According to Ed Husain in his biography, The Islamist : Why I
joined radical Islam in Britain, what I saw inside and why I left, he was
primed to accept extremism by the first book that he read on his religion in
English, namely Ghulam Sarwar's Islam : beliefs and teachings, a
textbook intended for use by 15 to 18 year olds. Husain proceeds to quote the
following from the introductory paragraph of chapter 10, entitled Political
system of Islam: “Politics is a part of Islam. It cannot be separated from
it. Indeed, the separation of religion and politics is meaningless in Islam...”
This is a general statement which could simply and uncontroversially mean that
Muslim politicians should exercise their conscience at all times, never
allowing self-interest take precedence over their duty to provide leadership,
to set a positive example, and to serve the people. Indeed, it would be equally
true to say that it is meaningless in Islam to separate one's commitment to
education, or to one's family, etc., from one's religion. However, arguably far
more relevant from the perspective of its potential to nurture extremism in
teenagers is contained in the chapter's first section, describing the Sovereignty
of Allah, which is reproduced here in full:
Sovereignty means the source of power and
authority. In Islam, Allah is the source of all powers and laws (3:154;
12:40; 25:2; 67:1). It is Allah Who knows what is good and what is bad for
His servants. His say is final. Human beings should not and must not change
His Law. For example, the Qur'an says, “As for the thief, male and female, chop off
their hands. It is the reward of their own actions and exemplary punishment
from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (5:38) According to Islam, this order
cannot be changed by any ruler or government claiming to be Islamic (5:44;
2:229). There are many laws in the Qur'an concerning our life, and
those laws must be put into practice by an Islamic state for the greater good
of all human beings.
|
Islam :
beliefs and teachings / Ghulam Sarwar
|
Setting aside the other verses referred to by number only, the verse
quoted from the Qur'an in full forces of the Muslim reader to accept his
religion demands a legal system irreconcilably distinct from those based on
either the English Common Law or the French Code Napoleon, such as are found
today in all Muslim-ruled countries formerly colonised by Western powers. This
is because the verse is presented starkly, without any further explanation; and
the chopping off of hands has no place in the penal codes of contemporary
Western origin.
Perhaps the best known story of the Prophet's (P) applying the ruling
in the verse quoted by Sarwar is found in the following hadith:
'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr informed me that a woman
stole at the time of God's Messenger (P) during the Conquest [of Makkah], and
her kinsfolk turned in panic to Usamah ibn Zayd seeking his intercession.
'Urwah went on to say that, when Usamah had spoken to him (P) about her,
God's Messenger's (P) face changed colour, and he said: “Are you talking to
me about one of God's prescribed punishments?” Usamah said: “Seek forgiveness
for me, O Messenger of God.” That evening the Messenger of God arose to
preach and, having praised God according to His due, said: “To continue, what
caused the destruction of people before you was that if a nobleman amongst
them stole they would leave him be, but if a weak person in their midst stole
they would execute the punishment against him. By Him in Whose hand is the
soul of Muhammad, had Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad stolen, I would
definitely have cut off her hand.” The God's Messenger (P) that that woman's
hand be cut off. Thereafter she made good her repentance and married.
'A'ishah said: “She used to come after that, and I would refer her need to
God's Messenger (P).
|
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ
مُقَاتِلٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، أَخْبَرَنَا يُونُسُ، عَنِ
الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ امْرَأَةً
سَرَقَتْ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلعم فِي غَزْوَةِ الفَتْحِ، فَفَزِعَ
قَوْمُهَا إِلَى أُسَامَةَ بْنِ زَيْدٍ يَسْتَشْفِعُونَهُ، قَالَ عُرْوَةُ: فَلَمَّا
كَلَّمَهُ أُسَامَةُ فِيهَا، تَلَوَّنَ وَجْهُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلعم، فَقَالَ: أَتُكَلِّمُنِي
فِي حَدٍّ مِنْ حُدُودِ اللَّهِ؟ قَالَ أُسَامَةُ: اسْتَغْفِرْ لِي يَا رَسُولَ
اللَّهِ، فَلَمَّا كَانَ العَشِيُّ قَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ خَطِيبًا، فَأَثْنَى
عَلَى اللَّهِ بِمَا هُوَ أَهْلُهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَإِنَّمَا
أَهْلَكَ النَّاسَ قَبْلَكُمْ: أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا إِذَا سَرَقَ فِيهِمُ
الشَّرِيفُ تَرَكُوهُ، وَإِذَا سَرَقَ فِيهِمُ الضَّعِيفُ أَقَامُوا عَلَيْهِ
الحَدَّ، وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ، لَوْ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتَ
مُحَمَّدٍ سَرَقَتْ لَقَطَعْتُ يَدَهَا. ثُمَّ أَمَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلعم
بِتِلْكَ المَرْأَةِ فَقُطِعَتْ يَدُهَا، فَحَسُنَتْ تَوْبَتُهَا بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ
وَتَزَوَّجَتْ قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ: فَكَانَتْ تَأْتِي بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأَرْفَعُ
حَاجَتَهَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلعم.
|
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 4304)
|
|
Here the judgement is in strict accordance with the Quranic ruling
quoted by Sarwar, though its harshness is tempered by practical steps to
rehabilitate the ex-offender back into the community. However, returning to
Sarwar's book, those who take the trouble to look up the other verses referred
to in the above excerpt find that the link between them and the central theme
of his chapter, namely the Political system of Islam, is often tenuous.
The first (Q. 3:154) refers not so much to politics as to the inevitability of
death and the impossibility of cheating it. The second (Q. 12:40) is more
theological, comprising a statement on God's exclusive right to be worshipped,
and on total lack of authority of man-made idols over God's creation. The third
(Q. 25:2) and fourth (Q. 67:1) both deal with God's dominion over the Universe.
Next comes the verse (Q. 5:38) about the chopping off of hands, which has been
discussed above. This is followed by a verse (Q. 5:44) which relates to
politics and government from the narrow
perspective of jurisprudence, the administration of justice and the rule of
law. Meanwhile the final verse (Q. 2:229) has to do with divorce. So, leaving
aside the others as being of only tangential relevance, let us consider the
meaning and context of the penultimate verse (Q. 5:44) quoted by Sarwar in the
above passage:
{We revealed the Torah, in which is guidance
and light. The prophets who submitted [to God's will] would issue rulings in
line with it for the Jews, and the rabbis and Levites likewise with what they
had preserved of God's Book; and they were witnesses to it. So fear not the
people but fear Me, and sell not My signs for a paltry sum. Whoso rules not
in line with what God has revealed, they are the disbelievers.}
|
{إِنَّا
أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ
الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ
بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ فَلَا
تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ}
|
(Q. 5:44)
|
|
In the Qur'an commentary of Ibn Kathir and of others, the revelation
of this verse relates to a well known incident in Madina at the time of the
Prophet (P), which clearly shows an attempt on the part of members of the
Jewish community there to circumvent the rulings of the Torah (probably
Deuteronomy 22:22-29, but possibly 19:20-22 or 20:10-21). Authentic accounts
are found in both Sahih collections of hadiths:
From Ibn Umar (R), who said that God's
Messenger (P) was presented with a Jew and a Jewess who had sinned together,
so he said to them: “What do you find in your scripture?” They said: “Our
scholars stated scalding their faces
and casting them out.” Abdullah ibn Salam said: “Ask them, O Messenger of
God, for the Torah.” So it was brought. Then one of them put his hand on the
stoning verse and began reading what came before and after it. So Ibn Salam
said: “Raise your hand;” and there was the stoning verse beneath it. Then
God's Messenger (P) ordered that it be applied to them, and they were both
stoned. Ibn Umar stated: “They were stoned nearby the court; and I saw the
Jew trying to protect her.”
|
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ
كَرَامَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنِي
عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ دِينَارٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا،
قَالَ: أُتِيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلعم
بِيَهُودِيٍّ وَيَهُودِيَّةٍ قَدْ أَحْدَثَا جَمِيعًا، فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: مَا تَجِدُونَ فِي كِتَابِكُمْ. قَالُوا: إِنَّ أَحْبَارَنَا أَحْدَثُوا تَحْمِيمَ
الوَجْهِ وَالتَّجْبِيهَ، قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَلاَمٍ: ادْعُهُمْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ بِالتَّوْرَاةِ،
فَأُتِيَ بِهَا، فَوَضَعَ أَحَدُهُمْ يَدَهُ عَلَى آيَةِ الرَّجْمِ، وَجَعَلَ
يَقْرَأُ مَا قَبْلَهَا وَمَا بَعْدَهَا، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ سَلاَمٍ: ارْفَعْ يَدَكَ، فَإِذَا آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ تَحْتَ
يَدِهِ، فَأَمَرَ بِهِمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلعم فَرُجِمَا. قَالَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ: فَرُجِمَا عِنْدَ البَلاَطِ، فَرَأَيْتُ
اليَهُودِيَّ أَجْنَأَ عَلَيْهَا
|
The above story may be compared and contrasted with that of Ma'iz ibn
Malik al-Aslami, which too was recorded by both al-Bukhari and Muslim. In the
case of Ma'iz, taking the details of all accounts together, it is clear that
the Prophet (P) left every avenue open for Ma'iz to retract his confession, or
for it to be rejected on the grounds of diminished responsibility, either due
to insanity or drunkenness. Clearly both the Prophet (P) and the Jews did their
utmost to avert the only sentence available, namely stoning. The difference
lies in the fact that, even after having established guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt, the Jews of Madina tried ignore the divine ruling, while the
Prophet (P) issued his judgement in accordance with it:
From the father of Yazid ibn Nu'aym, who said
that Ma'iz came to God's Messenger (P) and said: “O Messenger of God, I have
committed adultery, so apply to me the Book of God.” At that he (P) turned
away from him until he had repeated it four times, then he (P) said: “Take
him away and stone him.” However, when the stone touched him, he panicked and
tried to flee. So Abdullah ibn Anas – or ibn Unays – came out and hurled a
donkey's jawbone, which struck him; and the people stoned him until they had
killed him. When his flight was mentioned to the Prophet (P), he said: “Why
did you not leave him, so that God could relent towards him?” [He then said:]
“O Hazzal – or Hazzan – , if you had covered him with your garment, it would
have been better for you than what you did.”
|
نا
يَحْيَى بْنِ آدَمَ، قَالَ: نا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ، عَنْ
يَزِيدَ بْنِ نُعَيْمٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: جَاءَ مَاعِزٌ إِلَى رَسُولِ
اللَّهِ صلعم فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي زَنَيْتُ فَأَقِمْ فِيَّ
كِتَابَ اللَّهِ، فَأَعْرَضَ عَنْهُ حَتَّى ذَكَرَ أَرْبَعَ مِرَارٍ فَقَالَ: «اذْهَبُوا
بِهِ فَارْجُمُوهُ» فَلَمَّا مَسَّتْهُ الْحِجَارَةُ جَذِعَ فَاشْتَدَّ، قَالَ: فَخَرَجَ
عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَنَسٍ - أَوِ ابْنِ أُنَيْسٍ - مِنْ بَادِيَتِهِ فَرَمَاهُ
بِوَظِيفِ حِمَارٍ فَصَرَعَهُ، وَرَمَاهُ النَّاسُ قَتَلُوهُ، فَذُكِرَ
لِلنَّبِيِّ فِرَارُهُ فَقَالَ: هَلَّا تَرَكْتُمُوهُ لَعَلَّهُ يَتُوبُ اللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ؟ يَا هَزَّالُ - أَوْ يَا هَزَّانُ -: لَوْ سَتَرْتَهُ بِثَوْبِكَ
كَانَ خَيْرًا لَكَ مِمَّا صَنَعْتَ بِهِ
|
(Musnad Ibn Abi Shaibah, no. 648)
|
|
It is a challenge to interpret the intention
behind the Prophet's (P) words apparently addressed to those returning from the
stoning: “Why did you not leave him [i.e. to run off?], so that God could
relent towards him?” Do they leave ajar the controversial possibility the penalty of stoning need not necessarily mean to
death, that in a society like Madina then the door could be left ajar for a
last-minute reprieve? God knows best.
The closing utterance above is addressed to Hazzal, Ma'iz's guardian,
who urged him to confess, as recorded in another narration, which begins:
Waki' reported to us, Hisham ibn Sa'd reported
to us, Yazid ibn Nu'aym ibn Hazzal informed us from his father, who said:
“Ma'iz ibn Malik was under my father's guardianship, and he sinned with a
servant girl from the quarter; so my father told him: 'Go to God's Messenger
(P) and inform him of what you did. Perhaps he will seek forgiveness for
you,' by which he meant to find some way out for him. So he came to him and
said: 'O Messenger of God, I have fornicated, so judge me in accordance with
God's Book.' ...”
|
حَدَّثَنَا
وَكِيعٌ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يَزِيدُ بْنُ نُعَيْمِ
بنِ هَزَّالٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: كَانَ مَاعِزُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ فِي حِجْرِ
أَبِي، فَأَصَابَ جَارِيَةً مِنَ الْحَيِّ، فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبِي: ائْتِ رَسُولَ
اللهِ صلعم فَأَخْبِرْهُ بِمَا صَنَعْتَ، لَعَلَّهُ يَسْتَغْفِرُ لَكَ. وَإِنَّمَا
يُرِيدُ بِذَلِكَ رَجَاءَ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ مَخْرَجٌ، فَأَتَاهُ فَقَالَ: يَا
رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنِّي زَنَيْتُ، فَأَقِمْ عَلَيَّ كِتَابَ اللهِ...
|
(Musnad Ahmad, no. 21890)
|
|
This hadith continues to the point when the
sentence imposed by the Prophet (P) as judge in the case of Ma'iz ibn Malik was
duly executed. The story taken as a whole demonstrates the lengths to which a
judge may go before reaching a judgement that requires executing a prescribed
punishment (hadd), in order to discourage someone from incriminating
themselves and to explore all possible mitigating circumstances, excluding the
defendant's elevated social class, as stated in the earlier example of the
woman who stole.
So, there are two individual incidents with two
judicial approaches to dealing with instances of the same crime against public
morals: one where every effort is expended by the judge to dismiss a case due
to lack of evidence; and another attempt to pervert the course of justice by
handing down a sentence contrary to the law. This distinction between them is
of major importance because one of the chief arguments advanced in support of
rising up against Muslim rulers is based on an absolutist interpretation of the
three verses (Q. 5:44, 5:45 & 5:47) that describe “Whoso rules not in line
with what God has revealed” respectively as disbelievers, oppressors and
evildoers. Thus we find the foundations of the extremist justification of the
violent overthrow of rulers in Muslim-majority countries in the seminal and
highly influential tract, al-Faridah al-Gha'ibah, by the Egyptian
engineer Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj, whose ideology inspired the assassination
of Anwar Sadat in 1981. In the following section, quoting the end of exactly
the same verse referred to by Sarwar above, in order to introduce his argument
that the post-Ottoman rulers of his time were no different from the Mongols or
Tatars who invaded the Islamic Empire in the 7th/13th
century, Faraj wrote:
The ruler by other than what God revealed
The laws which hold sway over Muslims today are
the laws of disbelief. Indeed, they are statutes laid down by disbelievers,
who have imposed them on the Muslims. And God (T) said in Surat al-Ma'idah {Whoso rules not in line
with what God has revealed, they are the disbelievers.} Thus, after the final
departure of the caliphate in 1924 and the stripping away of the laws of
Islam and their replacement by laws laid down by disbelievers, their [i.e.
the Muslim rulers'] status became identical with that of the Tatars, as
established in Ibn Kathir's commentary on His (T) word in Surat
al-Ma'idah: {Do they want the rule of the Age of Ignorance? And whose rule
is better than God's for a people who have certainty?}, He (T) rejects
whoever departs from the clear-cut rule of God, which includes all that is
good and prohibits all that is evil, and resorts instead to opinions, whims
and terminologies laid down by men with no foundation in God's law, just as
the people of the Age of Ignorance were wont to give judgement out of error
and foolishness based on their own opinions and whims. So too the Tatars rule
on the basis of royal policies taken from their king, Genghiz Khan, who laid
down for them the Yassa, which comprises a compendium of rules drawn from
various legal systems, Jewish, Christian and Islamic. He adopted many of the
rules solely on the basis of opinion and whim, until they became amongst his
tribe the law to be followed, taking precedence over the Book of God and the
Sunnah of His Messenger (P). Whoever amongst them goes along with this is a
disbeliever who must be fought until he returns to the rule of God and His
Messenger, not ruling by anything else, be it in matter great or small. God
(T) has said {Do they want the rule of the Age of Ignorance?} meaning: they
"desire" or "wish for", and they deviate from the rule of
God. {And whose rule is better than God's for a people who have certainty?}
meaning: Who is more just than God in His rule for whoever takes his law from
God, believes in Him, and has certainty that God is the Wisest of rulers, and
is More Merciful to His creation than a mother to her child. Indeed, He (T)
is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Just in all things.
|
الحاكم
بغير ما أنزل الله
والأحكام
التي تعلو المسلمين اليوم هي أحكام الكفر بل هي قوانين وضعها كفار وسيروا عليها
المسلمين ويقول الله سبحانه وتعالى في سورة المائدة .. {ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل
الله فأولئك هم الكافرون}. فبعد ذهاب الخلافة نهائيا عام 1924 واقتلاع أحكام الإسلام كلها واستبدالها بأحكام
وضعها كفار .. أصبحت حالتهم هي نفس حالة التتار كما ثبت في تفسير بن كثير لقوله
سبحانه وتعالى في سورة المائدة {أفحكم الجاهلية يبغون ومن أحسن من الله حكما
لقوم يوقنون} ينكر تعالى على من خرج عن حكم الله المحكم المشتمل على كل خير،
الناهي عن كل شر وعدل إلى ما سواه من الآراء والأهواء والاصطلاحات، التي وضعها
الرجال بلا مستند من شريعة الله، كما كان أهل الجاهلية يحكمون به من الضلالات
والجهالات، مما يضعونها بآرائهم وأهوائهم، وكما يحكم به التتار من السياسات
الملكية المأخوذة عن ملكهم جنكزخان، الذي وضع لهم اليساق وهو عبارة عن كتاب
مجموع من أحكام قد اقتبسها عن شرائع شتى، من اليهودية والنصرانية والملة
الإسلامية، وفيها كثير من الأحكام أخذها من مجرد نظره وهواه، فصارت في بنيه شرعا
متبعا، يقدمونها على الحكم بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم. ومن فعل
ذلك منهم فهو كافر يجب قتاله، حتى يرجع إلى حكم الله ورسوله فلا يحكم سواه في
قليل ولا كثير، قال الله تعالى: {أفحكم الجاهلية يبغون} أي: يبتغون ويريدون، وعن
حكم الله يعدلون. {ومن أحسن من الله حكما لقوم يوقنون} أي: ومن أعدل من الله في
حكمه لمن عقل عن الله شرعه، وآمن به وأيقن وعلم أنه تعالى أحكم الحاكمين، وأرحم
بخلقه من الوالدة بولدها، فإنه تعالى هو العالم بكل شيء، القادر على كل شيء،
العادل في كل شيء.
|
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, on Q. 5:50)
|
|
Leaving aside the consensus of Sunni scholars
since the early centuries of Islam regarding the unlawfulness of violent
rebellion against a ruler, however his authority comes to be established, and
however just he may be or unjust, a clear distinction would have existed in Ibn
Kathir's mind, and therefore must be drawn here, between an unjust ruler who
was brought up as a Muslim from childhood and the one who, having seized power
over Muslim-majority lands, declares his conversion to Islam. In the case of
the former, among the members of which category one might wish to include the
Muslim kings and presidents of Middle Eastern countries today, the consensus of
scholars remains that one cannot declare them disbelievers solely on the basis
of the injustice wrought by their failure in governing to abide by the
principles of the Sharia or to apply its laws. However, in the case of a ruler
whose claim to be a Muslim coincides with his military conquest of Muslim
lands, and yet is not backed up by evidence of his simultaneous adoption and
application of the Sharia but instead by a continuation of his earlier policy
of military conquest, then there is scope to doubt the sincerity of his
declaration of Islamic faith. Among the Mongol rulers over Muslims from Ibn
Kathir's (1301-1373) childhood were Ghazan (1271-1304), whom Ibn Kathir's
teacher, Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328), met following the fall of Damascus in 1300,
and Ghazan's brother and successor, Oljaitu (1280-1316), whose own religious
allegiance switched from Christian to Buddhist to Sunni Muslim, before turning
to the Shiite sect in the last ten years of his life.
If an adult of sound mind freely declares her or
his conversion to Islam but thereafter fails even to attempt to pray, to fast
or to observe the basic dietary rules such as abstaining from alcohol and pork,
then one may rightly doubt the sincerity of the declaration rather than assume
he or she is merely a bad Muslim. Now if that adult happens also to be in a
position of high authority, yet fails to take steps to introduce even the
fundamental principles of the Sharia, such as justice and equality under the
law, then the likely conclusion will be that his conversion is no better than
that which Islamic tradition accords to Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who declared
himself a Muslim following the emigration of the Prophet (P) from Makkah to
Madina. Therefore it is not to Muslim despots generally but specifically to men
such as Ghazan and Oljaitu that the above criticism from Ibn Kathir (“the
Tatars rule on the basis of royal policies taken from their king, Genghiz Khan
[…], taking precedence over the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger
(P).”) applies.
Returning to Sarwar's use of the example of the
chopping off of hands (Q. 5:38), if failure to apply this, or any other,
explicit Quranic injunction were considered incontrovertible proof of a ruler's
disbelief, as implied by Sarwar's reference to the later verse (Q. 5:44), then
simple reductionist extremist logic would demand the retrospective condemnation
of those Companions of the Prophet (P) mentioned in the following traditions:
Ibrahim
related that Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Certainly, suspending the prescribed
punishments in cases of doubt is preferable to me than applying them.”
|
عن إبراهيم، قال: قال عمر بن الخطاب: لئن أعطل الحدود بالشبهات أحب إلي من أن
أقيمها بالشبهات
|
(al-Musannaf / Ibn Abi Shaibah, no. 28493)
|
|
'Amr
ibn Shu'ayb related from his father that Mu'adh, Abdallah ibn Mas'ud and
'Uqbah ibn 'Amir [all] said: “If the prescribed punishment appears to you
unwarranted [in a case], then shun it.
