The Third Issue
28 August 2024 • 998 views
Some of the notables have argued for the legitimacy of takfīr in this case by claiming that "the lawmaker becomes a ṭāghūt (tyrant) to whom people refer to for judgment instead of Allāh."
However, this argument is flawed, and its inaccuracy can be clarified from two angles:
The First Angle: The argument is founded on an incorrect premise, which is the notion that a ṭāghūt only refers to a disbeliever. The fallacy of this premise can be demonstrated from three angles:
1. The term "ṭāghūt" refers to "any leader of misguidance," as it is derived from the ṭughyān, which means exceeding the proper bounds.
Al-Qurṭubi, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«أي: اتركوا كل معبود دون الله؛ كالشيطان، والكاهن والصنم، وكلّ من دعا إلى الضلال»
"This means to avoid any object of worship besides Allāh, such as the devil, the soothsayer, the idol, and anyone who calls to misguidance." [Tafsīr, 5/75, under An-Nahl (36)]
Al-Fayruzabādi, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«والطاغوت: .. وكلُّ رَأْس ضلال، والأصنام، وما عُبِدَ من دون الله، ومَرَدَةُ أهل الكتاب»
"Ṭāghūt refers to... every leader of misguidance, idols, anything worshipped besides Allāh , and the rebellious ones from among the People of the Book." [Al-Qāmūs Al-Muḥīṭ, 4/400, under the root "طغا"]
I say: ṭughyān may constitute disbelief, but it does not always reach that level. As Ibn Bāz, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:
«فَحَدُّكَ أن تكون عبداً مطيعاً لله، فإذا جاوزت ذلك؛ فقد تعديت وكنتَ طاغوتاً بهذا الشيء الذي فَعَلْتَهُ...فقد يكون كافراً، وقد يكون دون ذلك»
"Your duty is to be a devout servant of Allāh, but if you go exceed that, you have transgressed and become a ṭāghūt in that particular matter... This may constitute disbelief, or it may be less than that." [His Explanation of the Three Principles, tape 2, side B, published by Al-Bardain Recordings in Riyadh).
2. Some scholars describe an entity as being a ṭāghūt merely because it exceeds its proper bounds, without considering the nature of the entity itself:
(a) This is because they defined ṭāghūt as:
«كلُّ ما تجاوز به العَبْدُ حَدَّهُ؛ من معبود أو متبوع، أو مُطاع»
“anything that causes a servant to exceed their proper bounds, whether it is worshipped, followed, or obeyed.” [Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allāh have mercy on him, expressed this in 'I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn' (1/50)]
Ibn ’Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy on him, commented on this by saying:
«ومُراده: مَن كان راضياً. أو يقال: هو طاغوت باعتبار عَابِدِهِ وتابعِهِ ومُطِيعِهِ؛ لأنه تجاوز به حده؛ حيث نزَّله فوق منزلته التي جعلها الله له، فتكون عبادته لهذا المعبود - واتِّباعه لمتبوعه، وطاعته لمُطَاعِهِ: طغياناً؛ لمجاوزته الحَدَّ بذلك»
“What he meant here is someone who is pleased with this. Or it can be said that they are considered a ṭāghūt based on the perspective of those who worship, follow, or obey them, as they have elevated them beyond the position assigned by Allāh. Therefore, worshipping this entity, following this leader, or obeying this authority figure is considered an act of ṭughyān because it exceeds the proper limits.” [Al-Qawl Al-Mufīd (1/30)].
I say: Therefore, something being described as a "ṭāghūt" does not necessarily mean the entity in question is a disbeliever; it could be considered a ṭāghūt based on the perception of those who have elevated it, not based on the entity itself.
(b) Additionally, they describe inanimate objects worshipped besides Allāh as "ṭawāghīt", even though it is well-known that inanimate objects cannot be characterised as being in a state of Islam, which is the opposite of disbelief.
Ibn Al-Jawzi, may Allāh have mercy on him, said about ṭāghūt:
«وقال ابن قتيبة: كل معبود؛ من حجر أو صورة أو شيطان فهو جِبت وطاغوت. وكذلك حكى الزَّجَّاج عن أهل اللغة»
“Ibn Qutaybah stated that anything that is worshipped—be it a stone, idol, or devil—is considered a jibt and a ṭāghūt. Az-Zajjāj also conveyed this from the linguists.” [Nuzhat Al-A’yun An-Nawādhir, p. 410, under the section on ṭāghūt].