“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
We have been discussing in the last two sessions some ayahs of the Quran which apparently sound harsh and violent to the modern mind. I get the shivers on reading some of them. How can that be? I feel like asking my Lord and Creator. I intend to discuss a few more of this class to do full justice to this burning and dangerously intriguing topic.
[3]
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”
I will discuss only this ayah. However, I have quoted hereunder a few more as additional examples.
[4]“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them)………”
This sounds harsh until you read rest of the ayah:
[5]“…….thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”
An ayah which orders to “seize and kill”:
[6]“…… But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.”
Another one ordering to “smite the necks and fingertips”
[7]“……..I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every pore and tip.”
Before I start, let me describe an incident in our history of an overzealous implementation of this ayah. Al Hussain Ibn Mansoori Al Hallaj was a well known Soofi Philosopher of the tenth century. He was in jail for nine years for his extravagant views. He was then tried and convicted for blasphemy and self deification. The sentence was endorsed by he Caliph. As per his interpretation of this ayah, the wazeer Ibn al-Faraathad him whipped, mutilated, crucified, decapitated, incinerated and the ashes scattered over the Tigris River. (Majid Fakhry in his Book Islamic Philosophy; Balinda Beginners Guide)
Let us clearly highlight the problem. What are we discussing? Are we challenging or repudiating the ayah? That would be obvious Kufr! (though it does not make the individual a Kafir) Are we suggesting that we will accept the ayah only if it meets our reasoning? Are we rejecting the ayah because it sounds anachronistic if not brutal and barbaric to our children growing up in a multicultural and pluralistic society of the twenty first century. Are we overreacting because such ayahs are being misused by radical Muslims or the Islamophobes. Actually, none of the above. We are just using the “PEN” which Allah Ta’aala revealed to us in HIS VERY FIRST WAHEE. We are analyzing and trying to understand this ayah not only with the teachings of our Four Great Imams and distinguished Sahaabaa — whom we value and venerate immensely because of their first hand knowledge, great proximity and absolute loyalty to our Hero, the Holy Prophet — but also by the knowledge and wisdom, ideas and thoughts which God Almighty has bestowed on us over the centuries through this PEN. We are not traveling back to the seventh century to consult them. Instead we are projecting them to our century to find out, to best of our ability how they would act and advise today. It will be unwise if not naive to think that our idol and exemplar, Umer ibn Khattab — who had the sagacity, confidence and courage to suspend the Hudood penalty for theft during a prevailing famine at a time when Islam was still learning to walk — will not acknowledge and apply in his governance the modern writings and movements if he was to be our Ameer-ul-Momineen today. Is it possible that our Deen will prescribe a punishment which sounds hideous to almost all of humanity based on the knowledge, perception and insight which our Lord and Creator has bestowed on mankind over the centuries since the dawn of Islam? We were the vehicle for this transformation in the initial five centuries of our history. Unfortunately for the past millennium we have descended into an intellectual stagnation and our cousins have completely taken over. We are witnessing an explosion of knowledge in every field of human endeavor far beyond the wildest dreams of our Great Imams and honorable Sahaabaa. They continue to remain great and venerable personalities all the same just as Newton is still a great scientist even though a seventh grader todays has more scientific knowledge that him. Owing to teachings and conduct of our great Caliphs and Imams we are positive that they are expecting us to take full cognizance of the modern scholarship, erudition and enlightenment bestowed on mankind by our Lord Creator through the “PEN”. Hence the statement by Dr. Mohammed Asad during his commentary on this ayah “In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a “legal injunction” must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it.” (emphasis mine). Having clarified what we are discussing, let us start.
Maulana Mufti Mohammed Shafi, the celebrated traditional Islamic scholar and Mufassir has no comments on the language and tone of this ayah. As most of the classical commentators, he interprets it literally as a legal injunction to build the Islamic Criminal Code for crimes like “ killing, plundering, robbery and theft,”
[8]
Referring to the ayah immediately following
[9]“O you who have believed, fear Allah and seek the means [of nearness] to Him and strive in His cause that you may succeed.”
he reminds us of an important fundamental principle of our Deen: the realisation that Taqwaa is the main, if not the only sanction for enforcement of Shariah —the Islamic law. He writes: “Prompted in between the description of the punishment for robbery and theft is the need to fear Allah and the desirability of seeking nearness to HIM through acts of obedience” He then adds “without the motivating factors of the fear of Allah and the apprehension of the Hereafter, no law or police or army of this world can guarantee that crimes can be eradicated from human societies. It is this wise and affectionate approach of the Holy Qur’an which ushered a revolution in the world when it created a society of human beings who, in their Godliness, were ahead of even angels.” Syed Qutb puts it as forcefully “No human soul and no society can remain good if it relies only on the law without adding to it the fear of a higher, Divine authority that works on human conscience.”
Before prescribing the retribution, the ayah starts with defining the type and range of the crimes it is discussing. These are really heinous and reprehensible crimes calling for harsh and severe punishment. The well known exegete Yousuf Ali calls it as “the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes.” He reads the ayah literally as prescribing “four alternative punishments, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances, viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming (the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides), or exile.” Like him, most of the scholars and exegists (but not all as I will shortly discuss) have taken these punishments literally and passed as acceptable even today. No Muslim can or even dare refuse these punishments if they are a Divine commandment. But, are they?
These penalties, as pointed out by Yousuf Ali “were features of the Criminal Law in those days and for centuries afterwards…” We should not be surprised therefore to find them in our Text. However, more horrendous acts prevalent in those days were banned by Shariah: “tortures such as “hanging, drawing, and quartering” in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished.” Fifteen hundred years down the line, Shariah perhaps expects us once again to revise these punishments using the Quranic “PEN”.
One unique feature of our Shariah stands out as far as punishments are concerned. Severe and harsh punishments are prescribed mainly to emphasize the gravity of the crime and act as a deterrent. On the other hand all attempts are made to put off or cancel the enforcement of the punishment. This is clearly and often seen in the Sunnah of our Holy Prophet. Time again he would find excuses to waive a punishment. In the first century of Islam, hardly a couple of cases cutting of hand have been reported. It is well known that Caliph Umer had suspended the punishment for stealing during famine.
The Shari’ah on adultery is a good example to bring the point I am trying to make. Hundred lashes is a very severe punishment, underscoring that Shariah regards adultery as a very grave crime. This completely rules out even the reference to a “single mother” in a Muslim society. But as the law is designed round it, categorizing adultery as a grave crime seems to the ONLY purpose of this penalty. To prove the guilt, Four eye witnesses are required who will testify to actually seeing the act of penetration! Impossible is the word that immediately comes to mind. Adultery can never be proved by these standards. Eighty lashes for one who cannot prove his allegation of adultery is another way of Shariah trying to avoid the need for this punishment. Hadith literature is replete with stories when our beloved Prophet had passively or actively avoided situations leading to the possibility of this penalty. Take home lesson: the harsh and severe punishments of Shari’ah signify the gravity of the crime, hopefully act as deterrent but provisions are built in the law to avoid their implementation.
The verse we are discussing provides a good example for what I have just stated. The apparently “brutal” punishments are offered an open chance of pardon in the very next ayah
[10] `
“Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
Express repentance before you are overpowered and apprehended; this is the onlystipulation demanded for pardon. Does not this greatly mitigate the apparent harshness of the law?
As stated earlier most of the scholars and exegesis have regarded this ayah as one of the sources to build the Islamic Criminal Code quoting some prominent Sahaabaa and famous jurists.
[11] The great Islamic scholar and exegist Dr. Mohammed Asad has a distinct explanation for the language of the Ayah and comes to entirely different conclusions which appear fair and logical, consistent with the general spirit and message of our Deen. Allow me to point out that he was convinced that the correct commentary and understanding of our Holy Text requires a deep understanding not only of the Arabic language but a solid understanding of the dialect, idioms and jargon of the Bedouin who were the immediate recipients of the message of Allah Ta’aala. He therefore lived amidst them for several years before he embarked on his famous exegesis. He states “The term “apostle” is evidently generic in this context. By “making war on God and His apostle” is meant a hostile opposition to, and willful disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explained by all His apostles, combined with the conscious endeavour to destroy or undermine other people’s belief in God as well.” He goes on to explain “In classical Arabic idiom, the “cutting off of one’s hands and feet” is often synonymous with “destroying one’s power”, and it is possibly in this sense that the expression has been used here. Alternatively, it might denote “being mutilated”, both physically and metaphorically – similar to the (metonymical) use of the expression “being crucified” in the sense of “being tortured”. The phrase min khilaf – usually rendered as “from opposite sides”- is derived from the verb khalafahu, “he disagreed with him”, or “opposed him”, or “acted contrarily to him”: consequently, the primary meaning of min khilaf is “in result of contrariness” or “of perverseness”.
Discussing at length and giving reasons, Dr. Asad concludes “In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a “legal injunction” must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it”
[12]For the sake of brevity I will discuss here only the last reason he gives to support his objection to an interpretation of the above verse as a “legal injunction” — he also calls this as “the weightiest objection.”
The Qur’an has used exactly the same expressions for mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation to narrate the words of Pharaoh when he is warning his people of dire consequences.
[13] [14]
“I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely crucify you all.”
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring.”
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed Moses before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic, but you are going to know. I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will surely crucify you all.”
“Since Pharaoh is invariably described in the Qur’an as the epitome of evil and godlessness, it is inconceivable that the same Qur’an would promulgate a divine law in precisely the terms which it attributes elsewhere to a figure characterized as an “enemy of God”. I certainly agree here with Dr. Asad. I hope you also do. He continues “It is therefore incorrect to regard this verse as a “legal injunction” despite the great names associated with it. Instead this ayah, taking full account of all the expressions occurring in this verse seems to a be a statement of facts; the inescapable retribution that comes to those who rebel against God and HIS laws.”
[15]
Syed Qutb in his monumental exegesis of thirty volumes, Fi Zilal al-Quran (In the Shade of the Qur’an) has adopted the orthodox opinion on this verse and labels it as a “legislative statement.”
[16] Seeing through the eyes of a famous political activist, he states “The crime to which this legislative statement refers involves rebellion against a Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam.” Author of 24 books, including novels, literary arts critique and works on education, he is a product of the twentieth century. Yet he has taken the language of this verse literally and writes “Scholars have widely different views on whether a Muslim ruler may choose any of these punishments or whether each punishment is implemented in a particular case……………We are more inclined to support Imām Malik’s views, especially the latter part which makes the punishment enforceable even in the case of mere rebellion and of spreading fear. This gives a Muslim ruler the right to take pre-emptive action to forestall any rebellion.” I am confused and bewildered when a twentieth century scholar of his stature carries such opinions. It is a real tragedy for my lovely and peaceful Deen and helps to justify the fairly widespread misconception and misinterpretation of Islam as “wild, violent and bloodthirsty.” Right or wrong apart, three fourth of humanity regards such punishments as uncivilized and unacceptable. A large section of Muslims, if not the majority are against/equivocal/noncommittal about literal interpretations of such punishments. The proponents of this type of retribution therefore should not be surprised if they are sustaining and enforcing a very negative impression and opinion about a peaceful, balanced and beautiful religion known as Islam.
……..and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding–“fahm”–of our Deen, Aameen.
ALLAH HAFIZ
Dr. Khalid Mith