|
عن عمرو بن شعيب،
عن أبيه: أن معاذًا وعبد
الله بن مسعود وعقبة بن عامر قالوا: إذا اشتبه عليك الحد، فادرأه
|
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah, no. 28494)
|
|
Tariq
ibn Shihab related that a woman fornicated. Umar said: “It seems to me that
she was praying at night and bowed down out of humility and prostrated, when
a philanderer came and forced himself on her.” Then Umar sent for her, and
she said it was so, so Umar said: “Let her go her way.”
|
عن طارق بن شهاب: أن امرأة زنت، فقال عمر: أراها كانت تصلي من الليل فخشعت فركعت
فسجدت، فأتاها غاو من الغواة فتحتمها، فأرسل عمر إليها فقالت كما، قال عمر: فخلى سبيلها
|
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah, no. 28495)
|
|
Al-A'mash
reported that Ibrahim said: “They used to say: 'Shun applying the prescribed
punishments to God's servants as much as you can.'”
|
عن الأعمش، عن
إبراهيم، قال: كانوا يقولون: ادرءوا الحدود عن عباد الله، ما استطعتم
|
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah, no. 28496)
|
|
'A'ishah
said: “Shun applying the prescribed punishments to the Muslims as much as you
can. If you find a way out for a Muslim, let him go his way. It is better for
the ruler if he errs by granting pardon than erring by executing the
punishment.”
|
عن عائشة قالت: ادرءوا الحدود عن المسلمين، ما استطعتم،
فإذا وجدتم للمسلم مخرجا فخلوا سبيله، فإن الإمام إذا أخطأ في العفو خير من أن
يخطئ في العقوبة
|
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah, no. 28502)
|
|
These last reported traditions are especially
relevant since, in an apparently Salafi mosque in the Ka'abeesh quarter of Giza
on 28th December 2012, the author of this module heard an imam use
his new-found right to freedom of expression, to criticise from the pulpit at
Friday prayers certain clauses in the constitution on which Egyptians had just
voted in a referendum. This, in his view, far from codifying the Islamic
principle of mercy expressed by the Companions (R) above, the purpose of the
following clause was a blatant attempt by the Muslim Brothers to grant the
president authority to issue rulings contrary to God's revelation, and
therefore tantamount to wrongdoing, if not outright disbelief (Q. 5:44):
The President of the Republic has the right to
pardon or commute a penalty.
And there can be no outright pardon except by
[enacting] a law.
|
لرئيس الجمهورية العفو عن العقوبة أو
تخفيفها.
ولا يكون العفو الشامل إلا بقانون.
|
(Egyptian constitution of 2012, clause no. 149)
|
|
However, even if the extremist position were
correct, that it is against Islam for a ruler occasionally to pardon criminals,
Sarwar is nevertheless wrong to apply verse Q. 5:44 to Muslims, as al-Qurtubi's
commentary from the perspective of Sunni Islam makes clear:
His
(T) saying {and whoso rules not in line with what God revealed, they are the
disbelievers} and {the oppressors} and {the evildoers}, all of them were
revealed regarding the disbelievers, as is established in the hadith on
exemption from Sahih Muslim, and on that the majority
[agree]. As for the Muslim, he does not disbelieve, even if he commits a
major sin. It is also said that there is ellipsis in [the phrase], meaning
that, as for the one who does not rule in accordance with what God
revealed, out of a rejection of the
Quran and a denial of the word of the Messenger (P), he is a disbeliever.”
Ibn Abbas and Mujahid said this, and from that perspective the verse is
general. Ibn Mas'ud and al-Hasan said that it is general for whoever did not
rule in accordance with what God revealed, be he from the Muslims, the Jews
or the disbelievers, that is believing in [such a ruling] and considering it
permissible. As for the one who did it believing that he has committed what
is forbidden, he is amongst the evildoers of the Muslims, and it is for God
if He wishes to punish him or to forgive him. In [another] narration, Ibn
Abbas said: “And whoever did not rule in accordance with what God revealed
has done a deed bordering on the deeds of the disbelievers.” It is [also]
said: “It means whoever did not rule according to everything that God
revealed is a disbeliever. However, whoever maintains [God's] Oneness in
ruling yet does not rule according to some of the laws, he is not included in
this verse.” The correct [view] is the first; except that al-Sha'bi said: “It
concerns the Jews specifically.” And al-Nahhas concurred, saying: “Three
things point to that including: [a] that the Jews are mentioned earlier in
{as for those who called themselves Jews}, and the pronoun refers to them;
[b] the context points to it in that afterwards you see {and We decreed on
them} and this pronoun refers, by consensus, to them; and also [c] it was the
Jews who denied stoning and retribution.” If someone were to say that
{whoever}, if it relates to punishment, then it is general unless evidence
proves its specificity, the response if {whoever} here means “who” on the
aforementioned grounds, implying: “and the Jews who did not rule in
accordance with what God revealed, they are the disbelievers.” And that is
the best of what has been said on this. It is related that Hudhayfah was
asked about these verses, “Are they about the Israelites?” and he said, “Yes!
They are about them. And you will most definitely follow in their very
footsteps.” It has been said that {the disbelievers} [stands] for the
Muslims, {the oppressors} for the Jews, and {the evildoers} for the
Christians, as selected by Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, who said: “Because it is
the explicit [meaning] of the verses.” Likewise Ibn Abbas, Jabir ibn Za'idah,
Ibn Shabramah, and al-Sha'bi also. Tawus and others said: “It is not the
disbelief that removes one from the religion, rather it is a lesser
disbelief. It differs from ruling based on what is in his own [mind] as
though it were from God: that is an exchange which entails [outright]
disbelief. As for ruling by desire and disobedience, that is a sin which can
be forgiven according to the principle of the Sunnis regarding the
forgiveness of sinners.” Al-Qushayri said: “The [position of the] Kharijite
sect is that whoever deviates and rules by other than God's ruling is a
disbeliever.” And this has been ascribed to al-Hasan [al-Basri?] and
al-Suddi. Al-Hasan also said that “God holds rulers to three things: not to
follow their desire; not to fear people but to fear Him; and not to exchange
His signs for a paltry sum.”
|
قوله تعالى {ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم
الكافرون} و{الظالمون} و{الفاسقون} نزلت كلها في الكفار، ثبت ذلك في صحيح
مسلم من حديث البراء وقد تقدم، وعلى هذا المعظم. فأما المسلم فلا يكفر وإن ارتكب كبيرة. وقيل فيه إضمار، أي ومن لم يحكم بما
أنزل الله ردا للقرآن وجحدا لقول الرسول صلعم فهو كافر، قاله ابن عباس ومجاهد،
فالآية عامة على هذا. قال ابن مسعود والحسن هي عامة في كل من لم يحكم
بما أنزل الله من المسلمين واليهود والكفار أي معتقدا ذلك ومستحلا له، فأما من
فعل ذلك وهو معتقد أنه راكب محرم فهو من فساق المسلمين وأمره إلى الله تعالى إن
شاء عذبه وإن شاء غفر له. وقال ابن عباس في رواية: ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فقد فعل فعلا
يضاهي أفعال الكفار. وقيل: أي من لم يحكم بجميع ما أنزل الله فهو
كافر، فأما من حكم بالتوحيد ولم يحكم ببعض الشرائع فلا يدخل في هذه الآية. والصحيح الأول إلا أن الشعبي قال: هي في اليهود خاصة، واختاره النحاس قال: ويدل على ذلك ثلاثة أشياء منها اليهود
قد ذكروا قبل هذا في قوله {للذين هادوا} فعاد الضمير عليهم، ومنها أن سياق
الكلام يدل على ذلك، ألا ترى أن بعده {وكتبنا عليهم} فهذا الضمير لليهود بإجماع، وأيضا فإن
اليهود هم الذين أنكروا الرجم والقصاص. فإن قال قائل: {من} إذا كانت للمجازاة فهي عامة إلا أن يقع
دليل على تخصيصها، قيل له: {من} هنا بمعنى الذي مع ما ذكرناه من الإدلة،
والتقدير: واليهود الذين لم
يحكموا بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون. فهذا من أحسن ما قيل في هذا. ويروى أن حذيفة سئل عن هذه الآيات أهي
في بني إسرائيل؟ قال: نعم هي فيهم، ولتسلكن سبيلهم حذو النعل بالنعل. وقيل: {الكافرون} للمسلمين و{الظالمون} لليهود و{الفاسقون} للنصارى، وهذا اختيار أبي بكر بن
العربي، قال: لأنه ظاهر الآيات. فهو اختيار ابن عباس وجابر بن زيد وابن
أبي زائدة وابن شبرمة والشعبي أيضا. قال طاوس وغيره: ليس بكفر ينقل عن الملة ولكنه كفر دون
كفر، وهذا يختلف عن حكم بما عنده على أنه من عند الله، فهو تبديل له يوجب الكفر،
وإن حكم به هوى ومعصية فهو ذنب تدركه المغفرة على أصل أهل السنة في الغفران
للمذنبين. قال القشيري: ومذهب الخوارج أن من ارتشى وحكم بغير
حكم الله فهو كافر، وعزي هذا إلى الحسن والسدي. وقال الحسن أيضا: أخذ الله عز وجل على الحكام ثلاثة أشياء
ألا يتبعوا الهوى وألا يخشوا الناس ويخشوه وألا يشتروا بآياته ثمنا قليلا.
|
(Al-Jami' fi Ahkam al-Qur'an / al-Qurtubi, on
Q. 5:44, 45 & 47)
|
|
So, is it disbelief if Muslim rulers now, like
Umar (R) then, opt to err on the side of caution? If the argument rests on
charging any ruler with disbelief who, for the public good (or sadly sometimes
for his own), departs from the general meaning of a Quranic verse, then this is
nothing new. The same (“Rule belongs to none but God.”) was levelled at Ali,
who was ready with an eloquent yet terse reply (“A word of truth, desiring thereby
falsehood.”):
Abu al-Tahir and Yunus ibn Abd al-A'la both
told me, Abdallah ibn Wahb informed me, 'Amr ibn al-Harith informed me from
Bukayr ibn al-Ashajj, from Busr ibn Sa'id, from 'Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Rafi',
the freed slave of God's Messenger (P) that he was with Ali ibn Abi Talib (R)
when the Haruriyah departed, saying: “Rule belongs to none but God,” Ali
said: “A word of truth, desiring thereby falsehood. God's Messenger (P)
described some people, and I recognise their description in these: 'They speak
the truth with their tongues, [but] it does not pass this – and he pointed to
his throat – amongst the most detested of God's creation to Him.' ...”
|
حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الطَّاهِرِ،
وَيُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْأَعْلَى، قَالَا: أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ،
أَخْبَرَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ بُكَيْرِ بْنِ الْأَشَجِّ، عَنْ
بُسْرِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَبِي رَافِعٍ، مَوْلَى رَسُولِ
اللهِ صلعم أَنَّ الْحَرُورِيَّةَ لَمَّا خَرَجَتْ، وَهُوَ مَعَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ
أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ، قَالُوا: لَا حُكْمَ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ، قَالَ
عَلِيٌّ: كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ أُرِيدَ بِهَا بَاطِلٌ، إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صلعم
وَصَفَ نَاسًا، إِنِّي لَأَعْرِفُ صِفَتَهُمْ فِي هَؤُلَاءِ، يَقُولُونَ
الْحَقَّ بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ لَا يَجُوزُ هَذَا، مِنْهُمْ، - وَأَشَارَ إِلَى
حَلْقِهِ - مِنْ أَبْغَضِ خَلْقِ اللهِ إِلَيْهِ...
|
(Sahih Muslim, no. 157 - 1066)
|
|
The Haruriyah was the name given to the first Kharijites, because they
announced their switch of allegiance away from the Caliph Ali in the Harura'
quarter of Kufa in Iraq. Chief among the doctrines that distinguish them from
Sunni Muslims are that it is lawful: (a) to rebel against an oppressive ruler;
and (b) to pre-empt the Day of Judgement and declare some people heaven- and
others hell-bound. It is doubtful that Sarwar intended it; but it is easy to
imagine the effect his over simplistic approach can have on young Muslim minds.
The Prophet (P) did not say that, to be good, a ruler or governor must
be harsh in applying the prescribed punishments. If that had been the case,
then the best of them would be those like Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah (d. 64/683) or
al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (d. 95/714), whom the scholars had strenuously to warn
others against declaring disbelievers. Rather, as 'Awf ibn Malik al-Ashja'i (R)
reported, the Prophet (P) said:
“The best among your rulers will be those whom you love and who love
you, whom you bless and who bless you; and the worst of your rulers will be
those whom you hate and who hate you, whom you curse and who curse you.” So
we asked: “O Messenger of God, in that case, should we not rebel against
them?” He replied: “No, so long as they establish the prayer. No, so long as they establish the prayer. Surely,
whoever has a governor imposed on him, whom he sees performing a sin
against God, then he should hate that sin performed against God but he should
not withdraw his allegiance.”
|
خِيار أئمتكم الذين تُحبونهم ويحبونكم وتُصلّون
عليهم ويصلون عليكم، وشِرار أئمتكم الذين تُبغضونهم ويبغضونكم وتلعنونهم
ويلعنونكم. قال: قلنا يا رسول الله أفلا نُنابِذهم عند ذلك؟ قال: لا ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة لا ما أقاموا فيكم
الصلاة. ألا مَن وُلّي عليه والٍ فرآه يأتي شيئا
من معصية الله فليكره ما يأتي من معصية الله ولا ينزعَنَّ يدا من طاعة
|
(Sahih Muslim, 66-1855)
|
|