The Ruling on Referring Disputes to Non-Shari'ah Courts

Question:
Many, many questions have been received revolving around the following question: What is the meaning of the word "tabur"? Is it intended to refer to the laws by which people judge their disputes? That is, when a dispute arises between two individuals, and a group of people from other tribes gathers, and after looking into the case, they say, "You, so-and-so, you have the right, and you have the property, or two properties, to you," and this ruling is called a settlement by which these people judge, and neither the word of Allah nor the word of His Messenger is cited in this ruling; rather, it is the independent reasoning (ijtihad) of these people. What is your opinion, Honorable Shaykh, regarding such a ruling? Please inform us, O believers.

Answer:
This is a very important question. The term "taghut" is originally derived from "taghyun" (transgression), which means exceeding the limit. Tughut is everything that exceeds the pure Shari'ah; that is, whatever departs from the pure Shari'ah is tughut. It encompasses many types; it encompasses many types.
Everything that exceeds the Shari'ah is tughut, because it is derived from "taghyun," which is transgression. And the tughut are many, as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said: "Their heads are five." Iblis, may Allah curse him, is the head of the tughut. And whoever is worshipped while he is pleased with that worship is a tughut. And whoever calls people to worship himself—such as one who exalts himself and says, "Look, I fulfill needs, and look, I cure the sick, and look, I am a righteous man, and I am, and I am," and calls people to worship him and draw near to him after his death, just as some Sufi groups and Sufi sheikhs do, who claim that they control the universe and that they fulfill the needs of the world—these are laws, and whoever judges by other than what Allah has revealed is also a tughut, as Allah the Exalted said: Whoever judges by other than what Allah has revealed, intentionally doing so and considering it permissible, becomes a tughut among the tughut. Whoever claims any knowledge of the unseen is a tughut. The one who claims to know the unseen, such as the soothsayers, sorcerers, and astrologers who claim to know the conditions of the future, and to know the location of the absent one and where he is, and the like of that—this is one who claims knowledge of the unseen. And whoever claims knowledge of the unseen is a tughut. As for what the questioner mentioned regarding what some tribes do in judging some disputes among people, as for what the questioner mentioned that some tribal leaders judge between people in matters where disputes arise over blood or other matters of wealth, or...
The matter in this is very serious. First, praise be to Allah, this country does not need this. This country, praise be to Allah, is governed by the Shari'ah, and every city and every village has a Shari'ah court or one nearby. Therefore, it is not permissible to refer disputes except to the Shari'ah courts. It is not permissible for Muslims who testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah to refer their disputes except to the Shari'ah. And the Shari'ah, praise be to Allah, the Shari'ah courts are now widespread and established in the Kingdom. There is no town that does not have a court or one nearby. Therefore, it is obligatory for the disputing parties to go to the judges, the Shari'ah courts. It is not permissible for tribal leaders or anyone else to intervene in judging between people, and the Shari'ah courts exist. This means intervening in a matter in which they are not permitted to intervene, except in the case of settlement. If this is purely in the case of settlement, resolving the dispute between the disputing parties with their consent, without compulsion, and without following tribal customs or tribal weddings that are followed, but rather it is a settlement between the two parties, then this is a permissible matter and is encouraged.
Allah the Glorious and Exalted said: up to His saying: "The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers." He, the Exalted and Majestic, said: "Your own affair," meaning the people in dispute. He, the Exalted, said, "And settlement is best." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And when a man came to him, who was called Abu al-Husayn, he said, "Indeed, Allah is the Judge, and to Him is the judgment." So the man mentioned to him the reason for his being called al-Hasan. He said, "Indeed, when my people differ over something, they come to me and I make settlement between them, and both parties are satisfied." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "How good this is," meaning if this is with the consent of both parties, then this is a settlement, and settlement is permissible. However, if this is in the case of compulsion, then the one who compels is the judge, the Shari'ah court, and the Islamic authority. As for other than the court, there is no compulsion in judgments. If the intervention of these people is in the case of compulsion and they do not refer to the courts, then this is not permissible; this is the ruling of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance (jahiliyyah). As for a person in the case of settlement, if they are satisfied, praise be to Allah, if they are satisfied, they go to the court, then there is no harm in that. If it is in the case of consent, if they are satisfied, praise be to Allah, if they are not satisfied, they go to the court. But if he says, "You do not go to the court, I will judge between you and compel you with this thing," this is forbidden (haram), and this contains the ruling of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, and refuge is sought in Allah. It is obligatory for the one who does this to repent to Allah the Mighty and Majestic, and to leave this action. And it is obligatory for Muslims to refer their disputes to the Shari'ah of Allah the Mighty and Majestic. Does this mean that in what he said, a decision has been issued in which Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) have decided? If the judgment is issued from the court, that is it; it is obligatory to be bound by it, and it is not obligatory to intervene in the judgments of the judges or the judgments of the courts; it is obligatory to be bound by them. However, if the owner of the right waives it with his consent, there is no harm, but that he is forced to waive what the court has ruled in his favor, this is not permissible. Yes.