In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Indeed, all praise is due to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of ourselves and the misdeeds of our actions. Whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide, and whomsoever Allah misguides, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. To proceed:

I have read a categorization from some scholars regarding the ruling on lawyers operating under man-made laws, dividing them into three categories:

1- Whoever believes in these laws, accepts them, adheres to them, and considers them valid is an infidel against the Almighty God.

2- Whoever believes it is invalid and disavows it, but resorts to it to obtain a right or repel injustice, and sees himself compelled to it like someone forced to eat carrion in the desert where there is no lawful way to restore rights and remove injustices, he is not considered a disbeliever at all and does not incur sin.

3- Whoever believes that the laws are invalid and resorts to them to obtain his right, but does not strive to obtain his right through a legitimate means such as reconciliation or arbitration by a scholar, and falls short in seeking the legitimate means and does not exert effort, is considered a minor disbeliever.

To refute this categorization, we say—with Allah’s guidance:

First: The Nature of a Lawyer’s Work

In our contemporary reality, the lawyer is a man who earns his living by defending people, restoring their rights, or addressing their grievances through the application of the laws and courts in the country (man-made laws).

Second: The Ruling on Resorting to Man-Made Laws (Taghut)

And after understanding the nature of a lawyer's work, we say that the lawyer adheres to positive laws to obtain for their client, the rightful owner or the wronged party, what they demand in rights as stipulated in the judgment of the tyrant (taghut).

What, then, is the ruling on those who resort to the taghut? Allah Almighty answers us:

“But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you [O Muhammad] judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.”
(Surah An-Nisa 4:65)

Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, explained:
“Allah, the Exalted, swears by His holy, exalted Self that no one truly believes until they make the Messenger ﷺ a judge in all matters. Whatever he rules is the truth, which must be accepted both outwardly and inwardly. Thus, Allah said: ‘and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.’ That is, when they make you a judge, they must obey you in their hearts and find no hesitation about your judgment. They must submit entirely without resistance, opposition, or argument. As mentioned in the hadith: " By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, none of you truly believes until his desires are in accordance with what I have brought. ”

This verse clearly indicates that faith is denied for anyone who does not resort to the Shariah for resolving disputes and claiming rights. A lawyer, by resorting to the taghut to obtain rights for their client, falls into disbelief, as stated in the verse.

“Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.”
(Surah An-Nisa 4:60)

From this verse, we understand two key points:

1- Those who wish to resort to the taghut —even merely intending to do so, without action— are liars in their claim of faith and are disbelievers in Allah Almighty.

2- Resorting to the taghut constitutes belief in it, while rejecting the taghut—intentionally—is disbelief in it. Rejecting the taghut is a condition for the validity of Islam, as Allah says:

“So whoever disbelieves in taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.”
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)

Here lies a profound point: Allah says “wish to refer legislation to taghut” rather than “refer legislation.” This shows that judgment is established merely by the intent to resort to the taghut, even before the act itself begins or concludes.

It became clear that the judgment was rendered as soon as the will to arbitrate appeared, even before the commencement of the arbitration itself.

This also indicated that the will to arbitrate arises before the act of arbitration itself. The will to seek arbitration is originally a matter of the heart, but we judge the inner from the outer. So we say that the will to seek arbitration is to go to him seeking his judgment without coercion, meaning by your own choice.

And the will may be accompanied by the love of the heart for the desired goal, or it may be accompanied by the hatred of the desired goal. A servant may want to go to the tyrant for judgment to obtain a right of his with hatred for its laws, or he may want to go to him with love and reverence for its laws. Whether he loves the laws of disbelief or hates them does not affect the ruling on the one seeking judgment; rather, it is an increase in disbelief. However, the decisive factor is that he went by his own choice to seek judgment from the tyrant without being compelled, thus he becomes a disbeliever in God and a worshiper of the tyrant in every aspect.

Example: Forced Conscription into the Taghut Army

A young man might willingly join the army for a work or travel permit, hating the army and its corruption. Another might join, seeing it as service to the nation. Both voluntarily submit, regardless of their personal feelings, making intent the determinant for the ruling.

Refutation of the Categorization

And after we have understood the nature of a lawyer's work and the ruling on adjudicating by man-made laws, and that it is considered disbelief in the case of will and choice, and that the only exception to this disbelief is for someone who adjudicates under compulsion, we respond to the mentioned classification:-

1- First Category: His saying: ( "Whoever believes in these laws, is pleased with them, resorts to them for judgment, and believes in their validity, is an infidel to God Almighty." )

His belief in the validity of these laws and his acceptance of their rulings constitute a doctrinal disbelief that renders him an infidel, even if he does not go to the courts and does not adjudicate by these laws.

And resorting to it is a major practical disbelief, and whoever does so willingly and not under compulsion is considered a disbeliever, even if he hates these laws and sees them as invalid.

And this detail, according to the doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunnah, is that disbelief can occur through action, belief, or speech, and it is not necessary for one of the three types to be combined with another for a person to be considered a disbeliever.

There is no disagreement between us and the Sheikh in the first part, for the lawyer who is content and loves the laws to which he resorts has included two types of disbelief: disbelief of belief (contentment and love) and disbelief of action (resorting to the laws).

2- Second Category:  ( “Whoever believes in its invalidity and disavows it but resorts to it to obtain a right or repel injustice, and sees himself compelled to it like one compelled to eat carrion in the desert where there is no legitimate way to restore rights and lift injustices, then he is neither an infidel nor a sinner at all.”)

This section is invalid for several reasons:

1- The claim that he believes the laws are invalid and disavows them while going to judge by the tyrant is a false claim according to the verse, and because actions contradict words, Allah said: "Have you not seen those who claim to believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you, seeking to refer to Taghut for judgment..." So, Allah clarified that their claim of faith while referring to the tyrant for judgment is not valid and has no legal standing, and they are judged as disbelievers.

2- It is established in Sharia by all scholars of the faith that disbelief can only occur in cases of coercion that compels one to act, and it is not permissible to do so out of need, necessity, or benefit. - The scholar Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said in "I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in": "There is no disagreement among the Ummah that it is not permissible to allow speaking a word of disbelief for any purpose, except for the coerced person whose heart is at peace with faith" [3/145].

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if this applies to committing immoral acts, then other sins are even greater, such as the grave injustice to creation like killing an innocent soul, associating partners with Allah, and speaking about Allah without knowledge. Allah, the Exalted, said: (Say, 'My Lord has only forbidden immoralities, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and sin and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know'). These are the categories of prohibitions that are never permissible in any circumstance or in any Sharia. As for other prohibitions, although they may be forbidden in some circumstances, they may be permissible in others." [Fatwas 15/134].

He also said: "The prohibited things are of two types: one type is those that it is certain the Sharia has not permitted at all, neither out of necessity nor otherwise, such as polytheism, immoral acts, speaking about Allah without knowledge, and pure oppression. These are the four mentioned in the verse (Say, 'My Lord has only forbidden immoralities, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and sin and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know'). These things are prohibited in all religions, and by prohibiting them, Allah sent all the messengers and has never permitted any of them at any time or under any circumstances. That is why this verse was revealed in this Meccan surah. The prohibition is negated for everything else, for what was prohibited after that, such as blood, carrion, and the flesh of swine, was prohibited in certain circumstances and not absolutely." End quote [Fatwas 14/470].

It is not correct to say that a lawyer resorts to the tyrant out of necessity because resorting to the tyrant is disbelief, as we have explained, and disbelief cannot be permitted even out of necessity. Only necessities permit the prohibited actions that are less than disbelief, such as eating carrion, drinking alcohol, or a woman traveling without a male guardian.

It should also be noted that coercion is an excuse for the person who was coerced into committing disbelief that is absolved by coercion, while the lawyer disbelieves by resorting to the tyrant for the necessity or coercion of another person, not his own necessity and coercion.

We also emphasize that the issue of reclaiming rights or addressing injustices, if it allowed resorting to the tyrants in the absence of the authority of Sharia, would have been first utilized by the companions during the Meccan period when they were killed, tortured, imprisoned, and their wealth was taken. Yet, none of them went to the tyrants of Quraysh to complain about their oppression and seek justice through their laws. In fact, some companions went to the Prophet to complain about the severity of what they were facing from the disbelievers, and he only advised them to be patient and steadfast in their faith.

Narrated by Khabbab bin Al-Arat, he said: “We complained to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, while he was resting on a cloak of his in the shade of the Kaaba. We said, 'Will you not seek victory for us? Will you not pray for us?' He said: 'There were people before you who were taken and dug into the ground, and they were placed in it. Then a saw was brought and placed on their heads, cutting them in half, and they were combed with iron combs until their flesh and bones were torn apart, but that did not turn them away from their religion. By Allah, this matter will be completed until a rider travels from Sana'a to Hadramaut, fearing nothing but Allah and the wolf for his sheep. But you are being hasty.'”

And if they had a license to adjudicate in order to lift injustices, He would have guided them to it out of mercy for them. The foundational principle states that (the existence of a reason and the absence of an impediment, along with the lack of action, is evidence of prohibition).

Sheikh Salman bin Sihman said: “The third position: We say: If this arbitration is disbelief, and the dispute is only for worldly matters, how can it be permissible for you to disbelieve for that? For a person does not truly believe until Allah and His Messenger are more beloved to him than anything else, and until the Messenger is more beloved to him than his children, his father, and all of mankind. If all your worldly possessions were to be lost, it would not be permissible for you to resort to the tyrant for them. And if you were compelled and given a choice between resorting to the tyrant or sacrificing your worldly possessions, you must sacrifice them, and it would not be permissible for you to resort to the tyrant.”

The reason for the strictness in this matter is that resorting to the tyrant for judgment is polytheism, and polytheism is the greatest of evils. On the other hand, obtaining rights and preventing injustices are worldly benefits, and preventing evils takes precedence over obtaining benefits. By preventing the evil of polytheism through resorting to the tyrant for judgment, the greatest benefit is achieved, which is the establishment of monotheism for Allah, the Almighty.

So, the correct view in the second section is that he is a disbeliever and polytheist for resorting to the tyrant, and if he claims to disbelieve in the laws and believes in their invalidity and inadequacy, his claim has been refuted by God in His Book, and words that are contradicted by actions hold no value.

3- Third Category:

And the third category is also a disbeliever in God for choosing to refer to the tyrant, and his sin, disbelief, and punishment increase due to his negligence in striving to refer to the law of God Almighty.

This, and with God's guidance, we ask God for us and all the people of Islam to be guided to the truth and to be saved from polytheism.

Additional:

[1] See: (And judge, [O Muḥammad], between them by what Allāh has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allāh has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allāh only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient. * Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who
is better than Allāh in judgement for a people who are certain [in
faith].) (Surah Al-Ma'idah 49-50)

[2] See: Bughiyyah Al-Mustafid fi Sharh Kitab Al-Tawhid, Chapter on His saying: (Have you not seen those who claim...)

Two men had a dispute, and one of them said: "Let's refer it to the Prophet ﷺ." The other said: "Let's refer it to Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf." Then they referred it to Umar; one of them narrated the story to him, and he said to the one who did not agree with referring it to the Prophet ﷺ: "Is that so?!" He said: "Yes." So, he struck him with the sword and killed him.