they obeyed them in
permitting what Allah forbade and forbidding what Allah permits, they are of two, 1,
because they changed the deen and they followed them in that change and they started to
believe in the permissibility of what Allah forbade, and that is kufr Akbar. 2. They obey
in disobeying Allah but they know that it is haram, they are not kafir.” [Majmou’ Al
Fattawa]
i.e. that they know that they are changing the deen, and that what they are following is
different from the deen, that is istihlal and kufr Akbar, the second is the one who believes
that the haram is haram but they disobey Allah and obey the rabbis and priests. This is the
shubuhat that is raised from his sayings.

However, they did not differentiate between the two types of obedience; there is Al Ta’ah
Shirki, and Al Ta’ah Ma’ssiyah. The one who believes that an act is haram but he does it
out of obedience and knows that he is sinful because of it; he is not kafir and that is Ta’ah
Ma’ssiyah. However the one who obeys someone and believes that because he is obeying
them that he is no longer sinful that is Ta’ah Shirki and he is Mushrik it is as if he told
him to worship idols.

Ibn Taymiyyah was only explaining this distinction between Al Ta’ah Shirki and Al Ta’ah
Ma’ssiyah, he was not excusing arbitration to taghout; in fact he has other sayings
contrary to that claim.

However, there is a big difference between obedience and arbitration, obedience is of

types, it can be shirk and it can be Ma’ssiyah. However, arbitration to taghout is shirk in
Allah; arbitration is an act of worship. Ibn Taymiyyah said,

“Whoever arbitrate to other than the Qur’an and Sunnah after it has been explained to
him, he is kafir kufr Akbar.”

The doubt that they try to cast is by saying that it is only ma’ssiyah, is wrong and cannot
be attributed to ibn Taymiyyah.

7- “… We know it is taghout, but because of compulsion and fitnah …etc”

For the one who knows and admits that arbitration to taghout is kufr Akbar, and then they
claim that they only do it out of compulsion, we must remember, which is bigger, to
commit kufr or to be killed? Allah (swt) says,
“Fitnah is greater than murder.” [EMQ 2:217]

And ibn Mas’oud said in the tafseer of this ayah, “Al Fitnah is Al Kufr.”

So if you argue that arbitration is kufr and you do it out of compulsion, even out of fear
of the maximum compulsion of fearing death, we say that the Kufr is worse than to be
killed.

Ironically, they are not under duress, nobody has put a knife to their throat, they only
‘fear’ that they will face persecution, the ayah is clear that if all the people of the earth
fight and are killed it is less than the crime of one kufr law to be implemented. Imam
Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab said,

“If the people of the Bedouin and the city where to fight eachother until everyone is
killed, that is less than to have one taghout implement kufr or to arbitrate to them.”

This is the case for those who claim compulsion without duress, under duress neither
Imaan nor kufr is accountable, you cannot become Muslim under duress and to say kufr
has a permit and so here, the killing becomes greater than that permit.

Furthermore, all disputes in the courts, and even the best of what they arbitrate for, is
only for dunya matter, and so how can it be that kufr becomes allowed for a dunya matter
when a man is not a believer until Allah and the messenger are dearer to him than
anything else. The prophet (saw) said,

“No one of you is a believer until you love Allah and his messenger more than anything
else.”

If we are given two choices between all the dunya matters, even his mother and father
and Allah and His messenger can we ever choose our dunya? Can it be so when Allah
(swt) says that you will run from your own mother and father on the day of judgement?
Arbitration is a ritual act and arbitration to the taghout is diverting your ritual acts
towards other than Allah (swt), Al Tahakum to taghout is a form of sujud to other than
Allah (swt) and Abu Huraira narrated that the prophet (saw) said,

“people will be gathered on the day of judgement, Allah will say, “whatever the people
used to worship, let them follow it, the one who followed the sun he will follow it, the
one who followed the moon, he will follow it, the one who followed the Tawagheet he
will follow the Tawagheet.” [Bukhari]

THE SOLUTION

We see that in the beginning, they had no duress in Makkah and so were not given the
excuse of duress when they fought against Muslims, the same way, almost nobody in the
UK are living there without choice except for very few people who are here under duress.
The Muslims who went to Abyssinia faced persecution, they did not go there for business
or for any Dunya reason.

There was a famous incident in the time of the Ubaidis Fatimis in Egypt, they were
apostates who ruled Egypt at that time by Kufr and used to punish anyone who
mentioned the names of the Sahaabah, they captured one man and put him under duress,
and it was said to him,

“Either join our da’wah or you will be killed.”

Yet, it was said about him as reported by Qadi Iyaad,

“He should choose to be killed, he had the chance to run away but he never ran away, you
cannot give any excuse if you choose to live with them in a place with people who
dismantle the shari’ah. As for the ulema who were staying in Egypt and the other good
worshippers, they should not make hijrah, they are staying there and teaching the people
their deen.”
Nowadays, we know very well that we have millions of Muslims living in the lands of
the kuffar, and millions living under taghout regimes in the Muslim lands; do you really
believe that if they ordered those Muslims to worship idols in return for their huquq
(rights and other maslaha) that he is permitted to do so?

The one who admits that arbitration to Taghout is kufr but brings excuse to do it, has no
excuse of ignorance, we will call him kafir. He claims that he is under duress because
they are living under kufr, but the entire Muslim world is under kufr, that does not make
excuse for any of them to commit kufr or shirk.

1- HIJRAH

Allah (swt) says,

ٌ‫حمَةَ الِّ وَالُّ غَفُورٌ َرحِيم‬

ْ َ‫سبِيلِ الِّ أُوَل ِئكَ يَ ْرجُونَ ر‬
َ ‫ن آ َمنُوا وَاّلذِينَ هَاجَرُوا وَجَا َهدُوا فِي‬
َ ‫إِنّ اّلذِي‬

“Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled)
in the path of Allah, - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: And Allah is Oft-
forgiving, most Merciful.” [EMQ 2: 218]

Allah (swt) says,

َ‫خرَةِ َأ ْكبَرُ لَ ْو كَانُوا َيعَْلمُون‬

ِ ‫سنَةً وَلجْرُ ال‬
َ‫ح‬َ ‫ن َب ْعدِ مَا ظُِلمُوا َل ُنبَ ّوئَ ّنهُ ْم فِي الدّ ْنيَا‬
ْ ِ‫لّ م‬
ِ ‫جرُوا فِي ا‬
َ ‫وَاّلذِينَ هَا‬

“To those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah, after suffering oppression, - We
will assuredly give a goodly home in this world; but truly the reward of the Hereafter will
be greater. If they only realised (this)!” [EMQ 16: 41]

Allah (swt) says,

ٌ‫ك مِنْ َب ْعدِهَا َلغَفُورٌ َرحِيم‬

َ ‫صبَرُوا إِنّ َرّب‬
َ ‫ثُمّ إِنّ َرّبكَ لِّلذِينَ هَاجَرُوا مِنْ َب ْعدِ مَا ُفتِنُوا ثُمّ جَا َهدُوا َو‬

“But verily thy Lord, - to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions, - and
who thereafter strive and fight for the faith and patiently persevere, - Thy Lord, after all
this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” [EMQ 16: 110]
Allah (swt) says,

ُ‫ج مِنْ َب ْيتِهِ ُمهَاجِرًا إِلَى الِّ َورَسُولِ ِه ثُ ّم ُيدْ ِركْه‬

ْ ‫ن يَخْ ُر‬
ْ َ‫سعَةً َوم‬
َ َ‫غمًا َكثِيرًا و‬
َ ‫ض مُرَا‬
ِ ‫ج ْد فِي ال ْر‬
ِ َ‫لّ ي‬
ِ ‫سبِيلِ ا‬
َ ‫ج ْر فِي‬
ِ ‫ن ُيهَا‬
ْ َ‫َوم‬
‫علَى الِّ َوكَانَ الُّ غَفُورًا َرحِيمًا‬ َ ُ‫ت َف َقدْ َوقَعَ أَجْرُه‬ُ ْ‫ا ْلمَو‬

“He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide
and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His
reward becomes due and sure with Allah: And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.“
[EMQ 4: 100]

Ibn Kathir made tafseer for these ayat, when Allah (swt) says, “To those who leave their
homes in the cause of Allah, after suffering oppression, - We will assuredly give a goodly
home in this world …” ibn Mas’oud and ibn Umar said,

“Whenever someone makes hijrah, he will find his rizq.”

The first way to get out of this fitnah is to make hijrah, to make hijrah from the place you
claim you are under compulsion to where you are not under compulsion.

This is why the ulema spoke about hijrah from dar ul kufr to dar ul Islam and from the
place of fusq to where there is no fusq or from where you cannot do your obligation to
where you can do your obligation.

2- ISOLATION

In Bukhari, there is the chapter of “part of the deen is to leave the fitan.” In which it is
narrated by Abu Sa’id Al Khidree that,

“The best money for the Muslims will be the sheep that he leaves to feed them on the
mountain in order to run away from the fitan.”
The one who cannot leave he should make uzla - to isolate himself.

3- DA’WAH

This is a group of people who do not want to make hijrah nor isolate, they should be a
group of Muslims who gather together and choose an Alim to be amir over them to rule
by whatever Allah revealed until they challenge the kufr law and take power. That is the
fifth column. Imam Shafi’i in Kitab ul Umm said,

“It is obligatory on the Imam to appoint a judge in every city and every avenue and make
the people refer to him in every matter, and if there is no imam they will choose one from
among them to refer to.”