“The cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides”!
How should Muslims view this part of their Shari’ah?
ABSTRACT
How should Muslims view this part of their Shari’ah?
ABSTRACT
“The cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides”! How should Muslims view this part of their Shari’ah?
“The punishment of those who wage war against God 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”.
The first ayah has ordained four alternative punishments viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming, or exile. Any one of these has to be chosen in a given case depending on the time, place and circumstances. The word “أَو “ (i.e. or) separates the available options indicating that any one of them can be applied. The spectrum of very severe punishments to mild one allows the ruling authority or a judge to adjust the punishment to the gravity of the situation and the limitations of the individual. These are severe and some sound today as abusive penalties basically meted out for two different crimes. First, against “those who wage war against God and His Messenger”. If taken literally, this is now obviously obsolete as the line of Messengers of God has been terminated. Second, against those who hasten to spread “وَيَسعَونَ فِي الأَرضِ فَسادًا” translated here as “ strive with might and main for mischief through the land”.In an earlier blog I had rendered it as “those who endeavor to work corruption upon the earth”. This amounts to ignoring the collective will of Muslims in any acton against the life, property and honor of other Muslims which will be dealt with an iron hand. Denial of freedom of thought and expression specially freedom to practice religion of one’s choice is one of the main crimes in this list. “There is no worse corruption than the attempt to prevent the implementation of Divine law and to spread fear in a land where Divine law is applied” as per the great scholar Sayyid Qutb. These crimes could be on a limited scale like murder, robbery, dacoity, rape and “violent resistance to an ordinary policeman” (Maulana Maudoodi); or these could be open rebellion and naked terrorism. In short any law and order situation invokes this law.
Three aspects need emphasis. First, these are horrible crimes including open rebellion or high treason calling for really strong deterrents. Second, the list of retribution starts with real abrasive ones but ends with comparatively much milder banishment. Third, the door for repentance to the wrongdoers is widely open before they are apprehended. However, in this case also any action against human life and property will have be compensated but they will not be subjected to the above mentioned punishments. Thus the acerbic punishments are prescribed to highlight the seriousness of the crime. But, when it comes to implementing them, milder forms and even pardon are clear options.
This is the wisdom and beauty of Divine Law of retribution all along viz. never underplay the immense damage and consequences of a serious crime; BUT always be mild and forgiving, as far as possible to the perpetrator. This is clearly borne out by the Sunnah of our beloved Holy Prophet: He would try, as far as possible to look the other way whenever some news of adultery would come his way.
Quite contrary to the past and present approach, the Holy Quran combines the fear of Allah and the Hereafter with each crime and its punishment. This is the ultimate sanction it employs to enforce it laws which is far stronger and effective than any police or military force. As Mufti Mohammed Shafi puts it in his master piece Ma’aariful Quran “An impartial view of things as they are around us will prove that, 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”.
The Penal Code in the Shari'ah of Islam includes Hudood, Qisas and Ta’ziraat. The "Hudud" include punishments for (1) Robbery, (2) Theft, (3) Adultery, (4) False Accusation of Adultery and probably (5) for drinking wine. The last is rather controversial. While the Hudood appear very strict and intense, the proof demanded for their implementation are as strict if not more. After describing the heavy worldly retribution, the ayah asserts وَلَهُم فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذابٌ عَظيمٌ (and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter) meaning thereby that the punishment in this life does not waive the one in the Hereafter which will be harsher and more enduring.
The article then dives deep with the help of scholars to get to the intricacies of these two ayahs.
May 30, 2018
Read ONLY, IF AND WHEN you have time and mood for:
“An Ayah of the Quran for 30 Days” -- May 2018
Choose the section you have time, in the next 30 days to read this ayah:-
Prelude: Recurrent Primary Message 1st. Page
Starting Dua, a note & The Ayah 2nd. Page
A Short Summary: For the Busy Bee Two Pages
The Main Story: Recommended Four Pages
Footnotes: For the Perfectionist One Pages
PRELUDE
From the Pen and Perspective of a self-styled PPK Muslim (Proud, Practicing, Knowledgeable) with a humble submission that Islam totally rejects Blind Following BUT vigorously focusses on the Limitations of Pure Human Reasoning..............and clearly and comprehensively AlLAH knows best.
In the beginning of the seventh century C.E., the folks of Mecca and Medina had a fascinatingly unique window: they had direct access to the Heavens through one of their own. They were blessed with a regular stream of Divine counseling and guidelines. Question and answer sessions were part of the program. Even individual questioner was graced by an answer. In the short Introduction to this scheme they were assured that at the end of this twenty-two year project, Divine Directions and Admonitions will continue through the agency of the PEN. The whole discourse has been preserved and archived till eternity under the guarantee of our Lord and Creator. This record in known as the Quran.
It should sound unbelievable but factually appears to be true: Many of our prevalent, widespread and important concepts and opinions about religious matters do not have a basis in the Quran and sometimes even appear to be in obvious conflict with the teachings of the Quran. It would be very educative and helpful to discuss an Ayah once a month to see if it supports or rejects our views and actions in our daily life. I wish and hope this generates a fruitful interactive discussion.
DUAA’
بِسمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحمٰنِ الرَّحيمِ
In the name of Allah, we praise HIM, seek HIS help and ask for HIS forgiveness. Whosoever Allah guideth none can misguide; whosoever HE allows to fall astray, none can guide him right. We bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah alone and we bear witness that Mohammed, SAW is HIS slave-servant and the Seal of HIS Messengers.
Further, we recall that Allah Ta’aala has declared in HIS Book1
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the Message (or remember or receive admonition) but men of understanding (or intellect)”
and we also recollect that he has warned us about the day of judgement2
“Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons (joy, pleasure).”
We realise, that there cannot be a greater boon or blessing or benefit than wisdom and we wonder if this should be a timely reminder to very many of us sincere and practicing Muslims who use our critical thinking to enhance the mundane for ourselves and our families but in matters religion we choose to
resort to blind following -- taqleed, doctrine of classical Sunni Islamic Fiqh.
(NOTE: I have filtered out the proofs and details into the Footnotes for those who have the time and interest for them. The main text will then be of reasonable length, hopefully for the busy majority. What follows is not a sermon; I do not feel qualified to give one, anyhow. I wish, it may provide a food for thought. A caveat seems in order: If the ayah selected pertains to issues we face in our daily life with our family, friends, neighbours or peers it may affect us personally and lead to some self analysis and soul searching which in turn could be divisive and distressing. If taken in the right spirit, it can be a humble attempt towards finding the “straight path”.)
THE AYAH
Surah Al Ma’idah (no. 5), Ayahs 33-34
إِنَّما جَزاءُ الَّذينَ يُحارِبونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسولَهُ وَيَسعَونَ فِي الأَرضِ فَسادًا أَن يُقَتَّلوا أَو يُصَلَّبوا أَو تُقَطَّعَ أَيديهِم وَأَرجُلُهُم مِن خِلافٍ أَو يُنفَوا مِنَ الأَرضِ ۚ ذٰلِكَ لَهُم خِزيٌ فِي الدُّنيا ۖ وَلَهُم فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذابٌ عَظيمٌ — إِلَّا الَّذينَ تابوا مِن قَبلِ أَن تَقدِروا عَلَيهِم ۖ فَاعلَموا أَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ
“The punishment of those who wage war against God 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”.
A SHORT VERSION
“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
“The cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides”! How should Muslims view this part of their Shari’ah?
Before we confuse and entangle ourselves in the different scholarly opinions on these two ayahs let us see and study these through the lens of a PPK Muslim. The first ayah has ordained four alternative punishments viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming, or exile. Any one of these has to be chosen in a given case depending on the time, place and circumstances. The word “أَو “ (i.e. or) separates the available options indicating that any one of them can be applied. The spectrum of very severe punishments to mild one allows the ruling authority or a judge to adjust the punishment to the gravity of the situation and the limitations of the individual. These are severe and some sound today as abusive penalties basically meted out for two different crimes. First, against “those who wage war against God and His Messenger”. If taken literally, this is now obviously obsolete as the line of Messengers of God has been terminated. Second, against those who hasten to spread “وَيَسعَونَ فِي الأَرضِ فَسادًا” translated here as “ strive with might and main for mischief through the land”. I have discussed this ayah partially in an earlier blog in January 2017 under the heading Homicide and the Guide and Ruling for the Mandatory Capital Punishment in the Islamic Shari'ah. There it was rendered as those who “endeavor to work corruption upon the earth”. I have explained there “That is, ignoring the collective will of Muslims in any acton against the life, property and honor of other Muslims will be dealt with an iron hand. In other words to curb “fitnaa" in the society, fighting a war, rebellion against a government or any upheaval or turmoil in the society.” Denial of freedom of thought and expression specially freedom to practice religion of one’s choice is one of the main crimes in this list. “There is no worse corruption than the attempt to prevent the implementation of Divine law and to spread fear in a land where Divine law is applied” as per the great scholar Sayyid Qutb. These crimes could be on a limited scale like murder, robbery, dacoity, rape and “violent resistance to an ordinary policeman” (Maulana Maudoodi); or these could be open rebellion and naked terrorism. In short any law and order situation invokes this law.
Three aspects need emphasis. First, these are horrible crimes including open rebellion or high treason calling for really strong deterrents. Second, the list of retribution starts with real abrasive ones but ends with comparatively much milder banishment. Third, the door for repentance to the wrongdoers is widely open before they are apprehended. However, in this case also any action against human life and property will have be compensated but they will not be subjected to the above mentioned punishments. Thus the acerbic punishments are prescribed to highlight the seriousness of the crime. But, when it comes to implementing them, milder forms and even pardon are clear options.
This is the wisdom and beauty of Divine Law of retribution all along viz. never underplay the immense damage and consequences of a serious crime; BUT always be mild and forgiving, as far as possible to the perpetrator. This is clearly borne out by the Sunnah of our beloved Holy Prophet: He would try, as far as possible to look the other way whenever some news of adultery would come his way. I feel reassured of my view as I am endorsed by the eminent Sayyid Qutb who declares in his scholarly style “Islam deals with human nature in its entirety. God, who has chosen this religion for us, is the Creator of human nature. He knows what suits man and what does not suit him. ‘How could it be that He who has created all should not know all? Indeed, He alone is unfathomable (in His wisdom), all aware.’ (Surah 67/14) The previous verses spoke of very stern punishments for serious crimes. However, once the punishments are outlined, so as to ensure their deterrent effect, the sūrah addresses people’s consciences and spirits, aiming to strengthen faith and consciousness of one’s obligations towards God.”
Quite contrary to the past and present approach, the Holy Quran combines the fear of Allah and the Hereafter with each crime and its punishment. This is the ultimate sanction it employs to enforce it laws which is far stronger and effective than any police or military force. As Mufti Mohammed Shafi puts it in his master piece Ma’aariful Quran “An impartial view of things as they are around us will prove that, 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”.
There are two broad kinds of punishments of crimes in the Shari'ah of Islam:
1) Punishments pronounced directly by the Qur'an and Sunnah
These in turn are divided into two kinds:
a) Hudood: plural of Hadd; here the Right of Allah has been declared to be predominant
b) Qisas: the law of equality; commonly known as the law of Retaliation; here the Right of the Servant of Allah has been accepted as predominant
2) Ta’ziraat: plural of Ta’zir; these punishments are not pronounced in the Quran or Sunah but have been left to the discretion of the Holy Prophet and after him to the relevant authorities.
According to Mufti Mohammed Shafi “ There are only five "Hudud" in the Shariah of Islam. These are the
punishments for (1) Robbery, (2) Theft, (3) Adultery, (4) False Accusation of Adultery. These punishments have been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an clearly and categorically (Mansus). The fifth Hadd is that of
drinking wine which stands proved on the basis of a consensus (Ijma’) of the noble Companions of the Holy Prophet “. This is rather controversial.
While the Hudood appear very strict and intense, the proof demanded for their implementation are as strict if not more. Even if a single condition is not fulfilled the Hadd stands dropped. A slightest doubt will annul the verdict. The established law in this regard, comments Mufti Mohammed Shafi is “Hudood are dropped in case of doubt”.
However, dropping of Hud or Qisas does not leave the criminal go unscathed. The relevant authority has the duty to provide security of life and maintain law and order. Therefore it has the authority and discretion to enforce Ta’zir in such situations. It should be realized that in every crime of this
nature, the Right of Allah (Haqqullah ) and the Right of the Servant of Allah (Haqqul- Ibad) are intermingled and one becomes guilty of both crimes. The Right of the Servant of Allah has to be exacted even if the Right of Allah have been pardoned.
After describing the heavy worldly retribution, the ayah asserts وَلَهُم فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذابٌ عَظيمٌ (and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter) meaning thereby that the punishment in this life does not waive the one in the Hereafter which will be harsher and more enduring. “The gravity of the crime deserves this double punishment” declares the scholar Sayyid Qutb. The objective is to ensure complete peace and security in the land of Islam. As the ayah makes it very clear the punishment of akhirah is open to repentance and taubah.
Let us now dive deep with the help of scholars to get to the intricacies of these two ayahs.
“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” says Dr. Mohammed Asad in his formidable tafseer. Giving some cogent reasons, he 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”. He reads the verse in the present tense which renders it “as a statement of fact - a declaration of the inescapability of the retribution which "those who make war on God" bring upon themselves”.
The scholar Allaamaa Yousuf Ali suggests that these four punishments are “For the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances ”. He further points out that these were features of the Criminal Law in those days and for centuries afterwards. Tortures such as “hanging, drawing, and quartering” in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, practiced in Arabia, were abolished henceforth. He reminds that “in any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognised as a round for mercy”.
……….as per Maulana Maudoodi. ………….(see the main story)
……….the research scholar and mentor Javed Ahmed Ghamdi declares ……………
Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi, mentor of Ghamdi comments:………….
……..asserts Nasr Syed Hussein et al in their modern tafseer “The Study Quran”…………
Sayyid Qutb, a well known scholar restricts the the crime to…………..
As an example of of the complexities of understanding some parts of our Holy Text, listen to …………
.………and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
THE MAIN STORY
“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
“The cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides”! How should Muslims view this part of their Shari’ah?
Before we confuse and entangle ourselves in the different scholarly opinions on these two ayahs let us see and study these through the lens of a PPK Muslim. The first ayah has ordained four alternative punishments viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming, or exile. Any one of these has to be chosen in a given case depending on the time, place and circumstances. The word “أَو “ (i.e. or) separates the available options indicating that any one of them can be applied. The spectrum of very severe punishments to mild one allows the ruling authority or a judge to adjust the punishment to the gravity of the situation and the limitations of the individual. These are severe and some sound today as abusive penalties basically meted out for two different crimes. First, against “those who wage war against God and His Messenger”. If taken literally, this is now obviously obsolete as the line of Messengers of God has been terminated. Second, against those who hasten to spread “وَيَسعَونَ فِي الأَرضِ فَسادًا” translated here as “ strive with might and main for mischief through the land”. I have discussed this ayah partially in an earlier blog in January 2017 under the heading Homicide and the Guide and Ruling for the Mandatory Capital Punishment in the Islamic Shari'ah . There it was rendered as those who “endeavor to work corruption upon the earth”. I have explained there “That is, ignoring the collective will of Muslims in any acton against the life, property and honor of other Muslims will be dealt with an iron hand. In other words to curb “fitnaa" in the society, fighting a war, rebellion against a government or any upheaval or turmoil in the society.” Denial of freedom of thought and expression specially freedom to practice religion of one’s choice is one of the main crimes in this list. “There is no worse corruption than the attempt to prevent the implementation of Divine law and to spread fear in a land where Divine law is applied” as per the great scholar Sayyid Qutb. These crimes could be on a limited scale like murder, robbery, dacoity, rape and “violent resistance to an ordinary policeman” (Maulana Maudoodi); or these could be open rebellion and naked terrorism. In short any law and order situation invokes this law.
Three aspects need emphasis. First, these are horrible crimes including open rebellion or high treason calling for really strong deterrents. Second, the list of retribution starts with real abrasive ones but ends with comparatively much milder banishment. Third, the door for repentance to the wrongdoers is widely open before they are apprehended. However, in this case also any action against human life and property will have be compensated but they will not be subjected to the above mentioned punishments. Thus the acerbic punishments are prescribed to highlight the seriousness of the crime. But, when it comes to implementing them, milder forms and even pardon are clear options.
This is the wisdom and beauty of Divine Law of retribution all along viz. never underplay the immense damage and consequences of a serious crime; BUT always be mild and forgiving, as far as possible to the perpetrator. This is clearly borne out by the Sunnah of our beloved Holy Prophet: He would try, as far as possible to look the other way whenever some news of adultery would come his way. I feel reassured of my view as I am endorsed by the eminent Sayyid Qutb who declares in his scholarly style “Islam deals with human nature in its entirety. God, who has chosen this religion for us, is the Creator of human nature. He knows what suits man and what does not suit him. ‘How could it be that He who has created all should not know all? Indeed, He alone is unfathomable (in His wisdom), all aware.’ (Surah 67/14) The previous verses spoke of very stern punishments for serious crimes. However, once the punishments are outlined, so as to ensure their deterrent effect, the sūrah addresses people’s consciences and spirits, aiming to strengthen faith and consciousness of one’s obligations towards God.”
Quite contrary to the past and present approach, the Holy Quran combines the fear of Allah and the Hereafter with each crime and its punishment. This is the ultimate sanction it employs to enforce it laws which is far stronger and effective than any police or military force. As Mufti Mohammed Shafi puts it in his master piece Ma’aariful Quran “An impartial view of things as they are around us will prove that, 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”.
There are two broad kinds of punishments of crimes in the Shari'ah of Islam:
1) Punishments pronounced directly by the Qur'an and Sunnah
These in turn are divided into two kinds:
a) Hudood: plural of Hadd; here the Right of Allah has been declared to be predominant
b) Qisas: the law of equality; commonly known as the law of Retaliation; here the Right of the Servant of Allah has been accepted as predominant
2) Ta’ziraat: plural of Ta’zir; these punishments are not pronounced in the Quran or Sunah but have been left to the discretion of the Holy Prophet and after him to the relevant authorities.
According to Mufti Mohammed Shafi “ There are only five "Hudud" in the Shariah of Islam. These are the
punishments for (1) Robbery, (2) Theft, (3) Adultery, (4) False Accusation of Adultery. These punishments have been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an clearly and categorically (Mansus). The fifth Hadd is that of
drinking wine which stands proved on the basis of a consensus (Ijma’) of the noble Companions of the Holy Prophet “. This is rather controversial.
While the Hudood appear very strict and intense, the proof demanded for their implementation are as strict if not more. Even if a single condition is not fulfilled the Hadd stands dropped. A slightest doubt will annul the verdict. The established law in this regard, comments Mufti Mohammed Shafi is “Hudood are dropped in case of doubt”.
However, dropping of Hud or Qisas does not leave the criminal go unscathed. The relevant authority has the duty to provide security of life and maintain law and order. Therefore it has the authority and discretion to enforce Ta’zir in such situations. It should be realized that in every crime of this
nature, the Right of Allah (Haqqullah ) and the Right of the Servant of Allah (Haqqul- Ibad) are intermingled and one becomes guilty of both crimes. The Right of the Servant of Allah has to be exacted even if the Right of Allah have been pardoned.
After describing the heavy worldly retribution, the ayah asserts وَلَهُم فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذابٌ عَظيمٌ (and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter) meaning thereby that the punishment in this life does not waive the one in the Hereafter which will be harsher and more enduring. “The gravity of the crime deserves this double punishment” declares the scholar Sayyid Qutb. The objective is to ensure complete peace and security in the land of Islam. As the ayah makes it very clear the punishment of akhirah is open to repentance and taubah.
Let us now dive deep with the help of scholars to get to the intricacies of these two ayahs.
“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” says Dr. Mohammed Asad in his formidable tafseer. Giving some cogent reasons, he 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”. He reads the verse in the present tense which renders it “as a statement of fact - a declaration of the inescapability of the retribution which "those who make war on God" bring upon themselves”.
The scholar Allaamaa Yousuf Ali suggests that these four punishments are “For the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances ”. He further points out that these were features of the Criminal Law in those days and for centuries afterwards. Tortures such as “hanging, drawing, and quartering” in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, practiced in Arabia, were abolished henceforth. He reminds that “in any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognised as a round for mercy”.
The expression “to wage war against Allah and His Messenger” denotes “war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state” as per Maulana Maudoodi. The Maulana further points out that “these penalties are mentioned here in brief merely to serve as guidelines to either judges or rulers so they may punish each criminal in accordance with the nature of his crime”. Sayyid Qutb, however points out that
“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”. He then narrates a confusing detail of how different combinations of crimes are dealt with differently by our four jurist Imams. Elsewhere I read that if looting and killing are combined the punishment meted out will be : “they should be crucified. The form it should take is that they be hanged alive, then their stomach be slit with a spear or something else”. Perhaps I am a coward Muslim as I find this disgusting.
Stressing the grammatical nuances of words used in this ayah like أَو يُصَلَّبوا , the research scholar and mentor Javed Ahmed Ghamdi declares that the Shariah wants the punishment to be exemplary and a deterrent to a wide circle. (The outstanding scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed maintains, without actually suggesting it that the word يُقَتَّلوا can mean “cutting into pieces” as it is derived from “tarteel". Even the thought of this is revolting to me as a Muslim.) The other option of تُقَطَّعَ أَيديهِم وَأَرجُلُهُم مِن خِلافٍ — the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides — is also meant as a deterrent according to him. He maintains that our Holy Prophet had prescribed rajm or stoning to a few for profanity under this rule. He has interpreted the last option of يُنفَوا مِنَ الأَرضِ— exile from the land — as restriction of movements or like house arrest. Most of our eminent scholars emphasize the importance of “a strong lesson for others” in punitive measures. But modern research questions this concept and offers other solutions. Our judges, I feel can take heed of this new knowledge in selecting their decisions. Ghamdi thinks that the stricter punishments are the real intended one but the milder on also will serve the purpose. He also emphasizes that the word “أَو “ (i.e. or) in between the various punishments indicates that any can be selected and matched to the intensity of the crime, the personality and circumstances of the perpetrator and the impact of the crime on the society.
Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi, mentor of Ghamdi comments:
دنیا میں اِن کی یہ رسوائی دوسروں کے لیے ذریعۂ عبرت و بصیرت ہوگی اور اِس کے اثر سے اُن لوگوں کے اندر بھی قانون کا ڈر اور احترام پیدا ہوگا جو یہ صلاحیت نہیں رکھتے کہ مجرد قانون کی افادیت و عظمت کی بنا پر اُس کا احترام کریں۔ موجودہ زمانے میں جرم اور مجرمین کے لیے فلسفہ کے نام سے جو ہم دردانہ اور رحم دلانہ نظریات پیدا ہوگئے ہیں، یہ اُنھی کی برکت ہے کہ انسان بظاہر جتنا ہی ترقی کرتا جاتا ہے، دنیا اتنی ہی جہنم بنتی جارہی ہے۔ اسلام اِس قسم کے مہمل نظریات کی حوصلہ افزائی نہیں کرتا۔ اُس کا قانون ہوائی نظریات پر نہیں، بلکہ انسان کی فطرت پر مبنی ہے۔‘‘ (تدبر قرآن ۲/ ۵۰۷)
I have retained the Urdu text to give the real impact. Basically the message reads that the severity of the punishments is designed by our Creator for a purpose and it rejects the present trend of empathy and compassion for the criminal as fanciful and unnatural.
“This verse contains one of the five Quranic ḥadd punishments— that is, Divinely ordained capital or corporal punishments— to be carried out by the Islamic state against those convicted of crimes considered to undermine the moral fabric of the Islamic community as a whole, including murderers, thieves, adulterers, slanderers, and, here, those who wage war against God and His Messenger” asserts Nasr Syed Hussein et al in their modern tafseer “The Study Quran”. He further elaborates “The use of weapons, threats of extreme violence, or other tactics to instill fear are the hallmark of these crimes and distinguish them from other forms of robbery or assault. In other words, it seems clear, however, that the severe punishments in this verse pertain specifically to those who commit various crimes brazenly and with exceptional brutality, violence, and terrorization of innocent people”.
Regarding the phrase “work corruption” mentioned in this ayah Nasr thinks this phrase can also refer to spiritual corruption and it’s consequences in the Hereafter in addition to their detrimental effect on the safety and security of the community. It may be recalled, he says that the angels, when informed about the Divine decision to establish human beings as “vicegerents” apprehended “working corruption and shedding blood” by the humans thus suggesting that corruption leading to physical violence “is a fundamental tendency within the human character.“ Thus “working corruption” often implies both the types, spiritual and temporal. He also adds that some commentators and a minority of legal authorities argued that the Islamic authority (or imām) could use his discretion to apply one or a combination of the four punishments listed here for one convicted of ḥirābah i.e one of these crimes. Al-Shāfiʿī and others legal scholars, however, considered the punishments to correlate in specific ways to the severity of the crime. In his view, in most schools of law, once the perpetrator of a major crime has been brought before the authorities and convicted, applying the prescribed ḥadd punishment is mandatory; but if a perpetrator is forgiven by the victim and not denounced by the authorities, then the punishment need not be applied.
Sayyid Qutb, a well known scholar restricts the the crime to which the “legislative statement” in this ayah refers to as “a rebellion against a Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam”. He is quick to make a valid but political statement “We wish to make this statement very clear, because some of those who are happy to be subservient to rulers in all generations try to use this verse for the wrong reasons. They find it easy to encourage the enforcement of such punishments by rulers who neither implement God’s law nor promote the establishment of the land of Islam in their countries, even though they may profess to be Muslims. Moreover, they want these punishments to be enforced against people who are not making war against God and His Messenger, but who fight a tyrannical power, disobedient to God and His Messenger”.
As an example of of the complexities of understanding some parts of our Holy Text, listen to Sayyid
Qutb “Scholars also differ in their understanding of what is meant by banishing the rebels and whether they should be removed from the land where they committed their crime or from the land where they have their freedom. In the latter sense, they are imprisoned. Or is it that they should be banished from the whole earth, which means that they should be put to death? Our preference is that they should be banished from the land where they committed their crime to a place where they feel lonely and weak. This makes their punishment of the same nature as their crime, which involves spreading fear”. Nasr has this to say on this point “Most, however, understood it to mean that they should be exiled from their native territory to another or that they should be imprisoned, which effectively “banished” them from human society. Imprisonment was reportedly first implemented as a punishment by the second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, who would imprison such offenders until they had fully repented”. Mufti Mohammed Shafi has a long description on this very point “The sense of “keeping away” or turning out from the land, according to a group of Muslim jurists, is that they should be turned out from Dar al-Islam. Some others say that they should be turned out from the place where they have committed the crime of robbery. In cases like this, Sayyidna Umar al-Faruq gave the verdict that should the criminal be turned out from one place and left to roam free in other cities, he was bound to harass the people there. Therefore, let a criminal like this be locked in a prison. This will become his “keeping away” or turning out from the land for he cannot go and walk anywhere. Imam Abu Hanifah has adopted this very view”.
.………and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
Dr. Khalid Mitha
FOOTNOTES
(1) Surah 2/269
يُؤتِي الحِكمَةَ مَن يَشاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُؤتَ الحِكمَةَ فَقَد أوتِيَ خَيرًا كَثيرًا ۗ وَما يَذَّكَّرُ إِلّا أُولُو الأَلبابِ
(2) Surah 102/8
ثُمَّ لَتُسأَلُنَّ يَومَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعيمِ
