Seeking judgment from non-Islamic courts

ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah

ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah embraced Islam during the Conquest of Makkah and witnessed the Battle of Ḥunayn in 8 AH.

One of his relatives, who had opposed the Prophet (ﷺ), was Abū Āmir al-Rāhib. The Prophet (ﷺ) used to refer to him as Abū Āmir al-Fāsiq.

When the Prophet (ﷺ) conquered Makkah, Abū Āmir fled to Ta'if, then to Damascus, where he eventually died. During the caliphate of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, as reported in al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah, ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah traveled to Damascus to claim the inheritance left by Abū Āmir.

ʿAlqamah and another man named Kinanah disputed over the inheritance, so they brought the matter to court, where the judge was Caesar.

Caesar favored the inheritance to be given to Kinanah over ʿAlqamah. This shows that it is permissible to seek one’s rights through a Taghut if no other option is available.

قَالَ ابْنُ إسْحَاقَ: وَحَدَّثَنِي جَعْفَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي الْحَكَمِ، وَكَانَ قَدْ أَدْرَكَ وسَمِعَ، وَكَانَ رَاوِيَةً: أَنَّ أَبَا عَامِرٍ أَتَى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين قَدِمَ الْمَدِينَةَ، قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْرُجَ إلَى مَكَّةَ فَقَالَ: مَا هَذَا الدِّينُ الَّذِي جئتَ بِهِ؟ فَقَالَ: "جِئْتُ بِالْحَنِيفِيَّةِ دِينِ إبْرَاهِيمَ"، قَالَ: فَأَنَا عَلَيْهَا، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "إنَّكَ لستَ عَلَيْهَا"، قَالَ، بَلَى، قَالَ: إنَّكَ أَدَخَلْتَ يَا مُحَمَّدُ فِي الْحَنِيفِيَّةِ مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهَا، قَالَ: "مَا فعلتُ، وَلَكِنِّي جِئْتُ بِهَا بَيْضَاءَ نَقِيَّةً"، قَالَ: الْكَاذِبُ أَمَاتَهُ اللَّهُ طَرِيدًا غَرِيبًا وَحِيدًا -يُعَرِّضُ بِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- أَيْ أَنَّكَ جئتَ بِهَا كَذَلِكَ. قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "أَجَلْ، فَمَنْ كَذَبَ فَفَعَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى ذَلِكَ بِهِ"، فَكَانَ هُوَ ذَلِكَ عَدُوَّ اللَّهِ، خَرَجَ إلَى مَكَّةَ، فَلَمَّا افْتَتَحَ رسولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مكةَ خَرَجَ إلَى الطَّائِفِ. فَلَمَّا أَسْلَمَ أَهْلُ الطَّائِفِ لَحِقَ بالشام. فمات بها طريدًا غريبًا وحيدًا. وَكَانَ قَدْ خَرَجَ مَعَهُ عَلْقمة بْنُ عُلاثة بْنِ عَوْفِ بْنِ الأحْوص بْنِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ كِلَابٍ، وَكِنَانَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ يالِيلَ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ عُمير الثَّقَفِيُّ، فَلَمَّا مَاتَ اخْتَصَمَا فِي مِيرَاثِهِ إلَى قَيْصَرَ، صَاحِبِ الرُّومِ. فَقَالَ قَيْصَرُ: يَرِثُ أهلُ الْمَدَرِ أهلَ الْمَدَرِ١، وَيَرِثُ أهلُ الوَبْرِ أهلَ الْوَبَرِ٢، فَوَرِثَهُ كِنَانَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ ياليل بالمدر دون علْقمة
[سيرة ابن هشام - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ١٦٧]

Ibn Hisham mentioned: Ibn Ishaq said: Jaʿfar ibn ʿAbdullah ibn Abī al-Ḥakam, who had lived through and heard these events, narrated that Abū ʿĀmir came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) when he had arrived in Madinah, before he set out for Makkah. He asked: “What is this religion that you have brought?” The Prophet (ﷺ) replied: “I have come with the Ḥanīfiyyah, the religion of Ibrahim.” Abū ʿĀmir said: “I oppose it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “You are not truly opposing it.” He insisted: “Yes, I am. O Muhammad, you have introduced into the Ḥanīfiyyah things that do not belong to it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) replied: “I have not; rather, I have brought it pure and undefiled.” Abū ʿĀmir al-Kadhab (the liar), was doomed by Allah to die as an outcast, alone and in exile—he had opposed the Messenger (ﷺ). He then went to Makkah. When the Prophet (ﷺ) conquered Makkah, he proceeded to Ta’if, and after the people of Ta’if accepted Islam, he fled to ash-Shaam (Syria), where he died as an outcast, alone. Alongside him were ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah ibn ʿAwf ibn al-Aḥwāṣ ibn Jaʿfar ibn Kilāb, and Kinanah ibn ʿAbd Yalīl ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿUmayr al-Thaqafī. When Abū ʿĀmir died, they disputed his inheritance and brought the matter to Caesar, the ruler of the Romans. Caesar ruled: “The people of pasture inherit from the people of pasture, and the people of desert inherit from the people of desert.” Thus, Kinanah ibn ʿAbd Yalīl, being of the pasture (al-madr), inherited the estate, and ʿAlqamah, being of the desert (al-wabr), did not inherit. [Seerah of Ibn Hisham - Volume 2 - Page 167]

This story shows us that seeking judgment from the Taghut is not always considered an act of major shirk.

It might be that a Muslim needs to get his rights back and does not find any other option than to seek judgment from a Taghut.

Who could deny that pursuing one’s rightful claims is permissible? Not a single scholar among the Salaf ever reproached ʿAlqamah ibn ʿAlāthah for seeking judgment from Caesar.

Hence, no one possesses the authority to censure anyone who seeks justice from a non-Islamic court, particularly when there exists no possibility of an Islamic ruling.

Justice can be given even in non-Islamic courts. Have you not seen the that Najashi was just towards the Muslims before he converted and was a Christian ruler? Have you not seen the judge who freed Yusuf 'alayhi salam from prison after he judged Yusuf to be innocent from the accusations?

Though some might believe it to be rare that a non-Islamic court will be just, it would be inaccurate to say they can never judge justly.

Imam Shafi'i

(قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ): فَقَالَ لِي بَعْضُ النَّاسِ: فَإِنَّكَ إذَا أَبَيْت الْحُكْمَ بَيْنَهُمْ رَجَعُوا إلَى حُكَّامِهِمْ فَحَكَمُوا بَيْنَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ عِنْدَكَ (قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ): فَقُلْت لَهُ: وَأَنَا إذَا أَبَيْت الْحُكْمَ فَحَكَمَ حَاكِمُهُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَلَمْ أَكُنْ أَنَا حَاكِمًا فَمَا أَنَا مِنْ حُكْمِ حُكَّامِهِمْ أَتَرَى تَرْكِي أَنْ أَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي دِرْهَمٍ لَوْ تَظَالَمُوا فِيهِ وَقَدْ أَعْلَمْتُكَ مَا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِنَبِيِّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - مِنْ الْخِيَارِ فِي الْحُكْمِ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ التَّرْكِ لَهُمْ وَمَا أَوْجَدْتُكَ مِنْ الدَّلَائِلِ عَلَى أَنَّ الْخِيَارَ ثَابِتٌ بِأَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَلَا مَنْ جَاءَ بَعْدَهُ مِنْ أَئِمَّةِ الْهُدَى أَوْ تَرَى تَرْكِي الْحُكْمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَعْظَمَ أَمْ تَرْكَهُمْ عَلَى الشِّرْكِ بِاَللَّهِ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى؟ فَإِنْ قُلْت فَقَدْ أَذِنَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِأَخْذِ الْجِزْيَةِ مِنْهُمْ وَقَدْ عَلِمَ أَنَّهُمْ مُقِيمُونَ عَلَى الشِّرْكِ بِهِ مَعُونَةً لِأَهْلِ دَيْنِهِ فَإِقْرَارُهُمْ عَلَى مَا هُوَ أَقَلُّ مِنْ الشِّرْكِ أَحْرَى أَنْ لَا يَعْرِضَ فِي نَفْسِك مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ إذَا أَقْرَرْنَاهُمْ عَلَى أَعْظَمِ الْأُمُورِ فَأَصْغَرُهَا أَقَلُّ مِنْ أَعْظَمِهَا
[الأم – المجلد ٦ – الصفحة ١٥٢]

Imam Shafi'i said: "Some people said to me: 'If you refuse to judge between them (the Dhimmīs), they will turn to their own judges who will rule unjustly.' I replied: 'If I refuse to judge, and their judge rules unjustly between them while I am not the one judging then I bear no responsibility for their judge’s ruling. [...] Or do you consider my refusal to judge them a greater sin than leaving them be while they're associating partners with Allāh?' If you say, ‘But Allāh permitted taking jizyah from them, knowing they persist in shirk while aiding His religion’, then allowing them to continue in what is less than shirk is even more permissible! If we tolerate them in the greatest matter (shirk), then the smaller matters are certainly below that." [Al-Umm - Volume 6 - Page 152]

Imam Shafi'i stated that if a Muslim judge were to decline judging between Christians and Jews, consequently bringing their cases before their own judges, this would be permissible.

He further explained that their seeking judgment from one another is not in itself an act of shirk, and thus tolerating it poses no problem — especially since they are already tolerated despite their belief in associating partners with Allah.

This shows us that Imam Shafi'i did not view seeking judgment from non-Islamic laws to be an act of apostasy.

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani

- وَلَوْ اسْتَوْدَعَ مُسْلِمٌ مُسْلِمًا شَيْئًا وَأَذِنَ لَهُ إنْ غَابَ أَنْ يُخْرِجَهُ مَعَهُ فَارْتَدَّ الْمُودَعُ وَلَحِقَ بِدَارِ الْحَرْبِ، فَلَحِقَهُ صَاحِبُهُ وَطَلَبَهُ مِنْهُ فَمَنَعَهُ، وَاخْتَصَمَا فِيهِ إلَى سُلْطَانِ تِلْكَ الْبِلَادِ، فَقَصَرَ يَدَ الْمُسْلِمِ عَنْهُ، ثُمَّ أَسْلَمَ أَهْلُ الدَّارِ فَالْوَدِيعَةُ لِلْمُودِعِ لَا سَبِيلَ لِصَاحِبِهَا عَلَيْهَا.
[ص1385 - كتاب شرح السير الكبير]

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani said: “If a Muslim entrusts another Muslim with something for safekeeping, and gives him permission—if he (the depositor) is absent—to take it with him, then the one entrusted (the trustee) apostatizes and migrates to Dar al-Harb (Dar al-Kufr). The owner (of the item) follows him and demands it back, but he refuses. They take the dispute to the ruler of that land, who rules to withhold it from the Muslim (the original owner). Then the people of that land embrace Islam. In that case, the deposited item belongs to the one who had been entrusted with it, and its original owner has no claim over it.” [Kitab Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir - Page 1385]

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, the student of Abu Hanifa and later the teacher of Imam al-Shafi'i in his old age, explains that a Muslim may seek judgment from a non-Muslim in order to reclaim his rights.

He further clarifies that if a non-Muslim authority rules in favor of the thief, the Muslim loses any claim over what was taken from him—even if the entire land later embraces Islam.

By this, he is indicating that the judgment of such an authority is binding, even if it is unjust. It does not permit the Muslim to take the property back by force.

And Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani was very learned, Imam al-Shafi'i trusted him and learned a great deal regarding Abu Hanifa through him.

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْحَسَنِ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَني أَبُو بِشْرِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَمَّادٍ الدُّولابِيُّ فِي طَرِيقِ مِصْرَ، ثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ وَرَّاقُ الْحُمَيْدِيِّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ الْحُمَيْدِيَّ، يَقُولُ عَنِ الشَّافِعِيِّ، قَالَ:
. . .
حَتَّى رُفِعْتُ إِلَى الْعِرَاقِ، فَقِيلَ لِي: الْزَمِ الْبَابَ، فَنَظَرْتُ فَإِذَا أَنَا لا بُدَّ لِي مِنَ الاخْتِلافِ إِلَى بَعْضِ أُولَئِكَ.
وَكَانَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ، جَيِّدَ الْمَنْزِلَةِ، فَاخْتَلَفْتُ إِلَيْهِ، وَقُلْتُ: هَذَا أَشْبَهُ لِي مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْعِلْمِ، فَلَزِمْتُهُ، وَكَتَبْتُ كُتُبَهُ، وَعَرَفْتُ قَوْلَهُمْ، وَكَانَ إِذَا قَامَ نَاظَرْتُ أَصْحَابَهُ
[ص24-26 - كتاب آداب الشافعي ومناقبه]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: From al-Rabīʿ ibn Sulaymān, who said: I heard al-Shāfiʿī say: “... Until I was called to Iraq. I was told: ‘Guard the gate.’ (meaning, solve the disputes of people there) I observed, and realized that I would inevitably have to resolve disputes with some of them. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, who was of excellent standing, became the one I turned to. I said: ‘He is closest to me in the path of knowledge,’ so I adhered to him, wrote down his books, learned their content, and whenever he came by, I would observe him debating with his companions.” [Adab al-Shafi'i wa Manaqibuhu - Ibn Abi Hatim - Page 24-26]

On many occasions, Imam Shafi'i showed his excellence in debating and knowledge when Muhammad ibn al-Hasan invited to debate.

The primary reason why Imam Shafi‘i studied under Muhammad ibn al-Hasan was to learn the positions of Abu Hanifa, so that he could dedicate a chapter in his al-Umm addressing the differences between Abu Hanifa and Ibn Abi Layla.

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْحَسَنِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ الشَّافِعِيَّ، يَقْولُ: حَمَلْتُ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، حَمْلَ بُخْتِيٍّ لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ إِلا سَمَاعِي "
[ص26 - كتاب آداب الشافعي ومناقبه]

Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned: From al-Rabīʿ ibn Sulaymān, who said: I heard al-Shāfiʿī say: “I carried from Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan like a camel-load of knowledge, all from hearing him directly.” [Adab al-Shafi'i wa Manaqibuhu - Ibn Abi Hatim - Page 26]

Imam Shafi‘i always felt deep gratitude for the opportunity to study under Muhammad ibn al-Hasan regarding Abu Hanifa’s fiqh positions. This guidance enabled him to explore the matters of fiqh more thoroughly.

He also spoke highly of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, supplicating to Allah to have mercy on him and to be pleased with him.

(قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى -): وَأَحْسَبُهُمْ ذَهَبُوا فِيهِ إلَى أَنَّهُ أَقَرَّ بِأَنَّ لَهُ شَيْئًا فِي يَدَيْهِ، وَشَيْئًا فِي يَدَيْ أَخِيهِ فَأَجَازُوا إقْرَارَهُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ، وَأَبْطَلُوا إقْرَارَهُ عَلَى أَخِيهِ، وَهَذَا أَصَحُّ مِنْ قَوْلِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ وَأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمَا -
[كِتَابُ الأُمّ - المجلد ٦ - ص ٢٧٢]

Imam Shafi'i said: "... Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Abu Hanifa, radiyAllahu 'anhuma." [Kitab al-Umm - Volume 6 - Page 272]

Imam al-Tabari

القول في تأويل قوله: {أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وَعِظْهُمْ وَقُلْ لَهُمْ فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَوْلا بَلِيغًا (٦٣) }
قال أبو جعفر: يعني جل ثناؤه بقوله:"أولئك"، هؤلاء المنافقون الذين وصفت لك، يا محمد، صفتهم ="يعلم الله ما في قلوبهم" في احتكامهم إلى الطاغوت، وتركهم الاحتكام إليك، وصدودهم عنك = من النفاق والزيغ، (١) وإن حلفوا بالله: ما أردنا إلا إحسانًا وتوفيقًا ="فأعرض عنهم وعظهم"، يقول: فدعهم فلا تعاقبهم في أبدانهم وأجسامهم، ولكن عظهم بتخويفك إياهم بأسَ الله أن يحلّ بهم، وعقوبته أن تنزل بدارهم، وحذِّرهم من مكروهِ ما هم عليه من الشك في أمر الله وأمر رسوله =،"وقل لهم في أنفسهم قولا بليغًا"، يقول: مرهم باتقاء الله والتصديق به وبرسوله ووعده ووعيده.
[تفسير الطبري – سورة النساء آية ٦٣]

Imam al-Tabari said: Interpretation of the verse: {They are those whose hearts Allah knows. So turn away from them, but admonish them, and speak to them about themselves with threatening words} By His words “They”, the Exalted and Glorious means these hypocrites whose traits I have described to you, O Muhammad. {Allah knows what is in their hearts}—regarding their seeking judgment from the Taghut, their refusal to seek judgment from you, and their turning away from you—out of hypocrisy and deviation, even if they swear by Allah, saying: “We only intended goodness and reconciliation.” {So turn away from them and admonish them}—meaning: leave them, do not punish their bodies and persons, but instead admonish them by warning them of Allah’s punishment descending upon them and His retribution overtaking their dwellings. Warn them of the evil consequence of persisting in their doubt concerning Allah and His Messenger. {And speak to them about themselves with far-reaching words}—meaning: command them to fear Allah, to believe in Him and in His Messenger, and in His promise and His threat. [Tafsir al-Tabari - Surah al-Nisaa verse 63]

The verse is talking about the hypocrites who would seek judgment from the Taghut. Imam al-Tabari explains that their action would not been considered an act of major shirk, since Allah said that they should been warned and not punished for such action.

If seeking judgment from the Taghut was clear shirk, then the advice would not have been to merely warn those who practise it.

So clearly seeking judgment from the Taghut was not considered an act of major shirk at all. However, it was something that could indicate someone's hypocrisy, though not a definitive sign like practising major shirk.

Ibn Abi Zamanin

﴿فَأَعْرض عَنْهُم﴾ فَلَا تقتلهم (ل ٦٨) مَا جعلُوا يظهرون الْإِيمَان ﴿وَعِظْهُمْ وَقُلْ لَهُمْ فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَوْلا بليغا﴾ يَقُولُ لَهُم: إِن أظهرتم مَا فِي قُلُوبكُمْ قتلتكم. [آيَة ٦٤ - ٦٥]
[تفسير القرآن العزيز لابن أبي زمنين – سورة النساء آية ٦٣]

Ibn Abi Zamanin said: "(So turn away from them.)—meaning: So do not kill them — for they appear believers outwardly. {And admonish them and say to them concerning themselves a far-reaching word}—meaning: say to them 'If you reveal what is in your hearts, I will kill you' [Verses 64–65]" [Tafsir Al-Quran of Ibn Abi Zamanin - Surah al-Nisaa verse 63]

These verses are regarding the action Islamic rulers must take concerning those who seek judgment from the Taghut.

Allah says that those who seek judgment from the Taghut should not be punished. He says this because such action does not constitute major shirk, if it was, then the situation would have been much different.

Ibn Abi Zamanin explains that those who seek judgment from the Taghut are still Muslims. Meaning they did not commit any major shirk by participating in that.

Keynote: The verse was revealed regarding a specific incident of the Munafiqun, not to declare anyone who seeks judgment from Taghut as a Munafiq.

Some argue, "Look, Allah called those who sought judgment from the Taghut a Munafiq or Kafir, so anyone who seeks judgment from the Taghut becomes one as well."

This argument is incorrect. The verse cannot be generalized to anyone who seeks judgment from the Taghut. Among the Salaf Saliheen, this action was not considered major kufr. It is the intention behind the action that could render a person a kafir.

If this act were inherently major kufr, one would have to declare figures like Alqamah ibn Alathah (a Sahabi), Imam Shafi'i, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Imam al-Tabari, and Ibn Abi Zamanin as kuffar for not considering it apostasy.

Even more problematic, one would have to make takfir of Tabi'een like Mujahid, whom Ibn Abi Hatim narrated interpreted this verse as pertaining to a Muslim and a Jew (Munafiq) who brought their dispute to Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf.