Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The question is are they correct in calling the Muslim rulers of today
taghoot or are they incorrect and just meeting oppression and wrong
doing with more wrong doing and oppression.
The First: The Devil who calls the people to worship other than Allah.
The Second: The tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah’s
rulings.
The Third: The one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed.
The Fourth: The one who claims to have knowledge of the Unseen,
apart from Allah.
The Fifth: The one who is worshipped apart from Allah, while being
pleased with being worshipped.” Taken from The Explanation of "The
Meaning of Taaghoot" Of Muhammad bin Abdil-Wahhaab By Dr.
Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis
Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis said,
“The second of the heads of the five Tawaagheet is: The oppressive
ruler that changes and replaces the law of Allah, as was done by the
Jews. This is done either because:
1. one seeks to belittle Allah’s Laws, or
2. because he prefers some other law system over Allah’s Laws,
3. or because the Devil has gained mastery over that ruler that has
changed and replaced the Laws of Allah.
What provides evidence for this category is the following noble ayah:
"Have you not seen those (hypocrites) who claim to have
faith in that which has been revealed to you, and that which
was revealed before you, and they wish to go for judgement
(in their disputes) to the Taaghoot, when they have been
ordered to reject them? But the Devil wishes to lead them
far astray." [Surah An- Nisaa: 60]
So Allah has described their stating that they have Faith as only a
claim (on their part), thus rejecting it and holding them to be liars.
This is because they sought judgement from other than Allah, turning
away from Allah’s Law.
This was after they were commanded to not seek judgement from it,
by having been commanded to disbelieve in and reject the Taaghoot.
But the Devil overpowered them and led them astray from Allah’s
path.” Taken from The Explanation of "The Meaning of Taaghoot" Of
Muhammad bin Abdil-Wahhaab By Dr. Muhammad bin Abdir-
Rahmaan Al-Khumayyis
Changing or altering Allahs law and then claiming this ruling was
from the Shariah is known as tabdeel (changing/altering) whether in
one specific ruling or in every ruling.
The ruler who does this in some specific ruling believing it is halaal
for him to do this type of tabdeel has committed major kufr and is a
taghoot. Due to his lying upon Allah and the messenger of Allah
claiming something is from the religion and it is not, this is a false
testimony. He is even worse if he enforces this law and punishes them
for not following this law as he has no right to do so.
So in this case the ruler is making it halaal to rule (or judge) by other
than Allahs law.
Shaykh Bin Baz was asked: “Is replacement (of the Shariah)
with the secular laws (tabdeel ul-qawaaneen) considered to be
major kufr that expels from the religion?”
Total istibdaal is when the ruler replaces all the shariah laws, so that
in every issue the ruler referrers judgment to other than Allahs law.
The Muslim ruler who does partial istibdaal (partially replacing the
shariah laws) may be a kaafir with major kufr, if he thinks the
laws that are not from the shariah are better, equal, halaal
to rule by or more suitable for his state then he his a kaafir.
Shaykh Bin Baz said “As for when he ( the ruler who does partial
istibdaal in specific cases) says, ‘There is no harm in judging by what
Allah has revealed’, even if he said that the Shariah is better, however
he says, ‘there is no harm in this, it is permissible’, he is declared a
disbeliever on account of that with the major kufr, regardless of
whether he says that the Shariah is still better, or it is equal to the
Shariah, or that it is better than the Shariah, then all of this is (major)
disbelief.”
Shaykh Bin Baz said about this type of ruler “When he makes it
permissible (istibaaha) to judge with a law other than the
Shariah he becomes a disbeliever with the major kufr – if
he makes that permissible. As for when he does that for specific
reasons, out of disobedience to Allah, for the sake of bribery, or
pleasing somebody, and knows that this is haraam, then this is kufr
doona kufr (the minor kufr).
So he (Ibn Abbas) said, “This is not like the one who disbelieves in
Allah, but it is the minor kufr (kufr doona kufr)”. Meaning,
“when he declares it lawful (istahalla) to judge by the secular law, or
declares it lawful to judge with such and such, and likewise, [when he
makes it lawful] to judge with such and such Shariah, then he is a
kaafir.” Taken from the book, “Hiwaar Hawla Masaa’il it-Takfeer
Ma’a Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdul- Azeez Ibn Baaz” and it is found
also in al-Furqaan Magazine No. 94
Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, in the Islamic University of
Madinah, during his lesson, “Sharh Sunah Abu Dawood” on
16/11/1420H, spoke about a the Muslim ruler doing istibdaal and he
said “And as for Istihlaal ((making something lawful) of the heart,
believing in the heart it is permissible), even if it was only in one
matter (one ruling of the ruler), so he makes it lawful to judge by
other than what Allah has revealed (by doing partial istibdaal
(partially replacing the shariah laws)), and considers it to be lawful,
then this is (major) kufr.”
Shaykh Abdul Aziz Abdul Latif said “Ruling by other than Allah's
law is lesser kufr (kufr asghar, which makes the doer a major sinner)
when a ruler or a judge rules by other than what Allah has revealed in
a specific case - while believing in the obligation of ruling by what
Allah revealed in that specific case - abandoning it (Allah's law) due to
disobedience and desire, but recognizing at the same time that he is
sinning with regard to that, and deserving of punishment.” Excerpted
from: "Hukmu’Llahi wa maa Yunaafeeh" Dar Al-Watan Lin-Nashr,
Riyadh, 1413
However he may be a Muslim with major sin and minor kufr due to
his does partial istibdaal (partially replacing the shariah laws), while
believing that he is disobedient, believing that the rule of Allah is the
truth and the rule of Allah is better than his legislation (which is not
Allahs law) that he refers judgment to in specific cases. This ruler is
considered either a faasiq (sinner) or adhaalim (oppressor).
Ibn Taymiyyah: "As for one who is committed to the rule of Allah
and His Messenger, inwardly and outwardly (i.e. beliefs in his heart
that Allahs law is better than his legislation that he refers judgment to
in specific cases and he outwardly does acts of a Muslim), but he
disobeys and follows his desires (in these specific cases by not ruling
by Allahs law), his situation is like that of the sinners (he is a major
sinner but not a kaafir)." [Minhaj al-Sunnah 5/131]
Ibn ul-Qayyim said: "If he believes in the obligation of ruling by
what Allah revealed in this case (the case in which the ruler did
istibdaal and ruled by other than Allahs law), and he abandons it
disobediently, recognizing that it is deserving of punishment, then
that is lesser kufr (minor kufr, which makes the doer a major
sinner)." [Madarij as-Salikin, 1/336]
Shaykh Bin Baz said “If he does not desire (lam yaqsud) Istihlaal
(making it lawful) by that, but (ruling by the law he did istibdaal of a
specific shariah law with, other than Allahs law) did it due to some
other reasons, then this is kufr doona kufr (the minor kufr).”
As for the Muslim ruler who totally replace the shariah itself this is an
act of kufr which proves that the doer holds kufr in his beliefs as the
inward is tied to the outward. Therefore this act of kufr indicates that
the doer’s emaan has completely gone, because this act would only
occur from a person whose heart is full of corruption and hatred for
Islamic law. This would be a sign that they have kufr in their heart
and so as well as doing an act of kufr they also hold kufr in their
beliefs. This is why the Muslim ruler who totally replaces the shariah
as point of reference for judgments in his state with a completely new
law system has disbelieved due to committing major kufr.
The ruling on the ruler who totally replaces the shariah is major kufr.
However this kufr is major unlike the one whom only partially or only
in specific issues refers judgments to other than Allahs, his kufr could
be major or minor.
The reason for the difference is if a Muslim ruler only partially or only
in specific issues refers judgments to other than Allahs he has initially
committed minor kufr. For this type of Muslim ruler to be ruled with
major kufr, Juhood (rejection) of those parts of the shariah he is
replacing and Istihlaal (making it lawful) to refer judgments in those
issues back to other than the shariah have to occur form him.
However some of the Salaf would not declare the one who ruled by
other than what Allah revealed in issues such as kinship or bribery
and so on to be disbelievers.
But the ruler who rules with other than Allah has revealed and is
considered to have committed minor kufr is still a Muslim but a very
sinful one due to his sin minor kufr.
Below are the words of some well known and respected scholars
clarifying the two rulings on whoever rules by other than Allahs law.
There is a verdict of major kufr and minor kufr which the ruler who
rules by other than Allahs law may receive depending on his situation.
1. “And the decisive speech in this regard is that whoever does not
judge by what Allah has revealed - while rejecting it [in belief]
{jahahda) and he knows that it is Allah who revealed it - as the
Jews did - then he is a disbeliever.
1. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, turning
away and contradicting the Messenger and nullifying the rulings
(ahkaam) of Allaah, then his dhulm, fisq, and (major) kufr - all of
them are disbelief that eject from the religion.
2. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, whilst
believing that he is committing a forbidden action and doing a
reprehensible action, then his kufr, dhulm and fisq does not eject
him from the religion (minor kufr). (Adwaa al-Bayaan 2/104)
A. All Praise is due to Allah and prayers and peace upon the His
Messenger, his family and his companions. To proceed:
Allah the Most High said: "And whosoever does not judge by what
Allah has revealed, such are the Kafiran" (5:44), and He the Most
High said, "And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has
revealed, such are the Dhaliman" (5:45) and He the Most High said,
"And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then)
such (people) are the Fasiqan" (5:47).
The one who rejects the law of Allah and casts it aside, and replaces it
with man-made laws and the opinions of individuals has committed
an act of kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam.
Whereas the one who adheres to the religion of Islam, but is a sinner
and wrongdoer by virtue of his following his whims and desires in
some cases, or pursuing some worldly interest, but admits that he is a
wrongdoer by doing so, is not guilty of kufr which would put him
beyond the pale of Islam.
2. The one who says: "I rule by this because it is like the Shariah of
Islam, so ruling by it is permissible and ruling by the Shariah is
permissible." Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the major
disbelief.
3. The one who says: "I rule by this and ruling by the Shariah of
Islam is superior but ruling by other than what Allah has
revealed is permissible. Such a one is a kaafir in the sense of the
major disbelief.
4. The one who says: "I rule by this" while he believes that ruling by
other than what Allah has revealed is not permissible and who
says that "the Shariah of Islam is superior and it is not
permissible to rule by other than it" but he is neglectful, or treats
matters lightly, or does this action due to a reason that proceeds
from his rulers, then he is a disbeliever in the sense of minor
disbelief which does not eject from the Religion - and it is
considered one of the greatest of major sins. Al-Hukmu bi-Ghairi
Maa Anzalallaahu wa Usool ut-Takfeer pp. 71/72
Shaykh Albani said while explaining the reason for the revelation of
the verse “the one who does not rule by what Allah revealed…”, and
that it refers to kufr in action not in belief.
And the reason behind this is that kufr is of two types: kufr in belief
and kufr in action, and the kufr in belief is linked to the heart, and the
kufr in action is linked to the limbs. So the one whose actions are kufr
due to their contradicting the Shariah, and this kufr follows on from
what has become established in his heart i.e. kufr in belief, then this is
the kufr which Allah will not forgive and this person will reside in the
Fire forever. But if (these kufr actions) contradict what is established
in his heart, then he is a believer in the Rule of his Lord, but he
contradicts this with his actions.
So his kufr is kufr of action only, and it is not kufr in belief. And he is
under the Will of Allah, if He Wills He will punish him, and if He
Wills He will forgive him. And it is with this (second) type (of kufr)
that some of the ahaadeeth are to be understood which generalise the
term kufr for a Muslim who performs a sinful action. And it would be
good to mention some (all the hadeeth are authentic):
And many other ahaadeeth for which there is no need to go into great
detail about at this time. So any Muslim who performs any of these
sinful actions, then his kufr is kufr in action i.e. he has done an action
of the kuffaar. Except in the case that he sees it (the sin) to be
permissible, and does not believe in it’s being a sin, so in this case he
would be a kaafir whose blood is lawful because now he has also
shared in the belief of the kuffaar.
And ruling by other than the what Allah revealed is not exempted
from this principle, and what is narrated from the salaf supports this,
and that is none other than their saying on the tafsir of this verse,
“kufr less than kufr (minor kufr which does not expel a person from
Islam)” as is authentically reported from the Commentator of the
Quran, Ibn Abbas, and then some of the Taabieen and others learnt
this from him…maybe they may illuminate the path ahead of those
that have been misguided in this dangerous issue, and have taken the
road of the Khawarij who declared people to be a kaafir due to their
committing sins even though they may pray and fast!” Taken from
them Silsilah as-Saheehah (vol 6. no.2552)
It is also opined that these are distinct descriptions and that they are
[applied] in accordance to the situation: So [one] becomes a kaafir in
three circumstances, when he believes that it is permissible to rule by
other than what Allah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the
saying of Allah, "So is it the rule of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) that they
seek?" [Al-Maidah (5): 50]. Everything that opposes the rule of Allah
constitutes the rule of Jaahiliyyah. [Also the evidence for this] is the
definitive consensus that it is not allowed to rule by other then what
Allah has revealed.
(The three situations one becomes a kaafir due to ruling by other than
Allahs law.)
(2) When he believes that ruling by other then what Allah revealed
is equivalent (equal) to ruling by the rule of Allah.
(3) When he believes that ruling by other then what Allah revealed
is better than ruling by what Allah has revealed. The evidence
for this lies in the saying of Allah, "And who is better than
Allah in judgment for a people who have certainty?" [al-
Maidah (5): 50] So this verse states that the ruling of Allah is
the best of rulings as is further proven by the saying of Allah,
endorsing this, "Is Allah not the best of judges?" [at-Teen (95):
8]. So when Allah is the best of the judges in ruling and He is
the most just of the rulers then whosoever claims that the rule
of other than Allah is equivalent or better than the rule of Allah
is a kaafir because he has denied the Quran.
(The situations one rules by other than Allahs law but they are still
Muslim but are sinful.)
So from the above it is clear that the Muslim ruler who rules by other
than Allahs law could be committing minor kufr due to ruling by
other than Allahs law. If he does this he is not considered a taghoot.
The second head is the tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes
Allah’s rulings and replaces the law of Allah, so he does tabdeel
(change/alters) the shariah or he does istibdaal (replaces) the
shariah. The third head out the five heads of taghoot is the one who
judges by other than what Allah has revealed.
These two heads of the taghoot are clear however from what has
preceded it has become clear that every ruler (if not every ruler but
the majority of today’s Muslim rulers have fallen in to the one of the
sins of tabdeel, istibdaal or ruling by other than Allahs law however
this does not automatically make them become a taghoot. The reason
is a taghoot is a disbeliever none of the Muslim rulers of today have
fallen in to the three sins (tabdeel, istibdaal and ruling by other than
Allahs law) associated with the two categories of the five heads of
taghoot to the extent that they have become disbelievers.
If a Muslim ruler of today or the future does fall into one of these
categories of being a kaafir taghoot he is NOT TO BE DECLARED
A KAAFIR until the SCHOLARS (NOT THE STUDENTS OF
KNOWLEDGE, DAAEEIS OR LAY PEOPLE) have established
the proof upon this ruler, the conditions of takfir are fulfilled and the
preventive factors of takfir are removed.
So after SCHOLARS have established the proof upon this ruler, the
conditions of takfir are fulfilled and the preventive factors of takfir are
removed. IF ALL THE SCHOLARS OF AHLUS SUNNAH
AGREE with this takfir, because takfir of no Muslim can be
established in this ummah as a fact if the scholars differ over this
persons takfir, Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab said “We
(the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah) do not make takfir except in
accordance with what the all of the scholars have agreed upon
(amount to major kufr)” Ad-Durur as-Sunniyyah, vol.1, p.102.
So after the all the above has been done and agreed upon by all the
scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, then and only then can the students of
knowledge, daaeeis and the lay people believe in their hearts and
declare on their tongues that this ruler is a kaafir and these people
can also remove their obedience from this ruler (i.e. they do not need
to hear and obey him in anything).
Inshallah it should be very clear now when a Muslim ruler becomes a
kaafir taghoot and when we can hold in our hearts and declare on our
tongues when a ruler is a kaafir taghoot.
As for today in our time the Muslim rulers are classed by the
SCHOLARS OF AHLUS AS (FAASIQS) SINNERS WITH
MAJOR SIN, KUFR WHICH IS MINOR KUFR AND
OPPRESSION HOWEVER THEY DO NOT HOLD THEM TO
BE KAAFIR TAGHOOT.
The reason for this is even though they fall in to the two categories of
taghoot discussed in this article;
1. Tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah’s rulings and
replaces the law of Allah
2. One who judges by other than what Allah has revealed,
The Muslim rulers of today only rule by other than Allahs law, do
istibdaal or tabdeel partially in specific issues like the Islamic hudood
(Islamic criminal punishments) out of sin, disobedience, desires,
ignorance, fear of the western powers (like the USA, France and the
UK for example) and seeking a worldly gain.