Why Taghut Is Misunderstood — And Why Muslims Must Reclaim Their Voice

Mohamed Miah | The Narratives

What Taghut Really Means

Taghut refers to anything that diverts people from the oneness of Allah: false deities, tyrannical rulers demanding blind obedience, or systems of oppression that strip away justice. It is rebellion against Allah’s sovereignty.

But in modern times, this concept has been twisted. Instead of guiding Muslims to resist injustice, Taghut has been misused to silence dissent. Question corruption or oppression, and suddenly you are accused of rebelling against Islam — when in reality, obedience to oppressors is what feeds Taghut.


Islam Does Not Endorse Blind Obedience

The Qur’an makes our duty clear:

“O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, or your kin.” (Qur’an 4:135)

Our early history reflects this principle:

  • Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) welcomed correction from ordinary Muslims when he erred.
  • Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad, and Ibn Taymiyyah endured lashes, prison, and exile rather than compromise truth before unjust rulers.

Silence was never the way of Islam. Speaking truth was.


The Misuse of Piety

Today, some voices tell Muslims: “Do not protest — it is haram. Do not enter politics — it is haram. Just pray, obey, and remain silent.”

This is not piety. This is pacification. It is a strand of thought that flourished under regimes who benefit from Muslim obedience. It reduces Islam to ritual while stripping away its heart: justice.

Yes, we must guard against shirk by never elevating man-made law above Allah’s law. But peaceful engagement — whether voting, protesting, or speaking truth to power — can be part of enjoining good and forbidding evil, as long as our loyalty remains with Allah alone.


Our Duty in the Face of Taghut

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Whoever among you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand. If he cannot, then with his tongue. If he cannot, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.” (Muslim)

If Muslims in the West remain silent, who will speak for Gaza, Kashmir, or Xinjiang? Who will defend justice in our own streets, schools, and workplaces?

Silence is not neutrality. It is consent.


Reclaiming Our Voice

Taghut is not about silencing people. It is about rejecting oppression and falsehood.

Muslims must reclaim their voice:

  • Speak with courage.
  • Protest with sincerity.
  • Engage with systems without compromising tawheed.

Ultimately, only Allah delivers true justice. But our duty is clear: we must not be the generation that turned Islam into silence.


References

  1. Qur’an 4:135 – Upholding justice even against oneself.
  2. Muslim (Hadith) – On changing evil with hand, tongue, or heart.
  3. Ibn Taymiyyah, Kitab al-Iman – On the dangers of Taghut and Shirk.
  4. Imam Malik & Imam Ahmad – Historical examples of standing against tyrants.
  5. Al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah – On responsibilities of rulers and ruled.
  6. Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an – On justice and political engagement.
  7. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy – On Islam and modern governance.

5 responses to “Why Taghut Is Misunderstood — And Why Muslims Must Reclaim Their Voice”

  1. “Yes, we must guard against shirk by never elevating man-made law above Allah’s law.”

    I have to disagree with you on this one. If everyone’s religious laws were above the laws of the state, the state laws would be nullified. I believe that in government matters the state laws must take preference. In your own life, you can put the laws of your God above the laws of the country, but you would still be subject to the penalty of the law. There are over 370 different religious congregations in the U.S. The laws of the U.S. should be enforced or there would be anarchy. Like I said, a religious person might be doing the right thing by disobeying a law that does not conform to their religion, but they would still be subject to the law of the land and the penalties for violating that law.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. No one said anything about disobeying. Please read it again. I’m talking about peacefully disagreeing with something that is wrong. Thank you for reading and commenting.

      Like

      1. I understood “never elevating man-made law above Allah’s law,” as meaning that if there was a disagreement between the two, you would disobey the man-made law. Don’t get me wrong. If your God tells you to do one thing, and your government tells you to do something different, I believe that you should follow your religious beliefs. I’m just saying that if you follow religious beliefs over man-made laws, you would still be subject to the penalty that breaking that man-made law details.

        I, personally, am an Atheist, but if my government tells me to do something that I feel is morally wrong, I would disobey the government. Anyone who disagrees with that should see what happened to the German soldiers who claimed at the Nuremburg Trials, that they had only been “following orders.”

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Islamic law is peaceful, if you strip it back to what was preached.

        People in the modern era have used, if you speak up against a country you reside in its disobedience to the country therefore god.

        They say we should follow king and country blindly. I say we should speak up against injustice. People are afraid of dialogue these days, they are afraid of differing opinions. Instead of accepting we may be wrong and can change our minds. In the 21st century ego is king. As shown by every leader in the free world.

        Like

      3. “They say we should follow king and country blindly. I say we should speak up against injustice.”

        I totally agree.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment