The
Qur'an says:
... that whoever took a life
7, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth
8, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind. (5:32)
And:
And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93)
How can someone who believes in this book commit murder?
Here's how:
In his mind -- and perhaps even in his heart -- the murder he commits is not murder: it is an act of virtue.
Those who do evil can be of two kinds. There are those who know that the evil they do is evil, and there are those who don't. In fact, those of the latter kind might even be absolutely certain that the evil they do is not evil but virtue. When that is the case, murder and terrorism can, in their minds, become
Jihad.
The good intentions of these 'pious evil-doers' might become an excuse for them on the Day of Judgement, but in this worldly life of ours, when murder and terrorism are the issue, their error of judgement -- howsoever noble their intentions might be -- does not, in any way, exonerate them from the responsibility for causing disruption and disorder in society. Therefore, these people need to be dealt with -- and when human lives and law and order are at stake, there can be two ways of doing that: either you succeed in convincing them that their 'virtue' is actually evil and that their
Jihad is in reality
Fasad9 or
Muharabah10 or you sentence them to death.
Two pertinent questions are: how do you convince them? and would the State be morally justified if, after having taken reasonable measures to solve the problem through dialogues and discussions, it has to award them the death punishment?
To convince such Islamist groups as resort to murder and terrorism that, howsoever noble the goals, their methods are against the teachings of their own religion, one has to understand the arguments they themselves use to justify their deeds. Of such arguments some of the more important ones are discussed here.
One of their arguments is based on a narration in which the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
He amongst you who sees any wrong should change it with his hand
11; if that is not possible for him, then with his tongue; if that is not possible for him, then [he should condemn it] in his heart -- and that is the weakest level of faith. (
Muslim, Kitabu'l-Iman)
Ghamidi points out that this statement of the Prophet (sws) has a specific context in reference to which the statement merely means that it is the duty of every Muslim to try for the eradication of evil within the confines of the social and legal authority he or she has
12. For example, parents are afforded the authority by the conventions of society to use some mild form of physical punishment, if required, for the proper upbringing of their children. This obviously does not mean that they have the authority to batter their children. Similarly, the government -- a court of law to be more precise -- has the legal authority to award a suitable sentence to an offender if he is found guilty. Now, if some parents did not use their authority to stop their children from becoming heroin addicts, they would certainly be at a weaker level of faith, especially if physical punishment of a sort would have helped and it were love which stopped them from using their authority. Love does not mean that you let those you love do wrong. Similarly, a judge who, under some pressure, gave a lighter punishment to an offender would certainly be at a weaker level of faith. Indeed, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, he might even be regarded as being devoid of faith altogether on the Day of Judgement.
The Prophet of
Allah (sws) never took the law into his own hands. During the thirteen years he preached Islam in
Makkah, he never went beyond the confines of the law of the land. The few companions and followers he had during those years were indeed more loyal to him -- and hardly any Muslim would doubt that -- than his followers today can ever claim to be. Many a Muslim today will hardly take any time to decide that it is a matter of his faith to kill anyone -- even the most influential person around -- who blasphemes -- or is even suspected of blaspheming -- against the Prophet (sws). But the followers of the Prophet (sws) never murdered even a single of his opponents even when he was pelted with stones at
Ta'if. In
Makkah, invectives were hurled against him day and night, yet none of his followers regarded it a matter of his faith to kill a few offenders to avenge the Prophet (sws). Had all of his companions -- even those truly close to him as Abu Bakar (raa) and Ali (raa) -- chosen to remain at a weaker level of faith? And had the Prophet (sws) himself chosen not to do anything about the weak faith of his companions? Why didn't he exhort them to do something in retaliation?
It was only after the Prophet (sws) had established an independent State at
Madinah that laws were enacted and implemented by him -- and that too was done gradually so as to avoid imbalance in society. The reason for this restraint is that in Islam armed struggle is allowed only at the level of the State
13. An individual or a group is not permitted to wage an armed struggle so that anarchy does not prevail in society.
Militant struggle by an individual or a group in an Islamic State amounts to
Fasad (disorder, disruption, etc) or, when it becomes a rebellion against the State,
Khuruj (rebellion, revolt, etc). In either case, the Islamic State has the right to give the militants a severe death sentence.
14 Only when certain conditions have been met is
Khuruj allowed.
15
The militant Islamists would argue that
(a) the government in Pakistan is not Islamic and
(b) they -- the militants -- are fighting against
Kuffar (sing.
Kafir: infidel), who ought to be killed to save Islam from its enemies.
It should be obvious from the points made above that even if Pakistan were not an Islamic State and some of those accepted by the State as Muslims were
Kuffar, there would still be no room in Islam for the militant Islamists to take the law into their own hands and kill people. The militants are not more pious than the Prophet (sws) and his close companions (raa).
But let's take a look at this stance as well. Does a State having a morally and religiously corrupt government become un-Islamic? And who has the right to declare a group (or a person) in the
Ummah (the whole Muslim community) as non-Muslims or
Kuffar?
The Islamic principle on which a State is founded is described in the
Qur'an (42:38) in the words
amruhum shura baynahum (their affairs are through consultation amongst them)
16. This principle entails that the State affairs be run by the vote of the majority of Muslim citizens. When a people establish their government in a geographically independent area over which they have power and authority, the State is formed. Therefore, when the majority of Muslims in a geographically independent area, over which they have power and authority, form their own government through consultation -- elections in modern times --, that government, in accordance with the verse quoted above, represents the Islamic State. Allegiance to that government is a religious obligation on the Muslim citizens of that State
17:
Obey
Allah and the Prophet and those who are in authority among you. Then if there is difference of opinion among you, refer it back to
Allah and the Prophet (The
Qur'an 4:59)
It is evident from this verse that even in case of any difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the contents of religion, the matter should be resolved through the
Qur'an and the
Sunnah18 rather than through guns. And, from the verse quoted earlier (42:38), it is clear that the verdict of the majority of the Muslims regarding the correct interpretation must be accepted as the law of the land. Thereafter, those who dissent do have the right to express their points of view in a peaceful and constitutional manner, but they do not have the right to create a law and order situation or rebel against the State. In
Muslim's Kitabu'l-Imarah, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said
19:
You are organised under the rule of a person and someone tries to break your collectivity apart or disrupt your government, kill him.
It is only when a Muslim is ordered to do something against the directives of
Allah or of the Prophet (sws) is he required to disobey those with political and legal authority in the system he lives in. The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said (
Muslims, Kitabu'l-Imarah)
20:
Whether they like it or not, it is obligatory on the faithful to listen to and obey their rulers except that they be ordered to commit sin. If they are ordered to commit sin, they should neither listen nor obey.
The
Qur'anic words 'obey
Allah and the Prophet...' require that a Muslim not obey any command against the directives of
Allah and the Prophet (sws). But even then, he is not allowed to disrupt the system or commit murders. The reason is that when a government is formed in accordance with the
Qur'anic principle of
amruhum shura baynahum and can be changed or deposed on the same basis, any rebellion against that government amounts to a rebellion against the collectivity of Muslims, which in Islamic terminology, is
Muharabah and which, as the statement of the Prophet (sws) quoted earlier explains, is an offence punishable by death.
Prominent people of this
Ummah as
Abu Hanifah,
Imam Malik ibn Anas and
Ahmad Ibn Hambal never resorted to violence, vandalism, terrorism or rebellion in spite of facing extreme hardships to propagate the truth.
21 In
Al-Masa'il al-Rasa'il al Marwiyyah 'an Ahmad ibn Hambal, Ahmad ibn Hambal is reported to have said:
Far be it from
Allah [all that is wrongly associated with Him], blood is but blood
22. I do not believe in it nor do I recommend it. Enduring what is on us
23 is better than disruption, in which blood is shed, people's wealth is expropriated and things and matters sacred are desecrated.
24
In
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal25, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said
26:
I order you five things: pledging allegiance to the State, listening to and obeying [your rulers in that State],
Hijrah27and
Jihad in the way of
Allah.
In
Bukhari's Kitabu'l-Fitan, the Prophet (sws) is also reported to have said
28:
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the State and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance.
In another version in the same collection of his sayings, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said
29:
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the Sovereignty and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance (
Kitabu'l-Fitan)
Ghamidi explains that in these two versions, the words
Al-Jama'ah (the State) and
Al-Sultan (the Sovereignty) have been used interchangeably, which clearly shows that this directive of the Prophet (sws) pertains to such a body as has political sovereignty in a geographically independent area in which there is a system of government.
30
It should be obvious from the arguments given above that the government in Pakistan, which is brought to power through the mandate given to it by the majority vote of the Muslim citizens is the embodiment of the sovereignty of the State and as such it represents the State. Therefore, a Muslim does not have the right to rebel against the government (
Similar opinions are also held by some of the earliest and very highly venerated Muslim political thinkers like Al-Mawardi (Al-Ahkamu'l-Sultaniyyah w'al-Wilayat), Nizamu'l- Mulk (Siyarul-Muluk) and (especially) Ghazali (Nasihatu'l-Muluk). It is indeed the duty of a Muslim to propagate the truth with wisdom and sagacity and, if need be, with personal sacrifice.
The way the likes of Ahmad Ibn Hambal, Malik Ibn Anas and Abu Hanifah bore persecution at the hands of the rulers of their respective times is a testimony to the fact that the prominent scholars of Islam have never shirked from making sacrifices for the sake of truth, yet have always distanced themselves from vandalism, terrorism, disruption and rebellion even if the rulers were morally corrupt. Indeed, it is this kind of propagation which was termed as a great
Jihad by the Prophet (sws). In
Tirmidhi's Kitabu'l-Fitan,he is reported to have said
31:
Verily, words of truth and justice are a great
Jihad especially when said in front of an oppressive ruler.
Ghamidi has explained in detail the conditions that must be fulfilled before rebellion against the State is allowed.
32 A brief mention of these conditions would not be out of place here:
The first condition is that the rulers unequivocally deny Islam or any of its directives. The fourth verse of the 59th chapter of
Qur'an quoted earlier points out that obedience to rulers is obligatory as long as they are from within the Muslims ('those in authority among you').
The Prophet (sws) is also reported to have laid down the same condition for refusal to accept the authority of the rulers.
... when you see unequivocal denial by them and in a matter regarding which you have an explicit directive from
Allah. (
Muslim, Kitabu'l-Imarah)
The second and the third conditions, based on
amruhum shura baynahum -- 'their affairs are by consultation among them' (the
Qur'an 42:38) --, are that the government against which
Khuruj is taken place should be a dictatorship which does not enjoy the support of the masses and that the leader of the
Khuruj should be a person who has the indubitable support of the nation.
All these conditions are essential in that even if one of them is missing,
Khuruj is not permissible.
Furthermore, in case of militant struggle, there is another condition: the rebels must migrate to another land and form an independent State there.
Before discussing the basis and the reason for this condition, it would be pertinent to point out here that the militant Islamists often term all their subversive activities as
Jihad. Actually,
Jihad is a nomen verbum of
Jahada, which means to make one's utmost effort. In Islamic terminology, the word denotes one's utmost effort in the way of
Allah. One of the connotations of the word is making one's utmost effort in a militant struggle for
Allah. In that sense it is used as a synonym for
Qital fi sabil Allah (killing in the way of
Allah), which is the more precise term for any kind of militant religious struggle -- be it a battle or war or a rebellion (
Khuruj). And in any case,
Qital fi sabil Allah is a prerogative of the State. In other words, in Islam there is no concept of
Jihad or
Qital (militant struggle) of any kind without the authority of the State.
The basis for this condition is that God Almighty did not ever give the permission to use the sword even to the Prophets (sws), who are the final manifestation of the truth for their people, until they had established their rule over their followers as their political sovereigns after migrating with them to another land and forming an independent State there. Moses (sws) was given the directive for
Jihad only after this condition had been met and, similarly, the Prophet (sws) and his followers were also allowed to do
Jihad only when after the Pledge of
'Aqabah they were able to establish an independent State at
Yathrib (later known as
Madinah).
33
The reason for this condition is that without the authority of the State
Jihad often becomes
Fasad. A group which does not even have the legal authority to sentence a criminal cannot be allowed to gamble with the lives and property of people. For this reason, Muslim jurists have always regarded this condition as essential:
And the third category of collective duties is one in which [the authority] of the Head of the State is a necessary condition, for example
Jihad and the implementation of the Islamic law of punishments.
34
This is the gist of augments given by Ghamdi for the conditions for
Khuruj. Earlier,
Hamidu'l-Din Farahi and
Amin Ahsan Islahi, two prominent exegetes of the
Qur'an, had also expressed similar views in very strong tones. Writes
Farahi:
Jihad in one's own country is not allowed unless one migrates to another land. Accounts of Abraham's life (sws) and other verses [of the
Qur'an] related to
Hijrah (migration) also point up this principle. The events of the Prophet's life (sws) also corroborate it. The reason for this principle is that without the authority of one who represents the collectivity of the Muslims in the State and has political sovereignty,
Jihad is merely chaos and disruption and anarchy and disorder.
35
Amin Ahsan Islahi, makes the following comments on the same principle:
The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the disruption and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those out to disintegrate the system will provide people with an alternative, righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is preferable to them. For this reason, God Almighty has not given the right to wage war to a group which is dubious and obscure, the power and authority of which is undefined, which is without the sovereignty of a ruler, the loyalty and obedience of which is untested and the members of which are disorganised and undisciplined -- who can disrupt a system but cannot prove that they have the ability to integrate a disintegrated environment. This confidence [that a group will be able to create harmony and integrate a disorganised environment into an organised system] can only be reposed in such a group as has actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline within the confines of its authority that it can be termed as
Al-Jama'ah [the government as a representative of the State]
. Until a group attains this position, it can strive to become
Al-Jama'ah [through religiously allowable and through legal and constitutional means] -- and that endeavour of its would be its
Jihad for that time -- but it does not have the right to wage an armed
Jihad and a war.
The second reason is that the import of the authority which a group engaged in war gets over the life and property of human beings is so great that such authority cannot be given to a group in which the authority of the leader over his followers is merely moral
36. Mere moral authority is not a sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from
Fasad fi'l-Ard37. Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords
38 merely on the basis of his spiritual relationship with them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Those revolutionary groups the object of which is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games -- and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous group must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the lives and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances or create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end.
39
It should be obvious from the passage quoted above that the right to wage war cannot be given to a group of individuals, who do not even have the legal authority to award punishment to a criminal. Without political sovereignty,
Jihad is often nothing short of
Fasad. Thus, such militant groups as mislead their followers into believing that their terrorism is a form of
Jihad have no Islamic basis whatsoever for their claim.
40
Now, let us analyse the next argument of the Islamist militants: that they only kill
Kuffar41, who are out to destroy Islam. Let's see who is really a
Kafir (singular of
Kuffar) and who is not. And let's also take a look at whether any individual or group has the authority to declare a Muslim a
Kafir.
Ghamidi believes that
Takfir, or declaring anyone a
Kafir, was the prerogative of the Prophet (sws) -- who did that on the basis of Divine revelation. The authorized companions of the Prophet (sws) had the Divine sanction to give the punishment for
Takfir to other specified non-Muslim nations apart from the direct addressees of the Prophet (sws) on the basis of
Itmamu'l-Hujjah done by him. After the Prophet (sws) and his Companions, no one has the right to declare anyone a
kafir.
The reasons Ghamidi gives for this principle are as follows:
A Kafir as a Qur'anic term refers to one who denies a Rasul even after the truth of his message has been made absolutely clear to him. Such manifestation of the truth by those messengers of God (termed Rusul; sing. Rasul) who are sent as His final judgment to a people may be termed as Itmamu'l-Hujjah. This takfir, therefore, is actually done by God Himself. The polytheists of Banu Isma'il received death punishment on this basis as is described in Surah Tawbah (9:5 & 9:11). Of the Prophet's direct addressees, the People of the Book were given other punishments (described in the same surah) but were spared the death punishment as they did not profess polytheism as their faith.42
The Prophet (sws) was the last messenger of God. With his status as a Rasul, the Prophet (sws) was in a position to do Itmamu'l-Hujjah even as an individual. No one after him has that privilege. No individual can do Itmamu'l-Hujjah now because no individual can claim that his propagation has manifested the truth to the extent that no excuse is left to deny it. Indeed, an individual cannot even be absolutely certain of having understood the truth absolutely correctly. He can only be certain that God will reward him for doing his duty as he has 'been given the light to see it'. Only the Prophet's word (sws) is final in religion. According to Ghamidi, after the Prophet (sws), the responsibility of bearing witness to the truth of Islam was passed on to his Companions43, who were declared Ummah Wasat (the intermediate people) and the shuhada 'ala'l-Nas (witnesses over people).44 The Qur'an says:
He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this [Qur'an]: [He chose you so that] the Rasul may be a witness [of this religion] to you, and you be witnesses of this religion to non-Muslims [of your time]. (22:78)
Thus we have made you an intermediate group so that you be witnesses [of this religion] over the nations, and the Rasul be such a witness over you. (2:143)
Ghamidi believes that this special status of the Companions ended with them, no one now has the right to declare anyone a Kafir or to punish him on that basis.
As far as the issue of declaring someone a non-Muslim is concerned, Ghamidi regards it as essentially a legal one. Therefore, in his opinion only the state has the right to decide in this regard. A person who professes Islam is a Muslim unless the Islamic State, which represents the opinion of the Muslims in a land, declares him otherwise. Ideally, effort should be made to convince him of a truth (without coercing him in any manner). If it all he has to be declared a non-Muslim, it should preferably be done at the level of not one Islamic State but at the level of a body representing all Islamic States so that a person is not a Muslim in one Islamic State and a non-Muslim in another. According to Ghamidi, the
Qur'anic guideline to the Islamic State in this regard in
Surah Tawbah (9:5 & 9:11) is that a person who professes to be a Muslim should be considered one if he:
- accepts the fundamentals of Islam (what are those fundamentals can again be decided on the basis of amruhim shura baynahum in relation to the Qur'an and the Sunnah).
- says the obligatory prayer, and
- pays zakah (the obligatory payment of tax on Muslims).45
However, all these principles do not indicate that Muslims should be indifferent to dissents and heresies in religion. It is especially incumbent upon scholars and intellectuals to carry on the task of
Da'wah (propagation of the truth) and of
Indhar (admonition).
Experience has shown that scholars and intellectuals can best fulfil this responsibility by staying out of politics. It is indeed very fortunate when a political leader is religious, but when a religious leader is political he usually ends up being neither a politician nor a religious leader. Moreover, religious leaders need to understand that there are occasions when speaking out the truth is a requirement of faith and there are occasions when restraining oneself is a requirement of sagacity -- and that the
Qur'an requires
Da'wah with wisdom and sagacity: a
Da'wah which vanquishes the hearts of people rather than killing or battering them.
46
Some militant Islamists also argue that their militancy is for self-defence. Their argument is that as a result of their
Da'wah, opposing groups become aggressive, which entails self-defence.
There is a big difference between what can legitimately be termed as 'self-defence' and the 'aggression for the sake of self-defence' that these Islamists usually commit. Extending the meaning of self-defence to include downright aggression is carrying things too far. Many of these groups argue that not retaliating to aggression is a Christian attitude of 'turning the other cheek'. Islam gives the concept of
Qisas, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
It should be borne in mind that an Islamic State has not only the responsibility but also the sole authority to implement the Law of
Qisas.
Qisas has often been rendered into English as 'retaliation'
47 -- a translation which has misled many into believing that personal vendettas are allowed -- in fact encouraged -- in Islam (for example, a report on terrorism 'Bosnia -- A Springboard for Terrorism' prepared by a special task force of the U.S. Senate presents the same view of Islam, which viewpoint is further stressed in the Task Force's reply to a letter of protest by the American Muslim Council). It seems that the argument rests on an incorrect understanding of a
Qur'anic verse:
And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir the authority. Therefore, he [the heir] should not exceed in killing, for verily he has been helped. (17:33)
The last part of the verse 'for verily he has been helped' refers to the fact that the State and the law are on his side. 'We have given his heir the authority' means that the heir has the authority to either demand
Qisas or forgive the offender. 'He should not exceed in killing' means that since the society is now on the heir's side he should not exceed the limits either by taking the law into his own hand or by demanding a greater punishment than what the offender actually deserves. Ghamidi points out that the fact the Islamic penal laws were implemented only after the establishment of the State and the fact that the whole society has specifically been addressed in most
Qur'anic verses (for instance 6:178-179 and 5:45) pertaining to these laws prove beyond doubt that the directive of implementing the law of
Qisas relate to the whole society -- which obviously works through the State and its organs (as the judiciary in this case)
48. Therefore, lynching and engaging in personal vendettas have no room in Islam. As already explained, prominent Muslim jurists have always maintained that in some matters related to the collectivity of the Muslims, the authority of the Sovereignty is a necessary condition, for example
Jihad (that is
Qital) and the implementation of the law of punishments (
Iqamatu'l-Hudud):
And the third category of collective responsibility is that in which the authority of the Sovereignty is a necessary condition, for example
Jihad and the law of punishments.
49
Nothing could be farther from the truth than the idea that
Qisas refers to retaliation by an individual or a group. Such retaliation, even if equal harm is done to the offender, simply negates the purpose of the law of
Qisas. The words of the
Qur'an 'In
Qisas there is life for you' refer to the fact that when the State does not provide the people in a society with justice, they often resort to personal vendettas and revenge, which shake the very foundation on which the edifice of a social set-up rests.
A Muslim who has been wronged has the right to demand
Qisas and it is the duty of the State to provide him with justice. The
Qur'an entails that much. But the
Qur'an also goes further than that. It gives a high place to an attitude of forgiveness. Turning the other cheek is not merely a Christian attitude. Jesus (sws) was not telling the judge in a court of law to turn the other cheek while deciding the fate of a serial killer. He was not telling that to the State facing an enemy State in war. He was telling that to a preacher out to conquer the hearts of people. To conquer hearts one never slays, but is slain. One does not take revenge, but forgives. These are the rules for a preacher. Though not the law, they are a great honour and a great privilege. The
Qur'an says:
The good and the evil are not equal. Repel evil with that which is better than all others; then you will see that he, between whom and you there was enmity, has become as if he were a truly close friend. And this sagacity is not afforded to anyone except those who persevere and this wisdom is not granted except to those who are indeed very fortunate. And if you feel any evil incitement from Satan, seek refuge of
Allah. Verily, He is the Hearer, the knower. (41:34-36)
This is the attitude of a Muslim towards those who wrong him because of his
Da'wah -- an attitude the
Qur'an terms as something truly sublime. With this line of thinking, how is it possible to think of retaliation and personal vengeance? And more than that, how is it possible for any Muslim to believe that he will be able to justify himself on the Day of Judgement for killing innocent people?
), but someone who realizes that there are actually different people in this world who may not agree with my beliefs or religion as I understand it.
