Selected Essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Selected Essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
Compiled by
Dr Shehzad Saleem
This book is a translation of some selected essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. They have
been taken from his Urdu treatises Maqamat and Burhan. These writings reflect the
author’s views on some very important contemporary as well as age-old issues that have
continued to be a cause of debate and controversy in academic circles as well as among
ordinary Muslims. They range from nagging social, political, economic and penal issues to
some intricate discussions on jihad and on the sources of Islam. Each essay is an
independent one and there is no particular order that needs to be followed in reading
them. Readers may choose to read essays that interest them at their own preference.
Book Contents
• Compiler’s Foreword
• Source of Religion
• Fundamentals of Understanding Islam
• Subject-Matter of the Holy Qur’an
• Variant Readings
• The General and the Specific
• Hadith and Sunnah
• A New Anthology of Hadith
• Ijtihad
• The Consensus of Muslims
• Our Message to Humanity
• Downfall of the Muslims
• Religious Extremism
• Organ Transplantation
• Sighting the Moon
• Muslims and Non-Muslims
• Characteristic Values of Muslim Culture
• Our Education System
• The Beard and Isbal-i Izar
• The Right to Punish a Wife
• Head Covering for Women
• Wudu and Nail Polish
• Women Travelling with a Mahram
• Abortion
• Birth Control
• Hifz al-Furuj
• Etiquette of Sexual Intimacy
• The Noble Wives of the Prophet (sws)
• Age of ‘Ā’ishah (rta) at her Marriage
• The Right to Divorce
• Wrong Methods of giving Divorce
• Implementation of the Shari‘ah (Divine Law)
• The Rule of an Islamic Government
• Islam and the State
• The Basis of Legislation
• Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative
• Supremacy of the Parliament
• Islam and Nationhood
• Khilafah
• State and Government
• Mosques
• “Their System is based on their Consultation”
• The Question of Interest
• Insurance
• Distribution of Inheritance
• The Right to make a Will
• Inheritance of an Orphaned Grandchild
• Jihad and War in Islam
• The Taliban’s Line of Reasoning
• Itmam al-Hujjah of the Messengers
• Islamic Punishments
• Punishment for Blasphemy against the Prophet (sws)
• The Punishment of Intentional Murder
• The Law of Evidence
• Islamic Punishments: Some Important Issues
• What is Diyat?
• Verdicts of God
• The Lawful and the Unlawful
• Forbidding Wrong
• Transfer of Reward to the Dead
• Compulsive Knowledge
Compiler’s Foreword
This book is a translation[1] of some selected essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. They have
been taken from his Urdu treatises Maqamat and Burhan.
These writings reflect the author’s views on some very important contemporary as well as
age-old issues that have continued to be a cause of debate and controversy in academic
circles as well as among ordinary Muslims. They range from nagging social, political,
economic and penal issues to some intricate discussions on jihad and on the sources of
Islam. Each essay is an independent one and there is no particular order that needs to be
followed in reading them. Readers may choose to read essays that interest them at their
own preference.
It is hoped that these essays will encourage discerning minds to critically evaluate the views
presented and to provide their feedback to the author.
I must thank Ms Nikhat Sattar for thoroughly proof reading this book and giving valuable
suggestions to improve its presentation and language.
Shehzad Saleem
Al-Mawrid Lahore
2015
[1] The translators, besides myself, include Asif Iftikhar, Tariq Mahmood Hashmi and Junaid Hassan.
Source of Religion
When God created man, He placed two things within him: firstly, the cognition that he
has a Creator who is his Master, and secondly, the awareness of virtue and vice. There are
other things as well which are innately found in him. When he is reminded of them, they
appear with time in his concepts and actions. These two things have also been similarly
placed in him.
These two things are the foundations of religion which were given by God to man when
He created him. Then God selected certain personalities from among the Muslims, gave
them His message and sent them to human beings for delivering this message to them. It is
these personalities who are called prophets and messengers. They came and fully explained
to human beings the beliefs and regulations of the religion which God had placed in them.
Prophethood began with Adam (sws), the first human being and ended on Muhammad
(sws). The Almighty has disclosed to us that Muhammad (sws) was the last of this series.
After him no prophet or messenger will come. Hence, religion can now only be obtained
from him and true religion is that what he sanctions from his tongue, or through his
practice or when he does not stop a person who does something that falls in the ambit of
religion.
Thousands of people learnt this religion from Muhammad (sws) in his lifetime and also
practised it before him. Then millions learnt from these who learnt it from Muhammad
(sws) and this chain has never been broken. His followers among every generation
disseminated this religion and passed it on by studying and teaching it and communicating
it to others through the oral and written word. It has now reached us and we can say with
full certainty that it has reached us the way Muhammad (sws) had transferred it to those
who became his companions in his life after accepting him as a prophet and messenger of
God.
The reason for our certainty is that such a large number of people in every generation in so
many diverse areas transmitted it through the oral and the written word and by practically
following it that it cannot be imagined that together all of them can lie or make a mistake.
In parlance, this is called ijma‘ (consensus) and tawatur (concurrence). All sensible people
accept that what is transmitted in this manner from one generation to another acquires
certitude.
This religion has reached us through two ways:
1. The Qur’an
2. The Sunnah
The Qur’an is the Book which the Muslims call the Qur’an. God revealed it to
Muhammad’s heart through His angel, Gabriel. The words in which this Book has been
revealed and the way this book has been revealed was read out repeatedly by Muhammad
(sws) in the same way and in the same words before people. His followers memorized it by
listening to it from him, and those of them who knew how to write, wrote it out and kept
it with them. These people were in thousands. Some memorized one surah, some two,
some many and some even the whole Qur’an and some had their own written copies of it.
People of the next generation too followed suit. In fact, every generation of Muslims has
been following suit. The written copy of the Qur’an is found today in every house and
millions today can recite the whole of it from their memory. As a consequence, in spite of
several attempts from people, neither has anyone been able to alter it before nor can this
happen now. Hence, it is absolutely certain that the Qur’an we have in our hands today is
the very one word for word that was transferred by Muhammad (sws) to his followers.
Similar is the case with the Sunnah of Muhammad (sws). The nation in which he was born
was Abraham’s progeny. The Almighty directed him to follow the way of Abraham (sws).
Some constituent practices of this way were found in their original shape amongst the
descendents of Abraham (sws). However, some of them had been forgotten and errors had
crept into others. Muhammad (sws) revived these practices and set right the errors in them,
and at the behest of God also added some more practices. He then asked his followers to
adhere to them. It is these practices which are called his Sunnah. Most of these practices
pre-date the Qur’an. The Arabs already knew them. That is why when the Qur’an
mentions them, it does so as if they are already known to people. No introduction or
details of these practices is needed.
These practices have reached us in the very manner the Qur’an has reached us. Muslims
from every generation received them from their previous generation, practically adhered to
them and transferred them to the next generation. This has been going on since the time of
Muhammad (sws). Hence these practices of the Sunnah also possess certitude. There is no
difference between it and the Qur’an as far as their authenticity is concerned.
(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

Fundamentals of Understanding Islam
In the exercise to form a sound understanding of the din, the Farahi School invokes three
fundamentals of central import:
1. The holy Qur’an is the distinguisher between and the sole criterion to define right and
wrong in the realm of religious knowledge in Islam. It is the guardian (muhaymin) over all
forms of the divine revelation. The primary purpose of its revelation is to judge the
religious differences of human beings so that they are able to stand firm on truth. The
Qur’an itself claims this status for it. This principle leads to and entails the following
fundamentals about the Book:
Firstly, the text of the Qur’an is well defined. It is confined to what an overwhelming
majority of Muslims all over world, with the only exception of parts of Africa and some
other areas, recites the text recorded in their codices. This text is recited in accordance with
the way known as qira’ah al-‘ammah (reading of the generality of the believers).
Therefore, all other readings are not the Qur’an and cannot be granted the status of the
word of God.
Secondly, the Qur’an is qat‘i al-dalalah. It means that its words are capable of perfectly
expressing the intent of the author with consummate certainty. A reader, who approaches
it with the intention to follow its guidance and who tries to understand it on the basis of
its language, can, therefore, be led to the intended meanings of the words it uses. It is only
the lack of knowledge on the part of the readers and a failure to exert full efforts to
understand it that results in his inability to get to the intended meanings of the divine text
in some cases. This failure, therefore, cannot be attributed to any flaw in the language of
the Qur’an and the styles of expression adopted in it for the Book does not suffer from any
inadequacy in this regard.
Thirdly, all the verses of the Qur’an upon which guidance and misguidance of humans
depends are muhkam (clear, completely comprehensible). Mutashabihat (singular
mutashabih) verses are those which metaphorically express a bounty of the Heaven to be
conferred on the successful slaves of God on the Last Day or an infliction to be
experienced by the losers in the afterworld couched in the idiom of parables or by way of
analogy. These also include the verses which analogously refer to an attribute of God, His
acts, or any other transcendent reality. Neither are these verses unidentifiable nor is their
signification doubtful. Diction employed in this content of the Book is originally the clear
Arabic (‘arabi mubin), the meanings and signification of which can be clearly grasped. The
only difference between the muhkam and mutashabih verses is that the reality and essence
of the referents of the latter category cannot be grasped and comprehended by human
understanding in the present world. However, the failure of human mind to grasp the
reality of the referents of the mutashabih verses does not impair our understanding of the
Book of God, hence the prohibition of hairsplitting discussion on them.
Fourthly, no khafi (indirect) or jali (direct) revelation external to the Qur’an can validly
affect or alter the divine injunctions spelled out in the Book. Even the recipient of the
Book, the Messenger of God, cannot alter it in any degree. All that we can take as part of
the religion has to be defined in the light of its clear and plain verses. Similarly, it serves as
the only judge in the exercise of discarding something which is erroneously taken as a
religious reality. Every tenet of ‘iman (beliefs) and every discussion on ‘aqidah (theological
principles) is to be gleaned from the text put between its two covers. All types of wahi,
ilham, ilqa’, conclusions based on a research and viewpoint of individual scholars should
be gauged on its basis. Views and works of towering scholars of the past like Abu Hanifah,
Shafi‘i, Bukhari, Muslim, Ash‘ari, Maturidi, Shibli and Junayd are to be judged in the light
of its eternal words. No view, no matter however exalted its source, can be entertained in
defiance of its verdicts.
2. The Sunnah, in Islam, is identified as the religious tradition instituted by the Prophet
Abraham (sws) which the last Prophet of God (sws) revived, restored in its pure form and
enriched with additions and instituted afresh among the believers as part of Islam. For the
Qur’an directed the Prophet (sws) to follow the millah (the religion) of Abraham (sws).
This tradition (i.e. the Sunnah comprising religious practices) was a part of the religion of
Abraham (sws). Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad (sws) was obliged, as entailed by the
above mentioned verse of the Qur’an, to follow it himself and command the believers to
adopt it. The authenticity and historicity of the Sunnah is as compelling as that of the
Book of God. The only difference between the two is this. The Book of God was
communicated by the Prophet (sws) to the whole body of the Companions who
transmitted it to the next generation with consensus as a written and spoken text.
Similarly, the Prophet (sws) taught the Sunnah to the entire generation of the Companions
who received, adopted and practised it collectively and transmitted it with consensus to the
next generation. During the course of the subsequent history, both of these sources have
been transmitted from generality to generality by each layer in the generations of the
ummah. Just like the Qur’an, the Sunnah too has always been received and established by
the consensus of the believers in a given point of time during the course of Muslim history.
Therefore, there is no room for any dispute and contestation regarding its authenticity and
epistemological force.
3. Din is confined to the contents of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Nothing external to these
two sources is the part of din in Islam. Nor can one validly introduce any foreign practice
or concept as part of the religion. The the Prophetic Hadith, a name given to the reports
about the sayings, actions and tacit approvals of the Prophet (sws) transmitted through
individual to individual (akhbar-i ahad) do not add to the beliefs and practices in the
religion. It does not mean that they do not discuss the contents of the religion at all.
However, their purely religious content explains and clarifies the religion housed in the
Qur’an and the Sunnah. They can also carry the paradigmatic example set by the Prophet
(sws) in the performance of the religious practices and in carrying out the divine
commands. The Hadith plays no role beyond this. Thus a report bearing religious
knowledge in ways other than this cannot be a valid Hadith. Nor can such a report
incorporated into the religion and accepted as its part merely because it has been attributed
to the Prophet (sws).
All the Hadiths that explain and clarify the religion and thus play an acceptable role have a
binding religious force for a believer who is convinced of the veracity of a Hadith report
and believes it to be a valid transmission of a saying, action and tacit approval of the
Prophet (sws). He is obliged to follow it and can no more validly contradict it. Rather if the
Hadith in question contains a Prophetic command, it becomes necessary for this believer
to unquestionably submit and surrender before its verdict.
(Translated by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)

Subject-Matter of the Holy Qur’an
An extremely basic fact regarding the Holy Qur’an – one that can be very easily detected
by a more general reader of the book – is that it introduces propositions, believing in
which and meeting the requirements demanded by such a belief decide the question of
man’s success in the afterlife. It is only these propositions the Qur’an aims at proving
through psychological, natural and historical evidence. It is only these facts the Qur’an
calls the human beings to submit to, warns them regarding the consequences of rejecting
them and explains what entails professing faith in them. The Book does not deal with
anything beyond these points. Though at times it refers to the laws of the physical, world
in order to explain these facts without contradicting the reality, yet the discoveries in the
realm of physics made thus far and the ones which human intellect is bound to penetrate
in future, are not discussed in the Qur’an at all. Such knowledge is not the subject-matter
of the Qur’an in any way.
But alas, during the course of Muslim history, people have repeatedly failed to
acknowledge this true position of the Book. Consequently we see that they first imposed a
premise external to the Qur’an on it proposing that being divine in origin, the Book must
moderate all the possible human disciplines. Having imposed such a condition on the
Book they tried to base all the human disciplines in it. Therefore, this endeavour led them
discover the illusions of Greek philosophy from its verses at one time and to ground the
current scientific knowledge in its text at another. At one time, the prevalent knowledge of
medical science and theories of astrology and astronomy were extracted from its verses and
the mention of the atomic bomb and man’s conquest of Moon at another. In such
adventures they opted to ignore grossly all rules of linguistic expression of the Book and
the bright light of the context of its verses.
All this trouble owes itself to the erroneous conclusions about the Book. They failed to
grasp the fact that the Lord has blessed mankind with intellect before He revealed the
Book to them. Just like this Book is a blessing of God bestowed upon them so is the
intellect a manifestation of His profound generosity. Therefore, the Book does not
concern the matters in which intellect suffices as a guide for them. Similarly in matters the
Book deals with, the intellect, when functional, is compelled to submit to its dictates.
The fact also holds true in the case of the teachings of the Prophet (sws). He has explained
this reality to his adherents in no unclear terms. The Mother of the Faithful, ‘Ā’ishah (rta)
narrates that when the Prophet (sws) noticed people engaged in cross fertilizing the date
palms trees he said: “It would be better if this exercise is abandoned.” Consequently, the
people did not cross fertilize the dates palm trees that year. As a consequence the produce
dropped considerably. The people mentioned the state of affairs to the Prophet (sws) who
responded: “You understand these matters better than me. I have come to explain to you
the religion of God. Therefore, turn to me for guidance only in religious matters.” [1]
If we really intend to be guided by the Holy Qur’an we are obligated to turn to it for
guidance in nothing except the religious truth and facts. We may not knock at but our
intellect in matters such as how to carve a bed out of wood to avail us a comfortable sleep
and how to conduct research on the heavenly bodies. It is an unquestioned fact that
intellect has never failed us in its own spheres.
The Holy Qur’an has been revealed to make plain to us what we are expected to believe in
and what to practice in order to please God in the life of this world. We should bend our
desires to submit to the dictates of the Book rather than basing our cherished concepts and
issues in its verses. The Almighty has repeatedly explained in the Holy Qur’an that making
our desires submit before its dictates is crucial to seeking its guidance. It is but possible that
one desire to seek the foundation of the worldly disciplines and fields of knowledge in this
book alone yet his desire cannot alter the fact to a slight degree that this book deals only
and only with the kind of knowledge upon which our afterworldly salvation depends.
[1] Abu al-Husayn Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 2nd ed. (Riyad: Dar al-salam, 2000), 1038-
1039, (nos. 6127, 6126, 6128).
Variant Readings
I have written in my treatise Mizan[1] that the Qur’an is what is recorded in the mushaf,
and which, except for some parts of Africa and a few other areas, is recited by a vast
majority of the Muslim ummah without the slightest variation. A question may arise on
this: even if for the sake of discussion it is accepted that the Qur’an is only what has just
been specified and the common masses only read and study it, then why is the attitude of
Muslim scholars different from this? How did it happen that the scholars of Tafsir,
Hadith and Fiqh from the very beginning of these disciplines accorded equal status to the
multiple readings of the Qur’an, and would give preference to one over the other on the
basis of their own opinion and inclination? So much so, jurists and hadith scholars of the
likes of Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) and Imam Shafi‘i (d. 204 AH) gave preference to the
reading of Nafi‘ ibn Abi Nu‘aym (d. 169 AH) and ‘Abdullah ibn Kathir (d. 120 AH)
respectively.
The answer to this question is that long before all these scholars, the earliest Muslim
authorities had formed the opinion that though it is not essential for the common man to
acquire knowledge through the akhbar-i ahad, it is essential for the scholars and the select
to accept them and after being satisfied about their isnad, there is no difference in
acquiring and adducing the knowledge gained through them and the knowledge that
pervades among the common Muslims and which is being transferred from their
generations to generations. Imam Shafi‘i writes in his celebrated treatise Al-Risalah:
‫وعل م الخاص ة س نة م ن خ بر الخاص ة يعرفه ا العلم اء ول م يكلفه ا غيره م وه ي موج ودة فيه م أو ف ي بعض هم بص دق‬
‫ال بها وهذا اللزم لهل العلم أن يصيروا إليه‬ ‫الخاص المخبر عن رسو لل ب‬
‫ل َا‬
And the knowledge of the select is the sunnah which is acquired through their
reports, which the scholars know and which is not essential for the common man
to know. This sunnah is present with all the scholars or with some of them from
God’s Messenger (sws) through the information provided by a reliable informant
and this is the knowledge which scholars must necessarily turn to.[2]
Thus after the demise of the Prophet (sws), when trustworthy narrators started to state, for
example, that while a companion had read the word ‫( لمالبك‬owner) as ‫( لملبك‬king) in verse 2 of
Surah Fatihah, and ‫ يل اك بذبَ اون‬in its intensive form as ‫ يَ لك ّذبَ اون‬in verse 10 of Surah Baqarah and
‫ يَ اوصي‬in its passive form in verse 12 of Surah Nisa’, then this was accepted in scholarly circles
in the same way that the reports of his other sayings and deeds were being accepted. The
reason for this was evident: if they did not accept these reports regarding the Qur’an, they
would also not have any basis to accept reports which depicted the Prophet’s deductions,
[1] English title: Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction.

[2] Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i, Al-Risalah, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dar al-fikr, n.d.), 478.
verdicts, explanations and exemplary character except if they were deemed to be against a
Qur’anic verse. The proliferation of variant readings took place because of this opinion of
the tabi‘un (followers of the companions). Not much later, among the experts of readings
which were being produced, some became prominent who were not merely adept in
various modes of pronunciation of the Arabian dialect like izhar, ikhfa’, idgham, imalah,
tafkhim, ishmam and itmam etc but took a step ahead and by giving preference to one
reading of the Qur’an over the other as found in various reports of the knowledge of the
select (‘ilm al-khasah) referred to above compiled their specific set of readings that became
famous by the names of these experts. This was much like the jurisprudence of Imam
Malik, Imam Shafi‘i and other leading jurists becoming famous by their names. For this
very reason, these experts of Qur’anic readings are called “Readers invested with
Preference” (ashab al-ikhtiyar). The result of this was and should have been that the
students turn to them to learn their preference and choice of readings just as they turned to
the jurists and Hadith scholars to learn jurisprudence and Hadith respectively. Moreover,
many a time, it happened that these readers having preference adopted an intellectual
centre of those times like Makkah, Madinah, Kufah, Basrah and Syria besides others as
their abode. The result was that such was the fame that a preferential reading acquired
among the scholars and readers of an area that it came to be said that the people of that
area followed his reading. The word “people” here referred to the scholars and readers only
and not to the common masses. The masses never accept or reject such things in this way.
It is precisely for this reason that the situation changed and men of learning of a particular
area after some time adopted the preferential reading of some other reader. And it is for
this reason that except for these learning centres, no other reading is found anywhere in the
Muslim world nor is there any historical evidence of such acceptance or rejection of a
reading. The only exception to this is Qirwan where Qadi ‘Abdullah ibn Ṭalib who in the
later part of the third century hijrah passed the order that people should only be taught the
reading of Nafi‘.[3] Thus, after this, common Muslims as well were forced to read the
Qur’an on the reading of Nafi‘ in Qirawan and in some other areas which were under its
influence. The reason for this probably was that these people were the followers of Imam
Malik’s fiqh and about Imam Malik, it has been pointed out above that he would generally
prefer the reading of Nafi‘.
Similar was the case with some small settlements which came under the influence of
scholars. These settlements were very few in number and even exist today at some places.
All other areas except these were never influenced by these changes nor did the scholars
tried to influence them. Both carried on with their own ways. Thus the tradition of
benefitting from variant readings in the disciplines of tafsir, Hadith, fiqh and others has
been going on without interruption, and is still going on to a greater extent. Scholars
discuss these readings in their writings, gatherings and religious seminaries, and
professional readers today recite the Qur’an on seven, ten and even more variant readings.
[3] Abu al-Fadl Qadi ‘Iyad ibn Musa, Tartib al-madarik wa tartib al-masalik li ma‘rifah a‘lam madhhab
Malik, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1998), 483.
However, everyone can see that among the common masses, there is only one Qur’an in
currency everywhere. They took it from the common companions, and in the terminology
of Imam Shafi‘i transferred it from ‘ammah to ‘ammah (common masses to common
masses). No doubt, it is also called the riwayah of Hafs (d. 180 AH) but this should not be a
cause of any misconception because mere reading or intonation is one thing and reading or
intonation in the accent of the Arabs in a pleasing way by giving due regard to technical
subtleties like imalah, tafkhim, ishba‘, ikhtilas-i silah, ishmam, rawm, tarqiq and taghliz
that does not alter the meaning of the discourse in any way is another thing. It is this
second aspect which is acquired from the riwayah of Hafs in this Qur’an, and ascribed to
him on this basis. He was taught this reading from his teacher ‘Āsim ibn Abi al-Najud (d.
127 AH) who in turn was a student of the celebrated follower Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-
Sulami (d. 74 AH). Al-Sulami taught its subtleties in Kufah to various students for almost
forty years. About him, Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid (d. 324 AH), the first person to have selected
the seven canonical readings, has specified that he did not teach his own preferential
reading but the very one on which ‘Uthman (rta) had striven to gather the ummah on. He
writes:
‫أول من أقرأ بالكوفة القراءة التي جمع عثمان رضي ال تعالي عنه الناس عليها أبو عبد الرحمن السلمي‬
The first person who taught the reading in Kufah on which ‘Uthman had gathered
the people was Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami.[4]
He is the same person who upon seeing the proliferation of various readings among people
had said:
‫كانت قراءة أبي بكر لوعمر و عثمان و زيد بن ثابت و المهاجرين لوالنصار لواحدة كانوا يقرءون القراءة العامة لوهي‬
‫ص لَي الَ لع لاي به لو لس لَ لم علي جبريل مرتي ن في الع ام الذي قب ض فيه وكان زيد ق د شهد‬ ‫ب‬
‫الق راءة ال تي قرأها لر َس او لل ال ل‬
‫ضة الخيرة لوكان يقرئ الناس بها حتی مات‬ ‫العر ل‬
‫ا‬
The reading of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabit and that of all the
Muhajirun and the Ansar was the same. They read the Qur’an according to the al-
qira’at al-‘ammah. This is the same reading which was read out twice by the
Prophet (sws) to Gabriel in the year of his death. Zayd ibn Thabit was also present
in this reading [called] the al-‘ardah al-akhirah. It was this reading that he taught
the Qur’an to people till his death.[5]
It is this very reading that is written in our codices of the Qur’an. Not a single bit of
[4] Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Musa ibn ‘Abbas ibn Mujahid, Kitab al-sab‘ah fi al-qira’at, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dar
al-ma‘arif, 1400 AH), 67.
[5] Abu ‘Abdullah Badr al-Din Muhammad ibn Bahadur ibn ‘Abdullah al-Zarkashi, Al-Burhan fi ‘ulum
al-Qur’an, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-fikr, 1980), 237.
evidence can be furnished from history except the endeavours of ‘Uthman (rta) (d. 36 AH)
and Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (d. 94 AH) to unite all Muslims on one Qur’an in which a scholar
used his influence or a ruler or a qadi used political power to impose this Qur’an among
the Muslims, the way it was done is some West African counties with regard to the reading
of Nafi‘. It was this Qur’an which the Prophet (sws) and his successors gave currency to
among the Muslims and it has remained in currency ever since. Consequently, when the
readers of the Muslims were compiling their preferences in readings and when their
Hadith scholars were collecting the reports of ‘ilm al-khassah and their jurists and exegetes
were solving the difficulties of the Qur’an through them, Muslims were reading this very
Qur’an in the whole world. At the end of the first century hijrah when they entered India,
they entered while reading it and when they landed at the shores of Java, Sumatra, Malaya
and other islands of the Far East at the end of the eighth century, it was this very Qur’an
which was in their hands and God willing will remain in their hands till the Day of
Judgement.
Here a person can pose the question: if despite all these facts, the academic tradition of the
Muslims accepted all the reports related to ‘ilm al-khassah, why has the Farahi School
adopted a different stance in this regard? Our answer is that it is not easy for any person of
learning to disregard reports narrated by reliable narrators; this needs an explicit Qur’anic
directive. Thus if the true meaning of the relevant verses of Surah Qiyamah had become
evident at the very beginning, Muslim scholars, jurists and exegetes would probably have
adopted the same stance as the scholars of the Farahi School. Imam Hamid al-Din Farahi
(d. 1930 AD) has explained the true meaning of these verses. [6] Hence, that explicit Qur’anic
directive has become available on the basis of which it can be said that even if all the
narratives which depict the variant readings of the Qur’an are correct, they have been
abrogated by the reading of the ardah akhirah for the universal addressees of the Qur’an;
hence they cannot be accepted in any way whatsoever. [7] It is a directive of the Qur’an that
after its collection and arrangement, Muslims will be bound till the Day of Judgement to
read it on the reading it was read by the Almighty after this collection. No Muslim can dare
deviate from this directive of the Qur’an. It states:
(18-16 :75 ‫ك لبتل اع لج لل ب به ك إب َن لعل اي نلا لج ام لعهَ لوقَ ارُنلهَ ك فلبِ لِا قل لرأانلاتَ فلاتَب اع‬
‫لل تَ لح ّر اك ب به لب لسانل ل‬
[To acquire] this [Qur’an] swiftly [O Prophet!] do not move your tongue hastily
over it. [It will be revealed like this. Rest assured] its collection and recital is Our
[6] Hamid al-Din al-Farahi, Tafsir nizam al-Qur’an wa ta‘wil al-Furqan bi al-Furqan, 1st ed. (Azamgarh:
Dai’rah hamidiyyah, 2008), 226-233.
[7] If a narrative recorded by al-Bukhari is correct, then ‘Umar (rta) too on the basis of this reasoning
rejected many readings of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (rta) which he would present by saying: ‫لل ال لدعَ شيئا لس بم اعتَهَ من‬
‫( رسو لل ب‬I will not give up anything of the Qur’an I have heard from God’s Messenger (sws). See: Abu
‫ال‬ ‫ل َا‬
‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Isma‘il al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 3rd ed., vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar Ibn
Kathir, 1987), 1628, (no. 4211).
responsibility. So when We have recited it [at that time], follow this recital. (75:16-
18)

The General and the Specific
It is not customary in various languages of the world that every word should signify just
one meaning or that every linguistic style should have just one denotation. A word or a
linguistic style generally signifies multiple meanings. Ascertaining the meaning of a word
or a linguistic style depends on the construction of the sentence, diction of the speaker,
sequence of the discourse, the context and other similar indicators. The way this is done is
that the mind after reflecting on various possibilities and at times almost spontaneously
gives its verdict in this regard. It is while pointing to this very aspect of a language on the
basis of which Imam Shafi‘i (d. 204 AH) while commenting on the general and the specific
of the Qur’an has written in his book al-Risalah that the components of a language can
have more than one meaning. When its general or specific words, styles or constructions
form part of a discourse, then it is not necessary that in all circumstances they are used in
the same meaning for which they were primarily coined. The Book of God has been
revealed such that a word is mentioned in its general sense but implies something specific
and that a word occurs in it in a specific sense but implies something general. [1] Thus
neither can it be said about a specific word that it signifies with certainty what it is used for
nor can it be said about a general word that it signifies with certainty all the entities it
stands for.
One group of usul scholars holds a different view. However, in reality, it is Imam Shafi‘i
who holds the correct view. This is because it is not just a word but the occasion and
context in which it is used which makes a reader or listener decisively gauge the meaning
implied by it. I have written in my book Mizan:
… There are many places in the Qur’an where the words are general; however, the
context testifies with full certainty that something specific is meant. The Qur’an
uses the word ‫( النَاس‬people), but it does not refer to all the people of the world;
and many a time, it does not even refer to all the people of Arabia: it refers to a
group among them. It uses the expression ‫( لع لي ال دّيا بن َكلّ به‬on all the religions), and it
does not refer to all religions of the world; it refers to ‫الم اش رَك اون‬
َ (polytheists) but
they do not refer to all those who are guilty of polytheism. Similarly, the words ‫إب ان‬
‫( بمن اأه بل ال ب‬and from these People of the Book) do not refer to all the People of
‫اكتل ب‬
‫اب‬ ‫ا‬
Book of the world. It mentions the word ‫( ا بلنا لس ان‬man) but it does not refer to
mankind. This then is a common style of the Qur’an, and if it is not taken into
consideration while explaining and interpreting the Qur’an, a person can end up
[1] Al-Shafi‘i, Al-Risalah, 222. It is by not understanding this point that some people have been led to
conclude that the Imam does not regard the intentionality of a text to be univocal. The fact is that he
only wants to point out that a word can have more than one meaning and so one must not show haste
in assigning a meaning to a word and one should reflect deeply so as to ascertain which meaning is
implied by the speaker at a particular instance.
misunderstanding the whole purport of the Qur’an. Thus it is of paramount
importance that the interpretation of words of the Qur’an must always remain
subservient to its context and usage.[2]
It is this very nature of a language because of which the scholars and researchers of the
Qur’an demand that if the intent of the speaker or writer needs to be gauged, then this
cannot merely be done by what words convey apparently; for this, delving deep into them
is necessary. The Prophet (sws) has done this very service to the Book of God and through
his sayings has explained the insinuation and implications which would have been difficult
to understand for people who are unable to comprehend these subtleties of words and
their meanings. Imam Shafi‘i rightly insists that one must not ignore these explanations
and elucidations of the Prophet (sws) on the basis of what is apparently understood by
words. The Prophet (sws) has explained the Qur’an; his explanations cannot be against the
Qur’an. The Prophet of God is subservient to the Book of God. He explains it and does
not change or alter its meanings. Imam Shafi‘i has given many examples of prophetic
explanations and has repeatedly emphasized the fact that whatever the Prophet (sws) has
said about the directives of the Qur’an, is merely their explanation and nothing else; if
these explanations are not accepted, then this would not be regarded as following the
Qur’an; it would be regarded as deviation from it because the speaker’s intention is only
what is evident from the explanations and elucidations of the Prophet (sws); this intent is
not different from these explanations and elucidations.
What can be more true than what has been said by Imam Shafi‘i. However, the weakness
in the reasoning of the Imam lies in the fact that on most occasions he has not been able to
clarify how a particular prophetic statement can be invested with the status of explanation
of a Qur’anic directive. Thus, it is a result of this that he has accepted certain narratives
that depict the knowledge and practice of the Prophet (sws) which cannot be regarded as
explanations of the Qur’anic directives in any way even though it could have been debated
whether their narrators even properly understood and reported the intent the Prophet
(sws). This is the real impediment in the mind of those who have differed with the view of
Imam Shafi‘i.
I have attempted to exemplify the stance of the Imam in my book Mizan because in
principle it is the correct stance. Readers can look up these discussions under Mizan and
Furqan which forms part of the preface “Usul-o Mabadi” [3] (Fundamental Principles). It
will become evident from reading them that what has been mentioned in the narratives as
an explanation of the directives of the Qur’an is actually the implication of its words which
the Prophet (sws) has unveiled through his elucidations. From these explanations, the
students of the Qur’an should educate themselves in delving deep into the meanings of a
word and should dare not reject them or regard them to be abrogation of the Qur’an.
[2] Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Mizan, 9th ed. (Lahore: Topical Printing Press, 2014), 23-24.
[3] Ghamidi, Mizan, 24-41.
Hadith and Sunnah
Muhammad (sws) has delivered the Qur’an to the world. Apart from it, whatever he has
given to the world in the capacity of religion can be placed in the following three
categories:
1. Independent directives and teachings that have not been originated by the Qur’an.
2. Explanation of independent directives and teachings whether these directives and

teachings are in the Qur’an or extraneous to it.
3. An example of practically following these directives and teachings.
All these three categories constitute religion. It is mandatory upon every Muslim to accept
and obey what these categories constitute. Once a person is satisfied that they are correctly
ascribed to Muhammad (sws), no believer can dare deviate from them. It is only befitting
for him that if he wants to live and die as a Muslim, he should submit to them without any
reluctance.
Our scholars designate all these three categories by a single term: Sunnah. I personally do
not regard this to be appropriate. In my view, the first of these should be called Sunnah,
the second “explanation and elucidation” (tafhim and tabyin) and the third as “the
exemplary way” (uswah-i hasanah). The reason for this classification is to remove the
misconceptions that arise by placing the principle and its corollary under the same name
and in the same status.
This is only a difference of terminology. As far as the reality is concerned, there is not the
slightest difference between our early authorities and myself. Had my critics carefully read
my book Mizan,[1] they would have understood this fact and would not have remained in
any misconception. I do not expect this from them even now. However, serious students
of religion do deserve that some apects of my view be explained to them.
Firstly, a large part of the Sunnah that has been transmitted to us consists of Abrahamic
practices that have been revived and reformed. All researchers agree to this. However, this
does not mean that Muhammad (sws) has only made small additions to it. Certainly not.
He has added independent directives to it as well. If anyone wants to find its examples, he
can look up Mizan. Similar is the matter of the Qur’an. The directives that originate from
it span almost three hundred pages of Mizan. I regard it to be a requisite of faith to accept
and follow each one of them. Hence, it is absolutely baseless to accuse me of not granting
the Qur’an or the Prophet (sws) the authority to give any additional directive or add
anything to the contents of religion, apart for some previously existing and known

directives.
Secondly, I have devoted a complete section to explain the determinants of the Sunnah
under Mabadi Tadabbur-i Sunnat (Principles of Determining the Sunnah) in the chapter
“Usul-o Mabadi” (Fundamental Principles) of Mizan[2] These determinants are seven. On
their basis, every person of learning can decide whether something is a Sunnah or not. I
have also made a list of Sunan (plural of Sunnah) on the basis of these determinants. It can
be added to or subtracted from. I have continued to revise this list at various instances once
I became aware of any mistake in my research. I have never disregarded any possibility of
this.
Thirdly, apart from this list, I have categorized some of the sayings of the Prophet (sws) –
which in the capacity of religion have been cited in various narratives – as “explanation and
elucidation” (tafhim and tabyin) and some as “the exemplary way” (uswah-i hasanah).
Similar is the case of narratives which elucidate faith ad beliefs. Whatever occurs in this
category in the narratives can be seen in the chapter of I%maniyat (Faith and Beliefs) of my
book Mizan.[3] They are also of the nature of “explanation and elucidation” (tafhim and
tabyin). In my opinion, this is the right term for whatever has been handed down to us
from the Prophet (sws) with regard to these. If their ascription to him is established, then I
regard every directive, verdict and explanation of the Prophet (sws) as mandatory to be
followed. The slightest deviation from them amounts to rejection of belief in the Prophet
(sws).

A New Anthology of Hadith
(Written in reponse to a query about the project of re-compilation of Hadith
going on in Turkey)
In order to understand any research being conducted on Hadith, it is essential to

comprehend the fact that Muhammad (sws) is the sole source of religion. From him, this
religion has reached us in two forms: Qur’an and Sunnah. Both these sources provide
certitude and do not require any research to validate their authenticity. They have been
transferred by every generation of Muslims though their consensus (ijma‘) and
concurrence (tawatur). These terms mean that every generation of Muslims acquired these
sources from their previous generation and transferred it to the next one without any
difference of opinion and this process is continuing till today ever since the time of the
Prophet (sws).
The whole of religion is found in these two sources and all its directives are derived from
them. At times, we are faced with some difficulty in understanding them. Moreover,
guidance is also needed in matters which are left to our discretion. For this we turn to the
scholars of this religion. Muhammad (sws) was a prophet of God. Hence, he was the first
and greatest scholar – in fact, the imam of all scholars. A distinctive feature of his religious
knowledge which makes him stand apart from other scholars is that it is infallible. This was
because if any mistake occurred in it, the Almighty would correct it through divine
revelation. If this knowledge exists anywhere, then every Muslim must seek guidance from
it the foremost.
We are fortunate enough that this knowledge of the Prophet (sws) is available and a vast
part of it has reached us. It was acquired from him by his companions. However, since
communicating it to others was a matter of great responsibility, some companions were
very cautious and some were bold enough to do so. It contained those things which they
heard from the Prophet’s tongue or saw him following and those practices also which were
followed before him and he would not stop people from continuing to do so. All this
knowledge is called Hadith. It is the greatest source of knowing the history of the Prophet
(sws). It does not add to any belief or deed in religion. It is only an explanation and
elucidation of the religion which is confined in the Qur’an and Sunnahand also describes
the exemplary way in which the Prophet (sws) followed this religion.
How did this knowledge reach us? History tells us that it was the Companions who
foremost narrated it before other people in the form of Ahadith (plural of Hadith). Then
those who heard these Ahadith from them narrated them to others. These were narrated
orally and at times in the written form as well. This process continued like this for one or
two generations. However, it then became evident that some errors were creeping in while
reporting them and some people were intentionally mixing lies in them. It was on this
occasion that some noble souls took upon themselves to research into these Hadith. These
people are called the muhaddithun (scholars of Hadith). They were very extra-ordinary
people. They looked into each and every narrative and its narrator and as far as was
possible for them ascertained the correctly and wrongly ascribed ones and sifted truth from
falsehood. Then some among them also compiled books about which one can quite safely
say that the Ahadith recorded in them is the knowledge of the Prophet (sws) which the
narrators have reported mostly in their own words. In religious parlance, they are called
akhbar ahad. They refer to reports which are transmitted by a few people. Unlike the
Qur’an and Sunnah, it cannot be said that Ahadith have been transmitted through
consensus (ijma‘) and concurrence (tawatur). Thus it is generally accepted that the
knowledge gained through them does not give certitude. At best it can be called probable
knowledge.
The books of Hadith just referred to are all very important; however, the books of Imam
Malik (d. 179 AH), Imam Bukhari (d. 256 AH) and Imam Muslim (d. 261 AH) occupy
fundamental status and are regarded to be very authentic. This is because they have been
compiled after a lot of research. However, this does not mean that their compilers never
committed any mistake in recording them. The experts of this field know that they did
commit mistakes. For this reason, these experts have continued to evaluate and assess these
books. So when they see that the narrators of a Hadith are not reliable with regard to their
character and memory, or there is no possibility that they have met one another, or the
contents of a Hadith narrated by them have something against the Qur’an and Sunnah or
against established facts derived from knowledge and reason, they clearly tell people that
this Hadith cannot be attributed to the Prophet (sws) and has been erroneously ascribed to
him. Similar is the case of understanding Ahadith and their explanation. Various scholars
have continued to critically evaluate them.
This research work on Ahadith has been conducted in every period of time. Not very long
ago, in the last century, Nasir al-Din al-Bani (d. 1999) has done extra-ordinary service in
this regard: he researched afresh into most books of Hadith and once again tried to sift out
the rightly ascribed narratives from the weak ones. The task which the scholars of Turkey
have embarked upon is very similar. As yet, their conclusions have not come to the fore;
hence, they cannot be commented upon. However, the details that have come to surface
show that apparently there is nothing that is objectionable in them. How can it be objected
to if while giving due regard to the status of Hadith delineated above it is assessed in the
light of its established principles of evaluation or is compiled afresh or if efforts are made
to understand it and separate its transient from the eternal? The door to research in this
regard can never be closed. Even if some errors are committed in this work, this should not
be a cause of worry. Other scholars will point them out through their critique. There is no
way for the advancement of knowledge but to leave people to work with freedom. This
opens up new frontiers and it also becomes a means to correct any mistake committed by
past authorities. The endeavour of the Turkish academics should be viewed in this light
and people who for the first time in Muslim history are trying to do such an activity in an
institutionalized way should be encouraged. If their work is of the required of standard
nature, then this should be counted as a great service, and if it is substandard, it will not
survive in the realm of knowledge and will be consigned to oblivion. The court of
knowledge is ruthless. Sooner or later, it delivers its verdict. In such matters, we should
wait for its verdict.

Ijtihad
The term ijtihad has originated from a Hadith. In the opinion of the authorities, this
Hadith is broken (munqata‘). However, it is one of its sentences which has become a
source of this all important term of Islamic jurisprudence. It is reported that when the
Prophet (sws) sent forth Mu‘adh (rta) to Yemen as its governor, he asked him: “How will
you decide matters?” He replied: “I will revert to the Book of God.” The Prophet (sws)
then asked: “If you do not find anything in the Book of God?” Mu‘adh replied: “I will
look into the Sunnah of the Messenger of God.” The Prophet (sws) next asked: “If you do
not even find it there?” At this, Mu‘adh responded by saying: “j‫( ”أجتهد برأي ول ُلو جهدا‬I will
form an opinion after expending full effort and will not leave any stone unturned.” [1]
It is the words ‫ أجته د برأي‬of this Hadith that are the source of this term. Scholars of usul
have always used it in the limits ascertained by this Hadith. In other words, ijtihad shall be
done only in those matters in which the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent. It has no bearing on
matters which are explicitly stated in the Qur’an and Sunnah. The reason for this is that
the injunctions of Qur’an and Sunnah need deliberation and do not warrant ijtihad.
Scholars can repeatedly revert to them, determine their purport and can also differ from
previous authorities in their interpretation but they cannot alter or annul any directive of
the Qur’an and Sunnah through their ijtihad.
Thus the ambit of ijtihad is matters in which the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent. If the
ascription of this dialogue to Mu‘adh and the Prophet (sws) is correct, then it is this very
fact which the Prophet (sws) has explained. Thus the questions asked were: “If it is not
found in the Qur’an?” and “If it is not found in the Sunnah?” If one is able to find
anything in the Qur’an, no Muslim can deviate from it. It is the requisite of his faith to
submit to it without any hesitation. The very word “Islam” means to be obedient to God
and the Prophet (sws). Some of the illustrious thinkers of current times have wrongly
interpreted certain steps taken by the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The fact of the matter is
that none of these caliphs could even have imagined to dare alter or annul a directive of
God. What people regard as annulment or alteration is actually the implications and
insinuations of the directive which the Rightly Guided Caliphs explained with their
practice. So instead of deriving annulment or alteration from such a directive, people
should develop the ability to reflect on the Qur’an and Sunnah and to understand their
linguistic styles.
However, within the circle in which the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent, ijtihad is as essential
as air and water are to the human body. The door to ijtihad can never be closed and in fact
never was. In spite of the insistence of some people that this door had been closed after the
fourth century, scholars, jurists and experts of various disciplines who did ijtihad in every
[1] Abu ‘Īsa Muhammad ibn ‘Īsa al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, vol. 3 (Beirut: Dar ihya’ al-turath al-‘arabi, n.d.),
616, (no. 1327).
period of time and are doing so even today have continued to grace this world. God has
blessed man with knowledge and intellect. He has bestowed these favours on him so that
he can decide his affairs under their guidance. These affairs are both indefinite and
multifarious. Man has not been created blind and deaf so that he requires divine guidance
in every matter. The Almighty has revealed His shari’ah only in those affairs in which
man’s knowledge and intellect need guidance. For this reason, the directives of the shari’ah
are very limited. Thus ijtihad is essential. In it lies the secret to development. Life cannot
continue without it. One of the significant reasons of the decadence of the Muslims is that
in their national capacity they have become devoid of the ability of research in physical
sciences and ijtihad in social sciences.
Here, it must remain in consideration that there are no conditions for ijtihad. People
should do ijtihad. If one individual makes a mistake in it, the critique of another will
correct it. It is through this process that man progresses and highly competent mujtahids
are born. There is no doubt in the fact that if the principle of taqlid is accepted, then all
those conditions which are stated for ijtihad will become necessary. The reason for this is
that in such a case the real thing would not be ijtihad itself but the personality of the
mujtahid who is being regarded as the source of taqlid. However, if like the Companions
of the Prophet (sws) and their followers, the common masses and the scholars also base
their decisions on reasoning, then it will not be the mujtahid but the ijtihad itself which
will be evaluated in congruence with the standards put forth by knowledge and reason. In
this situation, even if a non-Muslim – let alone a Muslim – presents a sensible solution to a
problem, it cannot be objected to and should be accepted as a “lost treasure of a believer”.
Consequently, it is a reality that in current times many ijtihads pertaining to political,

economic and administrative issues as well as those pertaining to the principles of civics
and citizenship have in fact been done by non-Muslims and Muslims have generally
accepted them. A clear example of this is democracy, democratic values and the regulations
of the institutions which have been founded under them. The principle of democracy was
given by the Qur’an but the Muslims could not make any system for it. This system was
made by non-Muslims. In spite of this, it can be observed that religious scholars and most
religious parties not only accept this system they have also been playing the role of the
vanguard of every movement which has been launched for its preservation and promotion.
This is the correct attitude in matters in which the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent, and
people should adhere to this attitude.

The Consensus of Muslims
The blessed person of Muhammad (sws) is the sole source of religion. From him, this
religion has been given to the ummah through the consensus of his Companions (rta) and
through their perpetual practice and perpetual recitation in two forms: the Qur’anandthe
Sunnah. Religion is now derived from these two sources. After these two, if anything of
secondary nature can become a source of religion, it is ijtihad. Through ijtihad, besides
many other things, we also try to understand directives which are not directly mentioned
in the Qur’an and Sunnah but by their nature are applications of directives which are left
to the discretion of the opinion and understanding of people. Qiyas (analogy or
deduction) is a form of ijtihad. The Qur’an has used the word istinbat for it. Its product is
called fiqh (jurisprudence). Its corpus began with the ijtihads of the Prophet (sws) himself.
A substantial part of the anthologies of akhbar-i ahad is constituted by them. After him,
the companions and their followers continued this tradition. However, during the period
of our jurists, a fourth source was added to the sources of Islam: the consensus of the
Muslims (ijma‘). After their time till now, it is generally accepted that consensus of the
Muslims is also a source of the Islamic shari‘ah.
This addition to the sources of Islam is indeed a religious innovation. It has no basis in the
Qur’an and Sunnah. If a person tries to evaluate its influence, he will come to the
conclusion that it has undermined the eternal nature of the Islamic shari‘ah and it has
become difficult to prove its relevance to modern times. A great scholar and preacher of
the sub-continent, Mawlana Wahid al-Din Khan (b. 1925 AD), writes:
Our jurists have generally regarded the consensus of the Muslims to be an

independent source of the shari‘ah. However, this surely is a baseless view. Only a
definite text (nass qat‘i) can be an independent source of the shari‘ah. Regarding
something to be an independent source of the shari‘ah in the absence of a definite
text is an unfounded premise. Indeed, the consensus of the Muslims has an
importance; but that importance merely lies in the fact that in a particular instance
it could be the practical solution to a problem that has arisen. This solution most
certainly is temporary in nature and is not an eternal source of the shari‘ah.[1]
If a person wants to study the arguments on the basis of which our jurists prove the
validity of consensus of the Muslims, he should consult Imam Shawkani’s Irshad al-
fuhul.[2] It will become evident to him how baseless and unrelated they are. However,
arguments drawn from one verse of the Qur’an and one Hadith narrative can raise doubts
in the minds of some people. I will try to evaluate both of these here.
The Qur’an says:
[1] Wahid al-Din Khan, Masadir-i shari‘ah Al-Risalah 7 (2011): 5.

[2] Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Shawkani, Irshad al-fuhul ila tahqiq-i ‘ilm al-usul, 1st ed.
(Beirut: Dar al-fikr, 1992), 131-144. (Translator)
‫تم ب‬ ‫يل الام اؤبمنبين نَولّ به م ا تل ولَى ونَ ا ب ب‬‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ومن ي لشاقب بق ال َرس ل ب ب‬
‫يرا‬j ‫ص‬ ‫اء ا ل‬
‫َم لو لس ل‬
‫ص له لج لهن ل‬ ‫ول م ان بل اعد لما تل بل يَ لن للهَ ال َاه لدى لويلتَ اع غلاي لر لس ب َ ل ل ل ل ل‬ َ َ ‫لل ا‬
(115 :4
And those who oppose the Prophet even after the path of guidance is fully evident
to them, and leaving the path of those who sincerely professed faith [in you]
follow some other path, We will put them on the path on which they themselves
went and cast them into Hell. It is a very evil abode. (4:115)
The jurists deduce their view from the above verse by saying that if the way of someone
other than those of the believers is adopted, then this verse mentions the punishment of
Hell for such an attitude. It is evident from this that following the way of the believers is
mandatory on every person; hence, if Muslims are united on an opinion or a view, then no
one should differ with it; it is incumbent on every believer to follow this consensus.
An evaluation of the context of this verse will show how baseless this line of
argumentation is. In the previous verses, the conspiracies and connivances of the
hypocrites are exposed. Regarding these hypocrites this verse says that those who want to
form a separate group to oppose the Prophet (sws) and in this way want to adopt the path
of disbelief and hypocrisy instead of the path of belief, shall be cast into Hell. The verse
warns those Muslims who would defend these hypocrites. They are told that the people
they are supporting will be led to Hell because of their opposition and hostility to the
Prophet (sws). The reason for this is that this is not the way of the believers, and those who
adopt the path of disbelief and hypocrisy even after the true path is evident to them can
only abide in Hell. This disbelief and hypocrisy are referred to by the words ‫غلي لۡر لسبي بۡل ال َۡمؤبۡمنبي لۡن‬
of the verse cited. In it the word “believers” refer to the Companions of the Prophet ( sws)
who, after acquiring the truth, never breached their trust with the Prophet (sws) and never
opposed and evaded him. On the contrary, they followed him with full sincerity and
submitted wholeheartedly to whatever directive they were given by him. It is this attitude
of faith and faithfulness, submission and obedience, docility and compliance which is
called ‫ لس بي بۡل ال َۡم ؤبۡمنبي لۡن‬in this verse. All attitudes other than this are called ‫ غلي لۡر لس بي بۡل ال َۡم ؤبۡمنبي لۡن‬and
Hell is promised for such attitudes. This certainly does not mean that one cannot differ
from the interpretations, opinions and ijtihads nor does it mean that if in the light of the
Qur’an and Sunnah a person criticizes a view on which there is consensus, then he would
become worthy of Hell. The fact is that this issue is not even touched upon by this verse.
What is merely said in this verse is that after guidance has become fully evident if someone
opposes the guide sent by God and is audacious enough to set up his own faction in
opposition to him, then this is nothing but disbelief with which belief can have no
meaning. The Almighty puts such people on the path they have chosen for themselves.
Consequently, the Qur’an says that a person who chooses such a path should only wait for
Hell.
Similar is the case of Hadith: the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: ‫إب َن اللَهل لل يل اج لم َع أََمتبي أو‬
‫ض للل ٍلة‬
‫( قال أََمةل َم لح َم ٍد علي ل‬indeed, God will never unite my ummahor the ummahof Muhammad
on some error).[3] It may be noted that it is not a sound Hadith and for this very reason has
not been able to find any place in the primary books of Hadith like al-Jami‘ al-sahih of al-
Bukhari and al-Jami‘ al-sahih of Muslim and the Mu’atta’ of Malik. However, even if it is
supposed that the Prophet (sws) has in fact given these glad tidings to his ummah, can these
words really mean that the ummah can never make a mistake? The fact of the matter is that
there is a world of difference between a mistake and straying into error and whatever is said
in the Hadith relates to straying into error and not committing a mistake. It is impossible
that the whole ummah be united in straying into some error. The reason for this is that the
difference between guidance and error has been made evident to a conclusive degree. Thus
it is logically impossible that all the scholars, mujtahids and those at the helm of state affairs
unite on a polytheistic belief while fully comprehending it to be polytheistic or reject the
messengerhood of Muhammad (sws) or deny the accountability of the Hereafter or deviate
from directives such as the prayer, the fast, the hajj, the zakah and animal sacrifice. Such
things are in the category of self-evident facts for this ummah. There can evolve a
consensus on evasion from them. However, there can be a mistake in understanding things
which need deliberation or require ijtihad and it is also possible that all people of this
ummah are unanimous in this mistake. There is nothing in reason or revelation which
precludes this possibility. Thus even if this narrative’s ascription to the Prophet (sws) is
regarded to be correct, it is evident from its words that his glad tidings relate to consensus
on straying into error and it can be said with certainty that Muslims cannot unanimously
stray. The narrative does not relate in any way to a mistake in understanding a directive or
in doing an ijtihad.
[3] Tirmidhi, Sunan, vol. 4, 466, (no. 2167).

Our Message to Humanity
Religion is the guidance which was first instilled by the Almighty in human nature and
after that it was given by Him with all essential details to mankind through His prophets.
Muhammad (sws) is the last of these prophets. Consequently, it is now he alone who in
this world is the sole source of religion. It is only through him that man can receive divine
guidance, and it is only he who, through his words, deeds or tacit approvals, has the
authority to regard something as part of Islam until the Day of Judgement.[1]
We call upon all people of this world to profess faith in this religion and to purify their
individual and collective lives in accordance with it. The reward of those who accept this
call to profess faith and to purify themselves is Paradise which is as extensive as this
universe. It is a place where there is no concept of death with life, pain with pleasure,
sorrow with happiness, anxiety with satisfaction, hardship with ease and bane with boon.
Its comfort is everlasting, its bliss is endless, its days and nights are abiding; its peace
unending, its pleasure eternal, its majesty enduring and its perfection impeccable. In it,
God Almighty has provided for His servants what has never been seen by the eyes, never
been heard by the ears and never been imagined by the hearts.[2]
We invite those who believe in this religion in these times that in order to acquire this
Paradise, they should act in accordance with their faith, fulfil the rights of God and His
servants with full honesty and sincerity and not commit any excess against the life, wealth
and honour of anyone.[3]
We invite them to urge people in their surroundings and in their circle of influence to do
good and to refrain from evil. This is an obligation imposed on them by their Lord. It
should be discharged by a father towards his son and a son towards his father, a husband
towards his wife and a wife towards her husband, a brother towards his sister and a sister
towards her brother, a friend towards his friend and a neighbour towards his neighbour –
in short, a person should discharge it towards every person who has an immediate relation
with him. Consequently, wherever they see someone known to them adopting an attitude
which is contrary to the truth, they – according to their knowledge, capacity and ability –
should try to urge him to mend his ways.[4]
If emotions, vested-interests and biases try to divert them from justice in some worldly or
religious matter, they should adhere to justice; in fact, if their testimony is required in these
matters, they should do so even if it puts their life in danger. They should speak the truth
and submit to it; they should adhere to justice and bear witness to it, and hold fast to it in
[1] The Qur’an, 62:2.

[2] The Qur’an, 87:14-17.
[3] The Qur’an, 16:90.
[4] The Qur’an, 9:71.
their beliefs and deeds.[5]
If they face religious persecution, then instead of retaliating with violence, they should
show patience,[6] and if possible should leave the place where they face such persecution
and migrate to a place where they can openly practice their religion. [7]
In current times, the leading scholars of the Farahi School with the help and blessing of
God have been able to cleanse Islam – the true religion - from every juristic and scholastic
intrusion and from every adulteration of philosophy and tasawwuf, and have presented it
in its pristine form purely on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The communication
and dissemination of this religion, education and instruction of people on its basis and the
reconstruction of Muslim religious thought in its light is a great jihad. We invite all
Muslims to help us in this jihad by offering their support, time and resources for it. This is
the nusrah (help and support) of the true religion of God from which nothing should be
dearer to a true believer:[8]
‫ال بعيسى ابان مريم لبلاحوا بريّين من ألناصا بري إبللى ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫َب‬
‫ار‬
َ‫ص‬ ‫اح لوا برينو لن نل اح َن ألنا ل‬
‫ال ال ل‬
‫ال قل ل‬ ‫ص لار ال لك لما قل ل ل َ ل ا ل ل ل ل ل ل ا ل‬ ‫ُمنَوا َكونَوا ألنا ل‬
‫ين ل‬
‫يلاألين لها الذ ل‬
(14 :61 ‫ال‬ ‫ب‬
Believers! Be God’s helpers, the way Jesus, son of Mary, called upon his disciples:
“Who will be my helper in the cause of God?” The disciples replied: “We are God’s
helpers.” (61:14)
[5] The Qur’an, 4:135; 5:8.

[6] The Qur’an, 41:33-35.
[7] The Qur’an, 4:97.
[8] The Qur’an, 9:24.
Downfall of the Muslims
Muslims remained a great power in this world for almost a thousand years. No nation was
able to compete with them with regard to knowledge and wisdom, political acumen and
affluence. They reigned over the whole world during this period. This kingdom was given
to them by God and it was God who took it away from them. The law of God regarding
the rise and fall of nations is that for its rise He selects whichever nation He wants to
according to His law of trial; however, once He selects a nation to elevate it, He only
changes this state of that nation when that nation itself falls in decadence with regard to
scientific knowledge and morality.
Muslims are also faced with another scenario. By origin, most of them have been Arabs.
Arabs are mostly the Ishmaelites and about the Ishmaelites it is known that they are the
progeny of Abraham (sws). Hence they face the established practice of the Almighty that is
mentioned by the Qur’an for the progeny of Abraham (sws). As per this established
practice, if they adhere to the truth they will lead all nations of the world and if they
deviate from the truth they will be deposed from this position and will have to face the
punishment of humiliation and subjugation.
Hence if Muslims are afflicted with this punishment, then this is neither a haphazard
incident nor is it the result of some conspiracy hatched by others, as is generally alleged by
our religious and political leaders. Behind this punishment are specific reasons. The divine
law of rise and fall of nations is the cause of this punishment. If this punishment and
humiliation is understood in the light of this divine law, three causes for the downfall of
the Muslims can be pin-pointed:
Firstly, Muslims were entrusted with the Book of God. It is not merely a book. It is the
yardstick of God revealed to decide between truth and falsehood. Muslims should present
all their religious differences before it and whatever verdict it gives, they should accept it
without any hesitation. It should be the basis of their beliefs and deeds. It should be the
source of all matters relating to faith and shari‘ah. Every research, every opinion and every
viewpoint must be kept subservient to it; so much so, even the words of the prophets of
God should not be considered authority over it. On the contrary, it should be regarded as
having authority over everything. Unfortunately, since the past many centuries Muslims
have not been able to confer this status on the Qur’an in their beliefs and deeds. Hence, as
pointed out by Allamah Iqbal:
ٓ
‫مہجوری قراں شدی‬
ِ ‫خوار از‬
(You are in a state of humiliation because of leaving aside the Qur’an.)
Secondly, this world is a place where harnessing potentials produce results. These
potentials can be harnessed mostly by having skill and expertise in scientific disciplines. It is
this skill through which man can access the treasures which God has concealed in the
heavens and the earth. History bears witness that the life and death of man is mostly
dependent on the competence he has in these disciplines, what to speak of rise and fall of
nations. From the discovery of fire to the invention of the wheel to the astounding
advancement and developments of the modern era this fact can be read in every page of
history. Though Muslims did show interest in these disciplines yet their intelligentsia
mostly engaged themselves in the study of philosophy and tasawwuf, though this was not
the least required. The Book of God had already been revealed with answers to questions
which philosophy and tasawwuf grapple with. Avid interest in these disciplines made
Muslims oblivious to both the Book of God and scientific knowledge. Our age old
religious seminaries are still teaching various aspects of philosophy and tasawwuf that can
be called the best examples of useless knowledge (‘ilmuṇ la yanfa‘u). Thus we can see how
far the world has advanced while Muslims gaze in wonder at these advancements.
Thirdly, Muslims have shown an utter indifference to their moral instruction. It is as a

result of this disregard that lying, dishonesty, embezzlement, theft, fraud, adulteration,
devouring of interest, deceit in weighing, false accusations, breaking promises, involvement
in occult disciplines, labelling one another with disbelief and defiance, worshipping graves,
polytheistic rituals, detestable forms of entertainment and other similar crimes are so
common in their societies that one is struck with wonder. It was these wrong-doings of the
Israelites on the basis of which the prophets of God cursed them and they were eternally
deprived of God’s mercy. Muslims too have gone far away from it. If a person wants to
take a glimpse at them, he should read the Gospel where Jesus (sws) has stated the charge-
sheet of the Israelites, of their scholars, their intellectuals and their rulers. The whole milieu
and situation of Muslim societies cries out that they are even worse than the Jews of those
times in their wrong-doings.
These are the reasons of the downfall of the Muslims. If they wish to come out of this
scenario of decadence and downfall, then this can neither be achieved through warfare nor
resistance movements. The past two hundred years of their history from Sarangapattam to
Afghanistan bear evidence to this. To come out of this they will have to take remedial
measures to circumvent the causes that have become the reason for their downfall;
otherwise humiliation, disgrace and subservience will always remain their fate. The law of
God is unalterable. Muslims are now in its grasp. When they want to come out of it by
fighting others, they are in fact fighting God because it is He Who has actually let loose His
strong men on them. This is God’s punishment. The line of action to avoid it is not the
one their religious and political leaders and self-styled mujahidin are suggesting to them. By
adopting this line of action they can neither thwart the influence of big powers in their
countries nor can they oust the Jews and Hindus from Palestine and Kashmir. They
should study the preaching of the prophets mentioned in the Qur’an and the Bible.
Whether the prophets of God come in the time of the subjugation of Babylon or in the
times of Roman emperors, they never suggested this to their followers. They always
informed their people of their wrong-doings, while our leaders are adept at pointing out
the faults of others and censuring them. The Qur’an is in our hands. We can read it from
the beginning to the end. We will not find a single word in it in condemnation of the
Babylonian and Roman emperors. At every place, the Israelites are presented with this
charge-sheet of their wrongdoings. The need of the hour is to recount the charge-sheet of
the wrongdoings of the Muslims because the promise of God with the Israelites also holds
for the Muslims. It was: “If you fill My covenant I will fulfil your covenant; My mercy is
waiting; however, if you tread on that path, I will take the path I have already adopted and
the lash of My punishment will strike you.” Men of insight should learn a lesson from this!

Religious Extremism
It is apparent to every keen eye that the greatest issue faced by Pakistan in current times is
religious extremism. It is our misfortune that today this is not merely limited to an
ideology and its communication through the written and the spoken word. It has now
crossed these confines and entered the realm of carnage and terrorism. The political,
economic and social – in short every sphere of the country is now bearing its brunt.
Hundreds of children, adults and old people have fallen prey to it. History bears witness
that in such situations a state generally ends up forcibly exterminating religious extremism
and it is quite probable that Pakistan too will finally have to take this step. We will also
have to seriously repent from using religion for achieving our political ends. If this
situation does arise, then the following points may further be kept in consideration to
eliminate religious extremism from its roots:
Firstly, the monster of extremism did not descend on us from the heavens; it is in fact the
vile product of the religious thought that is taught in our religious seminaries under the
topics of implementation of the shari‘ah and armed jihad and for the eradication of
disbelief, polytheism and apostasy. It is from this ideology that extremist individuals and
organizations receive inspiration and after making some changes mould it into a practical
strategy to achieve their objectives. The flaw in the interpretation of this religious thought
from the Qur’an and the Hadith has been pointed out by many illustrious Islamic scholars
of these times. If hooliganism, protests and expressions of power and might are desisted
from, then the writings of these scholars can change minds. Their writings constitute a
counter narrative to the current religious thought. However, it is tragic that in Pakistan
these are the ways to protect and preserve religion that are in vogue. Differing with one
another in a cultured and polite manner has unfortunately never been established as a
tradition here. This situation demands that our intelligentsia and those in authority should
show sensitivity in the freedom of expression of religious views as well the way they are
sensitive in political views, and they should openly tell those who try to pressurize them
regarding this freedom of expression in religious views that this coercion is not acceptable
to them. If these people wish to correct the views of those who differ with them, then the
sole way to do this is to use the force of reason and argument; there is no room for
commotion and protest, coercion and violence in the world of knowledge. Moreover, our
intelligentsia and those at the helm of our country’s affairs should themselves also try to
understand the counter narrative referred to above. In a Muslim society, the promotion of
secularism is not the solution to this problem; the solution is to present a counter narrative
to the existing narrative on religious thought. It is to this solution that Allama Iqbal had
tried to direct our attention in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.
Secondly, we do not allow any person to set up institutions that produce doctors or
engineers or any other professional unless these students have gone through a twelve year
general education. However, there is no such restriction for becoming a religious scholar.
For this purpose, students are admitted from the very beginning in religious seminaries
where their future is pre-decided. It may well be that providence wanted to make them
doctors, engineers, scientists, poets, artists or professionals belonging to the literary field;
yet these seminaries without taking into view the ability and aptitude of their students
turn them into religious scholars and close the doors on them to select any other
professional field once they reach mental maturity. Moreover, these seminaries mould the
personalities of their students in such a way that they become alien to their own society
because of being deprived of the twelve year general education. The whole nation is now
bearing the consequences of this mistake. Hence, it is necessary that it be made mandatory
for religious seminaries to not give admission to any student unless he has passed through a
twelve year period of general education as is the case with all other disciplines in which
students intend to specialize.
This writer can state with full confidence that this step alone will rectify the situation that
has been created by our religious seminaries in current times. However, for this it is
essential that our general system of education which caters for specialization in various
fields and professions should also cater for the specialization in religious studies to produce
competent scholars of Islam. The suggestion in this regard is that in a few selected
institutions of general education a diniyat (religious studies) group should be introduced
the way science and arts groups are introduced in them so that students who want to
become religious scholars can select this group in the ninth year of their studies and are
able to cultivate in themselves the competence needed to take admission in institutions
which provide specialization in religious studies.
Thirdly, in order to curb religious extremism, it is essential that the mini-state which is
available to religious scholars in our country in the form of the Friday sermon and running
the affairs of mosques be dismembered. Men of learning know that the established practice
instituted by the Prophet (sws) regarding the Friday prayer is that it shall be led and
addressed by the head of state and his representatives only. If any other person is to take
their place, it can only be when because of some compelling need he does so with their
permission and as their authorized substitute.
This established practice continued with its full majesty after the Prophet (sws). However,
in later times when Muslim rulers because of their misdeeds no longer remained worthy of
observing it, they themselves handed the Friday pulpit to religious scholars. It was this
singular step that gave real power to anarchy and disorder in the name of religion. This
state of affairs needs to be changed and our rulers should decide with full determination
and resolve that the Friday prayer shall be organized by the government and shall only be
allowed at places that have been prescribed by it for this purpose. Its pulpit will be reserved
for the rulers; they themselves will deliver the Friday sermon and lead the prayer or some
authorized representative of theirs will fulfil this obligation on their behalf. No one will
have the independent authority to organize this prayer at any place that falls under the
jurisdiction of the state.
A similar decision that should be undertaken by the government is that mosques in which
prayers other than the Friday prayer are offered should be built by the permission of the
government. They will not be classified as mosques of a particular sect or school of
thought; on the contrary, they will be mosques of God where only He shall be
worshipped. Mosques are collective institutions of the Muslims, and as such cannot be
given in the control of people and organizations. Hence it is essential that wherever
Muslims form a government, mosques should be under its jurisdiction and control. The
government should not allow any person to use the mosque for the promotion of an
organization, a movement or a particular point of view, and in this manner convert them
into places which create dissensions among Muslims instead of remaining places where
God is worshipped.
This step is essential. The benefits it gives can be seen in countries where this method of
organizing and administering mosques is employed.

Organ Transplantation
Amongst the various marvels of science and the facilities it has afforded humankind in the
last two centuries one extraordinary discovery is organ transplantation. Through surgery, a
defective organ of a person can be replaced with a healthy one belonging to another
person. The healthy organ can be taken from either a living or a dead person. The question
which arises on this procedure is, whether it is religiously permissible that a person in his
life donate any of his organs for transplant, or make a will that after his death, an organ of
his be donated?
The answer to this question should be in the affirmative because apparently there is
nothing in the Qur’an and Hadith which prohibits this. However, the ulema of the Indian
sub-continent generally regard it to be prohibited, and proffer two arguments in favour of
their viewpoint.
The first of these is that a person is not the owner of his body. Hence he does not have the
right in his own life to make a will for organ donation. A person has control of his body as
long as he is living in that body. Once he departs from his body, he has no right on it that
he can make a will in favour of it and this will be considered as implemented.
The second of these is that the sanctity of a dead body should not be violated. The living
should not harm it in any way. It is their obligation that the body of a dead person be
buried with full respect. Dissecting a dead body or severing any of its organs or limbs is
tantamount to violating its sanctity, and no ethical system of this world can permit this to
happen.
In my opinion, both these arguments need to be reconsidered.
No doubt, the real owner of everything is God; however, this too is a reality that a person
has the right to use and expend within the limits prescribed by God whatever has been
given to him. Thus for one’s honour, family, country and religion a person sacrifices his
life, generously spends his wealth and while knowing that he can be killed or lose any of his
limbs, still fights a war for the above mentioned causes, jumps in the fire and is ready to
face the greatest of dangers. The Qur’an has termed this as the jihad of the life and wealth
of a person and as spending for the cause of God. In various places, it has urged its
followers to spend these things for the causes outlined above. It is evident that the Qur’an
acknowledges this right of a person over his life and wealth.
The right a person has to make a will is a corollary of this right to use his life and wealth.
Thus, just as we have the right to make a will about our wealth after our death, similarly,
we also have the right to make a will regarding enshrouding our dead body and its burial.
Donating one’s organ to some other person is also a similar matter. If all these afore-
mentioned things are allowed, and can be done while a person has left his body, then how
can making a will for organ donation be regarded as forbidden?
Similar is the case of violating the sanctity of a corpse. It relates to one’s intentions and
motives. Inflicting harm on the limb of a person is a crime. The Qur’an has given the
directives of qisas and diyat for such crimes. However, if with the permission of the
patient, a doctor severs his hand or foot, then no one can call him a criminal. So why
should not one differentiate between mutilating a dead body through various means and
conducting a post-mortem for the purpose of investigation? If a person makes a will to
give his wealth to some needy person, then this is counted as a virtue. Similarly, if he makes
a will to donate any of his organs or limbs to someone in need, then this should also be
seen as a virtue. Why should implementing such a will be regarded as violating the sanctity
of a corpse?

Sighting the Moon
The Almighty has prescribed the month of Ramadan for keeping fasts and the month of
Dhu al-Hajj for offering the hajj. Since both these months belong to the lunar calendar, the
issue of ascertaining the days of these months has always remained under discussion. Even
before the recent advances made in the science of astronomy, people were aware that a
lunar month could not exceed thirty days; however, general observation showed that a
lunar month could also be of twenty nine days.
When the Qur’an directed people to keep the fasts of one whole month, it was suspected
that people would insist on completing thirty days while complying with this directive.
Consequently, the Prophet (sws) cautioned people to begin the month of Ramadan when
the moon was sighted and to end it too when it was sighted; it was not essential to
complete thirty days and in case the sky was not clear, thirty days must necessarily be
completed. It is this very directive of the Prophet (sws) which was given an entirely
different form by various narrators: as per this changed scenario, it was thought that the
Prophet (sws) had bound people to observe the moon for ascertaining the commencement
of Ramadan. It is our good fortune that in one variant of this narrative, this directive of
the Prophet (sws) has been reported in its original form. He is reported to have said:
‫ش اهر تبسع و بع اشرو لن فِِا رألي تَم الا به لل لل فلصوموا وإِا رألي تَموتَ فلألفا بطروا فلبِ ان غَ َم لع لي َكم فلاق ب‬
‫اد َروا له‬ ‫ا ا‬ َ َ ‫لا‬ َ َ ‫لا ا‬ َ ‫ال َ َ ا ٌ ل‬
A month can also be of twenty nine days; so if you sight the moon, begin the fast
and if you sight it break the fast; if the sky is not clear complete the days. [1]
This narrative is reported by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (rta). A variant from Abu Hurayrah
(rta) is reported precisely in the same words.
It is evident from this discussion that sighting the moon for ascertaining a lunar month
was never made incumbent; on the contrary, it was made incumbent to begin a month
after sighting the moon so that people should not insist on completing thirty days thinking
that one whole month’s fasts have been made mandatory for them. Consequently, the very
words reported from the Prophet (sws) begin thus: “a month can also be of twenty nine
days.”
The purpose of sighting the moon is to determine a lunar month. If thirty days are
completed in a month, moon-sighting is not required since in this matter we are absolutely
certain that whether the moon is sighted or not, the previous month has ended and a new
month will now begin. With advancement of technology, we are now in a position to
determine if a lunar month can be of twenty-nine days. We are now in a position to know
with full certainty when the moon is born for this earth each month. Hence, there is
[1] Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 2, 759, (no. 1080).
nothing wrong if the lunar calendar is instituted on the basis of the moon’s birth with
respect to Makkah, and if all religious festivals are celebrated in accordance with it. The
purport of religion is ascertaining the lunar month. If it can be ascertained by sighting the
moon, it was adopted in the past, and if now it can be determined through some other
way, then no objection can be raised against it. After the invention of watches, just as we
no longer need to observe sunrise and sunset to ascertain prayer timings, similarly, we are
not required to ascertain a lunar month through moon sighting. The issue of sighting the
moon has arisen because of misreporting of the narrators. After collating all the variants on
this topic, it becomes evident that the Prophet (sws) had an entirely different objective
before him.
Should one still insist on sighting the moon after all this? Our scholars need to deliberate
on this question.

Muslims and Non-Muslims
All those who follow any religion other than Islam are called Non-Muslims. This term is
also used for those who do not follow any religion. It is not a term of derision. It is only an
expression of the reality that they do not believe in Islam. They are generally also called
kafirs (infidels). However, I have argued in my books that conclusive communication of
the truth (itman al-hujjah) is needed to regard someone as kafir, and it is only God who
knows and only He can divulge the information that the truth has been conclusively
communicated to a person or a group and therefore now they can be called kafirs. Hence
after the departure of God’s Messenger (sws), no person or group has the right to regard
someone as kafir.
Similar is the case of people who renounce Islam and adopt another religion or who do not
follow any religion. What can only be said about them too is that they have become non-
Muslims. This is because nothing can be said with full conviction as to how convinced is a
person who is a Muslim by birth about the veracity of Islam. This is something which only
God can know and only He knows what is in the hearts. We should not dare declare a
verdict about something which we do not know. If we have been blessed with knowledge,
our duty is to only explain to people the difference between monotheism and polytheism
and between Islam and disbelief. We should also keep elucidating to them the precepts of
religion. This is because we are not in a position to go beyond this and decide the faith or
disbelief found in a person or whether he deservers Paradise or Hell. Only God has this
position and authority and such verdicts are only His prerogative.
After that are people who are Muslims, assert themselves to be Muslims in fact insist on
this status but adopt a belief which is generally considered to be against the teachings of
Islam or interpret a Qur’anic verse or a Hadith in a way which is regarded as erroneous by a
scholar(s) or by the rest of the Muslims. For example, the belief of Imam Ghazali (d. 505
AH) and Shah Waliullah (d. 1176 AH) that the culmination of tawhid is wahdat al-wujud or
the belief of Muhi al-Din ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 638 AH) that the termination of prophethood
does not mean that the status and attributes of prophethood have terminated, it only
means that a prophet has to be a follower of the shari‘ah of Muhammad (sws) or the view
of the Shiites that the ruler of Muslims who is called imam is also appointed by God and
that after the Prophet (sws) the Almighty Himself had appointed ‘Ali (rta) as the ruler of
the Muslims on this very principle but this appointment was not accepted or the opinion
of the celebrated thinker Allamah Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1930) that Paradise and Hell are
not places but circumstances that will befall a person.
All these opinions and others similar to them can be regarded as wrong views and beliefs
and even branded as erroneous and deviant but since their proponents adduce their
arguments from the Qur’an and Sunnah, they cannot be regarded as non-Muslims or
kafirs. What is the verdict of God regarding these views and beliefs? We should wait for the
Day of Judgement to hear it. In this world, their proponents are Muslims as per their own
assertion, should be considered as Muslims and should be dealt with and treated in a way
an individual among Muslims is. It is the right of the scholars to point out their mistake, to
invite them to accept what is correct, to regard what they find as constituting polytheism
and disbelief in their ideology and also inform people about all this. However, no one has
the right to declare them as non-Muslims or to ostracize them from the Muslim
community because only God can give this right to someone, and everyone who has
knowledge of the Qur’an and Hadith knows that God has not given this right to anyone.

Characteristic Values of Muslim Culture
The successful prophetic mission of Muhammad (sws) gave rise to a culture which was
based on and dominated by the value of ‘ubudiyyah. [1] It implies that the whole society
centred on belief in God and servant-Lord relationship. This centre was the only criterion
of validity of all human thought and action. Freedom was no doubt valued, yet dominated
by the value of ‘ubudiyyah. The Muslim culture was not unclear on the question of its
moral and ethical foundations. These were authenticated by divine revelations. Poets,
litterateurs, philosophers, sages, scientists and rulers, all were clear on this issue and
recognized this reality in their views and thoughts. The Muslim culture, founded on this
clear and uniform model of thinking, governed the collective body of Muslims for more
than a decade. hifz-i furuj, ḥifz-i maratib and ’amr bi al-ma‘ruf and nahi ‘an al-munkar
constituted characteristic values of the Muslim culture.
These can be explained as follows:
Hifz-i furujimplied that the members of the society would not be allowed to practice and
promote sexual promiscuity. Men and women could not openly enter into sexual
relations. They could not illicitly live together and were not allowed to reveal their bodies.
Hifz-i maratibmeant that though all human beings are originally equal in the eyes of God,
yet they are not equal in their family and social relations. The younger have to show
respect to the older, the children to their parents, the students to their teachers, the wives
to their husbands. Socially seniors were given the right to correct and censure the juniors
in all social layers. The respect and honour of the elders and the seniors was always
preferred over individual liberty.
‘amr bi al-ma‘ruf and nahi ‘an al-munkar entailed that the adherents of the Islamic faith
would not, at the collective level, show indifference to the values of good and evil. All such
values accorded to the human orientation (fitrah) and acknowledged by entire humanity as
virtue and good would be promoted at all scales and all such actions, as abhorred by the
human nature and termed evil and bad, would be prohibited in all circumstances.
Such was the Muslim culture, the beauty and crown of humanity. The downfall of this
culture is nothing less than the downfall of humanity. Alas for man! If only he craved for
re-establishing this great tradition as much as he yearns for democratic ideals and rule of
law.
[1] The Arabic word ‘ubudiyyah covers all the stages of man’s devotion to God. Internal feeling of
submission to the provident and merciful Creator, spontaneous acts of devotion objectified by such a
feeling of submission before God, following the divinely ordained rituals of worship and following
God’s commands in all spheres of life; all are different yet interrelated manifestations of ‘ibadah.
Our Education System
One major problem presently facing the Pakistani nation is the disadvantages of the
current education system. Of these, three call for immediate action.
Firstly, the current education system in Pakistan is gradually distancing our nation from its
cultural tradition. A short discussion with the members of the young generation makes
one realize that it will not take more than a couple of decades before we will have lost our
memory as a nation. Our ignorance of and indifference to the Arabic language has already
cost us our memory of fourteen hundred years. A similar attitude towards the Persian
Language has removed from our minds the record of about twelve hundred years of our
history and culture. The same is now happening with Urdu. Three hundred years of our
cultural tradition are coded in and, therefore, depend upon Urdu for their presence.
Having dissociated ourselves from this language, we will definitely loose each and
everything related to our precious cultural tradition. It is only language which guarantees
continuity of cultural traditions in a nation’s life. It is only language which works as the
most effective vehicle of flow of the cultural values and traditions to the next generations.
Losing protection of such an unparalleled asset would lead us to a great tragedy. It would
mean that our coming generations would no longer know the names of the major pillars of
Muslim scholarship and literature, not to speak of studying and grasping them. Those who
appreciate the role of cultural tradition and its effects in a nation’s development can well
imagine the magnitude of the threat.
Secondly, twelve years of basic general education creates in the students the ability to
develop their skills and embark upon specialized studies in all academic disciplines.
Whereas, our education system does not apply this proven role of the twelve year basic
education for specialization in the religious sciences. Consequently, the education system
does not provide any basic and fundamental knowledge to the students to enable them to
specialize in the religious sciences and become religious scholars. Madrassas are a product
of this shortcoming in the national education system. They will continue to be spawned as
long as this shortcoming in the education system remains. There is no denying the fact that
the society needs erudite religious scholars just as it needs scientists, litterateurs, doctors
and engineers. The society can itself set up private universities to fulfil this need. These
universities will welcome students with basic qualification in the discipline for different
programs. The question, however, is: where will the pupil get the requisite basic education
for this discipline? They have nowhere to look for it.
Thirdly, the state does not allow, and rightfully so, any governmental and non-
governmental organization to set up universities of higher education where they can enrol
such students as have not completed general education for twelve years. Therefore, no
institute can try to make doctors, engineers or experts in any other discipline of those who
have not gone through the basic general education for twelve years. Strangely however, this
condition does not apply to those who set up madrassas and produce religious scholars. In
these institutions, students are enrolled right from the beginning. Their future role as
religious scholars is decided while they have just seen school. Nature may craft a mind to
suit to becoming a doctor, engineer, scientist, poet, litterateur or artist. It does not matter
to the madrassas. They do not have any regard for what nature decides about a child. They
are interested in and intent upon only and only making of him a religious scholar. This
they do without giving a least consideration to his ability, disposition, aptitude and
inclinations. Thus they rob the pupil from an option to consider these factors after
coming of age, think for himself and decide any alternative future role and trade. Those
made into religious scholars by these madrassas are so disposed as to behave like aliens in
the society in which they were born and to the environment where they grew up. What
else can be expected from depriving them of twelve years of general education?
This state of affairs is very grave. It calls for immediate extraordinary measures. To address
this, we propose the following steps, if only those on the helm of authority were to take
this issue seriously.
1. All the parallel education systems should be abolished or radically reformed. There
should be no English or Urdu schools. Nor should there be two different types of schools
one offering pure religious education, as in madrassas, and the other secular and purely
mundane education, as in most private schools. All social sciences should be taught in the
Urdu language; sciences proper and mathematics should be instructed in English; religious
content, however, should be taught in Arabic.
2. As for religious education, in the first five years, the students should be made to
memorize the last two groups of the Qur’anic surahs (51-114), supplications made in the
Prayers and talbiyah said in the ḥajj. Arabic language should be taught from class six
onwards. After teaching the pupils basic Arabic grammar, the Holy Qur’an should be used
as a reader. The students should be made to complete its reading with the completion of
class twelve. Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies should no more be taught as compulsory
subjects. These should be replaced by the subject of history. The syllabus of history should
include topics on international history and Muslim history, including, of course, that of
Pakistan.
3. Persian is very close to Urdu. Basic grammar of this language can be taught in three
months at most. This language too should be taught as a part of the Urdu language from
class 9 onwards.
4. Like the science and arts groups, Islamiyat group should be introduced from class nine.
In this group, students should be offered the subjects of the Arabic language and literature,
history, philosophy, international literature, different major approaches to and
interpretations of the religion and the shari‘ah, at least to the level of basic introduction.
The purpose is to afford those wishing to become religious scholars an opportunity to
equip themselves with the required qualification for the higher education in the discipline.
5. Madrassas should be acknowledged as institutes of higher educations like institutions of

medical and engineering sciences. They should, however, not be allowed to enroll pupils
who have not completed twelve years of basic education. The religious madrassas that
provide acknowledged and recognized standards of higher education may be allowed to
award degrees to their graduates for BA, MA, MPhil and PhD programs.

The Beard and Isbal-i Izar
Men have been known to keep beards. The Prophet (sws) too had kept one. If someone
among his followers keeps it to express his affiliation to him or merely to follow his ways,
then this indeed is a very blessed practice. However, keeping a beard is no directive of
religion. Hence if a person does not keep a beard, it cannot be said that he is evading an
obligatory directive or has done something haram or forbidden.
Whatever the Prophet (sws) has said in this regard are not directives to keep a beard but the
manner in which it should be kept if a person decides to keep it. He has said that the beard
and the moustache should not be kept in any manner which may give the impression of
arrogance or haughtiness. Arrogance is a great sin which manifests in a person’s gait and
conversation, appearance and clothes, mannerism and etiquette – in short everything.
Similar is the case with the beard and the moustache. Some people shave their beards or
keep them trimmed but keep a big moustache. The Prophet (sws) has disliked such an
appearance, and has directed such people not to adopt the looks of arrogant people. If they
want to increase the size, then it should be of the beard and not the moustache, which
should be kept trimmed in all circumstances. [1] The guidance received by mankind through
the prophets of God deals with worship rituals as well as issues related to cleansing and
purification of the body, edibles and morals. Whatever the Prophet (sws) has said with
regard to keeping the beard relates to the cleansing of morals. It was in this context in
which he expressed his views about keeping the beard but people regarded it to be a
directive of increasing the size of the beard. In this manner, they incorporated in religion
something which can never be related to it.
The issue of isbal-i izar is no different. It was very common among the arrogant in the pre-
Islamic Arab society to wear a long shirt, let the loose end of their turban hang below their
back and let their legware (izar) dangle so far below the ankles that half of it would drag
behind on the ground. In Arabic, this is called isbal. The Prophet (sws) showed his great
dislike for this, and once remarked that the Almighty would not like to see the person on
the Day of Judgement who walked while arrogantly dragging his leg-cloth (tehband). [2] All
narratives regarding izar relate to this appearance.
It can however be said about the tehband that if it is allowed to dangle below the ankles,
then it to some extent resembles the appearance of the arrogant just discussed; so care must
be exercised even if the purpose to make it dangle is not arrogance. Thus this can be said
about the tehband. However, it is a fact that this resemblance is only reflected in the
tehband; it has no similarity with a shalwar, apajama and a trouser.
[1] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 5, 2209, (no. 5553); Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 1, 222, (no. 259).
The Right to Punish a Wife
Marriage is a contract in which it is the responsibility of the husband to generously provide
for the expenses of his wife and children. He is required to deal with them in a way which
is in accordance with the norms of decency and those of sense and reason, and which is
based on graciousness and courtesy, and in which the requisites of justice and fairness are
fulfilled. Similarly, it is required of a wife that she should adopt an attitude of harmony
and obedience towards the husband and protect his secrets as well as his honour and
integrity.
Like other contracts, the nature of the contract also requires that if any of the parties
violates it and in spite of counsel and advice, rebuke and reproach is not prepared to mend
its ways, then it should be punished. This punishment can be meted out by a court and by
the elders of the family. The Qur’an has given this right to the husband also. It says that if
a wife becomes rebellious by defying his authority, then he can resort to three options to
save the family from dismembering:
First, he should urge his wife to mend her ways. The word used by the Qur’an is ‫لو لع ظ‬
which means that she can be admonished and also scolded to some extent in this regard.
Second, intimate marital relations with her should be suspended in order to communicate
to her that if she does not mend her ways, she might have to face severe repercussions.
Third, she can be punished physically.
A question arises about this last option: with a change in society and civilization, if
exercising the first two options does not bear results and a husband is left with no
alternative but to adopt the third option, can a state bind him to not take this step himself
and consign this matter to a court of law?
The opinion of this writer is in the affirmative. This is because this alternative is merely
another way of following the directive of God and does not annul the directive. It does not
make a difference if to reform the wife the punishment is meted out by the husband, the
elders of the family or a court of law. It is the will of God that if to save a family, a wife
needs to be punished, then she should be punished. It is only a reformatory measure and
nothing more.

Head Covering for Women
The Almighty requires of a Muslim woman to not display her make-up or other
embellishments such as jewellery before unknown men except what she has adorned her
hands, feet and face with. The Qur’an has made it mandatory upon Muslim women to
follow this directive. It is for this very reason that the tradition of wearing the head-scarf or
head covering while going out of the house was established, and now has become a part of
Islamic culture. Even if women have not embellished themselves and have not put on
make-up, they have continued to be very vigilant in wearing some sort of head covering.
This attitude has also sprung forth from the insinuations of the Qur’an: the Almighty has
specified that the directive of covering the chest and neckline with a covering is not related
to old women who have passed their marriageable age on the condition that their intention
is not to show off their ornaments. The Qur’an says that they can take off this covering
before men and that there is no harm in this; however, it has simultaneously stated that
what is more desirable in the sight of the Almighty is that they should be careful in this
matter too and not take their coverings off their chests. It is evident from this that
regarding the head too it is desirable in the sight of the Almighty that even if women have
not adorned it in any way, even then they should not take off their head coverings.
Although covering the head is not mandatory yet when Muslim women live with a
concern for religiosity and try to draw near God, they necessarily take this precaution, and
never like to come before unknown men bare-headed.

Wudu and Nail Polish
Women generally colour their nails with some material or the other. In current times,
various types of nail polishes are used for this purpose. The question which arises as a
result is about the method of doing wudu in such cases. Generally, three answers have been
given to this question:
Firstly, wudu cannot be done if a lady has put on nail polish, and therefore it must be
removed every time before doing wudu.
Secondly, even after putting on nail polish, the status of a lady’s hands do not change, and
therefore wudu would be valid if done in this situation; there is no need to remove the nail
polish.
Thirdly, such a situation should be considered analogous to wiping of socks (mash). So if

nail polish has been put on after doing wudu, there is no need to remove it; wudu can be
done on it. However, if it has been put on without doing wudu, then it must be removed
and then wudu should be done.
I prefer the third of these views. It is the view which takes caution into consideration and
also does not burden a lady. It is also closer to the objective of self-purification. It is
therefore recommended that women adopt this method for coming into the presence of
their Lord.

Women Travelling with a Mahram
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have forbidden women from travelling without a mahram
and has said that they are not allowed to travel alone. The period of this journey is
mentioned in some narratives to be one, in some others to be two and still others to be
three days and nights respectively. This prohibition, it needs to be appreciated, is not an
absolute one. It is a precautionary prohibition meant to protect a person from harm. Its
addressees are also the individuals of a society in their personal capacity, and it is not
addressed to state authorities. Moreover, it is evident that such directives relate to
circumstances. Keeping in view the importance of a lady’s chastity and modesty in Islam, it
was essential that they be stopped from travelling alone because of the circumstances
which prevailed in Arabia in the times of the Prophet (sws). People in those times used to
travel on foot or on horses and camels. Destinations which today can be reached in hours
were accessed in those days in weeks and at times in months. Passengers would travel alone
or in caravans and sometimes would even have to encounter forests and deserts on their
way. At night time, they would have to spend the night under the open sky with other
members of the caravan or in rest-houses of unknown cities. If in these circumstances,
women were asked to travel with a mahram in order to protect them and to guard their
reputation, every upright person can easily understand the wisdom behind this directive.
The current times, on the other hand, have revolutionized the means of transport.
Distances which were covered in months are now covered in hours. There are extra-
ordinary arrangements to protect people in buses, trains and aeroplanes. Great changes
have also come about in rest-houses and hotels. A hundred years ago, people were hesitant
in sending their sisters and daughters from one village to another. Today, however, one is
not even hesitant in sending them to Europe and America. The journey to Makkah for the
purpose of hajj too has become secure to the ultimate extent and women can safely travel
with women of their acquaintance to Arabia to offer the rites of hajj. This great change in
circumstances entails that this directive should not relate to current forms of travel, and
women be allowed to travel alone or in groups in any way they can keeping in view their
needs in case there is no danger envisaged in this travelling. However, they must always
keep in consideration the fact that their honour must remain protected in all
circumstances, and they must not show any negligence in this regard while leaving their
houses. If they believe in God and His Prophet (sws), they should not be indifferent in this
matter.

Abortion
When one hundred and twenty days pass after the conception of a foetus, aborting it is
prohibited. After this period, the killing of the foetus is actually the killing of a human
being which, according to the Qur’an, amounts to killing the whole of mankind. The
Qur’anic punishment for this is eternal Hell. However, before this time-period, abortion is
allowed; but this allowance too is not absolute; there must be a legitimate excuse and a
palpable reason for it. In Islamic jurisprudence, this period of one hundred and twenty
days has been fixed for abortion because at the end of this period a child is bestowed with
human personality. Before this time, however, he is a mere physical being devoid of
complete human characteristics and lives in this state. At the end of this one hundred and
twenty day period when his physical being culminates, the Almighty bestows human
personality to this being. It is this act of God which the Qur’an has called the
transformation of the foetus into a new creation:
‫ فل لخل اقنل ا ال لاعل لق ةل َم ا‬j‫ فبي قل لرا ٍر لم بكي ٍن ك ثَ َم لخل اقنلا النطا لف ةل لعل لق ة‬j‫النا لسا لن بم ان َس للل ٍلة بم ان بطي ٍن ك ثَ َم لج لعلانلاتَ نَطا لفة‬
j‫ض لة‬ ‫لوللق اد لخل اقنلا اب‬
‫ُخر فل تلبار لك اللَهَ ألحسن ال ل بب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫فل لخ ل اقنا الام ا ب‬
(14-12 :23 ‫ين‬ ‫اخالق ل‬ َ‫ا ل‬ ‫قا ل ل ل ل‬j ‫ما ثَ َم ألنا لشأانلاتَ لخ ال‬j ‫لح‬ ‫اما فل لك لس اونلا الاعظل لام ل ا‬j ‫ض لةل عظل‬ َ ‫ل‬
We first created man from an essence of clay: then converted it into a drop of fluid
at a secure place. Then made the drop into a clot of blood, and the clot to a lump
of flesh. Then We fashioned bones in it, then clothed the bones with flesh; then
transformed it into another creation. Blessed be God, the best of creators. (23:12-14)
In the beginning, when God created man from the womb of the earth, He adopted this
very method. The Qur’an says that first the physical being of man was created; after that
he was given the ability to produce offspring; he was then given perfection. Two of the
creatures which were produced as a result were selected and spirit was blown into them.
This process created Adam and Eve as human beings equipped with the abilities of
cognizant speech and intellectual awareness:
‫يه بم ن ر ب‬
َ ‫وح به لو لج لع لل ل َك َم ال‬ ‫بب‬ ٍ ‫ٍب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫اق اب ب ب ب‬
‫س ام لع‬ َ ‫النا لسان م ان طي ٍن ك ثَ َم لج لع لل نل اس لهَ م ان َس للللة م ان لماء لم بهي ٍن ك ثَ َم لس َواتَ لونل لف لَ ف ا‬ ‫بل لدأل لخل ل‬
(9-7 :32 ‫يل لما تل اش َك َرو لن‬j ‫ص لار لو االلفائب لدةل قللب‬‫لو االلبا ل‬
He began creating man with clay, then made his generation grow through a
despicable drop of fluid. He then perfected him and breathed His spirit into him
and [in a similar manner] gave you ears and eyes and hearts: yet you are seldom
thankful. (32:7-9)
The Prophet (sws) has explained that all the phases of creation of the physical being of a
human being take one hundred and twenty days. After this, spirit is blown into him and
the creature called the “Human Being” comes into existence. He is reported to have said:
‫ بمثا لل ِلك‬j‫ض لة‬
‫ بمثا لل ِلك ثَ َم يل َكو َن في ِلك َم ا‬j‫ما ثَ َم يل َكو َن في ِلك لع ل لقة‬j‫ين يل او‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫ا َن ال لح لد َك ام يَ اج لم َع لخ ال َقهَ في بلطا بن اَّمه ال اربلع ل‬
‫وح‬
‫ك فل يل ان َف ََ فيه ال نر ل‬
َ ‫ثَ َم يَ ار لس َل ال لام ل‬
Each of you is formed in the womb of your mother for forty days; then in this
same time period he becomes a clot of blood; then becoming a lump of flesh also
takes the same number of days; then the angel is sent forth and he breathes the
spirit into him.[1]
It is because of these stipulations of the Qur’an and Hadith that the period for abortion
has been fixed for one hundred and twenty days.
[1] Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih.vol. 2, 2036, (no. 2643).

Birth Control
Children are born with the directive of God; however, the process adopted by God in this
regard is not that He sends down a child directly from the heavens in whatever number He
wishes for whichever parent He intends. Children are born through the means of human
beings and through their intention, decision and initiative. Regarding human beings it is
common knowledge that their Creator has blessed them with intellect and cognizance and
also endowed them with the freedom to exercise their will. It is a requirement of both
these bestowals of God that before taking any decision a person must evaluate its
consequences, understand the matter in the light of knowledge and intellect and then take
any step. We may understand this through the example of a gardener.
The Almighty has said:
[1]
(56:64 ‫ألألنا تَ ام تل ازلر َعونلهَ أ الم نل اح َن ال َزا بر َعو لن‬
The implication of this verse is that it is not human beings but God Who makes an
orchard bear fruit and a harvested land bear produce. But does this mean that the task of a
gardener is only to spew seeds or sow plants? Everyone will answer this question in the
negative and say that it is the gardener’s responsibility to evaluate whether he can bear the
expenses and other needs that involve sowing, looking after trees and taking their fruit to
the market? Has he prepared the land? Has he left the requisite space while planting trees?
Does he have enough information about the demand of the fruits of these trees in the
market? It is after evaluating all these factors that he should decide what and when to plant
and whether he should even proceed with planting or not. People debate whether birth
control is allowed or prohibited whereas just as assessing all these factors is essential for a
farmer, it is similarly essential for the parents to asses them. If a farmer does not take them
into consideration, he will end up facing the consequences and if parents also do not give
them due importance, they too will face the consequences. Our society is replete with such
examples.
Thus before planning for a child, parents should see whether the mother can bear it or not.
Does her health allow her to produce and nurture an offspring? Can she spare time from
taking care of any previous child to take up this new responsibility? Keeping in view their
circumstances, do parents have the time, opportunity and essential means for the
upbringing of the child and the essential finances to educate them? If the answer to all
these questions is in the negative, then parents should restrain themselves or adopt various
means of birth control; however, they should never plan a child.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that our decision can impede any decision of God. If His
wisdom requires that a child must be born, then it shall be born. This strategy of ours is to
[1] Do you nourish the cultivated land or We? (56:64)
follow the law of God and not to impede His decision. Diseases come with God’s
permission, yet if guidelines that safeguard health are not followed then the general law
and practice is that diseases shall afflict people. Cure is in the hands of God, but if remedies
are not sought, then the general law and practice is that sickness will increase. Sustenance is
also in the hands of God yet the general law and practice is that it is acquired if one strives
for it. This world works on achieving goals through the means provided and man has been
given the understanding to use these means to his advantage. In many matters, the fate
ordained by God relates to our intentions, decisions and the practical steps we take. ‘Umar
(rta) while commenting on running away from a place afflicted with plague is reported to
have said: “We are going from the fate of God towards the fate of God.” [2] When once the
Prophet (sws) was asked about a method of birth control, he directed the attention of the
questioner towards this very reality. It is narrated by Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (rta) that the
Prophet is reported to have said:
‫ واِا اراد ال خلق شيئ لم يمنعه شيي‬،‫مامن کل الماء يکون الولد‬
Every sperm does not produce a child; but when God decides to give birth to
something, no one can stop Him.[3]
[2] Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih.vol. 4, 1740, (no. 2219).

[3] Ibid., vol. 2, 1064, (no. 1438).
Hifz al-Furuj
(Guarding the Private Parts)
The shari‘ah does not allow Muslims to sexually gratify themselves from any other
individual but their wives. The Almighty has forbidden it, and categorically stated in
Surah Mu’minun that people who sexually gratify themselves from anyone other than
their wives will be guilty of exceeding the limits set by God. The slave-women of the times
of the Prophet (sws) who were yet to be liberated from their masters were, however,
exempted from this directive: if people wanted, they could also satisfy their sexual urge
through them. The Qur’an says:
‫اء لِلب ل‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب ب‬

‫وج به م ح افبظَو لن ك إبَل لع ل ى أل ازو ب‬ ‫َب‬
‫ك‬ ‫ت أليا لم انَ َه ام فلبِنَ َه ام غلاي َر لملَ وم ل‬
‫ين ك فل لم بن ابا تل ل ى لولر ل‬ ‫اج به ام أ الو لم ا لم ل لك ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ين َه ام ل َف َر ا ل‬ ‫لوال ذ ل‬
(7-5 :23 ‫ادو لن‬ ‫فلأَوللئب ل‬
َ ‫ك َه َم ال لاع‬
And who guard their private parts except from their wives and slave-women
because for these they have no blame on them. But, those who want something
beyond this are indeed transgressors. (23:5–7)
Presented above is the correct interpretation of the verse. However, some of our jurists
have also argued on the basis of this verse that except for wives and slave-women other
means of sexual-gratification are forbidden. Thus like adultery, homosexuality and
bestiality, various forms of masturbation are also forbidden in their opinion. The only
lenience that can be given in this regard is that the extent of this prohibition of
masturbation is less than that of adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, and if people in
order to protect themselves from these sins indulge in such sexual self-gratification to vent
their emotions, then it can be expected that perhaps the Almighty would not punish them.
In my opinion, this argument is very weak, and in fact incorrect as per the linguistic
principles of Arabic. The reason for this is that the preposition ‫( لع ٰلۤ ی‬on/upon) does not
collocate with ‫( ٰح بفظَ وۡ لن‬those who guard) and thus there necessarily exists a tadmin in this
expression, and words such as ‫وع لع ٰلی ال لح ٍد‬
‫الوقَ ب‬
َ ‫( لع ان‬from indulging with anyone) are suppressed
after ‫ح بفظَ وۡ لن‬.
ٰ Thus, the object from which the exception is sought in this expression is not
the ways of sexual-gratification: it is the individuals with whom a person can establish
sexual relations. It is evident from this discussion that this verse does not mean that no way
of sexual-gratification is allowed except through wives and slave-women; the correct
meaning is that except for wives and slave-women, one cannot appease one’s sexual urge
with any other individual. This is the correct meaning of the verse. Thus, it can be said
with full certainty that there is no injunction or general principle in the Qur’an on the
basis of which masturbation can be regarded as prohibited or undesirable. No different is
the case of the Hadith. Its whole corpus is devoid of any narrative on this subject which is
acceptable to the scholars of Hadith.
Thus, in this regard, the correct opinion is the one which is presented by Imam Ibn Hazm
in his al-Muhalla[1] with all the requisite arguments. He has mentioned through a chain of
narration that authorities like Hasan al-Basri, ‘Amr ibn Dinar, Ziyad Abu al-A‘la and
Mujahid regard masturbation as allowed. These authorities mostly narrate such things
from the Companions of the Prophet (sws).
[1] Abu Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘id ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bi al-athar, 1st ed., vol. 11 (Beirut:
Dar al-afaq al-jadidah, n.d.), 393.
Etiquette of Sexual Intimacy
The objective of religion is purification of the soul. In no way does it regard anal or oral sex
as desirable. The Almighty has directed Muslims to come near their wives through the way
He has prescribed for it. The words of the Qur’an are:
َ ‫وه َن بم ان لح اي‬
(222:2 َ‫ث أ للم لرَك َم ال‬ َ َ‫فلأات‬
Go to them from where God has enjoined you, (2:222)).
The norms of copulation are ingrained in human nature, and as such are no less than a
directive of God. Thus if anyone disobeys this innate guidance he disobeys an explicit
directive – in fact, something more than explicit, and thus shall definitely be punished by
the Almighty for this.
Where this verse occurs in the Qur’an, right after it, the Qur’an has explained this very
directive through the metaphor of cultivated land. While explaining these verses, Imam
Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:
One very apparent reason for using this metaphor is the fact that just as for a
cultivated land it is essential on the part of the farmer that seeds be sown in the
appropriate season at the right time, and no farmer disregards the principle that
they be sown within the fields and not scattered outside them, similarly it is a norm
of human instinct that one should not approach a lady for sexual intercourse
during the menstrual cycle or in an unnatural way because the period of menses is
a time during which women are frigid and not inclined, while unnatural
intercourse is a painful and wasteful activity. Therefore, people who have not
perverted their nature cannot indulge in such an activity.[1]
While explaining the expression ‫( فلأاتَوا لح ارثل َك ام ألنَى بش ائتَ ام‬go then, into your lands in any manner
you please), Islahi goes on to write:
… [This] alludes simultaneously to two things: on the one hand, it refers to the
liberty, freedom and free manner with which a farmer approaches his land, and on
the other hand refers to the responsibility, caution and care which he must exercise
in approaching his land. The word ‫ لح ارث‬refers to the latter and the word ‫ ألنَى بش ائتَ ام‬to
the former. It is both this liberty and caution which ascertain the correct behaviour
of a husband with his wife in this regard.
Everyone knows that the real bliss of married life is the freedom a person has in
[1] Amin AhsanIslahi, Tadabbur-i Qur’an, 2nd ed., 9, vol. 1 (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1985), 527.
intimate affairs barring a few broad restrictions. The feeling of this freedom has a
great amount of euphoria around it. When a person is with his wife in intimate
moments, Divine will seems to be that he be overcome with emotions but at the
same time it is pointed out to him that he has come into a field and an orchard; it is
no wasteland or a forest. He may come to it in whatever manner and in whatever
way whenever he pleases, but he must not forget that he has landed in his orchard.
The Qur’an has no objection on the discretion, choice and majesty with which he
approaches his field if he knows full well where he is going and in no way is
oblivious of this reality.[2]
The importance of all these directives is pointed to by the Qur’anin the words ‫ب‬ ‫إب َن اللَ هل يَ بح ن‬
‫ين لويَ بح ن‬
‫ب ال َامتلطل ّه بري لن‬ ‫( الت َ ب‬God indeed loves those who repent and those who adhere to
‫َوا ل‬
cleanliness). While explaining the importance of these words in the eyes of the Almighty,
Islahi writes:
… if one deliberates on the essence of tawbah and tatahhur, one comes to the
conclusion that while the former means to cleanse one’s inner-self from sins, the
latter means to cleanse one’s outer-self from filth and dirt. Viewed thus, both are
similar in their essence and the Almighty holds both these traits of a believer in
great admiration. On the other hand, people who lack these traits are disliked by
the Almighty. It is evident from the context of this verse that those who do not
refrain from intercourse with their wives during their periods of impurity and
violate the limits ingrained in human nature in satisfying their sexual urge are
detestable in the eyes of the Almighty.[3]
[2] Ibid., vol. 1, 527.

[3] Ibid., vol. 1, 526.
The Noble Wives of the Prophet (sws)
According to the nature on which man has been created, the real benefit of the institution
of the family can be obtained through the marriage of one man and one woman. As a
human being, the Prophet (sws) too kept this fact in consideration in his life and never
thought of marrying again in the presence of his first wife. His first marriage was with
Khadijah (rta) at the age of 25. She had already been married twice before and also had
children from her previous marriages. She was a pious lady and was called Ṭahirah because
of this noble trait. The Prophet Muhammad (sws) spent all his youth and middle age in her
companionship. This marriage lasted for almost 25 years till Khadijah’s (rta) death. At her
death, the Prophet (sws) was left alone to discharge his obligations towards his household.
It has been reported in narratives that after her death, a lady by the name of Khawlah bint
Hakim directed his attention to marry again as this was his need. She is reported to have
said:
‫يا رسو لل ب‬
‫ال كاني أراك قد دخلتك خلة لفقد خديجة ةأفل أخطبعليك‬ ‫ل َا‬
O God’s Messenger! I see that you have secluded yourself after the loss of Khadijah
… shall I not find a match for you?[1]
The Prophet (sws) inquired if a match was available. She replied: “If you want, both an
unmarried and a divorced lady are available.” The Prophet (sws) asked: “Who is the
unmarried one?” Her reply was: “ ‘Ā’ishah, the daughter of your dearest friend Abu Bakr.
The Prophet (sws) inquired: “Who is the divorced lady?” “She replied: “Sawdah bint
Zam‘ah who has professed faith in you and follows your religion.” The Prophet (sws) said:
“Proceed to ask them.” When she talked to them, both proposals were accepted. [2] Since
they were given on behalf of the Prophet (sws), he could not have refused. So, he married
both but consummated the marriage with Sawdah (rta) only. She was a divorcee and of the
same age as the Prophet (sws), and in a better position to discharge household
responsibilies. ‘Ā’ishah (rta) remained at her father’s house. For four years it was Sawdah
(rta) who stayed in the Prophet’s house. It was then that he brought ‘Ā’ishah (rta) home
once Abu Bakr (rta) directed his attention to this. Once she came to his home, the Prophet
(sws) decided to divorce Sawdah (rta). At this, she submitted that she had reached an age
when she was no longer interested in intimate relations and that she would forego her
rights in favour of ‘Ā’ishah (rta). She then requested that the Prophet (sws) should not
divorce her and that it was her wish that on the Day of Judgement she appear as his wife.
At this, the Prophet (sws) revised his decision. So, for all practical purposes, after this it was
only ‘Ā’shah (rta) who was his sole wife in this situation.
[1] See: Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Sa‘d al-Zuhri, Al-Ṭabaqat al-kubra, vol. 8 (Beirut: Dar sadir,
n.d.), 57.
[2] Abu ‘Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad, vol. 6, (Egypt: Mu’assasah Qurtubah, n.d.),
210, (no. 25810).
In his capacity of a human being, it was only these two ladies who remained his wives.
Apart from them, he never married any other woman in this capacity. Thus those who
accuse him of polygamy and try to cast aspersions on his pious and abstinent life are devoid
of God’s fear in their hearts. This is because a person whose character had dared not been
criticized in the first 25 years of his life, who even in the prime of his youth married a lady
who was a divorcee and also had children, who spent almost 25 years in the companionship
of a single wife in a society in which polygamy was a general norm and never thought of
marrying a second wife, who undertook his second marriage only when his first wife had
died and that too with a widow of 50 years, who married only one virgin in the whole of
his life and even delayed bringing her home for many years so that the older wife already in
his home who was brought to take care of the household does not complain of any lack of
attention – about such a person only someone sick in his mind can think that at the age of
55 the Prophet (sws) suddenly became obsessed with multiple marriages, and to satisfy his
lust altered a law he himself had made and began marrying other women one after the
other.
There is no doubt that in the last eight years of his life he married eight more women, and
a special law too was revealed in this regard. However, neither were these marriages
contracted in his capacity of a human being nor because of his own desire or to satisfy lust.
All these marriages took place in his capacity of God’s Prophet to discharge the
responsibilities of this position. All of them were conducted on God’s directive or
indication. Any upright person who has tried to understand this whole issue by
disregarding all prejudices cannot deny this reality. Following are its details:
1. The care and upbringing of the widows and orphans of many Muslims who were
martyred in the battles of Badr and Uhud became a collective issue faced by the small state
of Madinah. The Qur’an therefore stated that if the relatives and guardians of these
orphans thought that they would not be able to befittingly take care of their wealth and
since it was no easy a task to be able to do it alone, they should marry the mothers of the
orphans lawful to them. This appeal was made by God, the Lord of the worlds. It was but
natural that the Prophet (sws) take the lead in responding to it. This is exactly what
happened and the Prophet (sws) responded by marrying three widows: Hafsah bint ‘Umar
(rta), Zaynab bint Khuzaymah (rta) and Umm Salamah bint Umayyah (rta).
2. When the Qur’an directed the Muslims to eradicate slavery and raise the status of slaves
in the society, the Prophet (sws) showed exemplary conduct in its compliance: he wedded
his paternal cousin Zaynab (rta) with his liberated slave and adopted son Zayd (rta). This
was an extra-ordinary measure and had far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, this
marriage did not last and Zayd (rta) decided to divorce her. This was a matter of immense
grief for Zaynab (rta). This was because in the first place she had consented to marry a
liberated slave to reform a social custom and later became a divorcee. Thus to comfort and
solace her and to uproot the prevailing social custom of the prohibition of marrying the
wife of an adopted son, the Almighty directed the Prophet (sws) to marry Zaynab (rta)
even though at that time he already had four wives. In order to warn those who may raise
an objection on this step, the Almighty stated in the Qur’an that since he was the final
prophet, it was he who had to reform this custom. There was no one after him who could
do so. The Prophet (sws) himself thought that perhaps marrying Zaynab (rta) was the only
way out because of what had ensued between her and Zayd (rta), but he never expressed
these thoughts. The Almighty revealed these inner thoughts and told him that the
messengers of God did not care about the reaction of people while discharging their
responsibilities. Consequently, the Prophet’s marriage with Zaynab (rta) was proclaimed
by the Almighty Himself in the Qur’an:
‫ك لم ا اللَ هَ َم اب بد بيه لوتل اخ لش ى‬ ‫ك لواتَ بق اللَهل لوتَ اخ بفي فبي نل اف بس ل‬

‫ك لزاو لج ل‬‫ك لع لاي ل‬ ‫ت لع لاي به أ الم بس ا‬‫ول لبلَ بذي ألنا لع لم اللَهَ لع لاي به لوألنا لع ام ل‬ َ ‫لوإب اِ تل َق‬
‫اج أل اد بعيل ائب به ام‬
‫ج فب ي أل ازلو ب‬
ٌ ‫ين لح لر‬
‫بب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫را لزَو اجنلا لك لها ل لك اي لل يل َكو لن لع ل ى ال َام اؤمن ل‬j‫ضى لزيا ٌد م ان لها لوطل‬ ‫لح نق أل ان تل اخ لشاتَ فل ل َما قل ل‬ ‫َاس لواللَهَ أ ل‬‫الن ل‬
(37:33 ‫ول‬ j ‫را لولكا لن أ الم َر اللَ به لم اف َع‬j‫ض اوا بم ان َه َن لوطل‬
‫إب لِا قل ل‬
And remember [O Prophet!] When you were repeatedly saying to one who had
received the favour of God and your favour: “Retain your wife, [in wedlock] and
fear God.” And you were hiding in your heart that which God was about to make
manifest: and you were fearing the people, but it is more fitting that you should
fear God. So when Zayd broke his relationship with that [lady], We wedded her to
you so that there remain no difficulty on the believers in the matter of marriage
with the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have dissolved their
relationship with them. And this command of God had to be fulfilled. (33:37)
3. Right after this proclamation, the Almighty revealed detailed directives specifically for
the Prophet (sws) regarding marriage and divorce. In these directives, the restrictions of
polygamy meant for general Muslims were repealed but certain other restrictions were
imposed on him that were not imposed on other Muslims. These detailed directives are
stated in verses 50-52 of Surah al-Ahzab. The statutes on which they are based are as
follows:
Firstly, after contracting marriage with Zaynab (rta), the Prophet (sws) could marry further
for the following objectives:
i. To honour free women who were caught as captives in some military campaign.
ii. To show kind-heartedness to women who wanted to marry him just for the sake of
associating themselves to him, and for this they were ready to gift themselves to
him.
iii. To console and sympathize with his maternal or paternal cousin sisters who had
migrated with him from Makkah and left their houses and relatives merely to
support and back him.
Secondly, since these marriages of the Prophet (sws) were to be contracted only to fulfil
certain religious obligations, he was not required to deal equally between the wives.
Thirdly, except for the women specified, he was prohibited to marry any other lady; [3] he
could also not divorce any of his wives nor bring a new one in her place however much he
liked her.
It was clearly evident from this that the Almighty wanted that the Prophet (sws) marry
women who were afflicted with sorrows as result of accepting his call or were aggrieved as a
result of some step taken by him or if any of them merely had a strong desire to be
associated to him. This was an expression of great affection on the part of God.
Consequently, the Prophet (sws) while comprehending this divine will married Jawayriyah
(rta) and Ṣafiyyah (rta) for the first objective outlined above, Maymunah (rta) for the
second and Umm-i Habibah (rta) for the third.
It is also pointed out in these verses that the wives of the Prophet (sws) were the mothers of
the believers; consequently, marriage was eternally prohibited for them. No Muslim could
even think of marrying them after the Prophet’s death:
‫ب‬ ‫النَب ني ألوللى بالام اؤبمنب ب‬

َ ‫ين م ان ألنا َفس به ام لوأل ازلو‬
(6:33 ‫اجهَ أََم لهاتَ َه ام‬ ‫َ ل‬ ‫ا‬
The Prophet holds priority for the believers over their own selves, and his wives are
their mothers. (33:6)
‫ب ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ولل أل ان تل ان بكحوا أل ازو ب ب ب‬

j ‫دا إب َن لِل َك ام لكا لن ع ان لد اللَه لعظ‬j ‫اجهَ م ان بل اعدت ألبل‬
(53 :33 ‫يما‬ ‫َ ل ل‬ ‫ل‬
Nor is it right for you that you should marry his widows after him at any time.
Truly such a thing is abominable in God’s sight. (33:53)
It is evident from this discussion that these marriage directives were given to Muhammad
(sws) as a religious obligation in his capacity as a Prophet and a Messenger of God. He
followed these directives and there was no element of personal desire in these marriages.
Consequently, the need arose to make these directives an exception to the general ones
given to the Muslims in this regard. The above-mentioned regulations stated in Surah al-
[3] Consequently, because of these restrictions, the Prophet (sws) could not marry Mariyah (rta) and she
remained in his house as a slave lady.
Ahzab cite this very exception.

Age of ‘Ā’ishah (rta) at her Marriage
It is generally believed that ‘Ā’ishah (rta), mother of the faithful, was six years old when
she got married to the Prophet Muhammad (sws). The nikah took place in Makkah after
the death of Khadijah (rta). The marriage was consummated three years later in Madinah.
This is what books of Hadith and sirah report about her. The narratives which describe
these details are found in Bukhari and Muslim and some other books of Hadith as well.
There is no doubt that such marriages have taken place in the past keeping in view certain
needs of tribal and rural societies. Examples can even be presented from our society. It is
also true that the social attitudes that spring from basic morality can be different in
different societies keeping in view their circumstances and experiences, and the moral
status of one society cannot be determined by using another society as a standard. All these
things can be accepted; however, the matter of ‘Ā’ishah’s (rta) marriage is different. The
question which arises in every discerning mind relates to the need of this marriage: why did
it take place when the need which was present at that time could not have been fulfilled
even after many subsequent years? Such marriages do take place and one can accept them
taking place without any hesitation; however, it is not easy to accept marriages which take
place without any reason and to fulfil a current need many years later.
Had the suggestion to marry her come from the Prophet (sws), we could have said that this
was done on divine bidding. The role she would play in the Prophet’s life and the treasure
of wisdom which would be transmitted to the ummah through her noble person was in
the foreknowledge of God; thus it was decided that she be singled out for the Prophet (sws)
since this early age. We can also say that the Prophet (sws) undertook this marriage for the
betterment of his preaching mission. ‘Ā’ishah’s (rta) father was a very close companion of
the Prophet (sws). In tribal life, relationships play a great role in cementing close ties. The
Prophet (sws) deemed it appropriate that he engage in this association with his special
companion so that ties of friendship and love were strengthened.
Had this suggestion to marry her come from Abu Bakr (rta), it could have been said that
he was desirous of respect and honour for his daughter, for his own self and for his own
family. He wanted to establish familial ties with the person whom he regarded to be a
messenger of God; perhaps he did not get this idea at the time of the marriage of his other
daughter Asma’ (rta). After her, it was only through ‘Ā’ishah (rta) that he could attain this
honour. Thus he suggested for this marriage to take place. The Prophet (sws) accepted this
suggestion to honour the wish of his dear friend.
However, we know that none of these suppositions are true. If because of a divinely
inspired vision such a thought for ‘Ā’ishah’s (rta) existed in the heart of the Prophet (sws),
he never expressed it. The whole corpus of Hadith and sirah literature is totally devoid of a
mention of any such suggestion, indication or insinuation from him. The same is the case
of Abu Bakr (rta). If he wanted the marriage of his daughter to take place with the Prophet
(sws), why did he resolve to solemnize her marriage with the son of Mut‘im ibn ‘Adi?
Narratives mention that he had already done this before this suggestion came to him. Not
only this, it is also reported that when he heard this suggestion, he expressed his wonder
since he thought that the Prophet (sws) was like a paternal uncle for his children; so how
could the suggestion of such a marriage be presented. His words reported are:
‫هل تصلح له انما هي ابنة اخيه‬
(Is she allowed to him? She is the daughter of his brother!)[1]
The narratives clearly state that it was Khawlah bint Hakim who suggested that the name
of ‘Ā’ishah (rta) for this marriage. It was she who directed the attention of the Prophet
(sws) to the fact that after the death of Khadijah (rta), it was his need to marry again. She is
reported to have said:
‫يا رسول ال كأني أراك قد دخلتك خلة لفقد خديجة أفل أخطبعليك‬
(I see that you have secluded yourself after the loss of Khadijah; shall I find a match
for you?).[2]
On inquiry by the Prophet (sws), she told him that both an unmarried and a divorced lady
were available. When the Prophet (sws) asked who the unmarried lady she had in mind
was, her reply was ‘Ā’ishah bint Abi Bakr (rta).[3]
A wife can be needed to satisfy one’s sexual needs, for companionship and friendship and
for looking after children and household affairs. If this suggestion was given with sanity
prevailing, the question which arises is: which of these needs can be fulfilled by a six year
old girl? Could sexual relations be established with her? Could the companionship of a
wife be available through her? Could she have been able to look after kids? Could she have
looked after household affairs? The issue just raised that a marriage is taking place to fulfil
needs which cannot even be fulfilled after many years of marriage is not merely a possible
option that should be considered in interpreting these narratives. It is the most
fundamental question in this regard. Can it be logically accepted that to fulfil a need of
today a suggestion be given as a result of which it is not even fulfilled after several years?
Ibn Khaldun has rightly pointed out that in the matter of historical incidents, the real
thing is their possibility of taking place. They cannot merely be accepted on the basis that
their chain of narration contains such and such a person and that it has been narrated
[1] Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol, 6, 210, (no. 25810).

[2] See: Ibn Sa‘d, Al-Ṭabaqat al-kubra, vol. 8, 57.
[3] Ibid.
through several chains.[4]
In current times, men of learning who are presenting their researches on this issue should
first of all answer this question. They should explain how this internal contradiction of the
narrative can be resolved. If this contradiction cannot be resolved, then why don’t the
requisites of knowledge and intellect entail that the narrative which depicts ‘Ā’shah’s age
to be six years at the time of marriage should be reconsidered and the opinion of those
scholars[5] should also be reflected upon who say that the words to the effect ‫( بعد العشر‬after
ten) were understood to be present after the words ‫( بن ت ستس نين‬a girl of six) uttered by
‘Ā’ishah (rta) and the narrators never made an effort to understand them? Whatever
research is presented without answering this question will never be worthy of any
attention for any person of learning.
[4] ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibnKhaldun, Muqaddimah, 5th ed. (Beirut: Dar al-qalam, 1984),
37.
[5] See, for example: Shabbir Ahmad Azhar Mayrathi, Ṣahih Bukhari ka mutala‘ah, 1st ed. (Lahore: Dar
al-tazkir, 2005), 252-255.
The Right to Divorce
Marriage is not just about bringing the physical relationship between a man and a woman
within the bounds of law. It is a contract that lays the foundation of a family. This
institution of family is an indispensable human requirement. Without it, many basic
physiological, psychological, and social needs remain unfulfilled. The institution is
founded on a woman’s decision to accept her bond with a man not as his friend but as his
wife. The decision implies that she has accepted the man as the head of the institution that
their matrimonial bond will create. Just as this institution makes it incumbent upon the
man that he take the financial responsibility of his wife and children, it also entails that, in
the unfortunate case of the need for divorce, the woman not take any step to end the
marriage without first resolving matters with the man. Therefore, in a situation requiring
dissolution of marriage, she will not divorce the husband; she will ask for divorce. In usual
circumstances, it is expected that a decent husband will not refuse his wife’s request in a
situation where no reasonable possibility of reconciliation exists. However, if the husband
does not accept her request, what should a woman do? The shari‘ah does not answer this
question; instead, as with many other matters related to life, it leaves this matter also to our
discretion (ijtihad). Since the Prophet’s (sws) time, the procedure that has been adopted for
this purpose is that the woman then approaches the court. In our times, this step is often
fraught with innumerable difficulties for the woman. One suggestion to resolve this
problem is that the man be asked to delegate his authority of divorce to the woman.
However, such a demand is again not easy to make in our society, especially on the
occasion of marriage. Furthermore, such stipulation also negates the spirit and the wisdom
in not giving a woman the right to divorce her husband. Therefore, in our opinion, a law
should be enacted at the level of the state that, after a woman’s request for termination of
marriage, if the husband refuses to divorce her in the next 90 days, the marriage will stand
dissolved; if there are any unresolved matters pertaining to wealth or maintenance, either
party may approach the court for resolution. Another possibility is that, in the current
marriage form, the section for the option of transferring the right of divorce to the wife be
replaced with the following statement:
“This marriage contract takes effect with the proviso that, if the wife ever makes a
written request for divorce, the husband shall be obliged to divorce her within 90
days. If he does not do that, it shall be deemed that an irrevocable divorce from his
side has taken effect. Thereafter, if the husband demands the return of any
property or wealth that she received from him, she shall be obliged to return to
him that property or wealth except her mahr (bridal gift that the husband gives as a
token of his commitment) and maintenance. In case of any difference of opinion
regarding the return of this property or wealth, she shall refer the matter to the
court.”
It is expected that this form will save the woman and her family the embarrassment of
laying down this condition as a demand from their side on the occasion of the marriage
ceremony.
If and when the divorce proceedings are initiated in accordance with this stipulation, the
husband will get a 90-day period to convince the woman [and her family] to withdraw her
request.
The divorce, nevertheless, will be from the husband’s side, and, therefore, the sanctity and
the wisdom in the Divine law will be preserved.
(Translated by Asif Iftikhar)

Wrong Methods of giving Divorce
As per the procedure outlined in the Islamic shari‘ah for divorcing a wife, no one has the
right to divorce his wife without taking into consideration her ‘iddat, pronouncing divorce
in rage, not calling in witnesses at the time of divorce, declaring divorce during her
menstrual cycle or during her period of purity in which he has been intimate with her or
utter more than one divorce sentences in one go or send a written divorce to her by writing
many divorces at the same time. All these methods are extremely undesirable. The Prophet
(sws) showed great anger on whichever of these methods were adopted in his times or
emanated from a person in his presence. So much so, at one instance he is reported to have
said: “Is the law of God being toyed with even though I am present among you?”[1]
In spite of this, ninety percent of the people in our society are guilty of the above referred
to wrongdoings while giving divorce. In the thirty years of my public life, barring one or
two, almost all cases of divorce which have come to me are afflicted with one or more of
these wrongdoings. This is something very worrisome. However, does this mean: do
people intentionally disobey the law of God and have no sense of what is lawful and what
is not left in them? They no longer fear God in this regard and do not think that one day
they will be held accountable before God? In my opinion, none of the above is the case.
People indulge in these wrongdoings not because they want to be rebellious before God.
On the contrary, they commit these wrongdoings unintentionally. The reason for this is
that a vast majority of them in the first place do not even know that these things are
prohibited in the shari‘ah of God. Secondly, scholars and jurists not only do not inform
people of these wrongdoings, they even enforce every divorce that is given while adopting
wrong methods. Thirdly, if the person who has given divorce goes to a registered oath
commissioner or marriage registrar or some lawyer and asks them to write a divorce
document, then they too without taking all these wrongdoings in consideration write
three simultaneous divorce sentences. This has become so common that seldom do we see
a person divorce his wife according to the shari‘ah of God and according to the norms
prescribed by it.
The consequences of this approach are very grave. The benefits which the shari‘ah
methodology of divorce holds are sacrificed. All options of reconciliation and saving the
family are dashed to ground. No possibility remains for the children, adults and friends to
resolve the situation. A permanent basis of rivalry between families is laid. When people
who have divorced their wives turn to scholars to make amends for what they have done,
the answer they get is to do halalah. The words of the Prophet (sws) regarding this heinous
act is that God curses the one who undertakes it and and the one who has it arranged. [2] In
[1] Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb al-Nasa’i, Al-Sunan al-mujtaba, 2nd ed., vol. 6. (Halab:
Maktab al-matbu‘at al-islamiyyah, 1986), 142, (no. 3401).
[2] Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Majah al-Qazwini, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub
al-‘ilmiyyah, 1998), 623, (no. 1936).
short, as soon as divorce is uttered from the mouth, it becomes a regret for the whole life.
The following measures are essential to redress this state of affairs.
1. In their Friday sermons, gatherings and lectures, scholars should inform people of these
mistakes. They should make them aware of their grave nature. They should continuously
place before these people the sayings of the Prophet (sws) related to divorce. They should
inform them that the right way to divorce a wife is to always pronounce it once only, and
that it should be given in a calm and calculated way in the presence of two witnesses giving
due regard to the ‘iddat period and it should not be given during her menstrual cycle or in
her period of ritual cleanliness when the husband has had intercourse with her.
2. Like the marriage form, the government should also issue a standard divorce form and
place it in the custody of marriage registrars. It should be made mandatory on every person
who intends to divorce his wife to fill this form. If he does not do so, then he must be
necessarily punished.
3. Jurists, scholars and courts of law instead of implementing wrongly given divorces
should adopt the way the Prophet (sws) adopted in such cases. Two of these cases are very
important:
The first of these is the case of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (rta). When he divorced his wife
during her menstrual cycle, ‘Umar (rta) presented his case before the Prophet (sws). The
Prophet (sws) expressed great anger when he was informed of these details and said: “Ask
him to take her back and retain her in wedlock until she enters her period of purity and
then again passes through her menstrual cycle and is pure again. Then, if he wants, he can
permanently retain her or divorce her without having intercourse with her because this is
the beginning of ‘iddat keeping regard of which the Almighty has directed a husband to
divorce his wife.”[3]
The second case is that of Rukanah ibn ‘Abdi Yazid.By gathering all the narratives of this
case, the whole situation that comes to light is that he had divorced his wife three times in
one go. He then felt ashamed and presented his case before the Prophet (sws). The Prophet
(sws) inquired: “How did you divorce her?” He replied: “I divorced her three times in one
go.” The Prophet (sws) again inquired: “What was your intention?” He answered that he
wanted to divorce her once only. The Prophet (sws) told him to reply on oath which he did
and then said: “If this is the matter, then take her back. Only one divorce has been
implemented.” Rukanah remarked: “O Prophet of God! I had divorced her three times.”
The Prophet said: “I know, take her back and this is not the proper way of divorcing a
wife. The Almighty has said that if one must divorce his wife, he should do so keeping in
consideration the ‘iddat.”[4]
[4] Abu Da’ud Sulyman ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Sajistani, Sunan, vol. 2 (n.p.: Dar al-fikr, n.d.), 267, 270, (nos.
2196, 2206); Ibn Majah, Sunan, vol. 2, 521, (no. 2051); Abu ‘Īsa Muhammad ibn ‘Īsa al-Tirmidhi, Al-
Jami‘ al-kabir, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-gharb al-islami, 1998), 466, (no. 1177), Ahmad ibn Hanbal,
Musnad, vol. 1, 438, (no. 2383). These narratives have weak chains of narration; however, if they are
collected and collated, this weakness is dispelled
Implementation of the Shari‘ah (Divine Law)
Some people believe that democracy is a concept alien to Islam. The ideal way of setting up
an Islamic government in our times is the one that the Taliban adopted for Mullah
‘Umar’s government in Afghanistan. The constitution, the parliament, and elections are
nothing but modern day shams. For its implementation, Islam does not depend on any of
these mechanisms. Whatever interpretations have been accepted in the Hanafi law [1] are
final and authoritative. The opinions of its jurists have all been compiled in matters related
to individual as well as collective affairs. According to these people, these opinions and
verdicts are based on the Qur’an, the Sunnah (the Prophet’s teachings), ijma‘ (consensus),
and Qiyas (analogy) and are contained in the manuals of fiqh (Islamic law) and in the
fatawa (verdicts) of “qualified” Muslim jurists. These laws and verdicts must be
implemented. And this implementation does not require the approval of any parliament.
The modus operandi recommended by people with these views is that all institutions of
the government be under the judiciary and the judiciary itself be under the control of the
‘ulama’ (religious scholars) as it is the ‘ulama’ who are the experts in the understanding and
interpretation of the shari‘ah (Divine law). These people hold that the last 1200 years of
Muslim tradition stands in support of their view. In their opinion, after the appointment
of Imam Abu Yusuf as the qadi al-qudat (chief justice) of the Abbasid Sultanate, the same
modus operandi was adopted everywhere for the implementation of Islam. It was the
Western colonialism that put an end to this tradition. Now, the Muslims are independent;
therefore, this approach to running the affairs of the state in accordance with the shari‘ah
must also be restored.
I can say with full confidence on the basis of my study of Islam that this viewpoint is not
acceptable to the Qur’an. It prescribes democracy as the basis for running the affairs of the
State. The Qur’an (42:38) says: amruhum shura baynahum (the affairs of the Muslims are
run on the basis of their consultation). ‘Umar (rta) said: “Whosoever pledges allegiance to
anyone without the collective consent of the Muslims presents himself for the death
sentence.”[2] It is true that, in Muslim history, monarchy and dictatorship have often been
accepted forms of government. Some people also believe that the head of government
should be an appointee of God Himself. However, the principle the Qur’an spells out is
very clear. What this principle entails in terms of its nature and foundation has been
explained very aptly by a well-known Muslim scholar of our times, Mawlana Abu al-A‘la
Mawdudi. He says:
First of all, people whose interests and rights are directly affected by collective
decisions should have the absolute right to express their opinions. They should be
fully informed of how their matters are being dealt with, and they should be
[1] Islamic law as understood, interpreted and applied in one of the major Sunni schools of thought. The
Hanafi school is named after the Iraqi legal expert Abu Hanifah (d. 767 AD).
[2] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 6, 2505, (no. 6442).
granted the full right to criticize those in charge of their matters for any mistakes or
flaws. They should also have the right to change their leaders if they do not see any
effectiveness in the efforts for their reform. Making people conform to collective
decisions by stifling their voice, shackling their hands and keeping them in the dark
is downright dishonesty, which no intellectually honest person can consider as
compliance with the directive of amruhum shura baynahum.
The second thing that needs to be understood is that the appointment of the
person responsible for the collective affairs of the Muslims should be with the free
will of people. Support gained through coercion, intimidation, jobbery, bribery,
deception or misrepresentation does not reflect free will. The rightful leader of the
people is not someone who attains this position by hook or by crook, but someone
whom they choose of their own accord.
The third point is that representatives of people involved in consultation with the
head of the state should be appointed on the basis of the genuine trust of people.
Obviously, those who have attained this position on the basis of coercion, bribes,
lies and deception can never be deemed as worthy of this trust.
The fourth point pertains to freedom of expression for people’s representatives to

present their opinions correctly and honestly in accordance with their
understanding and conscience. If this aspect is missing and the representatives are
bound by any fear, greed or group affiliation, the consequence will be dishonesty
and betrayal rather than conformity to the principle of amruhum shura
baynahum.
Finally, the unanimous or majority verdict of the consultative body should be

accepted. The reason for this principle is that, if any person or group is given the
authority to violate the collective decision, the whole process of consultation
becomes meaningless. The Almighty does not say: “In their matters, the Muslims
are consulted.” Instead, He says: “Their matters are based on their consultation.”
Compliance with this directive does not take effect by mere consultation.
Compliance here requires that, in the consultation, whatever is decided by
unanimous or majority verdict become binding.”[3]
This extract clearly shows that, for the interpretation and application of even a religious
directive pertaining to the state affairs, it is consultation that should be the procedure.
Experts of Islamic sciences may proffer their opinions. It is their right to express their
viewpoints, but their opinions become legally binding on people only when the majority
of the elected representatives of people accept them. In the present-day state, the
[3] Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi, Tafhim al-Qur’an, vol. 4, (Lahore: Maktabah-i ta‘mir-i insaniyyat, 1972), 509-
510.
institution of the parliament is constituted for this very purpose. It is the right of the
people to disagree with decisions of the parliament and to express their viewpoints to
rectify its mistakes. However, no one has the right to violate the laws enacted by the
parliament or to defy the system. Neither the ‘ulama nor the judiciary is superior to the
parliament. Each institution has the obligation to comply with the parliamentary decisions
even if it has differences of opinion with it.
If this status of the parliament is accepted, the discussion on an “Islamic state” viz-à-viz a
“secular state” also becomes irrelevant. Discussions as these were relevant in situations of
autocracy and dictatorship. Now, the objective of our efforts should be a purely
democratic state. Once this state is truly formed, Islam will manifest itself in the system in
proportion to the degree of people’s commitment to this faith. This is the natural way.
Any deviation from it will lead only to hypocrisy, which we have been witnessing for the
past half-century in Pakistan.
The real task of the ‘ulama’ and reformers is to prepare the minds of the people for Islam
through education and communication. They should call people to this message with
sagacity and decency; they should face their questions and queries; they should cogently
resolve people’s intellectual issues and explain to them not only the shari‘ah but also the
Divine wisdom in its directives. For example, they should be ready to explain what the
relationship of the shari‘ah is with the collective affairs of the society, what the foundations
of its directives are, and why the modern mind is impeded in understanding the wisdom of
the Divine law. They should adopt such means and modes of communication as would
bring out the wisdom and the meaningfulness of the shari‘ah so that people are able to
understand the underlying objectives clearly and become willing to accept these laws with
heart, mind and soul. The responsibility that the Qur’an lays upon the religious scholars is
that of calling people to Islam and exhorting them to follow its directives (da‘wat-o indhar)
– they have not been given the role of keepers of morals and, therefore, have no right to
use groups of their followers to enforce their conceptions and interpretations of the
shari‘ah on people in their society through the force of guns. Not even the state itself has
been permitted by Islam to use the force of law to coerce people into fulfilling any
obligation of purely religious nature except the mandatory prayer and alms (al-salah and al-
zakah). The Qur’an is very clear in this matter: regardless of what the adherents to Islam
are responsible for in the Hereafter, the state cannot hold them responsible in religion
beyond these imperatives. Beyond them, appeal, exhortation, education and training are
the means that may be adopted to make the efforts for reformation of people. If some of
the religious scholars are fond of politics as well, they can join political parties to become
part of the parliament where they can play their role in legislation in accordance with the
parliamentary norms and procedures.

The Rule of an Islamic Government
Man, by nature, is a being who lives by setting up a government for himself. The first
manifestation of this instinct took place when in ancient times people decided that they
would select chiefs of their tribes. After that, when these chiefs were able to establish their
hegemony by conquering other tribes, they became the owners of the conquered lands and
this gradually took the shape of ancestral kingdoms governed by kings. In later periods,
these kings, in their capacity as great conquerors, laid the foundations of empires
consisting of several countries. This brought into existence governments which included
the Sassanid and the Roman empires. These empires have now become extinct but many
kingdoms are still extant and have taken the place of constitutional monarchies. Except for
some countries, this is the case every where. Among these exceptions is the kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. It still exists with its real glory and majesty. The laws of such kingdoms are
enacted by the king and his nobles. The Saudi government was established with the
reformist movement of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792 AD). Thus on the very
first day of its inception it decided that the law of the land would be the Islamic shari‘ah. A
great majority of Sunni scholars does not regard kingdoms to be governments which are
against the shari‘ah and also more or less agree to the interpretation of the shari‘ah made by
the Saudi government. This is because they think that it is an Islamic government and on
this basis they show allegiance to it.
The ideology of an Islamic revolution that has sprung up in recent times can be
summarized as follows: it is only the disciplined minority of the righteous (salihin) which
has the right to rule; if godless people are rulers, then they are in fact embezzlers; it is the
responsibility of the righteous to launch an effort to take back what belongs to them.
Among the Shiites, this ideology already existed under the concepts of “government of the
infallibles (ma‘sumin)” and “guardianship of the jurist” (wilayat-i faqih). Consequently,
Sunni and Shiite scholars have instituted religious parties at various places to achieve this
very objective of bringing about an Islamic revolution. Moreover, the intellectual class is
expending its efforts in various countries to realize this objective by trying to bring into
existence a disciplined minority of the righteous. At some places, these efforts have been
successful. For example, in Iran where religious scholars, under the leadership of Imam
Khumini (d. 1989), were able to take the reins of political authority in their hands. They
have been ruling Iran with full power since a quarter of a century. Another example is
Afghanistan where, through the support and help of the Pakistani government, the
students of religious scholars were able to set up a government which unfortunately
succumbed to the incident of 9/11 and is now trying to revive itself by waging war against
the NATO forces.
The question which arises in this context is: what does Islam want? A deep deliberation on
the Qur’an and Hadith shows that the real addressee of Islam is the individual. It wants to
rule the heart and mind of a person. Thus it makes it mandatory upon him to submit his
whole self to the sovereignty of God. Just as the God of Islam is the Lord and worshipped
deity of people, He is also their king. Hence it is necessary that besides worshipping Him,
obedience also be shown to Him and if He has prescribed some law or principle in some
matter, then people must totally surrender to it. No doubt, Islam also addresses the society
but only when the individuals of a society accept its rule over themselves. At that time, no
effort or struggle is needed to achieve the supremacy of Islam at the collective level; Islam
automatically manifests itself through the social, cultural and political mannerisms and
attitudes of people. Thus if in the shari‘ah of God, there is any directive related to the
society, they are prepared to implement it without any hesitation.
This is an Islamic government. When it comes into existence in this way, it becomes a
manifestation of God’s mercy on earth; however, if it does not come into existence, even
then one should not be worried because the objective of Islam is not the formation of an
Islamic government but the attainment of tazkiyah (self-purification). Its call is to the
kingdom of God which people will attain on the Day of Judgement as a result of attaining
this tazkiyah. Islam calls upon people to save themselves from Hell and enter this eternal
kingdom of God. It does not call upon people to establish an Islamic government.
However, people who are anxious for this – and which in Qur’anic terms may be called
ukhra tuhibbunaha (the second thing which you desire, (61:13)) – have seen for themselves
the experimentation which has taken place in this regard in the last one and a half century.
In my opinion, they should now accept the reality that an Islamic government is neither
established through a royal decree nor through the autocratic rule of religious scholars nor
by a self-appointed army of divine soldiers. This is not an objective but emanates or should
emanate from the inner conviction of people on Islam and the Islamic shari‘ah. If this
happens, then the government which is established as a result can be called an Islamic
government in every sense of the word. If the objective is to set up such a government,
then instead of wasting one’s time in frivolous political stratagems and instead of killing
oneself and killing innocent people in the name of jihad, all force should be directed
towards two things.
Firstly, through reminding and exhortation, knowledge and reasoning, education and
instruction, efforts should be made to establish the rule of this government on the hearts
of people. This effort should continue until the ruling elite of the Muslims have as strong a
conviction in Islam and Islamic shari‘ah as the one possessed by those who take up the task
of calling people towards Islam.
Secondly, at every level democracy and democratic values should be promoted so that if
people get prepared to fulfil the requirements of their religion related to the political and
economic spheres, no form of despotism causes any hindrance to them. Launching a
struggle against despotic forces is in fact a struggle against fitnah and fitnah according to
the Qur’an is a greater sin than murder. Hence, the institution of monarchy and
dictatorship deserve to be sent packing from the stage of this world forever.
Islam and the State
It is generally understood that the founders of Pakistan wanted to make it an Islamic
democratic welfare state. In later times as well, this concept about Pakistan continued. In
these times, advocates of revolution and change also say the same. If the common masses
are asked, a vast majority will also attest to this concept. There are excellent examples of
democratic and western states in the western world; so it is not at all difficult to
understand what such states are or should be. However, the question arises: What exactly
is implied by an “Islamic State”? One of its models can be seen in the monarchy of Saudi
Arabia and another in the theocracy of Iran. However, if Islam is understood directly from
its sources, it does not regard either of these models as correct. Therefore it is essential that
the requirements of Islam regarding the state system of the Muslims be stated here so that
in the light of this people can evaluate the promises and measures of their leaders.
Following are these requirements:
1. Those who call themselves Muslims and regard Muhammad (sws) to be the last prophet
of God, who are diligent in their prayer and are ready to pay zakah to the state, shall be
regarded as Muslims and the rights which they specifically enjoy by virtue of the Islamic
shari‘ah shall be given to them in all circumstances.
This means that they will not be subjects of a king but equal citizens. No discrimination
shall be made between them in the state system and the laws of the state. Their life, wealth
and honour shall hold sanctity – so much so that without their consent the state shall not
impose any tax on them other than zakah. If a dispute arises in their personal affairs like
marriage, divorce, distribution of inheritance and other similar matters, then it shall be
decided in accordance with the Islamic shari‘ah. They shall be provided with all the
essential facilities for their daily prayers, the fasts of Ramadan and hajj and ‘umrah. They
will not be forced by the law to submit to any directive which reflects a positive injunction
of Islam except the prayer and the zakah. They will be governed with justice and fairness
on the principle of amruhum shura baynahum (their system is based on their
consultation). Their public wealth and assets shall be reserved for the collective needs of
the society and shall not be given in private ownership; in fact, they shall be developed and
looked after in such a way that the needs of people who are not able to financially support
themselves are fulfilled from their income. If they pass away, they shall be enshrouded and
prepared for burial according to Muslim rites; their funeral prayer shall be offered and they
shall be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims the way Muslims are buried.
2. It shall be the responsibility of the government to organize the Friday and the ‘id
prayers. These prayers shall be held only at places which are specified by the state. Their
pulpits shall be reserved for the rulers. They themselves will lead and deliver the sermon of
these prayers or some representative of theirs will fulfil this responsibility on their behalf.
Within the confines of the state, no one will have the authority to organize these prayers
independently.
3. Law enforcing departments shall be primarily reserved for amar bi al-ma‘ruf and nahi ‘an
al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil). Thus the most pious of people will be
selected as workers of these departments. They will urge people to do good and forbid
them all what mankind has always regarded as evil.
4. The state shall always adhere to justice (qa’im bi al-qist) with regard to its enemies as
well. It will speak the truth, bear witness to it and will not take any step contrary to justice
and fairness.
5. If the state enters into agreement with someone within its jurisdiction or with some
foreign entity, then as long as the agreement exists it shall be honoured both in letter and
in spirit with full honesty and sincerity.
6. If a Muslim is guilty of murder, theft, fornication, falsely accusing someone of

fornication (qadhf) or spreading anarchy and disorder in the land and a court is fully
satisfied that he does not deserve any leniency arising from his personal, familial and social
circumstances, then those punishments shall be meted out to him which the Almighty has
prescribed in His Book for those who have whole-heartedly accepted the call of Islam.
7. Dissemination of Islam to all parts of this world shall be organized at the state level. If
any power of the world tries to hinder this effort or persecutes Muslims, then the state,
according to its capacity, will try to remove this hindrance and stop this persecution even if
it has to lift arms for it.[1]
[1] In order to see the details of these seven requirements in the sources of Islam, my book Mizan can be
consulted.
The Basis of Legislation
Man has been created free. He is not subservient to anyone except the Almighty. Hence,
neither an individual nor a state has any right to impose any restrictions on his ideology
and deeds or take any step against his life, wealth and honour. This freedom is a birth right
of a person, and has been granted to him by his Creator. The Global Manifesto of Human
Rights is a declaration of this reality. All nations of the world have accepted it and have
guaranteed that they will not violate it in their constitutions. This is a testimony to the fact
that the awareness of freedom is found in human nature and a person would never want
that any individual or government to try to arrest it. The Prophet Muhammad (sws) in his
sermon of hajj stressed this very reality in the following words:
‫اض َك ام بل اي نل َك ام لح لر ٌام لك َح ارلم بة يل اوبم َك ام له لذا فبي لش اه برَك ام له لذا فبي بلل بد َك ام له لذا‬ ‫ب ب‬
‫ا َن لود لم ل‬
‫اء َك ام لوال ام لوال َك ام لوال اع لر ل‬
Indeed, your lives, your wealth, and your honour are as sacred and inviolable as
this day of [sacrifice of] yours in this city of [Makkah of] yours in this month of
[Dhu al-Hajj of] yours.[1]
The question, however, arises: is this freedom of life, wealth and honour absolute in
nature? The answer to this question is firmly in the negative. This freedom ends when a
person usurps the rights of others or takes a step against the life, wealth and honour of an
individual. Man’s moral awareness and God’s shari‘ah both agree that after this every
society has the right to terminate this freedom and refrain from acknowledging this
sanctity of life, wealth and honour.
It is this which in reality forms the basis of legislation in an Islamic state. All laws are made
to stop people from usurping the rights of others and committing excesses against them or
to punish their perpetrators. The right to legislate of every institution, every government
and every parliament begins and ends here. The directive God has given a Muslim state to
punish people who kill, steal, falsely accuse people of fornication and spread anarchy in the
land is because fornication is tantamount to usurping rights while killing, stealing, falsely
accusing someone of fornication and spreading anarchy in the land are excesses committed
against the life, wealth and honour of people. When in the times of the rightly guided
caliphs the issue of prescribing a punishment for liquor arose,‘Ali (rta), on this very basis,
opined that a drunkard should be given the same punishment as the one prescribed by the
Qur’an for falsely accusing someone of fornication. That is when people drink, they will
get intoxicated and once they get intoxicated, they will utter nonsense; and once they start
uttering nonsense, they will falsely accuse other people. [2] Similar is the case of marriage,
divorce, distribution of inheritance and other similar matters. All these relate to the state
[1] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol.1, 37, (no. 67).

[2] Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, Bidayah al-Mujtahid, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-
fikr, n.d.), 332.
only when a person does not discharge the rights imposed on him by the Almighty, and in
this manner is guilty of usurping rights. In the state of Pakistan, laws regarding permission
of the first wife for second marriage and prohibition of marriage of minors have been
made on this basis.
Every government and every legislative forum of the world is bound to justify the
legitimacy of all the laws and statutes they enact on this basis as well. Moreover, it is the
right of the people to analyze the laws made by them and if they see that there are some
laws which are devoid of this basis, to not accept them. Thus, if a government, for
example, has enacted the law that people will not be allowed to wear their religious
identifications like the zunnar, the cross, the turban or kirpan, or they will have to
necessarily give a wife a certain amount of their wealth at the time of divorce or will not
shave their beards or not wear shorts or not listen to music or women will not go out
without wearing the veil or will not put on the scarf then this indeed is exceeding the
limits. Similarly, if, on the contrary, it has enacted the law that they cannot go out unless
they wear the veil or not go for hajj or ‘umrah without a mahram or will not drive cars, or
will not adopt such and such a profession, or will not take part in politics or will not cast
votes, then this also is exceeding the limits. Even if any of these is God’s directive, then
people are answerable before God if they follow or violate it. No government of the world
has the authority to order a person to obey such matters. The Almighty has made it
evident in unequivocal terms that among the positive requirements of religion, a state can
only demand two things from its Muslim citizens: the prayer and the zakah. The Qur’an
asserts that after this a state must leave them alone and not try to implement anything else
on them through law. It says:
‫ص لل لة وُتل وا ال َزلكا لة فل لخلنوا سبيلهم إب َن اللَه غل َف ب‬

(5:9 ‫يم‬
ٌ ‫ور لرح‬
ٌ ‫ل‬ ‫ل َا‬ َ ‫فلبِ ان تلابَوا لوألقل َاموا ال َ ل‬
So, if they repent, are diligent in the prayer and pay zakah, leave them alone. (9:5)
This directive was given to the Prophet Muhammad (sws) at the time when God ruled on
this earth. Thus, while explaining this, I have written:
… This means that at the state and legal level no additional demand can be made
from the Muslims to fulfil the requirements of faith and religion. This is because if
God did not allow this under His own rule, how can others be given this
permission.[3]
[3] Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Al-Bayan, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Lahore: Topical Printing Press, 2014), 325-326.
Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative
The situation which has been created today for Islam and Muslims in the whole world by
certain extremist organizations is an evil consequence of the ideology taught in our
religious seminaries, and also propagated day and night by Islamic movements and
religious political parties. The true understanding of Islam, in contrast to this, has been
presented by this writer in his treatise Mizan.[1] This understanding actually constitutes a
counter narrative. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this writer that when in a Muslim
society anarchy is created on the basis of religion, the remedy to this situation is not
advocacy of secularism. On the contrary, the solution lies in presenting a counter narrative
to the existing narrative on religion. Its details can be looked up in the aforementioned
treatise. However, the part of it which relates to Islam and the state is summarized below.
1. The message of Islam is primarily addressed to an individual. It wants to rule the hearts
and minds of people. The directives it has given to the society are also addressed to
individuals who are fulfilling their responsibilities as the rulers of Muslims. Hence, it is
baseless to think that a state also has a religion and there is a need to Islamize it through an
Objectives Resolution and that it must be constitutionally bound to not make any law
repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah. People who presented this view and were successful
in having it implemented actually laid the foundations of a permanent division in the
nation states of these times: it gave the message to the non-Muslims that they are in fact
second rate citizens who at best occupy the status of a protected minority and that if they
want to demand anything from the real owners of the state must do this in this capacity of
theirs.
2. It can be the dream of every person that countries in which Muslims are in majority
should unite under a single rule and we can also strive to achieve this goal but this is not a
directive of the Islamic shari‘ah which today Muslims are guilty of disregarding. Certainly
not! Neither is khilafah a religious term nor its establishment at the global level a directive
of Islam. After the first century hijrah, when celebrated jurists of the Muslims were among
them, two separate Muslim kingdoms, the Abbasid kingdom in Baghdad and the
Umayyad kingdom in Spain had been established and remained so for many centuries.
However, none of these jurists regarded this state of affairs to be against the Islamic
shari‘ah. The reason is that there is not a single directive found on this issue in the Qur’an
and the Hadith. On the contrary, what everyone, including this writer, does say is that if at
any place a state is established, rebelling against it is a heinous crime. Such is the horrific
nature of this crime that the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said that a person who does
so dies the death of jahiliyyah.[2]
3. The basis of nationhood in Islam is not Islam itself, as is generally understood. At no

[2] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 6, 2588, (no. 6645-6646).
place in the Qur’an and Hadith has it been said that Muslims must become one nation.
On the contrary, what the Qur’an has said is:
(10 :49 ٌ‫ابنَ لما ال َام اؤبمنَ او لن اب اخ لوة‬
(All Muslims are brothers to one another, (49:10)).
Thus the relationship between Muslims is not based on nationhood; rather, it is based on
brotherhood. While being divided into several nations, countries and states they are
brothers in faith. Hence, what can be demanded from them is that they should keep
themselves aware of the circumstances of their brothers, help them in their troubles and
tribulations, support those who are oppressed among them, give them preference in
economic and social ties and under no circumstances close their doors on them. However,
what cannot be demanded from them is that they give up their nation states and national
identities and become one nation and one state. Just as they can create separate nation
states, in the same way if they have the freedom to follow their religion, they can live in the
capacity of citizens of non-Muslim states and adopt their nationality. None of this is
forbidden by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
4. If some Muslims of the world declare themselves as Muslims and, in fact, insist on this
and adopt a belief or deed which is not approved by one or more scholars or the rest of the
Muslims, then this deed or belief of theirs can be regarded as incorrect and even a deviation
and departure from Islam, yet these people cannot be regarded as non-Muslims or
disbelievers (kuffar) because these people adduce their views from the Qur’an and Hadith.
For the ruling of God on such beliefs and deeds, we must wait for the Day of Judgement.
Their proponents in this world in accordance with their own acknowledgement are
Muslims, must be regarded as Muslims and must be dealt with in the way Muslims are. It
is the right of the scholars to point out their mistake, to invite them to accept what is
correct, to regard what they find as constituting polytheism and disbelief in their ideology
and also inform people about all this. However, no one has the right to declare them as
non-Muslims or to ostracize them from the Muslim community because only God can
give this right to someone, and everyone who has knowledge of the Qur’an and Hadith
knows that God has not given this right to anyone.
5. Polytheism, disbelief and apostasy are indeed grave crimes; however, no human being
can punish another human being for these crimes. This is the right of God alone. In the
Hereafter too, He will punish them for these crimes and in this world it is He Who does so
if He intends. The matter of the Hereafter is not under discussion here. In this world, this
punishment takes place in the following manner: when the Almighty decides to reward
and punish people in this world on the basis of their deeds, He sends His messenger
towards them. This messenger conclusively communicates the truth to these people such
that they are left with no excuse before God to deny it. After this, the verdict of God is
passed and people who even after the conclusive communication of the truth insist on
disbelief and polytheism are punished in this world. This is an established practice of God
which the Qur’an describes in the following words:
(47:10 ‫ض لي بل اي نل َه ام بال باق اس بط لو َه ام لل يَظا ل َمو لن‬ ٌ ‫لولب َك ّل أََم ٍة لر َس‬

‫ول فلبِ لِا جاء رسول ََهم قَ ب‬
‫ل ل لَ ا‬
(And for each community, there is a messenger. Then when their messenger
comes, their fate is decided with full justice and they are not wronged, (10:47)).
Its nature is the same as of the sacrifice of Ishmael (sws) and the incident of Khidr. It is not
related to us human beings. Just as we cannot drill a hole in the boat of a poor person to
help him and cannot kill a disobedient boy nor embark upon slaughtering any of our sons
on the basis of a dream as Abraham (sws) did, similarly, we cannot undertake this task
except if a revelation comes from God or if He directly gives an order. Everyone knows
that the door to this has permanently been closed.
6. No doubt jihad is a directive of Islam. The Qur’an requires of its followers that if they
have the strength, they should wage war against oppression and injustice. The primary
reason for this directive is to curb persecution which is the use of oppression and coercion
to make people give up their religion. Those having insight know that Muslims are not
given this directive of jihad in their individual capacity; they are addressed in their
collective capacity regarding this directive. They are not individually addressed in the verses
of jihad which occur in the Qur’an. Thus in this matter only the collectivity has the right
to launch any such armed offensive. No individual or group of Muslims has the right to
take this decision on their behalf. It is for this reason that the Prophet (sws) is reported to
have said: “A Muslim ruler is a shield; war can only waged under him.” [3]
7. The directive of jihad given by Islam is war for the cause of God; therefore, it cannot be
waged while disregarding moral restrictions. Ethics and morality supersede everything in
all circumstances and even in matters of war and armed offensives, the Almighty has not
allowed Muslims to deviate from moral principles. Hence, it is absolutely certain that jihad
can only be waged against combatants. It is the law of Islam that if a person attacks
through his tongue, then this attack shall be countered through the tongue and if he
financially supports the warriors, then he will be stopped from this support; however,
unless a person picks up arms to wage war, his life cannot be taken. So much so, if right in
the battle field an enemy throws down arms and surrenders, he shall be taken a prisoner;
he cannot be executed after this. The words of the verse which mention the directive of
jihad are:

‫ب‬ ‫ين يَ لقاتبلَونل َك ام لولل تل اعتل َدوا إب َن اللَهل لل يَ بح ن‬ ‫وقلاتبلَوا فبي سب ب ب َ ب‬
(190:2 ‫ين‬
‫ب ال َام اعتلد ل‬ ‫يل اللَه الذ ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬
(And fight in the way of God with those who fight against you and do not
transgress bounds [in this fighting]. Indeed, God does not like the transgressors,
(2:190)).
The Prophet (sws) forbade the killing of women and children during war. [4] The reason for
this is that if they had embarked upon jihad with the army, it was not in the capacity of
combatants. At best, they could boost the morale of the combatants and urge them
through the tongue to fight.
8. Centuries before the thinkers of the present age, the Qur’an had declared:
(38:42 ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬

‫أ الم َرَه ام َش ل‬
(the affairs of the Muslims are run on the basis of their mutual consultation,
(42:38)).
This clearly meant that an Islamic government would be established through their
consultation, everyone would have equal rights in this consultation, whatever done
through consultation could only be undone through consultation and every individual
would become part of the consultative process. Moreover, if a decision could be reached
through a consensus or total agreement, then the opinion of the majority would be
accepted as the decision.
This is precisely what democracy is. Thus dictatorship is not acceptable in any case whether
it is of a dynasty or of a group or of a national institution and not even of religious scholars
in the interpretation of issues related to religion and shari‘ah. These scholars indeed have
the right to present their views and express their opinions; however, their view can only
become a law for the people to follow when the majority of the elected representatives
accept it. In modern states, the institution of the parliament has been constituted for this
very purpose. It holds and should hold the final authority in the system of a state. People
do have a right to criticize the decisions of the parliament and point out their mistakes;
however, no one has the right to disobey them or rebel against them. Neither scholars nor
the judiciary is above the parliament. The principle of (38:42) ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬
‫ أ الم َرَه ام َش ل‬binds every
individual and every institution to practically submit to the decisions of the parliament
even though they may differ with them.
It is only this approach which is justifiable in setting up the rule of Islam and running it. If
any other way is adopted to set up this rule, then it will be illegal even though the forehead
[4] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 3, 1098, (no. 2851); Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih,vol. 3, 1364, (no. 1744).
of its ruler may glisten with the signs of prostration or even if he is bestowed the title of
amir al-mu’minin.
9. If at some place a Muslim government exists, it is generally asked to implement the

shari‘ah. This expression is misleading because it gives the impression that Islam has given
the right to a government to forcibly implement all the directives of the shari‘ah on people.
The fact is that the Qur’an and Hadith do not give this authority to any government. The
Islamic shari‘ah contains two categories of directives. The first category comprises
directives which are given to individuals and the second category comprises directives
which are given to a Muslim society. The first category relates to directives which are
between an individual and God. In these directives, a person is not responsible to any
government; on the contrary, he is responsible to God. Hence, no government, for
example, can force a person to fast or go for hajj or ‘umrah or to circumcise himself or to
keep his moustaches trimmed or in the case of a woman to cover her chest, refrain from
displaying her ornaments or to wear a scarf when going out. In such matters, a government
has no authority beyond urging and educating people except if there is a chance of rights
being usurped or excesses being committed against the life, wealth and honour of people.
The Qur’an has explicitly said that among the positive directives of religion, a state can
only forcibly demand from them to offer the prayer and pay zakah. The Qur’an (9:5) says
that after this, it is incumbent upon the state to leave them alone and not try to enforce
anything on them. As for the second category of directives, they are only given to a
government because it is a government which represents a society in collective affairs. If
religious scholars demand from those in authority to obey them, then they certainly will be
justified. In fact, it is their duty in their capacity as scholars to make such a demand. It
should be clear that this demand is the demand to follow the shari‘ah. Implementation of
the shari‘ah is not the right name for this demand. This second category comprises the
following directives:
i. Muslims will not be subjects of their rulers but equal citizens. No discrimination shall be
made between them in the state system and the laws of the state. Their life, wealth and
honour shall hold sanctity – so much so that without their consent the state shall not
impose any tax on them other than zakah. If a dispute arises in their personal affairs like
marriage, divorce, distribution of inheritance and other similar matters, then it shall be
decided in accordance with the Islamic shari‘ah. They shall be provided with all the
essential facilities for their daily prayers, the fasts of Ramadan and hajj and ‘umrah. They
will not be forced by the law to submit to any directive which reflects a positive injunction
of Islam except the prayer and the zakah. They will be governed with justice and fairness
on the principle of (38:42) ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬
‫( أ الم َرَه ام َش ل‬the affairs of the Muslims are run on the basis of
their mutual consultation, (42:38)). Their public wealth and assets shall be reserved for the
collective needs of the society and shall not be given in private ownership; in fact, they shall
be developed and looked after in such a way that the needs of people who are not able to
financially support themselves are fulfilled from their income. If they pass away, they shall
be enshrouded and prepared for burial according to Muslim rites; their funeral prayer shall
be offered and they shall be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims the way Muslims are
buried.
ii. It shall be the responsibility of the government to organize the Friday and the ‘id
prayers. These prayers shall be held only at places which are specified by the state. Their
pulpits shall be reserved for the rulers. They themselves will lead and deliver the sermon of
these prayers or some representative of theirs will fulfil this responsibility on their behalf.
Within the confines of the state, no one will have the authority to organize these prayers
independently.
iii. Law enforcing departments shall be primarily reserved for amar bi al-ma‘ruf and nahi
‘an al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil). Thus the most pious of people will be
selected as workers of these departments. They will urge people to do good and forbid
them all what mankind has always regarded as evil. However, they will only use the force
of law when a person is guilty of usurping rights or goes after the life, wealth and honour
of people.
iv. The state shall always adhere to justice (qa’im bi al-qist) with regard to its enemies as
well. It will speak the truth, bear witness to it and will not take any step contrary to justice
and fairness.
v. If the state enters into agreement with someone within its jurisdiction or with some
foreign entity, then as long as the agreement exists it shall be honoured both in letter and
in spirit with full honesty and sincerity.
vi. The death penalty will be given in two cases only: murder and spreading anarchy in the
land. If a Muslim is guilty of murder, theft, fornication, falsely accusing someone of
fornication (qadhf) or spreading anarchy and disorder in the land and a court is fully
satisfied that he does not deserve any leniency arising from his personal, familial and social
circumstances, then those punishments shall be meted out to him which the Almighty has
prescribed in His Book for those who have whole-heartedly accepted the call of Islam.
vii. Dissemination of Islam to all parts of this world shall be organized at the state level. If
any power of the world tries to hinder this effort or persecutes Muslims, then the state,
according to its capacity, will try to remove this hindrance and stop this persecution even if
it has to use force for it.[5]
10. These are the directives of the shari‘ah which relate to the state and have been given
[5] In order to see the details of these seven requirements in the sources of Islam, my book Mizan can be
consulted.
with the warning that those who do not accept the verdict of the Book of God after
acknowledging it will be regarded as wrongdoers (zalim), defiant (fasiq) and disbelievers
(kafir) on the Day of Judgement.[6] However, if the rulers of the Muslims, in spite of this
warning are guilty of some error in this regard or become rebellious, then the only
responsibility of religious scholars is to warn them of its consequences in this world and
the Hereafter. With wisdom and kindly exhortation, they should call them to mend their
ways, face their questions, dispel their doubts and logically reason with them as to why
God has given them His shari‘ah. They should explain to them its relevance in the
collective sphere of life. They should also elucidate to them the basis of its directives and
the difficulty which a person of the modern era faces in understanding it. They should
adopt styles and ways to explain and clarify it so that its underlying wisdom and objective
becomes evident to them and their hearts and minds are able to adopt it with full
satisfaction and they become prepared to follow it. The Qur’an has stated that the real
status of religious scholars is to invite people to the truth and warn them about any
deviation from it. God does not want them to force people to follow Islam or to organize
their followers in groups that ask people at gun point to follow the shari‘ah.
[6] Qur’an, 5:44-47.

Supremacy of the Parliament
(Written in response to criticism on the article:
Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative)
It is a requisite of both Islam and democracy that all rulings of the parliament be practically
submitted to. This means – and everyone aware of political values will also agree – that no
hindrance should be created in the implementation of such a ruling, no hue and cry should
be raised against it, the affairs of the government should be allowed to function according
to it, through protest gatherings no attempt should be made that impairs law and
discipline, picking up arms should not be resorted to against it and people must not be
enticed into rebellion against it – so much so, if as a result of this ruling a government takes
action against an individual, then such an action should be borne with patience. The
person whom I regard as God’s prophet has given me this very guidance. He is reported to
have said:
It is mandatory upon you to listen to and obey [your rulers] whether you are in
difficulty or at ease, whether willingly or unwillingly and even when you do not
receive what is your right.[1]
There is only one exception to this and that is if I am ordered to defy a directive of God. In
this case, however, I can practically turn down such an order – in fact, it is my obligation to
do so.
Every moment of my life bears witness that I have always followed what I have written
above and also urged my friends and students to do so. However, I consider myself to be
unfortunate to have never known that expressing a difference of opinion on the rulings of
a parliament and resorting to democratic means to change them is also a crime. I am
equally unfortunate to not know that submitting practically before the rulings of the
parliament also means that knowledge and reason must also submit to the parliament, and
that one should dare not differ with the parliament if it gives a ruling that is against a
directive of God or an established moral principle or natural law or if it exceeds the limits
of its right of legislation.
The irony of the situation is that the above-stated inference has been with made with great
honesty and piety by disregarding the very sentence which is explicitly negating it. I had
written:
People have the right to criticize the rulings of the parliament and also try to point
out the mistake in them; however, no one has the right to differ with them or rebel
against them.

I cannot say whether the intellect be praised of a person who makes this remarkable
inference or his honesty be lauded.
Nevertheless I re-iterate here that I submit myself to every ruling of the parliament but it is
my democratic and religious right that if there is something wrong in it or if limits have
been exceeded in a certain case or if somone’s rights have been infringed upon because of
it, I can present my critique on it on the basis of arguments. Forbidding vice and enjoining
virue (amr bi al-ma‘ruf and nahi ‘an al-munkar) is among the basic principles of my
religion and cultural tradition, and I have been directed to bear witness to justice for the
sake of God even though this testimony is against our ownselves, our parents and our
relatives. The only requisite of the principle of amruhum shura baynahum (their system is
based on their mutual consultation, (41:28)) is that in order to settle differences of opinion
the opinion of the majority should be practically accepted. It is certainly not a requisite of
it to regard this majority opinion to be correct as well and that any error found in it should
not be pointed out to people. The right to amend the constitutions of the world and
constitutional documents is given because none of them has any divine status. It is the
duty of men of learning to continue to evaluate and examine them, and if any mistake is
detected, they should make an effort to correct it. Whatever was needed to be done to
follow Islam and the Islamic shari‘ah in the state of Pakistan at the government level was
never done. And whatever was done was meaningless, baseless and against the explicit
directives of the Qur’an and Sunnah. I have being saying this for a long time and even now
have only re-iterated it. This is a requisite of what I have been directed to do as a well-
wisher of God, His Messenger and all Muslims. It should not be a cause of horror for any
Pakistani, as an old and dear friend has said that my writings have struck horror in the
hearts of the whole nation.

Islam and Nationhood
(Written in response to criticism on the article:
Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative)
Like colour, ethnicity, language, culture and country, religion is also an important factor is
a determining nationhood. Muslims, over centuries, have become a nation on the basis of
their religion. If they are faced with a challenge, at least in the Indian sub-continent, they
fervently express this nationhood. On this very basis, Quaid e Azam had said that the
Muslims of this region are a separate nation with regard to all the principles of
international law. This is because their culture, social trends, language and literature,
disciplines of knowledge, customs and traditions, mental framework, temperament, law,
moral principles, style of life and even their calendar and way of naming children is distinct
from other nations. This statement of the Quaid was based entirely on truth and an
expression of reality from which no one can differ. Accordingly, this writer too did not
express any such difference and at no place in my article “Islam and the State: A Counter
Narrative” did I say that Muslims are not a nation or cannot become a nation.
All that I had stated in that article was that it is not a requirement of Islam or a directive of
its shari‘ah that the nationhood of Muslims should be based on religion and hence all
Muslims must become one nation. I never stated what my critics are criticizing and to
refute what I have explicit directives of the Qur’an and Hadith are needed and they are not
available in any way. Hence, in order to validate a religious directive people have confined
their arguments to the speeches of the Quaid, the poetry of Iqbal and events of the
Pakistan movement.
The Muslims of the sub-continent are a nation and this is a self-obvious reality. If someone
says that the mosques of Musims have minarets and towers, then who can deny this? It is a
factual statement. However, if a person says that it is the requirement of Islam and a
directive of its shari‘ah that mosques must have towers and minarets, then it is the duty of
every scholar to refute this claim and inform people that this is a totally unfounded view.
Whether a mosque is constructed from hut of grass or whether it is built in the form of a
four-walled compound with its roof made of stems and branches of palm trees, Islam has
no objection to it.
It is this obligation which I have ventured to fulfil and have explained the correct view of
Islam for those of our youth who are lured into terrorist activities by being told that the
existence of Arab, Iranian, Pakistani or Afghan nations is absolutely unlawful and that the
basis of nationhood of Muslims is Islam and their system is khilafah; moreover, since this
system can in no way be enforced in the nation-states of modern times, hence such states
should be obliterated from the face of the earth. I had sought to explain to them that
nation-states are not tantamount to kufr (disbelief) and that all natural factors which are
regarded to be the foundation of nationhood for other nations are valid for Muslims as
well. According to the Qur’an, the mutual relationship between Muslims is that of
brotherhood and not nationhood. Hence, Muslims who by accepting the notion of a
nation-state are living, for example, in the US, the UK, Germany, France, India or even
Pakistan are not violating any directive of the shari‘ah. The sources of Islam are absolutely
devoid of any directive which says that Islam itself is a basis of nationhood. If in the times
of the Pakistan movement, Muslims insisted that they were a separate nation from the
Indians and on this very basis demanded for themselves a separate homeland, then there
was nothing wrong in this. Similarly, if right after the creation of Pakistan they declared
themselves to be a Pakistani nation, then this too cannot be objected to. From the context
of politics, a person can agree with the views of Mawlana Abu al-Kalam Āzad and regard
Quaid e Azam’s views to be incorrect and vice versa and we have the right to give
preference to either of these views; however, from as far as the context of religion is
concerned, neither of these two political views can be objected to. Thus, Quaid e Azam too
never objected to Abu al-Kalam’s view on this basis. This is because his opinion was not
that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together as one nation because this would be against
Islam and Islamic shari‘ah and hence they demanded a separate homeland for themselves.
His opinion was that in order to protect the Muslim culture, their economic, political and
social spheres as well as religious traditions from the hegemony of the Hindus, he was
demanding a separate homeland for them; morever, he contended that the basis of his
demand according to all statutes of international law was that Muslims were a separate
nation, and it is the right of every nation to demand a homeland in areas where it exists in
majority.
I have expressed my view on this subject above. Every person has a right to criticize it.
However, I respectfully request my readers that they should spend some time in
understanding my view before they attempt to do so.

Khilafah
It is an undeniable fact that for the past many centuries, the word khilafah is being used as
a term. However, it is certainly not a religious term. It needs to be understood that
religious terms cannot be coined by scholars like Razi, Ghazali, Mawardi, Ibn Hazm and
Ibn Khaldun. Similarly, not every word which Mulims start using in a particular sense
becomes a religious term. On the contrary, religious terms can only be coined by God and
His messengers, and are acceptable only when their meaning as a term is validated from the
Qur’an and Hadith or other divine scriptures. Words such as sawm, salah, hajj and ‘umrah
etc are regarded as religious terms because God and His messengers have accorded them
this status, and have used them at various instances as such. On the other hand, the word
khilafah is a word of the Arabic language and means “vicegerency,” “succession,” and
“political authority.” It is used as a common Arabic word in one of these meanings at all
places in the Qur’an and Hadith. It may be noted that certain verses of the Qur’an have
generally been cited in a way to convince people that they are used as terms. In all such
verses, people have actually not translated the words khilafah and khilafah in the
translations of the verses and have kept them intact in their original Arabic form. By doing
this they want to give the impression that these words have been used as religious terms. If
all these verses are looked up in any authentic translation, one will be at a loss to
understand how this inference was made, just as one of my critics seems to be at a loss at
the inferences made by me!
Presented below are the Urdu translations of two very competent scholars:
1. Verse 40 of Surah Baqarah
And when your Lord said to the angels: “I have to make a na’ib [1] in the earth.”
(Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
And when your Lord told the angels: “I will make a na’ib in the earth.” (Mahmud
al-Hasan)
2. Verse 26 of Surah Ṣu‘ad
O David! We have made you a na’ib in the country; so govern people with justice.
(Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
O David! We have made you a na’ib in the country; so govern people with justice.
(Mahmud al-Hasan)
3. Verse 55 of Surah Nur
[1] The word na’ib means “deputy” or “vicegerent.”

God has promised that those among you who have accepted faith and have done
righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times make them hakim [2] in the
country the way He made hakim those prior to them. (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
God has promised those among you who have accepted faith and have done
righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times make them hakim in the
country the way He made rulers those prior to them. (Mahmud al-Hasan)
The words na’ib and hakim used in these verses are translation of the Arabic words
khalifah and istikhlaf, and it is quite evident that they do not have any religious
connotation in them except if a person claims that every word used in the Qur’an becomes
a religious term.
Similar is the case with the Ahadith and Āthar. The word khalifah and all its derivatives are
used in them in the same meanings as the ones stated earlier. So much so, in one Hadith, [3]
the word khalifah is used for God Himself in the meaning of “successor.” It is for this very
reason that when meanings such as “rightly guided government” or “government in
accordance with the way of prophethood” need to be expressed, then words such as
rashidah and ‘ala minhaj al-nubuwwah have to be appended with the word khilafah. By
regarding such appended words to be understdood with the word khilafah, our scholars
have made khilafah a term. As such, it certainly is a term of political science and sociology
of the Muslims just as the words fiqh, kalam, hadith and other similar ones have become
terms, but it cannot be regarded as a religious term. No one except God and His Messenger
have the authority to coin a religious term. This is solely their prerogative. If some word is
regarded as a religious term, then it has to be deduced from the words of these two
authorities. It cannot be adduced from works like the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.
As far as the view is concerned that according to Islam there should be only one global
government in the world, it is evident to every person of learning that the Qur’an is
absolutely devoid of any such directive. Two Ahadith are, however, cited in favour of this
view. One of them is: God’s Messenger (sws) is reported to have said that prophets ruled
the Israelites; so, when one of them passed away, another would take his place; but there is
no prophet after me; however, there will be rulers and they will be plenty. It was asked:
“What is your directive about them O Prophet!” He replied: “Fulfil your oath of allegiance
with the first one and then with the one who is the first after him.” [4] The second Hadith
is: “When the oath of allegiance is pledged to two rulers, kill the second one.” [5] Though
this second narrative is not sound as far as its chain of narration is concerned, yet even if it
[2] The word hakim means “ruler(s).”
is regarded to be correct, it is an incontestable reality that none of these Ahadith state in
any sense what has been derived from them. What is said in these narratives is that if
Muslims pledge their oath of allegiance to a ruler and then another person rebels against
him and invites people to pledge allegiance to him, then each Muslim should adhere to his
first oath of allegiance. Moreover, if the second person claims to be their ruler and some
people even pledge their oath of allegiance to him, then he should be executed.
Such is the nature of these directives that their cogency can be made evident to every
person. Thus, after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) when a member of the
Ansar tribe suggested that a ruler each from the Ansar and the Muhajirun should be
appointed, ‘Umar (rta) on this very principle opined that two swords cannot exist in one
sheathe, and Abu Bakr (rta) also cautioned people at this instance that a state can only have
one ruler. This is because such an arrangement will result in severe differences, disorder
instead of order will arise and the discipline of the state will be ruined, and instead of
[following] the way on which the Prophet (sws) left his people this religious innovation
that one state will be governed by two rulers will emerge.[6]
If the ascription of these Ahadith to the Prophet (sws) is correct, then they imply what has
been explained above. No logic or reasoning can deduce from them that Islam has directed
its followers to set up a single government in the whole world. Similarly, no reasoning can
deduce from these narratives that if the adherents of Islam are able to convert the majority
of people of other countries to Islam, then they cannot set up their own government and if
they do so, as in the case of today’s fifty odd Muslims countries, they will be regarded as
sinners.
Scholars of Islam must bear in mind that the precepts of God’s religion must remain pure
and unaltered. No scholar, jurist or Hadith doctor has the authority to make people liable
for a directive for which the Almighty has not made them liable. Hence I have written and
would like to repeat that the establishment of United States of Islam based on the union of
countries in which Muslims are in majority can be the desire of every person and we can
also strive to fulfil this desire, but this view has no basis that such a union is a directive of
the Islamic shari‘ah, and if Muslims defy this, they will be guilty of committing a sin.
[6] Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husaynal-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, vol. 8 (Makkah: Maktabah dar al-Baz,
1994), 145, (no. 16326-16327).
State and Government
State and government are two separate entities. In the terminology of political science, a
state signifies the political organization of a society, while a government refers to those in
authority; they are responsible for running and managing the affairs of the state. Consider
first the state. The types of state which have as yet emerged are primarily three:
First, the state founded in the Arabian Peninsula. The Almighty made it specific for His
own self after He Himself had ascertained its boundaries. Thus, at His behest the universal
centre of His worship and preaching was set up in Arabia, and at the end of he seventh
century AD it was declared through Muhammad (sws):
‫( ل يجتمع فيها دينان‬no non-Muslim can become its citizen till the Day of Judgement). [1] Earlier,
the same status was enjoyed by Palestine for centuries. The addressees of Islam and the
Islamic shari‘ah here too are individuals in their various capacities. However, if for such a
state it is said that its religion is Islam and only Islam shall reign in it, then this statement is
very comprehensible on all grounds. It cannot be objected to.
Second, the states whose boundaries would be determined by their conquerors. They
would govern them by making their inhabitants subservient to them. In such states, the
religion of the royal family or of the ruler would be considered as the religion of the state.
Disregarding whether their birth was legitimate or illegitimate, if these states are dubbed as
Muslim, Christian or Communist states, then this too cannot be regarded as
incomprehensible.
Third, the nation-states of the modern era whose boundaries are ascertained by
international treaties and which become a source of nationhood themselves for their
citizens as soon as they come into existence. Thus in spite of having commonality or
diversity in colour, ancestry, language and culture they call themselves Egyptians,
Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis and express their nationhood in this respect. No one is
superior or subservient here. All, in fact, are regarded as equal citizens in all respects and in
this capacity participate in the affairs of the state.
It is about this third type of states that I had written [2] that they can have no religion.
Pakistan is an example of such a state. Everyone knows that it was not created from a
divine decree so that like Arabia it only belongs to Muslims nor did Muslims after
conquering it make its non-Muslim inhabitants subservient to them nor did these
inhabitants become the citizens of this state by virtue of a pact with the Muslims. They
have remained the inhabitants of this land for centuries the way Muslims have been and
just as this state belongs to Muslims it also belongs to non-Muslims. India was not divided
[1] Abu ‘AbdullahMalik ibn Anas, Mu’atta’, vol. 2 (Cairo: Dar ihya’ al-turath al-‘arabi, n.d.), 892, (no.
1584).
[2] Reference is to the article: “Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative.”
on the basis that one part of it will belong to the Muslims and the other part to Hindus
and people of other religions shall be subservient to them. The principle of this division
was that areas of British India in which Muslims exist in majority shall be made a separate
country and the rulers of the principalities would have the liberty to either remain free or
become part of India or Pakistan regardless of whether their public has a majority of
Muslims or of Hindus or of any other religious denomination. If, on the authority of the
majority, such a state is regarded as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu one, then this will
be mere coercion and oppression which cannot be endorsed by any person who has been
directed by his Lord to adhere to justice at all cost and to bear testimony to the truth, even
if this testimony goes against his own people. It is essential that now this testimony in
favour of the non-Muslims of Pakistan be penned down in historical records. This is
actually an evidence of the same fact which the founder of Pakistan, Quaid i Azam
Muhammad Ali Jinnah had explained while addressing the Constituent Assembly on 11
August 1947. He had declared:
You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques
or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any
religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As
you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much
worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the
Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence
where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class.
Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where
there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another,
no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with
this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.
The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation
and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the
government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today,
you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist;
what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and
they are all members of the Nation.
Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that
in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to
be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each
individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.[3]
A question that can be raised on this is: does Islam acknowledge such a state? I had tried to
answer this question by saying that Islam addresses the rulers of a society. [4] If they are
[3] http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html
[4] Reference is to the article: “Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative.”
Muslims, then they are the real addressees of Islam’s directives related to the collectivity.
Islam has not given any directive to Islamize a state. Thus its followers can live as citizens in
such nation-states and as a nation on the basis of nationhood the way they currently live in
many states. Nothing in this is against Islam and the Islamic shari‘ah.
This is my stance regarding the nation-states of these times.
Consider next the government. Only two statements endorsed by knowledge and reason
can be given about it: first, the rulers of a state will be chosen by the Almighty, and second,
they will be chosen by the inhabitants. After the termination of the institution of
prophethood the first of the above options is not possible. Only the second one remains.
Its essential consequence is that the majority will have the right to rule. If Muslims have
this majority and if on its basis they become the rulers of a state, then it is their democratic
and human right that if their religion has given them a directive regarding the collectivity,
then they should follow it and also decide all matters of the followers of this religion in
accordance with the shari‘ah revealed by God through His last prophet. It is precisely this
what the Quaid e Azam implied when he would speak of Islam, Islamic civilization and the
Islamic shari‘ah.
The relationship of the shari‘ah with the nation-states of today is of the nature just
described. I had endeavoured to put across this very understanding [5] Thus, in accordance
with this understanding, I had also presented a comprehensive list of directives of the
shari‘ah that relate to the collectivity. I had also written that Muslims have been given these
directives with the warning that those who do not accept the verdicts of the Book of God
after acknowledging it will be regarded as wrongdoers (zalim), defiant (fasiq) and
disbelievers (kafir) on the Day of Judgedment. Men of learning can differ with the list I
have compiled and also alter it. However, if even after understanding this difference
between state and government and after viewing this list they claim that I have confined
the shari‘ah to an individual or negated all directives that relate to the spheres of politics,
economics and the social set-up and they are also not feigning ignorance, then I dare say
that they have not understood my views on this topic at all.
[5] Ibid.
Mosques
Mosques have a compelling influence in the Muslim society. Considering this
extraordinary importance of the Mosque pulpit, the Prophet (sws) set the rule that none
other than the heads of the state and their viceroys may lead the Friday Congregation and
deliver a sermon on the occasion. The service cannot legitimately be assumed by an
individual on his own accord. However, when the ruler is not able to fulfil his duty in this
regard, under a valid excuse, individual scholars can take his stead and lead the
congregation and deliver the sermon that too with the express will and permission by the
authorities.
This norm established by the last Messenger of God indeed indicates that, in the true
religion of God, the hub of the authority is the mosque. There is no Pope in Islam. Nor a
Brahman. Muslims choose their political leadership and expect from their rulers to lead the
worship rites and rituals. This abolishes difference between religion and politics forever.
The caliphate established and run by the pious Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws)
followed this sunnah with all its spirit and in perfect grandeur. The saddest tragedy in the
Muslim ummah did not, however, wait long. Marred by unworthy deeds, the subsequent
rulers were no longer able to face the public in the weekly congregations. They had to
relinquish the pulpit of the mosques to the clergy. A direct consequence of this failure on
the part of the rulers has been that the religion was denuded of its grandeur and politics its
beauty. The party that merited honour and prosperity has remained subservient for
centuries. Contrarily, the party which should have remained subservient to has got out of
line to the extent that any effort to bend it down to its original position is feared to face
myriad problems. Mosques are now fortresses controlled by the sects. The leaders of such
sects occupying the fortresses safely hurl stones at one another. The facility of the pulpit
on the Friday Congregation yields great power to the clergy. Our society has reaped a
strong faction of the professional clergymen which is literally a black spot on Muslim
scholarship. When directed at the opponents the tongues of the clergy spawn poisonous
snakes which shower lethal secretion. Every caller to the truth falls victim to them. They
spare no one. Research and education are always their most favourite victims. Mosques are
open and accommodating for only the preaching of heresies and sectarianism. They are
mostly closed to the propagators of the pure message of the religion based on the Qur’an
and the Sunnah. It has been made impossible for a true and honest scholar of Islam to
make the mosque a centre of his preaching and fulfil his duty to propagate the religion
under the command of God.
This awful misery prevailing in our mosques is appreciated by all possessed of

understanding. Correction and reforms are possible. But the only way to achieve this is to
adopt the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) introduced in the beginning of this essay. A positive
effort in that front, in my view, requires the following gradual steps:
1. The headquarters of all the administrative units in the country are shifted to the
central congregational mosques in the locality. Administrative units are decided and
categorized keeping in consideration the objective that the central congregational
mosque in a locality fulfils all the needs and requirements of the local populace.
2. Offices and courts necessary for an administrative unit are set up beside the mosque
in every centre.
3. In the central and provincial capitals one particular mosque is declared the central
congregational mosque.
4. The head of the state takes the responsibility to deliver the Friday Sermon and lead
the congregation in the main mosque of the central capital. Similarly, in the
provincial capitals, the governors lead the prayer and deliver the sermon. In the
small administrative units, the representatives of the state and government officials
discharge this duty.
5. Friday congregations are banned in any other mosque.
6. Government should manage and administer the mosques.
7. Every scholar is given the right to hold classes and gatherings in the mosque with a
view to educate and train the masses and deliver sermon of moral and religious
teachings according to his understanding and views.

“Their System is based on their Consultation”
“Their System is based on their Consultation”[1]
According to the Qur’an, the system of government of an Islamic State is based on the
principle:
(38:42 ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬

(And their system is based on their consultation, (42:38)).
The extensive meaning this short verse encompasses and the guidance obtained from it
about the political set-up envisaged by Islam are detailed out below.
The first word that occurs in the verse is ‫( الم َۡر‬amr).The word amr has many meanings in
Arabic. Anyone who has a linguistic appreciation knows that for all such words the
implied meaning is determined from the context in which they are used. Before we
ascertain its implied meaning in the above verse, we shall examine its various connotations
in Arabic.
In Yazid ibn al-Jaham al-Hilali’s following couplet it means “to urge” or “to advise”: [2]
‫لقد امرت بالبخل ام محمد‬

‫ حثی علی البخل احمدا‬:‫فقلت لها‬
Laqad amarat bilbukhli ummu muhammadi

Fa qultu laha: huththi ‘ala al-bukhli ahmada
(Umm Muhammad urged me to be stingy; so I said to her: “If you must urge
someone to be stingy then let it be your son Ahmad.”)
‘Amr ibn al-Ṣabghah al-Raqqashi uses it in exactly the same way we use “matters” for our
general affairs of life:[3]
‫ال ليقل من شاء ما شاء انما‬

‫يلم الفتی فيما استطاع من المر‬
[1] The Qur’an (41:38).

[2] Yahya ibn ‘Ali ibn Khatib al-Tabrizi, Sharh Diwan al-hamasah li Abi al-Tammam, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar
al-qalam, n.d.), 340.
[3] Ibid., vol. 2, 162.
ala liyaqul man sha’a ma sha’a innama
Yulamu al-fata fima istata‘a min al-amri
(Let anyone say what he likes, for a young man can only be reproached in matters
which are under his control.)
In Abu Ṣakhar al-Hudhali’s following couplet, it denotes “commandments and

authority”:[4]
‫ابکی واضحک والذی‬

ٰ ‫اما والذی‬
‫امات واحيا والذی امرت المر‬
Ama wa alladhi abka wa adhaka wa alladhi

Amata wa ahya wa alladhi amruhu al-amru
(Listen! By Him Who made us weep and laugh, Who gave death and life and
Whose commandments are the real commandments.)
Ṣafiyyah bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib uses it in a way in which together with “commandments
and authority” it connotes “affairs of state”:[5]
‫شا‬j ‫ال من مبلغ عني قري‬

‫ففيم المر فينا والمار‬
‘ala man mublighuṇ ‘anna Qurayshaṇ

Fa fima al-amru fina wa al-imaru
(Hark! who will deliver my message to the Quraysh that as they do not accept our
social position, so they should tell us that why are the affairs of state in our hands
and why are we considered worthy of consultation?)
In the Qur’an also, it has been used in all these meaning, and at every instance it is the
context which determines the meaning that is implied. In the verse of Surah Shura under
discussion, it is quite evident from its context and placement that here it means “system.”
This meaning has been incorporated in it from the depth found in its general meaning of
“directive.” When the word “directive” becomes related to people, it prescribes certain
limits for itself and establishes certain rules and regulations. In such cases, it implies both
the directives which emanate from political authority and the collective affairs. Thus a little
deliberation shows that the English word “system” is used to convey the same meaning.
[4] Ibid., vol. 2, 66.
[5] Ibid., vol. 2, 276.
Since the Qur’an has not specified it by any other adjective except by appending it to a
pronoun, all sub-systems which are part of the political system must be considered
included in its connotation. In fact, all affairs of state like the municipal, national and
provincial affairs, political and social directives, rules of legislation, delegation and
revocation of powers, dismissal and appointment of officials, interpretation of Islam for
the collective affairs of life – all of them fall under the principle laid down in this verse. In
other words, no area or department under an Islamic government can be beyond the
jurisdiction of this principle.
Next comes the word ‫( َشو ٰۡری‬shura). It is a verbal noun (masdar) of the category ‫( فعلي‬fu‘la)
and means “to consult.” Owing to the fact that it occurs as an enunciative (khabar) in the
given verse, the meaning of the verse is not the same as of the verse: ‫ال‬ ‫ت فل تل وَك ل لع ل ى ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫فل ِ لِا لع لزام ل ل ا‬
(Consult them in the affairs of the state and when you reach a decision, put your trust in
God, (3:159)), which is often quoted as its parallel. To convey the same meaning as this
verse, the words should, perhaps, have been something like ‫( لو ف بي الل ام بر َه ام يَ لشا بوَراون‬And in the
affairs [of state] they are consulted). In this case, it would have been necessary that in the
whole society the rulers and the ruled be distinct. The ruler in such a case would have to be
divinely appointed or nominated by an innocent Imam or be someone who had seized
power by force. Through whatever means he reached the position of head of state, he
would have only been bound to consult people in matters of national interest before
forming his own opinion. He would not have been bound to accept a consensus or a
majority opinion. Acceptance or rejection of an opinion would have rested on his
discretion. He would have all the right to accept a minority opinion and reject a majority
one.
However, the style and pattern of the words ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬

‫( أ الم َرَه ام َش ل‬their system is based on their
consultation) demands that even the head of an Islamic State be appointed through
consultation; the system itself be based on consultation; everyone should have an equal
right in consultation; whatever is done through consultation should only be undone
through consultation; everyone that is part of the system should have a say in its affairs,
and in the absence of a consensus, the majority opinion should decide the matter.
The difference in meaning of the two verses can be appreciated if the following example is
kept in mind. If it is said: “The ownership of this house shall be decided after consulting
these ten brothers,” then it means that only the ten brothers have the authority to make
decisions and the opinion of any one of them cannot prevail over the others. If all of them
do not agree on the matter, a majority opinion would be decisive. But, if the above
sentence is changed a little to: “In deciding the ownership of this house, these ten brothers
shall be consulted.” then this sentence only means that someone else has the final say. It
will be his opinion which will be carried out in the end. The only thing he must do is to
consult the ten brothers before forming his own opinion. Obviously, he cannot be forced
to accept the consensus or majority opinion of the brothers.
Since, in the opinion of this writer, the collective system of the Muslims is based on ‫أ الم َرَه ام‬
‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬
‫( َش ل‬their system is based on their consultation), the election of their ruler as well as
their representatives must take place through consultation. Also, after assuming a position
of authority, they will have no right to overrule a consensus or a majority opinion of the
Muslims in all the collective affairs.
Mawlana Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi comments on this verse in the following words:
The words ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬

‫( أ الم َرَه ام َش ل‬their system is based on their consultation), by their
nature and scope entail five things:
First, people whose interests and rights relate to the collective affairs should be
given the freedom to express their opinion, and they should be kept totally aware
of the actual way in which their affairs are being run; they should also have the
right to object and to criticize if they see anything wrong in the way their affairs are
being conducted and the right to change those in authority if the faults are not
rectified. It is outright dishonesty to forcibly silence people or to run affairs
without taking them into confidence. No one can regard this attitude to be in
accordance with this verse.
Second, the person who is entrusted to run the collective affairs of the people
should be chosen through their absolute free consent. Consent obtained through
force and intimidation, greed and gratification, deception and fraud is no consent
at all. The ruler of a country is not one who obtains this position by hook or by
crook; the real ruler is the person whom people choose freely without any
compulsion.
Third, people chosen for consultation should enjoy the confidence of the majority.
Consequently, those who are worthy of consultation can in no way be thought to
enjoy the confidence of the people in the truest sense if they acquire this position
through force, extortion, fraud or by leading people astray.
Fourth, people who are consulted must express their opinions in accordance with
their knowledge, faith and conscience and should have complete freedom for such
expression. If, because of fear, greed or some prejudice people are led to give
opinions which are against their belief and conscience, then this is disloyalty and
infidelity, and is a negation of the principle of consultation.
Fifth, a decision which is made through the consensus or majority opinion of the
members of the shura or which has the mandate of the people behind it must
always be accepted. Because if one person or group insists on an opinion, then
consultation becomes useless. The Almighty has not said: “They are consulted in
their affairs;” on the contrary, He has said: “Their system is based on their
consultation.” Merely consulting people does not fulfil this directive; it is necessary
that a consensus or majority opinion be considered as decisive in running the
affairs.[6]
This principle of consultation as laid down by the Qur’an is also in accordance with the
established norms of sense and reason. No Muslim can be free of faults or shortcomings.
He can be the most distinguished as far as piety and knowledge are concerned; he can be
the most suitable for the position of authority he holds and can even consider himself so.
But even with these abilities, he cannot attain the position of head of state without the
general opinion of the Muslims. Also, earning this position after being elected through a
majority mandate does not suggest that he cannot err or has the prerogative to overrule a
consensus or a majority opinion of the authorized people. The Prophet (sws) had this
prerogative because he, being divinely guided, could not err. Even so, not one example can
be cited from history in which he ignored a majority opinion in favour of his own.
A Muslim ruler is indeed only one individual and everyone will acknowledge that the
opinion of a group of people has more chances of being correct than that of a single
person. A God-fearing Muslim ruler should regard his own opinion in the way a great
jurist has expressed: “We consider our opinion as correct but concede the possibility of an
error, and consider the opinion of others as incorrect but concede the possibility of its
correctness.”
Moreover, if the people consulted know that even their consensus and majority opinion
have the possibility of being rejected, they would not agree to offer their opinion in the
first place. Even if forced to do so, they would never take serious interest in it. They would
never deeply reflect on the issue under discussion. They would reluctantly come to sessions
conducted for consultation only to leave disappointed. They would never have mental and
emotional involvement with the political system or the various institutions of the state.
While delineating on this psychological aspect, Abu Bakr al-Jassas writes:
‫وغير جائز أن يكون المر بالمشاورة علي جهة تطييب نفوسهم و رفع أقدارهم ولتقتدي المة به في مثله لنه لو كان‬
‫معلوما عندهم في استنباط ما شووروا فيه و صواب الرأي فيما سئلوا عنه ثم لم يكن في ِلك معمول عليه ول متلقي‬
‫منه بالقبول بوجه لم يكن في ِلك تطييب نفوسهم ول رفع لقدارهم بل فيه ايحاشهم وأعلمهم بان أراء هم غير‬
‫مقبولة ول معمول عليها فهذا تأويل ساقط ل معني له فكيف يسوغ تأويل من تأوله لتقتدي به المة مع علم المة عند‬
[6] Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi, Tafhim al-Qur’an, 3rd ed., vol. 4 (Lahore:Idarah tarjuman al-Qur’an, 1984),
509-510.
‫هذا القائل بان هذت المشورة لم تفد شيئا ولم يعمل فيها بشيء أشاروا به‬
It is not proper to consider that this directive of consultation is merely to please

and honour the Companions of the Prophet nor is it proper to think that it has
been given so that the ummah should follow the Prophet in this regard in such
matters. On the other hand, if the Companions knew that their opinion would
neither be followed nor held in any regard after they had used all their intellectual
abilities to form it, this would not have pleased or honoured them; instead they
would have been totally discouraged, considering that their opinions were neither
good enough to be accepted nor fit enough to be followed. Therefore, such an
interpretation of this directive of consultation is baseless and cannot be accepted.
Furthermore, how can we regard as correct the interpretation that this directive
was merely given to teach the Prophet’s way to the ummah, when actually the
person who says this himself knows that the ummah is aware of the fact that giving
such an opinion was neither of any use nor was it followed in a particular
matter?[7]
Here, there is the possibility that someone might quote the offensive launched by the
caliph Abu Bakr (rta) against those who in his times had desisted from paying zakah and
his attitude about the departure of the army led by Usamah ibn Zayd as testimony against
what has been said above. Consequently, it is necessary that the true nature of these two
incidents be explained. Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi comments on these in the following
words:
Deliberation on the action taken against those who were evading zakah reveals a few facts:
First, this matter had nothing to do with the caliph or the members of the shura.
Abu Bakr (rta) had never presented this issue in the shura. Matters in which there
is no direct guidance provided by the Qur’an and Sunnah or those which relate to
the general well-being of the public are generally presented in the shura. The
matter of zakah evasion has been explicitly dealt with in the Qur’an. In an Islamic
state, people lose their rights of Muslim citizenship if they refuse to pay zakah to
the public treasury. This is categorically laid down in the Islamic shari‘ah.
Therefore, Abu Bakr (rta) was not required to present this matter before the
shura. On the contrary, it was his responsibility as a caliph to implement a directive
of the Qur’an. Consequently, this is precisely what he did. An example to illustrate
this even further is that if a group of people creates a law and order situation in an
Islamic state by going on a rampage of killing people, then the caliph is not
required to ask the permission of the shura to deal with this nuisance; it is indeed
his duty to freely use his authority to implement the punishment prescribed by the
[7] Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn ‘Ali al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, (Beirut: Dar al-kitab al-‘arabi, 1997), 41.
Qur’an for such criminals.
Second, those who had expressed their reservations on this action of the caliph
Abu Bakr (rta) did so because they had misunderstood a Hadith of the Prophet
(sws). Abu Bakr (rta) himself explained this Hadith in conjunction with another
detailed Hadith, which he himself had heard from the Prophet (sws). This satisfied
the people [and they never insisted on calling a meeting of the shura]. It is obvious
that a Hadith which is narrated by Abu Bakr (rta) himself is extremely reliable and
therefore has great importance.
Third, the declaration of the caliph Abu Bakr (rta) that he would fight alone with
these evaders of zakah if he finds no one to fight with them is not an expression of
veto from him; it is on the contrary an expression of the responsibility imposed on
a caliph by Islam in implementing a definite and explicit directive. In Islam, the
real responsibility of a caliph in implementing the directives of God and His
Prophet (sws) is that he should try his utmost in their implementation even if no
one supports him. He is not required to be bound by the opinion of the people in
categorical matters of the shari‘ah. Only matters in which there is no direct
guidance provided by the Qur’an and Sunnah or those which relate to the general
well being of the public need the approval of the people eligible for consultation.
Similar is the case of dispatching the army led by Usamah (rta). All arrangements
for this had already been completed in the life of the Prophet (sws) himself. It is he
who had selected the people who would constitute this army. The Prophet (sws)
himself had hoisted the flag of the army. If the Prophet (sws) had not fallen
severely sick, the army would have been on its way. The Prophet (sws) could not
recover from his sickness and died. Abu Bakr (rta) then assumed charge as caliph.
He quite naturally thought that his greatest responsibility as a caliph was to send
the army which had been prepared by the Prophet (sws) and about whose early
departure the Prophet (sws) was very anxious. As the caliph, it was his great honour
as well as his primary responsibility to execute a prior directive of the Prophet
(sws). He was not required to consult his people for this because all matters
concerning the army had already been settled by the Prophet (sws). As the
successor to the Prophet (sws), it was his duty to enforce these directives instead of
amending them. So, when some people, because of the peculiar circumstances
which had arisen, regarded this campaign to be against the call of the day, Abu
Bakr (rta) asserted unequivocally that he would not furl the flag which had been
unfurled by the Prophet (sws).
Consequently, these two incidents can in no way be presented as evidence to the

fact that a ruler can veto the decision of his shura members. The only thing to
which they bear testimony is that in the enforcement of explicit directives of God
and His Prophet (sws), no ruler is required to consult his shura members. In fact,
his real duty is to implement them.[8]
According to the Qur’anic directive of ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬

consultation), the details of the methodology adopted by the Prophet (sws) and his
Companions (rta) for the participation of the Muslims in the affairs of the state in their
own times, keeping in view their social conditions, are based on the following two points:
I. Muslims shall be consulted in the affairs of state through their leaders in whom they
profess confidence. It is recorded:
‫ين ال بِ لن ل َله ام ال َام اسلب َمو لن فبي بع ات بق لس اب بي له لوا بز لن ابنّي لل ال اد بري لم ان ال بِ لن بم ان َك ام بم َم ان‬
‫ال ح ل‬
‫ال صلَي ال ع لي به وسلَم قل ل ب‬
‫َ لا لل ل‬ ‫ل‬
‫ال َن رسو لل ب‬
‫ل َا‬
‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫لم يلا لِ ان فل اارج َعوا لحتَي يل ارفل لع ال الي نلا َع لرفلا َؤَك ام ال ام لرَك ام‬
‫لا‬
When Muslims at the Prophet’s behest consented to free the prisoners of

Hawazin, the Prophet said: “I could not know who among you has shown his
consent and who among you has not. Therefore, go back, and send your leaders
that they may inform us.”[9]
It is narrated about Abu Bakr (rta):
‫استل لش لارَه ام فلبِِا أ ا‬

‫لجت لم لع لرأايَ َه ام‬ ‫ال صلَي ال ع لي به وسلَمجمع رؤس الن ب ب‬
‫ بمن رسو لل ب‬j‫فلبِ ان أل اعياتَ أل ان ي بج لد فب بيه سنَة‬
‫َاس لوخيل لارَه ام فل ا‬ ‫َ ل ا ل ل ل لل ل َ ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫َ ا ل َا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬
‫ضي ب به‬‫لع لي أ الم ٍر قل ل‬
Then if he could not find a practice of the Prophet in this matter, he would gather
the influential among his people and consult them, and when they would reach a
conclusion, he would decide according to it.[10]
During the time of the Prophet (sws), the tribal chiefs held this position of trust. The
people of the tribes of Aws, Khazraj and Quraysh professed confidence in every sense of
the word in their respective leaders. Indeed, these leaders were neither elected to this
position nor was an election needed in the social conditions which existed at that time. It
was, because of their social status, intellect and experience that their people turned to these
chiefs in all their political and collective affairs. Before the advent of Islam, it was their
tribes’ complete faith in them which conferred this position on them and this state
continued even after they accepted Islam. However, before accepting Islam, a person could
[8] Amin Ahsan Islahi, Islami Riyasat, 1st ed., (Lahore: Makatbah markazi anjuman-i khuddam al-
Qur’an, 1977), 37-37.
[10]Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Darimi, Sunan, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-kitab
al-‘arabi, 1407 AH), 69, (no. 65).
say that his tribal chief had seized power by force and that he was not in a position to show
his mistrust in him, but after accepting faith every person from among the Muslim public
could express his lack of confidence in his chief in front of the Prophet (sws). If the
majority in a tribe had expressed their lack of confidence in their leader, he could certainly
not have retained his position.
The Prophet (sws) in his own times made all the important decisions after consulting these
tribal chiefs and during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphate also, the position of trust
commanded by them continued.
While narrating the proceedings of a shura called to session in the time of the caliph
Umar’s (rta) rule to decide the fate of the conquered lands of Syria and Iraq, Qadi Abu
Yusuf writes:
‫ فاستشار المهاجرين الولين فاختلفوا فأما عبد الرحمن بن عوف رضي ال عنه فكان رأيه إن‬:‫ فاستشر قال‬:‫قالوا‬
:‫تقسم لهم حقوقهم و رأي عثمان و علي و طلحة و ابن عمر رضي ال عنهم رأي عمر فارسل إلي عشرة م ن النصار‬
‫خمسة من الوس و خمسة من الخزرج من كبرائهم و أشرافهم‬
The people said: you should now seek formal consultation. At this, he consulted
the early Muhajirun and there existed a difference in their opinions. ‘Abd al-
Rahman ibn ‘Awf maintained that the land should be rightfully distributed
among them, while ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Ṭalhah and Ibn ‘Umar were in agreement with
‘Umar’s view. Then he called ten people from the Ansar: five from the leading
people of the Aws and five from those of the Khazraj.[11]
‘Umar (rta) while explaining his own position in relation to the members of the shura said:
‫أني لم أزعجكم أل لن تشتركوا في أمانتي فيما حملت من أموركم فأني واحد كأحدكم ة ولست اريد ان تتبعوا هذا‬
‫الذي هواي‬
I have bothered you with the burden of coming here so that you can help me in
my responsibilities owing to this position you have entrusted me with. I am a
human being just like you … and do not want that you follow my desires in these
affairs.[12]
The manner in which such sessions would be held was that first a person would loudly
announce: ‫اصللةَ لج بام لعة‬
‫( الل ل‬al-salah jami‘ah); which meant that people should gather for prayer.
[11]Abu Yusuf Ya‘qub ibn Ibrahim ibn Habib ibn Sa‘d, Kitab al-khiraj, 1st ed (Cairo: Al-Maktabah al-
azhariyyah li al-turath, n.d.), 35.
[12]Ibid., 35-36.
When people would gather, ‘Umar (rta) would pray two rak‘at. He would then deliver a
brief speech and would table the agenda on which he wanted to consult the people. The
issues of the conquered lands of Syria and Iraq and the participation of the caliph himself
in the battle of Nihawand were discussed and settled in these meetings. Similarly, the issues
of the salaries of soldiers, appointment of representatives, organization of offices, freedom
of trade for other nations and their taxes were all decided in these meetings. Baladhuri
writes that there was another group of the leaders of the Muhajirun (the ruling party) who
would see to the day to day affairs of the country and would regularly assemble at the
Masjid-i Nabawi for this purpose:
‫كان للمهاجرين مجلس في المسجد فكان عمر يجلس معهم فيه و يحدثهم عما ينتهي إليه من امور الفاق‬
In the mosque [of the Prophet], sessions of the Muhajirun would be convened in
which ‘Umar would sit and present to them all the happenings and events reported
to him from the various parts of his empire.[13]
II. The tradition was established that among the various groups present in an Islamic State,
only that group assumed political authority which enjoyed the confidence of the majority
of Muslims.
Before his death, the Prophet (sws) clarified that the Quraysh would be his successors and
not the Ansar:
‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫اب َن له لذا اال الم لر فبي قَ لريا‬
‫ش لل يَ لعادي به ام ال لح ٌد اَل لك بَهَ الَ في النَا بر لع لي لو اج بهه لما القل َاموا الد ل‬
َ‫ّين‬
Our political authority shall remain with the Quraysh. In this matter, whoever
opposes them as long as they follow Islam, God shall cast him face down in Hell. [14]
Consequently, he told the Ansar:[15] ‫وها‬

‫ّم ل‬
َ ‫ش ا لولل تَ لق د‬j ‫ّم اوا قَ لريا‬
َ ‫( قل د‬In this matter, bring forward the
Quraysh and do not try to supersede them). The Prophet (sws) stated thus the reason for
the decision he had declared:
‫ان َم اسلب َم َه ام لب َم اسلب بم به ام لولكافب َرَه ام لب لكافب بربه ام‬ ٍ ‫َاس تل بل ٌع لب َق لريا‬
َ ‫ش فبي له لذا ال‬
‫شأ ب‬
َ ‫الن‬
People in this matter follow the Quraysh. The believers of Arabia are the followers
of their believers and the disbelievers of Arabia are the followers of their
[13]Ahmad ibn Yahyaibn Jabir Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, (Qum: Manshurat al-Arummiyyah, 1404 AH),
266.
[14]Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 6, 2611, (no. 6720).
[15]Abu al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Al-Talkhis al-Habir fi takhrij ahadith al-rafi‘i al-
kabir, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1989), 96.
disbelievers.[16]
Thus, the Prophet (sws) made it very clear that since the majority of the Arabian Muslims
professed confidence in the Quraysh, they were solely entitled to take charge as the rulers
of Arabia in the light of the Qur’anic directive ‫ورى بل اي نل َه ام‬
consultation), and that they would be passed on the political authority after the Prophet
(sws) not because of any racial precedence or superiority, but only by virtue of this
position.
Those who have studied the history of the Arabs know that before the advent of the
Prophet (sws), the Quraysh were at the helm of the state’s affairs and their leaders were
considered as the leaders of the Arabs. After the battles of Badr and Uhud, though several
of their leaders had been killed, yet in the capacity of a party they enjoyed the confidence of
all the Arabs. All their prominent people who had accepted faith were present in Madinah
and many of them had distinguished themselves in the service of Islam. It was these people
who were called the Muhajirun and after the general acceptance of faith by the Arabs their
leaders enjoyed the same confidence as the influential Arabs in the pre-Islamic era. Hence,
elections were not needed to confirm this reality. There was no room for a difference of
opinion in the fact that the Quraysh had the popular support of the masses behind them
and that no tribe could challenge this position of theirs.
There is no doubt that as far as Madinah was concerned, the Ansar under Sa‘d ibn
‘Ubadah (rta) and Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh (rta), the respective leaders of Aws and Khazraj, had
more influence among the local population. They were no less than the Muhajirun as
regards the services they had rendered for the cause of Islam. They had offered their
unconditional support and help to the Muhajirun when the latter had migrated to
Madinah. Together with them, they had fought gallantly in the battles of Badr, Uhud,
Ahzab and Hunayn. The relationship of brotherhood and fraternity they had established
with them was an exceptional one. Particularly, the way they had offered them monetary
assistance – to please the Almighty – bears no parallel in history. Had the Islamic State
been confined only to Madinah, it can be said with certainty that after the Prophet (sws),
they would have assumed political authority. But after the conquest of Makkah, when a
large number of Arabs of other territories accepted Islam, the political scene changed
drastically. The extent of confidence commanded by the Muhajirun of the Quraysh out-
proportioned that of the Ansar.
However, there was still a chance that owing to the perfectly natural emotions of tribal
affiliation and owing to the spirit of outdoing each other in serving Islam, the Ansar might
have come forward and challenged the Quraysh. Particularly, the fact that they
commanded more influence locally in Madinah could have caused them to put undue
[16]Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 3, 1451, (no. 1818).

trust in their strength. If such a situation, God forbid, had arisen the Munafiqun
(Hypocrites) would have certainly tried to benefit from it, and keeping in view the social
conditions which prevailed at that time, only a war could have settled their dissension.
Therefore, the Prophet (sws), sensing that this untoward situation might arise, decided
once and for all the fate of this matter in his own life in the presence of Sa‘d ibn
‘Ubadah(rta), the supreme leader of the Ansar. He is reported to have said: [17] ‫ال بلئ َمةَ بم ان قَ لرياش‬
([After me], the political leaders should be from the Quraysh). Consequently, in the
Thaqifah of Banu Sa‘idah, when the leaders of the Ansar were delivering stirring speeches
to prove their entitlement to the leadership of the Arabs, Abu Bakr (rta) reminded them of
the Prophet’s above mentioned decision in the following words:
‫َاس تل بل ٌع لببل ّربه ام‬ ‫ال وألنا ل ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫لوللق اد لعلب ام ل‬
‫ش َوللةَ له لذا اال الم بر فل بل نر الن ب‬
ٌ ‫ت قلاع ٌد قَ لريا‬ ‫ص لَي الَ لع لاي ه لو لس لَ لم لق ل ل‬ ‫ت يلا لس اع َدأل َن لر َس او لل ال ل‬
َ‫ات نل اح َن ال َاولزلراءَ لوألنا تَ ام اال لَم لراء‬
‫ص لدق ل‬
‫ال للهَ لس اع ٌد ل‬ ‫اج بربه ام قل ل‬
‫ال فل لق ل‬ ‫اجرَهم تل بع لبلف ب‬
ٌ ‫لوفل َ ا ل‬
‫ب‬
O Sa‘d! You know very well that the Prophet (sws) had said in your presence that
the Quraysh shall be given the khilafah because the nobles among the Arabs follow
their nobles and their commoners follow their commoners. Sa‘d replied: “What
you say is correct, we are your advisers and you are our rulers.”[18]
In another report, the words are:
ٍ ‫اح ّي بم ان قَ لريا‬
‫ش‬ ‫ب‬
‫ب له لذا اال الم لر إبَل ل له لذا ال ل‬ ‫لم تل اع بر ا‬
َ ‫ف ال لاع لر‬ ‫لا‬
The people of Arabia do not acknowledge anyone’s political leadership except that
of the Quraysh.[19]
After this verification by Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubadah (rta), the chief of the Ansar, it became clear to
those present that they had strayed from the right course in the heat of discussion and that
the right course was to elect their ruler from the group which held majority in the public;
that whoever would be elected would be the khalifah of the Muslims and it would be
obligatory to obey him; that this course had been outlined by the Prophet (sws) himself
and they should not adopt a different one.
The Rightly Guided Caliphate was also founded on the basis of this decision declared by
the Prophet (sws). When the leaders of the Ansar submitted to it, ‘Umar (rta), considering
the delicacy of the situation which had arisen in the Thaqifah, proclaimed the rule of Abu
Bakr (rta) being sure of the fact that the leaders of the Quraysh would not differ with him
[17]Ahmad ibn Hanbal,Musnad, vol. 3, 129, (no. 12329).
[18]Ibid., vol. 1, 5, (no. 18).
[19]Ibid., vol. 1, 55, (no. 391).
and would, in fact, endorse his step. Later, he himself stated this reason for his step and
warned that no one should dare present it as a violation of the Qur’anic principle ‫ورى‬
‫( بل اي نل َه ام‬their system is based on their consultation):
‫س‬ ‫ت لك لذلب ل ب‬ ‫ لوتل َم ا‬j‫ت بل اي لع ةَ ألب ي بل اك ٍر فل لاتل ة‬

‫ت أللل لوإبنَ له ا قل اد لك انل ا‬ ‫ول إبنَ لما لك انل ا‬
‫فل لل يل اتل َر َن اام َرٌؤ أل ان يل َق ل‬
‫ك لوللك َن الل لوقل ي لش َرلها لول الي ل‬
‫بب‬ ‫ش ٍب‬ ‫بب ب‬ ‫ب‬
َ‫ين فل لل يَبل ايل َع َه لو لولل الَ بذي بلايل لعه‬ ‫ل لع ان غلاي بر لم َ ل‬j ‫م ان َك ام لم ان تَ اقطل َع االل اعنلا َق إبل اليه مثا َل أل ي بل اك ٍر لم ان بلايل لع لر َج‬
‫ورة م ان ال َام اس لم ل‬
‫ة أل ان يَ اقتل لل‬j‫تل ب َر‬
No one among you should have the misconception that the oath of allegiance to
Abu Bakr took place suddenly. No doubt, the oath was pledged in this way, but
the Almighty protected the Muslims from its evil consequences [which might have
arisen] and remember! There is none among you like Abu Bakr, whose greatness
cannot be surpassed. Now, if a person pledges an oath of allegiance to someone,
without the opinion of the believers, no one should pledge allegiance to him as
well as to whom he [himself] pledged allegiance because by doing this both of
them shall present themselves for execution.[20]
At the time of the death of Abu Bakr (rta) also, the Muhajirun of the Quraysh enjoyed the
people’s confidence. Since no other tribe of the Arabs including the Ansar had challenged
this position, they continued to hold their position of authority, and there was no need to
turn to the general public in this regard. Therefore, the leaders of the Muhajirun of the
Quraysh nominated ‘Umar (rta) as the new ruler and both the Ansar and the Muhajirun –
the two big tribes of the Muslims – accepted the appointment. Consequently, without any
difference of opinion, ‘Umar (rta), in direct accordance with the Islamic constitution,
assumed the position of khilafah. Ibn Sa‘d reports:
‫ أخبرني عن عمر الخطاب فقال عبد الرحمن ما‬: ‫أن ابابكر الصديق لما استعزبه دعا عبد الرحمن ابن عوف فقال‬
‫ هو وال افضل من رأيك فيه ثم دعا‬: ‫ وان فقال عبد الرحمن‬: ‫تسألني عن أمر أل وأنت اعلم به مني فقال ابوبكر‬
‫ اللهم علمی به أن سريرته خير من‬: ‫ أنت اخبرنا به فقال عثمان‬: ‫ اخبرني عن عمر فقال‬: ‫عثمان بن عفان فقال‬
‫علنيته وانه ليس فينا مثله‬
When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he
summoned ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf and said: “Tell me about ‘Umar ibn al-
Khattab.” ‘Abd al-Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which
you know better.” Abu Bakr said: “Although [this is correct yet I want your
opinion].” ‘Abd al-Rahman answered: ‘”By God! He is even better than the
opinion you hold about him.” Then he [Abu Bakr] called ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan
and asked him: “Tell me about ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. ‘Uthman replied: “You
[20]Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 6, 2505, (no. 6442).

know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still! O Abu ‘Abdullah! [I want your
opinion].” [At this], ‘Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner-self is
better than his outer-self and no one among us can parallel him.”[21]
Ibn Sa‘d mentions that Abu Bakr (rta), besides these two, consulted all the prominent
leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirun:
‫ اللهم اعلمه‬:‫وشاور معهما سعيدبن زيد أبا العور و اسيد بن الحضير و غير هما من المهاجرين و النصار فقال اسيد‬
‫الخيرة بعدك يرضی للرضی و يسخط للسخط الذي يسر خير من الذي يعلن و لم يل هذا المر أحد أقوى‬
‫عليه منه‬
And he, besides these two, consulted Abu al-A‘war Sa‘id ibn Zayd and Usayd ibn
al-Hudayr as well as other prominent leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirun, so
Usayd said: “Indeed after you O Abu Bakr! I consider him the best. He is happy
on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inner-self is better than his
outer-self. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this khilafah.”[22]
After this, Ibn Sa‘d reports that some people differed from Abu Bakr’s (rta) opinion but
he satisfied them. He then called ‘Uthman (rta) and said:
‫منها وعند أول عهدت‬j‫ بسم ال الرحمن الرحيم هذا ما عهد ابوبكر بن أبي قحافة في أخر عهدت بالدنيا خارجا‬: ‫اكتب‬
‫ب الخرة داخل فيه ا حي ث ي ؤمن الك افر و ي وقن الف اجر و يص دق الك اِب ان ي اس تخلفت عليك م بع دي عم ر ب ن‬
‫الخطاب فاسمعوا له و أطيعوا‬
Write: “In the name of God the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful. This is the will
of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhafah which he made at the end of his worldly life, when
he is about to leave it and at the beginning of his next life when he is about to enter
it, at a time when disbelievers accept faith, the defiant express belief and liars speak
the truth. I make ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab your khalifah. Therefore, listen to him and
obey him.”[23]
This letter was sealed. According to Abu Bakr’s (rta) directive, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (rta)
and Usayd ibn Sa‘id (rta) accompanied ‘Uthman (rta), who took the letter out to the
people and said:
‫أتبايعون لمن في هذا الكتاب؟ فقالوا نعم‬
[21]Ibn Sa‘d, Al-Ṭabaqat al-kubra, vol. 3, 199.

[22]Ibid.
[23]Ibid., vol. 3, 200.
Will you pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this
letter. The people said: “Yes.”[24]
Ibn Sa‘d reports:
‫ فأوصات بما أوصات به‬j‫ و رضوا به و بايعوا ثم دعا ابوبكر عمر خاليا‬j‫فاقروا بذلك جميعا‬
All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to ‘Umar. Then Abu Bakr called
‘Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.[25]
When ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (rta) was severely wounded and his death looked imminent,
the political situation was still unchanged. The Muhajirun of the Quraysh still enjoyed the
majority mandate of the Muslims. Therefore, according to the Islamic constitution, only
an election of a leader by the majority group was required. The people who held
responsible positions asked ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (rta), as reported by Ibn Sa‘d: [26] ‫اللل تل لع اه َد‬
‫( ابل الي نلا اللل تَ لوّم َر لع ل اي نلا‬Will you not leave a will for us? Will you not appoint a ruler for us?). ‘Umar
ibn al-Khattab (rta), however, adopted another way: instead of appointing a khalifah by
consulting the shura members, as had been done by Abu Bakr (rta), he entrusted the
matter to six prominent leaders:
‫ أل إن يكون فيك م ف ان ك ان ش قاق فه و فيك م وانم ا‬j‫أني ق د نظرت لك م في أم ر الن اس فل م أج د عن د الن اس ش قاقا‬
‫ ألي عبد الرحمن و عثمان و علی و الزبير و طلحة و سعد‬: ‫المرالي ستة‬
I have deliberated on the matter of khilafah and have reached the conclusion that
there is no difference among the people in this affair as long as it is one of you. If
there is any difference, it is within you. Therefore, this matter is entrusted to the
six of you: ‘Abd al-Rahman, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Zubayr, Ṭalhah and Sa‘d.[27]
What he meant was that since the people only looked to them for khilafah and if they
agreed to accept anyone among them as khalifah, the people would not differ with their
decision.
He further said:[28] ‫( قَ اوَم اوا فل تل لش ا بوَراوا فل الّم َراوا ال لح لد َك ام لع لاي َك م‬rise, consult and make anyone amongst
yourselves as the ruler). However, since there was a chance that some miscreants might
create disorder or that these six might prolong matters, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (rta)
appointed the Ansar as the custodians over the six because, being a minority group, they
[24]Ibid.
[25]Ibid.
[26]Ibid. vol. 3, 343.
[27]Ibid., vol. 3, 344.
[28]Ibid.
were not a party to the whole affair. Ibn Sa‘d narrates through Anas ibn Malik:
‫ يا أبا طلحة كن في خمسين من قومك‬: ‫أرسل عمر بن الخطاب إلی أبي طلحة النصاري قبل أن يموت بساعة فقال‬
‫ أصحاب الشورى فانهم فيما احسب سيجتمعون في بيت أحدهم فقم علي ِلك الباب‬:‫من اللنصار مع هولء النفر‬
‫بأصحابك فل تترك أحدا يدخل عليهم ول تتركهم يمضي اليوم الثالث حتي يومروا أحدهم‬
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab just before his death summoned ‘Abu Ṭalhah Ansari. When
he arrived, ‘Umar said: “Abu Ṭalhah take fifty men from your tribe Ansar and go
to these people of the shura. I reckon they will be present at the house of someone
amongst themselves. Stand at their door with your comrades and let no one go
inside and do not give them more than three days for electing a leader.”[29]
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (rta) instructed them in the following words about the leaders of the
Ansar:
‫احضروا معكم من شيوخ النصار وليس لهم من أمركم من شيء‬
Call the leaders of the Ansar to you, but they have no share in political
authority.[30]
Ibn Sa‘d reports that when all of them had assembled, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf (rta)
opined that three of them should withdraw themselves in favour of three others.
Consequently, Zubayr (rta) withdrew in favour of ‘Ali (rta), and Ṭalhah (rta) and Sa‘d
(rta) withdrew in favour of ‘Uthman (rta) and ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf (rta)
respectively. Then he asked ‘Uthman (rta) and ‘Ali (rta) to give him the right to decide, if
he withdraws. When both agreed, he said to ‘Ali (rta):
‫صلَي الَ لع ل اي به لو لسلَ لم والقدم والَ عليك لئن استخلفت لتعدلن ولئن استخلف عثمان‬ ‫ب‬
‫أن لك من القرابة من لر َس او لل ال ل‬
َ‫لتسمعن ولتطيعن‬
You have the honour of being among the earliest who accepted Islam as well as
being a relation of the Prophet of God. By God! If you are entrusted with khilafah,
promise that you will rule with justice and if ‘Uthman (rta) is made the khalifah,
you shall listen to him and obey him.[31]
After ‘Ali (rta) agreed, he turned to ‘Uthman (rta) and repeated what he had said; when
[29]Ibid., vol. 3, 346.

[30]Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah ibn Muslimin Qutaybah, Al-Imamah wa al-siyasah, vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar
al-ma‘rifah, n.d.), 28.
both showed their approval, he said: “O ‘Uthman! Extend your hand! When he did so,
‘Ali and others pledged their oath of allegiance to him.” [32]
There can be two opinions about the khilafah of ‘Ali (rta). This difference however, is not
about any basic principle, but about whether the Muhajirun of the Quraysh elected their
leader with freedom or under coercion. This discussion is not relevant to our topic.
Therefore, even if it is left out, the fact remains that throughout the period of the Rightly
Guided Caliphate, power remained with those who commanded the majority support of
the Muslims ie. the Muhajirun of the Quraysh and that their prominent leaders elected the
ruler. This is also a reality that all the four caliphs were elected basically by the same
principle. They were elected from the leaders of the majority group and all the leaders of
the other groups were also consulted in this election. The only difference is that when they
agreed on ‘Umar (rta), Abu Bakr (rta) himself enforced this decision, and ‘Umar (rta),
when he found that their difference was betweeen six eminent leaders, entrusted the
responsibility of electing one from among the six on the six persons themselves.
[32]Ibid.
The Question of Interest
If a person lends money to someone and then demands profit on it, then this is called
“interest”. At first sight, there does not seem to be any difference between it and rent.
However, a deep deliberation reveals the stark difference between the two: rented out
items can be used while keeping them intact. However, money cannot be used in this way;
it is in fact used up and after spending it, it is needed to be produced again. Therefore, if
something in addition is demanded over the original amount, this in fact becomes an
oppression. Since this difference between interest and rent is subtle, and human intellect
can falter in understanding this difference, the Almighty has delineated the truth in this
matter. In the shari‘ah He has given mankind through his prophets, He has informed
them that demanding an increase over the lent amount is unjust and hence not allowed. It
is for this very reason that interest has remained prohibited at all times and in all the
shari‘ahs revealed by the Almighty. The Qur’an has explicitly forbidden it. There is no
difference of opinion in this matter.
However, the religious legality of the system of banking which prevails in our societies has
recently come under discussion. It is contended that since the bank only receives a portion
from the profit of a commercial venture it had financed on the basis of a loan hence the
very reason for which interest was regarded as prohibited does not exist in the banking
system. This view has been put forth by some scholars of Egypt and Syria. MawlanaWahid
al-Din Khan (b. 1926 AD), a celebrated scholar and preacher from India too, has
corroborated it to some extent in his book Fikr-i Islami. In my opinion, this view of the
scholars can be considered intellectually convincing; however, it is essential for this that the
following remedial measures be introduced in the banking system.
Firstly, if a commercial venture financed by a bank loan runs into losses or needs to be
discontinued for some reason, the demand for profit by the bank should cease that very
day. It should only demand the principal amount.
Secondly, if things are being sold on installments, then until these installments are
complete, the bank should remain a partner in the ownership of the sold item, fulfil the
rights of ownership and receive rent on it.
Thirdly, in a loan given for non-commercial purposes except for inflationary adjustments,
no interest should be demanded on it.
If these measures are taken, then the banking system becomes just to a great extent.
However, there are two more questions which arise.
Firstly, what is the ruling on people who do not charge interest but procure an interest-
bearing loan to meet their personal and business needs?
Secondly, should saving schemes through which governments acquire loans for their needs
from people and also give them profit be regarded as prohibited?
The answer to the first question is that no objection can be raised on paying interest
because the prohibition of interest is based on the Qur’anic principle of akl al-amwal al-
batil (devouring wealth through unfair means), and a person who pays interest does not
devour the wealth of some other person through unfair means. In fact, he pays a part of his
legitimately earned wealth to the borrower in lieu of the loan he provides. The issue of
interest is mentioned at more than one instance in the Qur’an. Not at one place has the
Qur’an condemned those who pay interest. In fact, it calls them oppressed and asked the
lender to give them time if they are facing financial constraints. Those who regard paying
of interest as prohibited do not base their view on any verse of the Qur’an or any implicit
or explicit deduction from any of its verses. They base their view on a Hadith narrative
which says that the Prophet (sws) has cursed the person who consumes interest and makes
others consume it. The words of the narrative are: [1]‫ ُكب لل ال ّربل ا لوَم ؤاكب لهَ ة ل للع لن النَب ني‬In this
narrative, the word ‫ َم اوكب ل‬is used for a person who makes others consume interest.
Linguistically, it can refer to a person who pays interest and also to people who are the
agents of professional lenders and in this capacity hunt for potential customers for their
masters. If lending on interest becomes a business, then such agents are its essential need;
without them, the business of lending interest bearing loans cannot be run. If the narrative
relates to such people, then there is no complexity in the narrative because this is blatant
co-operation with evil (ta‘awun ‘ala al-ithm). As agents of interest-lenders, those who
prepare agreements and documents for them and act as witnesses, their matter too is no
different. The service provided by bank staff of these times is of similar nature. However,
people who acquire interest-based loans cannot in any way be regarded as guilty of co-
operation with evil (ta‘awun ‘ala al-ithm). This expression can only be used for an act done
by perpetrators of a sin and for those who reap the benefits of this sin. Those who acquire
interest-based loans do not acquire it to help the devourers of interest, they obtain loans
for their personal and business needs. If this is co-operation, then it is not more than the
co-operation done by our scholars and righteous individuals when they deposit their own
wealth and that of their institutions in banks. If interest is prohibited at the state level and
all forms of interest transactions are brought to an end, then such people who still pay
interest can be regarded as criminals who have breached a law. If the Hadith narrative cited
above refers to them, then the directive should relate to the scenario just stated – when
interest transactions had been prohibited in the time of the Prophet (sws).
The answer to the second is that the referred to saving schemes are not like general interest
transactions. The reason for this is that through these schemes, a government borrows
money from the lenders not on their conditions but on its own conditions. Not only this,

it ascertains the rate of profit itself as well and also keeps increasing or decreasing it on its
own discretion. Although this is not exactly the same as returning a loan taken from
someone with some addition to the principal amount without the lender demanding this
addition, yet this arrangement is something close to it. It is known that interest has been
forbidden because it can result in oppression and exploitation. However the intensity of
this oppression and exploitation is greatly reduced in this arrangement. For the pious, it is
befitting that they do not benefit from such schemes. However, if the general masses
especially the orphans, widows and retired personnel who are apprehensive in investing
their wealth in business ventures benefit from these schemes for their essential expenses, it
is hoped that they will not be held accountable for this by their God.

Insurance
Insurance is a sort of contract for mutual help in which people pay a fixed amount in
instalments. The purpose is that if any of them is inflicted with losses relating to their
persons or their wealth they are compensated from this pooled money in a prescribed
manner. The money given is never returned and all the people or institutes which provide
this service are granted this right by people who enter into this contract of mutual help
with them that in return for this service they can spend the accumulated money in
whatever way they want.
This is an extraordinary scheme which has been chalked out to compensate losses and to
help people in difficult circumstances. Its benefits are now acknowledged everywhere.
After the termination of the institutions of tribes, fraternities and ‘aqilah, this is the best
substitute for them which contemporary economic systems have provided to this world.
There seems to be no objection against it; however, Islamic scholars generally regard it to
be prohibited. Following are the objections they have raised against insurance:
1. The amounts which insurance companies pay to their clients are generally more
than the installments their clients have paid them; this is interest and interest is
forbidden in Islam. Moreover, insurance companies further invest this money in
interest-based schemes. Some part of the interest earned by them is also used in
paying off their clients who had bought their insurance policies.
2. Insurance policy holders repeatedly receive large sums of money against death,
accidents or losses. This is gambling which is prohibited in the Islamic shari‘ah.
3. The entity for which an insurance policy is purchased does not typically exist; the
locus of the contract is also not ascertained and the policy holders do not even know
the number of installments and the time until which they will have to pay them. In
the terminology of the jurists these are called gharar (deception), jahalah (ignorance)
and ghaban (embezzlement) respectively in the presence of which no contract is
allowable. The Prophet (sws) has forbidden such deals.
A little deliberation will show that all these three objections are baseless.
The first of these is not tenable because the installments paid by an insurance policy holder
are not loans. They are given by him for the help and support of others on the condition
that he too could be the recipient. Thus they are never returned. If insurance institutions
invest the amonts in interest-bearing transactions, it is because they have been given the
right by the policy holders to use them. No responsibility of the nature of this use rests on
the policy holders. If a person is to receive insurance money for the purpose he had bought
a policy, then as per the contract, he receives it from the accumulated amount. This is the
real nature of insurance, and it must be viewed on its basis.
The second of these objections is not tenable because gambling is a game and a matter of
purely chancing one’s luck. People who buy insurance policies do so to become part of a
system which caters to helping one another in case of losses. The nature of the two is
entirely different, and the basis of religious directives is not marginal similarity between
two things; it is and should be based on the actual nature of the two.
The third of these objections is not tenable because the directives of the Prophet (sws)
related to gharar (deception), jahalah (ignorance) and ghaban (embezzlement) are not of
the nature of an absolute prohibition: they are meant to resolve disputes and to close the
door to ways which may result in these evils in cases of financial transactions. Insurance,
however, is not a financial transaction. It is a scheme which relates to mutual help. It is
executed and managed by individuals and institutions that are given the right to use the
accumulated money in return for the service they provide. It is not appropriate at all to
judge it by ignoring the nature of this scheme.

Distribution of Inheritance
The Islamic law of inheritance is mentioned in the eleventh and twelfth verses of Surah
Nisa’. In these verses, the Almighty has promised eternal punishment for those who have
the audacity to change this law or intentionally disobey it. Though this promise relates to
violating all the bounds and limits which the Almighty has clearly stated in His Book, yet
its mention right after the law of inheritance shows how people who would in particular
disobey it would face grave consequences. The Qur’an says:
‫ب‬ ‫ين فب ليه ا لو لِلب ل‬ ‫بب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫اك ح َد َ ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫يم ك لولم ان‬
َ ‫ك الا لف اوَز ال لاعظ‬ َ ‫ود اللَه لولم ان يَط بع اللَهل لولر َسوللهَ يَ ادخلاهَ لجنَات تل اج بري م ان تل احت له ا االلنا له‬
‫ار لخال د ل‬ َ ‫تل ل‬
‫ب ب‬ ‫ص اللَه ورسولله وي ت ع َد ح َد ل ب‬
(14-13 :4 ‫ين‬ ٌ ‫اب َم به‬ٌ ‫دا ف ليها لوللهَ لع لذ‬j ‫ارا لخال‬j ‫ودتَ يَ ادخلاهَ نل‬ َ ‫يل اع ب ل ل ل َ َ ل ل ل ل‬
These are the bounds set by God; [do not exceed them] and [remember that]
those who obey God and His Messenger, God shall admit them in gardens watered
by running streams. They shall abide in them forever and this is the supreme
success. And those who defy God and His Messenger and transgress His bounds
shall be cast into a Fire wherein they will abide forever. And for them is a shameful
punishment. (4:13-14)
So stern is this promise that a person who has faith in the Hereafter shudders on reading it;
however, with great sorrow one has to say that following the footsteps of the Jews,
Muslims are reckless enough not only to change this law but also to violate it practically. It
is a fact that the breaches which take place in this regard are tantamount to rebelling
against God. Men deprive women from inheritance. If in some place this law has been
implemented at the state level, they sign documents to illegally evade courts of law by
putting unlawful pressure on them; in cases where the shares of men and women are not
equal, they are bold enough to make them equal; they only regard the eldest son to be
worthy of their legacy. In villages, in particular, they insist on common ancestral property;
they try to adopt ways and means to usurp the share of the orphans. In short, they try to
do everything which can be called open rebellion against this divine law.
This situation entails that Muslims be warned from mosques and from the pulpits, their
attention be directed again and again through radio, television and newspapers, and
institutions of education and instruction teach them that the life of this world and its
wealth and riches are mere deception and illusion. Instead of a share in the eternal
kingdom of God on the Day of Judgement, what is it that these people are choosing for
themselves? In the words of the Qur’an, it is as if they are filling their bellies with fire.
Muslims should, moreover, be told that eternal Hell is no ordinary torment. They should
shield themselves from it and distribute all their inheritance with full honesty in the very
manner prescribed by God in this regard. The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said that if
a person illegally takes possession of a piece of land even the size of a hand, then on the Day
of Judgement that piece of land will be made his neck-brace.[1]
What exactly is this law of inheritance? I have presented it in detail in my book Mizan.[2]
Here, just as a reminder, I am providing a short summary of it:
1. If the deceased has outstanding debts to his name, then first of all they should be
paid off from the wealth he has left behind. After this, any will he may have
bequeathed should be carried out. The distribution of his inheritance should then
follow.
2. No will can be made in favour of an heir ordained by the Almighty except if his
circumstances, or the services rendered by him or his needs in certain situations call
for it.
3. After giving the parents and the spouses their shares, the children are the heirs of the
remaining inheritance. If the deceased does not have any male offspring and there
are only two or more girls among the children, then they shall receive two-thirds of
the inheritance left over, and if there is only one girl, then her share is one-half. If
the deceased has only male children, then all his wealth shall be distributed among
them. If he leaves behind both boys and girls, then the share of each boy shall be
equal to the share of two girls and, in this case also, all his wealth shall be distributed
among them.
4. In the absence of children, the deceased’s brothers and sisters shall take their place.
After giving the parents and spouses their shares, the brothers and sisters shall be his
heirs. The proportion of their shares and the mode of distribution shall be the same
as that of the children stated above.
5. If the deceased has children or if he does not have children and has brothers and
sisters, then the parents shall receive a sixth each. If he does not even have brothers
and sisters and the parents are the sole heirs, then one-third of his wealth shall be
given to the mother and two-thirds to the father.
6. If the deceased is a man and he has children, then his wife shall receive one-eighth of
what he leaves, and if he does not have any children, then his wife’s share shall be
one-fourth. If the deceased is a woman and does not have any children, then her
husband shall receive one-half of what she leaves and if she has children, then the
husband’s share is one-fourth.
7. In the absence of these heirs, the deceased can make someone an heir. If the person
who is made an heir is a relative and has one brother or one sister, then they shall be
given a sixth of his share and he himself shall receive the remaining five-sixth.
However, if he has more than one brother or sister, then they shall be given a third
of his share and he himself shall receive the remaining two-thirds.

The Right to make a Will
It is repeatedly stated in the law of inheritance mentioned in the Qur’an that the
inheritance should be distributed after disbursing any will made by the deceased. Two
questions arise on this.
First, is there a limit imposed on the amount a person can will in favour of someone or
does he have the discretion to will any amount he wants to?
Second, can a will be made in favour of people who have been made the heirs of the
deceased by the Almighty?
The answer to the first question is that the words of the Qur’an impose no limit on the
amount that is to be willed. The Almighty has unconditionally mentioned that this
distribution of inheritance shall take place once the will of the deceased has been executed.
No limit can be imposed on this willed amount as per the dictates of language and style of
the relevant verses. The narrative which is attributed to the Prophet (sws) in this regard has
an entirely different connotation: one of his companions expressed his wish before him
that after his death he wanted to donate all his wealth for the cause of God. The Prophet
(sws) replied that this would be too big an amount given for this purpose and that if a
person has wealth, he should not leave his heirs empty-handed. The companion then asked
if he could donate two thirds and later asked if he could reserve half of his wealth for this
purpose. At this, the Prophet (sws) gave him the same reply. The companion further asked
if he could give one-third of his wealth. The Prophet (sws) responded by saying that this
was quite enough.[1] Everyone can see that this was a comment of the Prophet (sws) in a
particular case. It cannot be regarded as a legal limit imposed by the Prophet (sws).
The answer to the second question is that the Almighty Himself has made a will in favour
the heirs of a deceased. So no Muslim can dare make a will in this regard. Thus, on the
basis of familial relationship, no will can be made in their favour; however, a will can
certainly be made in favour of these very heirs because of some need they may have or
because of some service they may have rendered for the deceased or because of any similar
matter. Thus if one of the children of a person is school going and as such is not earning
while others are, or if one of the children has served his parents more than the others, or if
aperson fears that after his demise there will be no one to look after and provide for his
wife, then a will can be made in favour of each of these. Just as a will can be made in favour
of friends or for the purpose of charity, it can similarly be made in favour of these heirs.
There is nothing in the shari‘ah which hinders it.
Inheritance of an Orphaned Grandchild
The Qur’an has not explicitly mentioned the share of a grandfather in the legacy of his
grandchild or that of a grandchild in the legacy of his grandfather. However, since the
words ‫( أولد‬awlad) and ‫( ُب ا‬aba) can refer both on the basis of meaning and usage to
grandparents and grandchildren, there has remained a consensus among Muslim jurists
that if none of the direct parents or direct children are present, then the shares which have
been fixed for them will be given to indirect parents and indirect children respectively. [1]
However, one situation which can arise is that one or more children die in the lifetime of a
parent and one or more children are alive after his death. The ijtihad of the jurists in this
case is that the offspring of the deceased children will not be given any inheritance from
the grandfather and in the presence of their paternal uncles they will be deprived of it
except if the grandfather has made a will in their favour. In current times, some scholars are
of the opinion that this ijtihad of the jurists seems incorrect. A grandson is like a son and
hence in the event of a son’s death, he should get the share that his father would have got
had he been alive. In my opinion, this opinion is correct. Consequently, in the following
paragraphs I will try to answer the objections raised on this view by Mawlana Sayyid Abu
al-A‘la Mawdudi a revered and respected scholar of Islam. Following are these objections: [2]
1. As per the Qur’an, whoever gets a share in the inheritance of a deceased is entitled
to it because he is near in kin (aqrab) to him and not because he is a substitute of
some other kin. Thus the suggestion of granting a share to the grandchild from the
inheritance of his grandfather introduces the very wrong notion of substitution in
the Islamic law of inheritance of which there is no evidence found in the Qur’an.
Moreover, after accepting the principle of substitution this inheritance is confined
to the children of the children and no sound reasoning can be presented in favour of
this either.
2. As per the Qur’an, only those who are alive have a share in the legacy of a person at
the time of his death. Contrary to this, this view also grants a share to people who
have died in the lifetime of that person.
3. The Qur’an has explicitly allocated the shares of some relatives and no addition or
reduction can be made to them. However, if this view is adopted, then an addition
is made in some shares fixed by the Qur’an and a reduction is made in some others.
The answer to the first question is that the grandson is not being given a share as a
substitute for his father in the capacity of an heir: it is being given to him because after the
death of his father he has become aqrab to his grandfather the way his father was. Thus he
[1] The words “direct parents” and “direct children” refer to the parents and children while the word
“indirect parents” and “indirect children” refers to grandparents and grandchildren. (Translator)
[2] Sayyid Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi, Tafhimat, 9th ed., vol 3 (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1983), 173-190.
is a substitute for his father in this regard. When his father was alive, his father was aqrab
of his own father with regard to being his offspring. After his death, his son has become
aqrab to his father and on this basis has become entitled to inheritance. During the lifetime
of the father, a person is like a son to his grandfather and after his father’s death also he is
like a son to his grandfather. The only difference which death has caused is that in
becoming the aqrab of his grandfather he has become a substitute for his father. This
substitution does not refer to the one understood by Sayyid Mawdudi; it is a substitution
in being aqrab to the deceased which according to his own opinion is the basis of the
Islamic law of inheritance. If a deceased does not have children all the way down, then it is
in this very capacity that brothers and sisters become substitutes of children, and as per the
Qur’an in the same manner receive their share in exactly the same proportion as prescribed
for the children. For this substitution, the last verse of Surah Nisa’ is an explicit source.
The reason to deny it to the children of children is that after the death of the wife or the
husband no heir can become a wife or husband to any extent so that he or she be regarded
as the substitute of the deceased with regard to being their aqrab.
The answer to the second objection is that the share being given to the grandson is not the
share of the father given to the son as his heir; the share is being given to him because it is,
in fact, his own share because after the death of the father he is his substitute to his
grandfather and an aqrab to the grandfather in the same capacity. This does not in any way
affect the Qur’anic principle that inheritance only belongs to the heirs who are alive at the
time of the death of the person whose inheritance is to be distributed. The suggestion of
giving a share to an orphaned grandchild is to make someone an heir who is alive at the
time of death of the person whose inheritance is to be distributed.
The third objection has arisen because of the misunderstanding that this methodology of
distribution of inheritance among the grandsons shall also be employed when no one from
the children is present. The Mawlana has explained this objection with an example. He
writes:
… Suppose that a person had only two sons and both died during his lifetime; one
of them had four sons and the other only one. As per the Qur’an, all these
grandchildren are equal with regard to being sons to their grandfather and hence
each of them should receive an equal share from the inheritance of their
grandfather. However, on the basis of this principle of substitution half of his
inheritance will be received by one grandson and the remaining half shall be
divided equally between the other four grandsons.[3]
The answer to this objection is that this may not be the case. In this scenario, the same
method of distribution can be adopted: each grandson be given an equal share. The
[3] Mawdudi, Tafhimat, vol 3, 182.

Qur’an itself guides us to this. It has adopted one method in distributing the share to an
heir in the presence of other heirs and another in their absence. Thus in the presence of
children, the parents shall receive one sixth each; if the deceased does not have children but
has brothers and sisters, then the shares of the brothers and sisters shall remain the same;
however, if the parents are the only heirs of the deceased, then the mother’s share shall be
one-third and the father’s share shall be two-thirds. Same is the case with kalalah relatives.
If someone among them is made an heir and he or she has one brother or one sister, then
they shall be given a sixth of his or her share; however, if he or she has more than one
brother or sister, then they shall be given a third of his or her share. Thus it is not necessary
that in case of grandsons, one of the two options be insisted upon. This is purely an issue
in which ijtihad can be exercised. In this regard, whatever the method adopted, it should be
in accordance with the principles prescribed by the Qur’an, and in all cases be based on
justice.

Jihad and War in Islam
Jihadmeans to exert oneself fully in an endeavour. Just as this term appears in the Qur’an
for a general struggle in the way of God, it also appears as a term for waging war in His way
(qital fi sabil-Allah). Two forms of this war have been described:
1. War against the denial of Islam
2. War against oppression and injustice
The first kind of war does not concern the shari‘ah (Divine law); instead, it relates to the
Divine principle of conclusive argument from God, which principle manifests itself in this
world on the basis of God’s direct decree and through those personalities whom He grants
the status of risalat.[1] In human history, this status was given for the last time to the
Prophet Muḥammad (sws). The battles that the Prophet (sws) and his companions fought
under this principle against the defiance of Islam were not just battles; instead, they were
Divine punishment which, exactly in accordance with God’s ways and His Judgement,
visited first the polytheists of Arabia and the Israelites and the Nazarenes there and then,
after them, some peoples outside the Arabian Peninsula. The Divine scheme of sending
prophets and messengers ended with Prophet Muḥammad (sws). Therefore, with the
passing away of the Prophet (sws) and his companions, that Divine process has ended in
which a certain people could be declared as infidels, battles and wars could be waged
against them, and the vanquished in such fighting could be killed or subjugated and made
subservient through jizyah (a tribute). No one until the Judgement Day has any right now
to wage a war against any nation for this purpose or to subjugate a vanquished people by
making them subservient through jizyah.
The second form of war, however, does relate to the shari‘ah. Therefore, the only
possibility for Muslims to wage a war as jihad is in a fight against oppression and injustice.
In the shari‘ah, this is the only reason for an armed jihad. This jihad is not done for self-
interest, wealth, conquest, rule, fame, honour, affiliation, partisanship, or animosity. It is
God’s war that His servants fight in His way on His command and in accordance with His
directives. They are only His instruments in this war. They have no personal objective; just
the objectives of God, which they intend to achieve. Therefore, they are not supposed to
deviate from this position to the slightest extent.
Important sections of the law given by the Qur’an for this form of war are summarized
below:
[1] Translator’s note: When used as a specific term in the Qur’an, Risalat in Ghamidi’s interpretation
refers to the special position of a messenger and prophet of God sent to a people as His final
judgement for or against them.
1. The directive of war and jihad has been given to the Muslims as a collectivity. None
of the pertinent verses in the Qur’an addresses the Muslims in their individual
capacity. As in the case of the verses related to hudud-o ta‘zirat (legal punishments
in the shari‘ah and Islamic law), the Muslims become addressees of these verses too
as a collectivity. Therefore, in these matters also, only their collectivity has the right
to take any steps. No individual or group from amongst their collectivity has the
right to take any steps in this regard on their behalf.
2. In the Qur’an, this directive is actually for ending religious persecution. Religious
persecution means that, through oppression or torture, a person is coerced into
renouncing his or her faith. All other violations of people’s rights in relation to life,
wealth, intellect and opinion fall under the same category. Therefore, this kind of
jihad can be done against any form of oppression and injustice.
3. Jihad does not become obligatory for the Muslims until their military strength
against their enemy reaches a certain level. Therefore, it is imperative that, to fulfil
this responsibility, they should strive for consolidation of their moral and ethical
fabric and also do their best in the endeavour to augment their military strength to
the extent that the Qur’an requires in the directive that it gave when, in view of the
situation the Muslims were facing in the times of the Prophet, it specified 1:2 as the
proportion between them and their enemies.
4. Shirking from jihad becomes a crime only when a Muslim chooses to sit back even
after the general call has been made. In this situation, aversion is indeed a crime
similar to a great transgression. If such call has not been made, this jihad is still a
great privilege that every Muslim should try to have. However, in this case, it is just
a privilege in its import. It is not the kind of obligation which, if left unfulfilled,
makes a person a transgressor.
5. Jihad cannot be waged in disregard of ethical bounds. Basic ethical and moral
imperatives remain effective in all situations and precede every directive. God has
not permitted any person to violate these ethical and moral principles even in battle
or war. In this regard, the most important guideline that the Qur’an has given
pertains to the sanctity of treaties and pacts. God has placed violation or breach of
pact amongst the worst of sins. Therefore, help, in violation of a treaty, cannot be
provided to Muslims even if they are persecuted by another nation with whom the
treaty has been made. Similarly, no steps can be taken against people who are not
involved in war or choose to remain neutral in that situation. This jihad can be done
only against the combatants.

The Taliban’s Line of Reasoning
The self-appointed “warriors of God” known to the world as the Taliban have taken
countless innocent lives in the last ten years. They insist that they are doing all this for God
and in submission to His directives. Even after their cowardly attack on They have restated
this stance even after their cowardly attack on Malalah Yusufza’i. In support of this stance,
they present the Qur’an and Hadith and certain incidents from the lifetime of the Prophet
Muhammad (sws). Since people are generally unaware of religion and religious disciplines,
they may be influenced by such argumentation. For this reason, we would like to present
some facts in the following paragraphs.
1. No doubt jihad is a directive of Islam. The Qur’an requires of its followers that, if they
have the strength, they should wage war against oppression and injustice. The primary
purpose of this directive is to curb persecution, ie. to oppress and coerce people to give up
their religion. Those having insight know that Muslims are given this directive of jihad in
their collective capacity; individuals are not the addressees of the Qur’anic verses of jihad.
Thus, only the collectivity (state) has the right to launch such an armed offensive. No
individual or group of Muslims has the right to decide for any such action on the
collectivity’s behalf. It is for this reason that the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: “A
Muslim ruler is a shield; war can only be waged under him.” [1] Everyone can readily see
whether the Taliban are following this principle or blatantly violating it.
2. The jihad directed by Islam is the war for the cause of God; therefore, it cannot be waged
while disregarding moral obligation. Ethics and morality supersede everything in all
circumstances; in war also, the Almighty has not allowed anyone to deviate from moral
principles. Hence, it is absolutely certain that jihad can only be waged against combatants.
The law of Islam is that if a person attacks through his tongue, he shall be countered
through the tongue, and if he financially supports the warriors, he will be stopped from
that, but unless he picks up arms, his life cannot be taken. So much so, if right in the battle
field the enemy surrenders, he shall be taken a prisoner, but cannot be executed. The
words of the verse which mentions the directive of jihad are: “And fight in the way of
Allah with those who fight against you, and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting].
Indeed, God does not like the transgressors.” (2:190) The Prophet (sws) forbade the killing
of women and children during war.[2] The reason for this is also that even if they come out
with their army, they are not generally combatants. At best, they can boost the morale of
the combatants and urge them through the tongue to fight.
This is the shari‘ah of God. But what are the Taliban doing? Men of learning like Mawlana
Hasan Jan, Mawlana Sarfaraz Na‘imi and Dr Muhammad Faruq Khan never undertook to
wage war against them. Malalah Yusufza’i is an innocent girl. She never took up arms

against them. In spite of this, the Taliban insist that all these people deserve death. Merely
because they had dared to differ with them? There is no doubt that a political authority of
Muslims has the right to punish criminals; it also is correct that in the penal shari‘ah there
is no difference between a man and a woman. The Qur’an clearly states that whether a
woman or a man is guilty of theft, both will be punished, and both have the same
punishment. The same is true for an adulterer and an adulteress. But when did the Taliban
have political authority on the persons just mentioned? And when did these persons
commit crimes punishable by death as per the shari‘ah? The Qur’an (5:32) explicitly states
that the death punishment cannot be meted out for any crime except murder or spreading
anarchy in the land. Who among the aforementioned is guilty of murderer or spreading
anarchy by threatening the life, wealth or honour of someone? In reality, the Taliban
themselves are guilty of these crimes and their daily confessions corroborate the charge-
sheet that will be presented against them on the Day of Judgment.
3. Polytheism, disbelief and apostasy are indeed grave crimes; however, no human being
can punish another for them. That is the right of God alone. In the Hereafter, He will
punish such criminals, and in this world also, it is He Who does so if He wills. Hereafter is
not under discussion here. In this world when the Almighty decides to reward and punish
people on the basis of their deeds, He sends His messenger towards them. The messenger
conclusively communicates the truth to his people such that they are left with no excuse
before God to deny it. After that, the verdict of God is passed and those who, even after
the conclusive communication of the truth, insist on disbelief and polytheism are
punished. This is an established practice of God, described in the Qur’an in the following
words: “And for each community, there is a messenger. Then, when their messenger
comes, their fate is decided with full justice, and they are not wronged.” (10:47)
This punishment is generally given in the manner it was meted out to the people of Noah
(sws), Hud (sws), Ṣalih (sws), Lot (sws), those of Shu‘ayb (sws) and to some other nations.
However, if a messenger has a substantial number of companions and, after migrating
from his people, he is also able to gain political authority at some place, then this
punishment is implemented through his and his companions’ swords. This second
situation arose in the case of Muhammad (sws). Thus the active adversaries among the
deniers were first killed; after that, a general order of slaying the ordinary deniers was given.
For the latter, the declaration of the punishment was made in the 9 AH on the day of hajj-i
akbar:“Then when the sacred months [after the hajj-i akbar] have passed, kill these
Idolaters wherever you find them, and [for this objective] capture them and besiege them,
and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and are diligent in the
prayer and give zakah, then let them alone.” (9:5)
This is the punishment of God that was meted out to the Idolaters of Arabia. When such a
punishment descends on the perpetrators, no exception is given to women and children,
and they are destroyed the way the nations of Noah (sws), Hud (sws), Ṣalih (sws), Lot (sws)
and that of Shu‘ayb (sws) were destroyed. It is thus mentioned in the narratives that when
troops were sent to implement this punishment, the Prophet (sws) was asked about the
women and children of the Idolaters; at this, he replied that they were also from among
them.[3] It was these people about whom he had directed that if they would embrace faith
at that time but later become apostates, they would deserve the same punishment of
death.[4]
In spite of the conclusive communication of the truth, the punishment of these people was
deferred till 9 AH because they were not active adversaries, and there was a chance that they
might repent and, hence, be saved from the punishment. On the other hand, those who,
besides their rejection of the truth, became open and active adversaries were not given this
respite. They were killed whenever it became possible. Abu Rafi‘, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf,
‘Abdullah ibn Khatal and his slave-girls and from among the prisoners of the battles of
Badr and Uhud ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘it, Nadr ibn al-Harith and Abu ‘Izzah et al. were
killed for this very reason. Blood money for the murder of some deniers was also not paid
for the same reason.
This was the verdict of God that is necessarily implemented after the conclusive
communication of the truth by His messengers. It is about this verdict that the Qur’an has
said:“You shall never see any change in this practice of God.” (17:77) Its nature is the same
as of the sacrifice of Ishmael (sws) and the incident of Khidr. It is not related to us, ordinary
human beings. Just as we cannot, for the sake of help, drill a hole in the boat of a poor
person against his will or kill a disobedient boy or, like Abraham (sws), embark upon
slaughtering any of our sons on the basis of a dream, similarly, we cannot undertake the
task of punishing people for polytheism, disbelief or apostasy, except if a revelation comes
from God and He directly gives such an order. Everyone knows that the door to this has
permanently been closed.
The incidents which the Taliban are presenting to support their measures are of the nature
just described. This is nothing but audacity to generalize for themselves what specifically
rests in the hands of God. There can be no greater a crime than this on God’s earth; Every
believer should seek God’s refuge from this.
[3] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 3, 1097, (no. 2850); Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 3, 1364, (no. 1745).
[4] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 3, 1098, (no. 2854).
Itmam al-Hujjah of the Messengers
Itmam al-Hujjah[1] of the Messengers
This world has been made as a place of a trial for mankind. Its essential consequence is
reward and punishment for which the Day of Judgement has been fixed. In order to prove
to it to mankind in the same manner as scientific facts are proven in a laboratory, the
Almighty on several occasions brought about lesser days of judgement in this very world.
The way which was adopted for this was that the Almighty would send His messenger to
any nation He intended. That messenger would conclusively convey the truth to it, after
which its fate would be decided with full justice in this world. The way this would happen
is that those would accept the truth would be salvaged and those who would reject it
would face the wrath and torment of God and would either be eternally wiped out from
the face of the earth or would face the eternal punishment of subjugation and live in
eternal humiliation. The accounts of the nations of Noah (sws), the ‘Ād, the Thamud, the
people of Lot (sws) and other similar nations related in the Qur’an are the accounts of such
punishments.
The Qur’an states that no nation faces this punishment unless a messenger of God
‫ب‬
conclusively delivers the truth to them. Thus it is said: (15:17) ‫ول‬
j ‫ث لر َس‬ ‫( لولما َكنَا َم لع ّذ ل‬We
‫ين لحتَى نل اب لع ل‬
never punish unless We send a messenger, (17:15)). A question arises on this: how exactly is
the truth conclusively communicated? It is evident from the Qur’an that three things are
required for this:
Firstly, the presence of a messenger of God and he invites a nation to profess faith in him.
Secondly, the nation is given enough time so that if its people want they come to see the
messenger and directly hear the message of God from his tongue because the person of a
messenger itself is a sign of God.
Thirdly, God’s help and close relationship with the messenger and his companions
manifests itself in such a grand way before the eyes of their addressees that no one can form
another opinion about it.
God says that after this no one is left with an excuse for disbelief to present before God:
‫ لبئل َل يل َكو لن لبلن ب‬so that after the messengers people are left with no
(165:4) ‫َاس لع لى اللَ به َح َجةٌ بل اع لد ال نر َس بل‬
excuse which they can present before God, (4:165).
Thus if it is possible for the believers to punish the rejecters, they are directed to do so.
Otherwise the angels carry out this task.
[1] The term itmam al-hujjah refers to the conclusive communication of the truth.
Muhammad (sws) was also a messenger of God and was sent to his people to bring about
this lesser day of judgement for the last time on the face of the earth. Thus after he had
done itmam al-hujjah, his companions were also directed to implement divine punishment
on the rejecters.
Thus about the Idolaters of Arabia, it is stated:
‫ص ٍد فلبِ ان تل ابَوا‬
‫وه ام لواقاعَ َدوا ل َله ام َك َل لم ار ل‬
َ ‫ص َر‬
َ ‫اح‬
‫وه ام لو ا‬
َ ‫وه ام لو َخ َذ‬
َ ‫ث لو لج ادتَ َم‬
َ ‫ين لح اي‬ ‫ب‬
َ ‫فلبِ لِا انا لس ل لَ االل اش َه َر ال‬
‫اح َرَم فلاقاتَ لَوا ال َام اش برك ل‬
‫ص للةل وُتل وا ال َزلكاةل فل لخلنوا سبي لهم إب َن اللَه غل َف ب‬
(5:9 ‫يم‬ ٌ ‫ور لرح‬ ٌ ‫ل‬ ‫ل َا‬ َ ‫لوألقل َاموا ال َ ل‬
Then when the sacred months [after the hajj] have passed, kill these Idolaters
wherever you find them, and [for this purpose] capture them and besiege them,
and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and are
diligent in the prayer, and give zakah, then leave them alone. Indeed, God is
Forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
Similarly, about the People of the Book of Arabia, the words are:
‫ين أَوتَوا‬ ‫قل اتبلَوا الَ بذين لل ي اؤبمنَ و لن ب اللَ به ولل ب الاي وبم اال بخ بر ولل يح ّرم و لن م ا ح َرم اللَ هَ ورس ولَهَ ولل ي بدينَو لن بدين ال ب َ ب‬
‫اح ّق م لن ال ذ ل‬
‫ل ل‬ ‫لل َ ل ل‬ ‫ل َل َ ل ل ل‬ ‫ل لا‬ َ ‫ل‬
(29 :9 ‫اغ َرو لن‬ ‫اجزيةل عن ي ٍد وهم ص ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫اب لحتَى يَ اعطَوا ال ا ل ل ا ل ل َ ا ل‬ ‫الاكتل ل‬
Fight with those from among the People of the Book who believe neither in God
or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and
His Messenger, nor adopt the Religion of Truth as their own religion until they
pay the jizyah after being subdued and live a life of submission. (9:29)
It is evident from the context of these verses that their directive was specific to the Idolaters
and People of the Book of Arabia. However, we see that those of the companions who
succeeded him dealt with certain nations outside Arabia in the very manner mentioned in
these verses for the People of the Book of Arabia. This obviously was a decision that was
based on their opinion and can be regarded as correct or otherwise. In our opinion, this
decision taken by them was absolutely correct. The reason is that the essential components
needed for the itmam al-hujjah of a messenger existed for all these nations as well. Its
details follow.
1. The Prophet (sws) was still living in this world when he sent his envoys to these nations
and invited them to profess faith in him. Everyone aware of the history of his times knows
that he had written letters to heads of state of these nations and warned them that since he
is the messenger of God and since he has invited them to accept Islam, the only way left for
them to succeed in this world and in the next was to respond positively to this invitation.
These letters were written tothe following heads of state: Negus of Abyssinia, Maqawqas
of Egypt, Khusro Parvez of Persia, Heraclius of Rome, Mundhir ibn Sawiof Bahrain,
Hudhah ibn ‘Ali of Yamamah, Harith ibn Abi Shamr of Damascus and Jayfarof
Amman.There is not much difference between the content of these letters. Following is
the letter written to Heraclius, the Caesar of Rome. The style, majesty and authority with
which these letters were written will become evident from it:
‫يم ال نر بوم لس لل ٌم عليمن اتَ بل لع ال َاه لدى الَم ا بل اع َد فل بانّي‬

‫ال لع بظ ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫بب‬ ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫اس بم ال ال َر اح ٰم بن ال َرح اي بم من َم لح َم د عبد ال لولر َس وله إلی ه لرق ل‬
‫ب‬
‫يس يّين قل يا ال اه ل ال ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫الس للبم الس لبم تلس لم ي اؤتبك ال الج ر لك م َرتل ي بن فلبِ ان تل ولَيت فل با ان ع لي ب‬ ‫ال ادعَ ل ب ب‬
‫اب‬‫اكتل ب‬
‫ل‬ ‫ك اثا لم االل بر ل‬ ‫لا ل‬ ‫لا ل‬ ‫ال ل ا‬ ‫ا ا ا اَ ل‬ ‫وك بد لعايلة اب ا‬
‫ال فل با ان‬
‫ون ب‬ ‫ض ا الرباب ا من َد ب‬ ‫تل عاللوا الی لكلبم ٍة س و ٍاء ب ي نل نل ا وب ي نل َك م ال نل اعب لد ال ال ول نَ اش بر لك ب به شيئا ول ي ت ب‬
j ‫ ال‬j ‫ض نلا بل اع‬ َ ‫َخ لذ بل اع‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ َ ‫ل ل ل لا للا ا‬ ‫ل ا‬
‫ب‬
‫تل لولَ اوا فل َقولَوا ا اش له َدوا بالنَا َم اسل َمو لن‬
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful. From Muhammad, the
servant and messenger of God, to Heraclius, the ruler of Rome. Peace to him who
follows the guidance. After this I invite you to accept Islam. If you become
Muslims you will live in peace. God will give you a double reward for this. If you
turn away, then you will also be responsible for the sin of your subjects. People of
the Book! Come to what is common between us: we shall not worship anyone
except God and nor associate anyone with him and none of us will make anyone
except God his Lord. Then if they turn away, tell them: “Bear witness that we are
Muslims.”[2]
2. These letters were written in Muharram 7th hijrah after the Prophet (sws) had returned
from Hudaybiyyah. He lived for about four years after this. During this time, he even
journeyed to Tabuk which was undertaken in anticipation of any attack from the Romans.
The people of these nations as well as their ruling nobles could have come to meet him if
they wanted, and could have seen the last Messenger of God from their very eyes.
3. God’s help and the close relationship that manifested itself in the battles of Badr, Uhud,
Ahzab and Khaybar between the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia, and as a
consequence of which punishment they were declared worthy of punishment, also
manifested itself before all those nations when, in accordance with the explicit predictions
of the Qur’an, the Quraysh of Makkah were subdued in spite of all their might and
majesty, all their leadership was killed, Makkah was conquered, the Quraysh were stripped
of the custodianship of the foremost House of God, people in multitudes entered in the
folds of Islam, the shari‘ah was implemented and no other religion could politically and
religiously dominate Arabia. Not only this, the empires of all these nations crumbled to
dust when onslaughts were launched against them – nations whose rulers had been told
that they will necessarily be subdued after itmam al-hujjah by the Messenger of God.
Without accepting faith their kingdoms could not flourish on the face of the earth.
[2] Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol 1, 8-9, (no. 7).

All these are established facts which manifested themselves before people of those times.
Whatever the companions of the Prophet (sws) did was on these very grounds. They would
have necessarily directed the attention of people to these facts when they would have
delivered their message. There is no reason to make this evil estimation about them that
without communicating these facts to people they would have punished an individual or a
nation in this manner.

Islamic Punishments
Among the directives of the shari‘ah which relate to the government are punishments
prescribed by the Almighty for certain specific crimes. What are these punishments? I have
detailed them out in my treatise Mizan[1] in its chapter “Hudud-o Ta‘zirat” (The Penal
Shari‘ah).[2] What needed further elucidation in this regard has been presented in my
treatises Maqamat and Burhan. In the following paragraphs, I summarize below all the
important aspects of this discussion covered in both these books.
1. Punishments for only five crimes have been prescribed by the shari‘ah. They are:
fornication, falsely accusing someone of fornication, theft, murder and injury and creating
disorder in the land. It is generally understood that the shari‘ah has also prescribed the
punishments for drinking, apostasy and blasphemy against the Prophet (sws). I have
argued that this is totally baseless. There is no punishment of these crimes in the shari‘ah.
All these issues relate to ijtihad and whatever opinion is formed about them will be on this
very basis.
2. Our jurists generally opine that if a criminal who has committed intentional murder is
forgiven by the heirs of the slain person, then the government is also bound to forgive him.
This is view is not correct in the opinion of this writer. Thus, in my article “Punishment
for Intentional Murder,”[3] I have analyzed all the pertinent verses and shown that in such
cases qisas does not become mandatory; however, as an option, it is not ruled out. Thus,
keeping in view the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal, the
government and the society have the full right to insist in exacting qisas and reject the
lenience given by the heirs of the slain person.
3. The punishments of waging war against God and the Prophet (sws) and spreading
anarchy in the land mentioned in verses 33-34 of Surah Ma’idah are not specific to robbery
only. They are meant for all criminals who rebel against the law and attack the life, wealth,
honour and freedom of expression of people. Consequently, when murder becomes
terrorism, fornication becomes rape and theft assumes the form of robbery or people take
to prostitution, become notorious for their ill-ways and vulgarity, become a threat to
honourable people because of their immoral and dissolute practices, or rise against the
government in rebellion, or create a law and order situation for the government by
indulging in hijacking, vandalism and intimidation and by committing other similar
crimes, then such people are criminals of spreading anarchy in the society. In such cases, a
court of law can give any of the prescribed punishments keeping in view the nature of the
crime and the circumstances of the criminal.

[3] The article appears in this book. (Translator).
4. The death penalty can only be given for murder and for spreading anarchy in the land.
The Almighty has explicitly stated that apart from these two crimes, neither an individual
nor a government has the right to take the life of a person.
5. Though diyat is an everlasting law which must be obeyed in all times by all Muslim
societies, yet its amount, nature and other related affairs have been left upon the ma‘ruf
(custom) of a society. According to this directive, each society is bound to follow its own
ma‘ruf. Since no law about diyat exists in our society, our rulers can adopt the custom of
the Arab society or can legislate afresh keeping in view the circumstances and expediencies
of our society. No objection whatsoever can be raised against this as per the Islamic
shari‘ah.
6. The punishment of fornication prescribed by the shari‘ah for both married men and
women and unmarried ones is a hundred lashes as stated in verse 24 of Surah Nur. No
doubt, the Prophet (sws) did stone to death some criminals of his times who were guilty of
fornication. However, this was administered to criminals guilty of rape and profligacy and
in accordance with verses 33-34 of Surah Ma’idah. It has no connection with the
punishment mentioned in Surah Nur for common criminals of fornication.
7. The punishments for fornication and theft mentioned in the Qur’an are extreme
punishments of these crimes, and shall be administered to the criminals when the crime has
been committed in its complete form and a criminal does not deserve any lenience viz a viz
the circumstances in which he committed the crime. The most important thing in this
regard is his religious awareness. These punishments cannot be given to those who are
non-Muslims or are Muslims by birth but because of a lack of awareness of their religion
are akin to non-Muslims. The reason for this is that the purpose of these punishments is
not merely to root out the crime but also to inflict the scourge of God on these criminals
and make them an example before others. These were the people who had submitted
themselves to God and His Messenger with full awareness, pledged obedience to them,
accepted their religion as their religion. Despite this, they were incriminated with crimes
such as theft and fornication to the extent that God exposed them and matters reached the
courts of law.
8. The condition of four witness stated in the Qur’an for the punishment of fornication
relates to consensual sex. It cannot be applied to rape. Hence a woman who complains of
rape is a petitioner and not someone who is accusing someone of fornication. The law is
bound to hear out her complaint and punish the person found guilty of this heinous crime
through any means except if investigation proves that the woman had falsely accused an
innocent person of fornication.
9. Except for fornication, crimes whose punishment is prescribed by the shari‘ah are
proven through all means that are universally accepted by legal ethics. Consequently,
circumstantial evidence, medical examinations, post mortem reports, finger prints, DNA
tests, testimony of witnesses, confession of criminals, oaths and various other similar
means form permissible evidence in the matter of these crimes just as they are in the matter
of other common crimes. There is nothing in the Qur’an and Sunnah contrary to this.

Punishment for Blasphemy against the Prophet (sws)
The law for punishing blasphemy against the Prophet (sws) that is invoked in Pakistan has
no foundation in the Qur’an or Hadith. Therefore, a pertinent question is: what exactly is
the justification for this law? Some scholars have proffered Q. 5: 33-34 as a possible basis. In
their opinion, God, in these verses of Surah Ma’idah, has prescribed the punishment for
muharabah (rebellion) and fasad fi al-ard (disorder), and they believe that blasphemy
against the Prophet (sws) is also a form of this offence of muharabah:
‫ص لَبَوا أ الو تَ لقطَ لع أليا بدي به ام لوأ الر َجلَ َه ام بم ان‬

‫ادا أل ان يَ لقتَ لَ وا أ الو يَ ل‬ ‫ين يَ لح ا بربَو لن اللَ هل لولر َس وللهَ لويل اس لع او لن فب ي اال الر ب‬
j ‫ض فل لس‬ ‫َب‬
‫إبنَ لم ا لج لزاءَ ال ذ ل‬
‫ين تل ابَوا بم ان قل اب بل أل ان‬ ‫َب‬
‫اب لعظي ٌم ك إبَل ال ذ ل‬
‫ب‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫ب‬
ٌ ‫ي ف ي ال دننا يلا لول َله ام ف ي االخ لرة لع لذ‬
‫ك لله م بخ از ب‬
ٌ ‫ض لِل ل َ ا‬
‫ف ألو ي ان لف وا بم ن االلر ب ب‬
‫خ لل ا َ ا ل ا‬
ٍ ‫ب‬
(34-33: 5 ‫يم‬ ‫تل اق بدروا ع لي بهم فلا اع لموا أل َن اللَه غل َف ب‬
ٌ ‫ور لرح‬ ٌ ‫ل‬ َ ‫َ لا ا‬
The punishment of those who fight against God and His Prophet or create
disorder in territory is that they be executed in an exemplary manner or be
crucified or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides or be banished.
This disgrace is theirs in the world, and in the Hereafter a severe retribution shall
they have, except those who repent before you overpower them. So [do not exceed
in severity with them and] know well that Godis Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.
(5:33-34)
As other viewpoints on foundations for blasphemy laws, this opinion too needs to be
reviewed for the following reasons:
Firstly, the word used in the verse is yuharibun (they fight/rebel against). This word entails
that the sentences of punishment mentioned in the verse be given only if the offender
persists in blasphemy defiantly, resorts to disruption or disorder, refuses to desist even
after repeated exhortation and admonition and, in contrast to an attitude of consequent
submission, actually takes a stance of retaliation. On the other hand, if the accused pleads
that he’s not guilty or gives an excuse to explain his attitude and shows no volition for
persistence, he cannot, in any sense of the word, be indicted for muharabah or fasad fi al-
ard.
Secondly, the Qur’an says that the sentence will not be applicable to those offenders who,
despite their prior proclamation and persistence, submit and repent before the law
apprehends them. Therefore, the directive is that those who have repented shall not be
given these sentences. This aspect also entails that, before any action is taken against such
offenders, they be called to repent and reform and be repeatedly warned that, if they are
believers, they should not destroy their own future in the Hereafter by their wrong
attitude or notions and, if they do not believe in God or the Prophet (sws), they should
show regard for the feelings and sentiments of Muslims and abstain from this grave
violation any further.
Thirdly, the verse does not make capital punishment obligatory. It gives the court room
for a lenient sentence in consideration of the nature of offence and the state of the
offender. The recommendation of banishment in the verse is for such offenders as deserve
leniency.
In the present law, none of the aspects mentioned above has been considered. For
sentencing, this law depends solely on testimony. There is no consideration whatsoever for
confession or denial, which consideration the verse entails; there is no room for clemency
on the repentance and reform shown in response to exhortation and admonition; and, as
such, there is no other option except capital punishment. It would indeed be
commendable even if the ‘ulama were to accept the muharabah verse as the foundation for
blasphemy punishment and, consequently, show willingness to have amendments made to
the existing law. Even that would end all criticisms on the present law. It is obvious from
the Qur’an that capital punishment can only be given in two cases: first, if a person
murders another and, second, if he disrupts law and order in a country and, as such,
becomes a threat to the life, property and honour of people. If the law is amended in
accordance with the requirements of the muharabah verse, the requirement of confining
capital punishment to these two cases will be fulfilled. Furthermore, the law will also be
closer to the views of the highly venerated scholar of Islamic law, Imam Abu Hanifah and
to those of the great Hadith compiler, Imam Bukhari. In this regard, it is this opinion that
seems more advisable. The Hanafis have a majority in Pakistan, but, incongruously, their
viewpoint has been completely ignored in enacting this law. Therefore, it is a fact that the
blasphemy law in its present state is against not only the Qur’an and Hadith but also the
opinion of Hanafi jurists. It should most certainly be changed for it has blemished the
name of Islam and Muslims throughout the world.
II
Narratives related to punishment for blasphemy that are often cited also need to be
understood correctly. Abu Rafi‘ was one of those people who were guilty of bringing out
the tribes against Madinah in Ghazwah-e Khandaq (Battle of the Ditch). In Ibn Ishaq’s
words: ‫ص لَي الَ لع لاي به لو لس لَ لم‬ ‫ب‬
‫اب لع ل ي لر َس او لل ال ل‬
‫لح لز ل‬
‫ب ال ا‬
‫ب‬
‫ف اي لم ان لح َز ل‬. About Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, the historians
write that after Ghazwah-e Badr (Battle of Badr), he went to Makkah and recited
vengeance inspiring elegies for those of the Quraysh who had fallen in battle, wrote odes
(tashbib) that prefaced the names of some Muslim women and caused much distress to
Muslims, and, while residing in the domain of the Prophet’s government, endeavoured to
incite people against him. Some narratives describe that he even went to the extent of
devising deception to assassinate the Prophet (sws). ‘Abdullah ibn Khatal was sent for
zakah (obligatory alms) collection by the Prophet (sws). He was accompanied by a person
from amongst the Ansar and a servant. On the way, Ibn Khatal killed the servant on the
pretext of insubordination, became an apostate, and ran away to Makkah. [1] Not only this;
all three people mentioned here persisted in their denial of the Prophet (sws) even after the
truth of his message had become conclusively evident to them. And, God Almighty has
mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an that, as a Divine principle, the direct addressees of a
rasul[2] are within the range of Divine punishment. For that reason, if they go on to the
extent of hostility, they can also be killed.
These details show that the wrongdoers in question were not merely guilty of blasphemy
but had also committed all the other crimes mentioned above. Therefore, they were killed
in response to these offences. ‘Abdullah ibn Khatal was a murderous fugitive. It was
decreed on these grounds that he be killed even if he was hiding behind the covers of the
Ka‘bah.
It was indeed offenders of this kind to whom Surah Ahzab refers. In order to sow the seeds
of doubt in Muslims, to turn them away from the Prophet (sws), and to damage their
reputation and the moral credibility of their religion badly, these wrongdoers would
engage in many activities as cooking up stories about personal lives of Muslims, slandering
them and carrying on scandal-mongering, sometimes expressing desire to marry ladies
from amongst the Prophet’s holy wives, and spreading rumours of all kinds to unnerve
and demoralize Muslims. They would sometimes tease Muslim ladies who went out to the
fields at night or before daylight to pay heed to the call of nature. When reprimanded for
this behaviour, these evildoers would come up with lame excuses as having approached a
woman only because they mistook her for the slave-girl of such and such person and
because they needed to ask her about such and such matter. The Qur’an alludes to these
aspects of their mischief, and narratives in Muslim tradition record many of the related
instances in quite some detail.[3] Muslim ladies, therefore, were told to put their cloaks over
themselves to appear different from slave-girls so that the mischievous miscreants would
not have pretexts to tease them. Furthermore, the troublemakers were also warned that if
they would not stop and would persist in their evil, they would be executed in an
exemplary manner:
‫يل ك‬j ‫ك فب ليه ا إبَل قللب‬ ‫ض لوال َام اربج َف و لن فب ي ال لام بدينل بة للنَ ا بريلن ل‬
‫َك ب به ام ثَ َم لل يَ لجا بوَرونل ل‬ ٌ ‫ين فبي قَلَوب به ام لم لر‬ ‫َب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫للئبن ل ب‬
‫لم يل انتله ال َامنلاف َقو لن لوالذ ل‬
‫ا ا‬
(61-60 :33 ‫يل‬j ‫ين أليا نل لما ثَبق َفوا أ بَخ َذوا لوقَ تّ لَوا تل اقتب‬ ‫ب‬
‫لمل َاعون ل‬
[1] ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah al-nabawiyyah, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Al-Maktabah
al-‘udwiyyah, 1999), 47, 248; Ibid., vol. 4, 44; Shibli Nu‘mani, Sirat al-nabi, vol. 1 (Lahore: Idarah
islamiyyat, n.d.), 253.
[2] As a specific term in the Qur’an, a messenger of God sent as Divine judgment for or against his people
and direct addressees; plural: rusul.
[3] Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, 4th ed., vol. 10 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah,
2005), 332; Isma‘il ibn ‘Umar ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 5th ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Mu’assasah
al-rayyan, 1999), 518; Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf, vol. 3 (Beirut: Dar ihya’ al-
turath al-‘arabi), 569.
[Even after this measure] If these hypocrites do not desist and also those with a
disease in their hearts and those too who spread lies in Medina, we shall make you
rise against them; then they shall not be able to stay amongst you but with
difficulty; cursed shall they be; wherever found, they shall be killed in an exemplary
manner. (33: 60-61).
Other narratives of similar nature that are often related are usually not credible enough in
terms of historical authenticity of the sanad (chain of narrators). However, even if they
were to be assumed reliable enough, the nature of events described would still fall within
the scope of same context: after full manifestation of hostility in their blasphemy and
sacrilege, these people were within the purview of the same law that the Qur’an has
described as a Divine custom pertaining to the denial of a rasul by his people and direct
addressees. Some murders were also vindicated on these grounds. ‫ لل يَ اقتل َل َم اس لب ٍم ب لك افبر‬is a
description of the same principle.[4] The ‘ulama are aware of these aspects, yet they insist
on deriving the law for punishment of blasphemy from these narratives.
Here, someone might also refer to oft-related incident in which ‘Umar (rta) is reported to
have struck off the head of a man who refused to accept the Prophet’s legal verdict on a
certain occasion. Our ‘ulama relate this incident from the pulpits and directly encourage
people to show the same attitude as reflected in the narrative towards those whom they
perceive as blasphemers of the Prophet (sws). However, the fact is that not just the first and
second degree of Hadith collections (in terms of authenticity) but also the third degree
works are devoid of this narrative. Even Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari, who often relates narratives in
all categories, has not regarded it worthy of consideration. This narrative comes from a
gharib (with isolated chain of narrators) and mursal (with omissions in the chain) Hadith
that has been cited by some exegetes in their commentaries; however, those acquainted to
some extent with Hadith sciences have clarified that, in the chain, its attribution to Ibn
‘Abbas (rta) is absolutely implausible. Moreover, in the sanads of Ibn Mardawayh and Ibn
Abi Hatim, the narrator Ibn Lahi‘ah is dai‘if (“weak”). [5] The view that exegetes relate this
very narrative also as shan-e nuzul (an occasion for the revelation) of Q. 4:65 is also ill-
founded. Although this verse of Surah Nisa’ is not in want of description of any reason of
revelation, yet, quite contrary to this one, the narrative that Imam Bukhari and other
leading scholars of Hadith have related as the occasion of revelation for this verse and
which narrative is often cited by exegetes is one that pertains to a water dispute between
the Prophet’s paternal cousin, Zubayr, and a person from the Ansar. When the matter was
presented to the Prophet (sws), he told Zubayr to irrigate his field and leave the remaining
water for the Ansari. The Ansari immediately retorted by saying: “O Prophet of Allah, is
[4] “No Muslim shall be sentenced to death in retaliation for these deniers.” Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih,
vol. 6, 2534, (no. 6517).
[5] Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol.1, 681.
this because Zubayr is your cousin?” This highly impudent remark was clearly an
imputation of injustice and nepotism. Therefore, it is related that the Prophet’s face
changed colour, but he did not say anything save repeating his statement with more clarity
and decreed that the water be retained up to the edges of the field and the rest be left for
the Ansari.[6]
One must “commend” the ‘ulama on their choice in selection for ignoring this highly
credible narrative reported by Bukhari and Muslim that reflects the Prophet’s forbearance,
forgiveness, compassion and kindness; instead, they are enthusiastically and zealously
relating everywhere a weak and improbable narrative related to how ‘Umar (rta) struck off
someone’s neck.
III
On the issue of blasphemy against the Prophet (sws), is the opinion of majority of jurists
based on any directive in the Qur’an or Hadith related specifically to this punishment?
The answer to this question is clearly in the negative. The basis of jurists’ opinion on
punishment to a Muslim is apostasy and, to a dhimmi, [7] it is violation of pact. The jurists
say that a Muslim who blasphemes against the Prophet (sws) becomes an apostate, and the
punishment for apostasy is death. Similarly, if a non-Muslim dhimmi is guilty of this
offence, he loses protection of the pact with him, and, therefore, he too deserves capital
punishment. According to the jurists, the reason for this inference is that the directive
about non-Muslim Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book [8]) in verse 29 of Surah Tawbah (9th
Surah of the Qur’an) entails they be killed if they refuse to remain subjugated and
subservient under Muslim rule. Therefore, infer the jurists, if a dhimmi shows an attitude
of sacrilege and disrespect to the Prophet (sws), it means that he has rebelled against
Muslim sovereignty and does not accept his subjugation under Muslim rule. [9] In Islamic
law, this argumentation probably began with this statement of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (rta):
‫صلَي الَ لع لاي به لو لسلَ لموهي ردة يس تتاب فِن‬ ‫ب‬

‫أيما مسلم سب ال ورسوله أو سب أحدا من النبياء فقد كذب برسول ال ل‬
‫رجع وإل قتل وأيما معاهد عاند فسب ال أو سب أحدا من النبياء أو جهر به فقد نقض العهد فاقتلوت‬
A Muslim who blasphemes against God or the Prophet or any of God’s

messengers is guilty of denying the Prophet (sws). This is apostasy, which entails
that repentance be demanded of the offender. If he repents, he shall be released; if
not, he shall be killed. Similarly, if anyone from amongst non-Muslims protected
[6] Ibid., 680.
[7] Non-Muslims (of conquered lands) who were granted protection and rights under pact in a Muslim
government.
[8] In the Prophet’s time, the Israelites and the Nazarenes.
[9] For details, see for example: Abu Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘idibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bi al-
athar, 1st ed., vol.13 (Beruit: Dar ihya’ al-turath al-‘arabi, 1999), 234.
under pact becomes hostile by openly blaspheming against God or the Prophet
(sws) or any of God’s messengers, he is guilty of violating the pact; you shall kill
him too.[10]
It is this argumentation which, according to the jurists, is the foundation of the

punishment for blasphemy. However, deliberation on the Qur’an and the Hadith clearly
shows that, after the age of the Prophet’s Companions, this basis has become ineffective
forever. In my works, Mizan and Burhan, I have argued at length that the punishment for
apostasy was specific to the peoples who had been afforded conclusive evidence of truth by
the Prophet (sws) himself but reverted to their denial after having accepted faith. The
Prophet’s statement: َ‫َل بديا نلهَ فلاقاتَ لَ اوت‬
‫( لم ان بلد ل‬kill the one who changes his religion [11]) relates to the
same peoples. The decree of the punishment for them was in accordance with the sunnat-e
ilahi (the Divine way and principle) that has been described in the Qur’an in relation to the
direct addressees of the rusul. It has no relation to Muslims in times after the Prophetic
age.
The issue of violation of pact is also similar in nature. No one now is dhimmi in the world
and no one can be subjugated as such now. Verse 29 of Surah Tawbah is an offshoot of the
same Divine principle mentioned above. Therefore, the right to wage war against any
peoples perceived as deniers of the truth has ended forever the right to keep them
subjugated and subservient by imposing jizyah (tribute) on them. Until the end of the
world, no one now has any right whatsoever to wage a war against any people for this
particular purpose or any right to impose jizyah to keep the vanquished subjugated. [12]
Non-Muslim citizens of Muslim States are not dhimmis or condemned to death in any
principle or living under any grant of “protection” lifting which would entail their death.
This diction and these notions belong to the past. They cannot, in any way, form the
foundation for argumentation now.
Now, therefore, only two possibilities remain: first, that,in consideration of Islam and the
interests of Muslims, laws [based without foundational religious texts] be enacted and a
punishment be prescribed as ta‘zir. [13] Second, verses 33-34 of Surah Ma’idah be used as
foundation for the enactment. It is this second possibility about which this article has
already emphasized that, if these verses of Surah Ma’idah are used as a foundation, three
aspects must be kept in mind as the words of the Qur’an necessitate their inclusion:
[10]Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Qayyim, Zad al-ma‘ad fi hadyi khayr al-‘ibad, 1st ed.,
vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1998), 379.
[11]Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 3, 1098, (no.2854).
[12]For details of the argumentation for these views, see my book chapter “Qanun-e Jihad” in: Ghamidi,
Mizan, 579-609.
[13]A non-textual (not directly emanating from any foundational religious text) punishment decided on
the basis of reasoning.
1. A person regarded as guilty of blasphemy be invited to repent and reform and be
repeatedly warned that, if he is a believer, he should not destroy his own fate in the
Hereafter and should submit to God and the Prophet (sws), and, if he does not
believe in God or the Prophet (sws), he should show regard for the feelings and
sentiments of Muslims and abstain from persisting in this grave offence.
2. His case be filed in the court only if he refuses to change or repent, persists in his
blasphemy with defiance, causes disruption, pushes away all efforts to convince him
and, instead of showing remorse, actually resorts to belligerence and hostility.
3. Instead of having the option of capital punishment only, room for lighter sentences
be left in consideration of any extenuating circumstances related to the actual nature
and circumstance of offence and the capacity and state of the offender.

The Punishment of Intentional Murder
Religion and ethics have always accorded sanctity to human life. The Almighty has
explicitly stated in His Book that no one should kill another person; it is the greatest sin
after polytheism. The Qur’an insists that the Israelites were given this directive with the
emphasis that the killing of one human being is equivalent to the killing of the whole
mankind. This directive is found in the Talmud even today in almost the same words. The
Qur’an has referred to it in Surah Ma’idah. Consequently, it is said:
‫يع ا لولم ان‬j ‫َاس لج بم‬ ‫س أ الو فل لس ٍاد فب ي اال الر ب‬

ٍ ‫سا ب لاي بر نل اف‬j ‫يل ألنَهَ لم ان قل تل لل نل اف‬‫ب ب ب‬ ‫لج بل لِلب ل‬ ‫ب‬
‫ض فل لكألنَ لم ا قل تل لل الن ل‬ ‫ك لكتلاب نلا لعلى بلني إ اس لرائ ل‬ ‫م ان أ ا‬
(32:5 ‫يعا‬j ‫َاس لج بم‬ ‫لحيلا الن ل‬ ‫اها فل لكألنَ لما أ ا‬
‫لحيل ل‬
‫أا‬
It is this [rebelliousness of man] because of which We laid it down [in the Mosaic
shari‘ah] for the Israelites that hewho killed a human being without the latter
being guilty of killing another or because of spreading anarchy in the land should
be looked upon as if he killed all mankind. (5:32)
It is evident from the above mentioned directive that the life of a human being can only be
taken in two instances: when a person has killed someone or when a person while rebelling
against the collective system attacks the life, wealth or honour of others. The words
“spreading anarchy in the land” refer to this latter practice. Apart from these two instances,
every killing is an unjustified act. According to Islam and the Islamic shari‘ah, such a killing
is a crime not only against God but also against the heirs of the murdered person as well as
against the society and the government. The Almighty has specified that such criminals
will not deserve any lenience from Him in the Hereafter; their faith and deeds will bear no
fruit and they will be consigned to the eternal punishment of Hell:
‫ب‬ ‫ب اللَهَ لع ل اي به لول للعنلهَ لوأ ل‬ ‫ب‬ ‫دا فلجزا َؤتَ جهن ب ب‬j ‫ا متل ع ّم‬j‫ومن ي اقتَل م اؤبمن‬
j ‫ا لعظ‬j‫لع َد للهَ لع لذاب‬
(93:4 ‫يما‬ ‫دا ف ليها لوغلض ل‬j ‫َم لخال‬
َ ‫لل ل ل‬ ‫لل ا ل ا َ َ ل‬
And he who intentionally kills a believer, his reward is Hell. He shall abide therein
forever, and the wrath and the curse of God are upon him. And He has prepared
for him a dreadful doom. (4:93)
The second party to a murder is the heirs of the victim. The Qur’an has stated that the
Almighty has given them full authority on the life of the murderer. Hence no court of law
or government can treat the murderer with any lenience without the consent of the heirs.
It is the responsibility of the court and the government that if the heirs insist on qisas, they
should help them and implement their will in this regard with full force in a just manner.
It is said:
‫ا فل لل يَ اس بر ا‬j‫وم ا فل لق اد لج لعلانل ا لب لولبيّ به َس الطلان‬

‫ف فب ي الا لق ات بل إبنَ هَ لك ا لن‬ ‫ب‬
j َ‫اح ّق لولم ان قَت لل لمظال‬
‫ب‬
‫س الَت ي لح َرلم اللَ هَ إبَل ب ال ل‬
‫لولل تل اقتَ لَ وا النَ اف ل‬
(33:17 ‫ورا‬
j‫ص‬ َ ‫لم ان‬
Do not wrongfully kill any person whose life has been held sacred by God.And
[remember that] whoever is killed wrongfully, We have given his heir an authority.
So he should not exceed the bounds in taking a life because he has been helped.
(17:33)
The third party to a murder is the Muslim society which is represented by its government.
In this regard, the directive of God is that exacting the qisas of a murdered person is
mandatory upon the government. Hence a government is bound by the shari‘ah to trace
the murderer of a person killed in the area that lies in its jurisdiction, arrest him and exact
qisas from him according to the law. The government has been directed that complete
equality must be observed in this regard and the social status of a person should not be
given any preference in any way in this matter. The low in status and the high, the rich and
the poor, the noble and the ignoble, the master and the slave – all are equal in the eyes of
the law in this regard; no discrimination can be made between them. The Qur’an states:
‫ياألينها الَ بذين ُمنوا َكتبب ع لي َكم ال باقص اص فب ي الا لق ات ل ى الاح نر ب الاح ّر والاعب َد بالاعب بد و االَنا ثل ى ب االَنا ثلى فلم ن ع بف ي لله بم ن أ ب‬
‫لخ ب‬
‫يه‬ ‫لا َ ل َ ا‬ ‫َ ل لا لا ل‬ َ َ ‫ل لا َ ل‬ َ‫ل ل‬ ‫ل ل‬
‫يم ك‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫يف م ان لربّ َك ام لولر اح لم ةٌ فل لم بن ا اعتل لدى بل اع لد لِل ل‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫ع ب ال لام اع َروف لوأ للداءٌ إبل الي ه ببِ اح لس ان لِل ل‬
ٌ ‫اب ألل‬
ٌ ‫ك فل ل هَ لع لذ‬ ٌ ‫ك تل اخف‬ ٌ ‫لش ايءٌ فلاتّبل ا‬
(179-178: 2 ‫اب ل للعلَ َك ام تل تَ َقو لن‬ ‫اص لحيلاةٌ يلاأَولبي االللابل ب‬ ‫ص ب‬ ‫ب ب‬
‫لول َك ام في الاق ل‬
Believers! Qisas of those [among you] who are killed has been made mandatory
upon you. If such a murderer is a free-man, then this free-man should be killed in
his place and if he is a slave, then this slave should be killed in his place and if the
murderer is a woman, then this woman should be killed in her place … And there is
life for you in qisas O men of insight that you may follow the limits set by God.
(2:178-179)
The mandatory nature of exacting qisasis only revoked when the heirs of the murdered
person do not insist on taking life for life and want to treat the criminal with lenience.
After this, it is left to the discretion of the court and the government to either insist on
exacting qisasand to not accept this relief given by the heirs of the murdered person or to
accept this relief keeping in view the nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it
was committed and direct the murder to pay diyat to these heirs according to the custom
of the society.The succeeding words of the above quoted verse of Surah Baqarah (2:178)
read:
(178: 2 ٌ‫يف بم ان لربّ َك ام لولر اح لمة‬ ‫ان لِلب ل‬

ٌ ‫ك تل اخ بف‬ ‫ب‬
ٍ ‫وف وأ للداء إبل الي به ببِ احس‬
‫ل‬
‫فلمن ع بفي لله بمن أ ب‬
ٌ ‫لخ بيه لش ايءٌ فلاتّبلا‬
ٌ ‫ع بال لام اع َر ل‬ ‫لا َ ل َ ا‬
Then for whom there has been some relief from his brother, then this should be
followed according to the custom and diyat should be paid with kindness. This is a
kind of concession and a mercy from your Lord. (2:178)
A little deliberation will show that the relief mentioned in this verse has precisely the same
style in which relief is mentioned in the verse that states the obligation of fasting. It is
mentioned in this verse that fasting is obligatory for the believers; however, if a person is
sick or is traveling, he can opt not to fast in which case he will have to make up for the
missed fasts later. If both verses are placed parallel to one another, one can see the
similarity. At one place, it is said: “Believers! Fasts have been made mandatory upon you.”
At the other, the words are: “Believers! Qisas has been made mandatory upon you.” At
one place, it is stated: “Then he who is sick or is a traveler.” The words at the other are:
“Then for whom there has been some relief from his brother.” At one place, it is said: “He
should complete the count in other days.” At the other, the words are: “The relief should
be followed according to the custom.” Students of the Qur’an can see that the
construction of both verses is exactly the same and in both verses permission has been
given to benefit from the relief granted; however, accepting the relief has not been made
mandatory. Hence just as in the case of fasting Muslims are not bound to necessarily give
up fasting if they are sick or are traveling, similarly in the qisas verse, the government and
the society on whom qisas has been made mandatory have not been bound to necessarily
accept the decision of the heirs of the murdered person in case they have decided to show
relief. After this relief shown by them, qisas has only lost its mandatory status and become
optional; the right to take qisas has not been abrogated in any way. Thus the government
and the society have all the right to insist on taking qisas keeping in view the nature of the
crime and the circumstances of the criminal and not accept this relief granted.
It is evident from these details that the Qur’an definitely insists that without the consent
of the heirs no lenience can be shown to the murderer; however, it does not insist in any
way that if the heirs intend to show lenience, then it is essential to not exact qisas from
him. This difference has much wisdom in it. If the second of these options is insisted
upon, then the right of the society is breeched and the same deplorable situation will arise
as the one that arose in the cases of Raymond Davis and Shah Rukh Jatoi. If the first of
these options is not insisted upon, then the right of the heirs is violated and the whole
wisdom underlying the directive is rendered null and void. This wisdom was to extinguish
the fire of revenge ignited in the hearts of the victim’s heirs and to heal the wound caused
by his death so that if they adopt a soft attitude, this would be a direct favour to the
murderer and his family from which very useful results can be expected.
The cardinal mistake committed by our jurists is that they have not taken into
consideration this difference and in this way by severing the link of such a heinous crime as
murder from the society have made it a dispute between the murderer and the heirs of the
victim. The ordinance of qisas and diyat is based on this very opinion of our jurists. It
needs to be amended as soon as possible and brought in line with the Book of God in all
respects. As per the dictates of our faith and beliefs, we are bound by the Qur’an and
Sunnah and not to a particular interpretation of these sources. We request our scholars to
deliberate on our recommendations. This matter relates to God’s religion and should be
viewed while rising above all prejudices.

The Law of Evidence
Since the Qur’an has in no way bound the Muslims to adopt a particular method in
proving a crime, it is absolutely certain that a crime stands proven in Islamic law just as it is
in accordance with the universally acceptable methods of legal ethics endorsed by sense and
reason. Consequently, if circumstantial evidence, medical check-ups, post mortem reports,
finger prints, testimony of witnesses, confession of criminals, oaths and various other
methods are employed to ascertain a crime, then this would be perfectly acceptable by
Islamic law.
It is to this fact that the following words of the Prophet (sws) allude to:
‫َعي لعل اي به‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬

‫ين لعلي ال َامد ل‬
َ ‫الابل يّ نلةَ لعلي ال َامدَعي لوالايلم‬
To substantiate a crime is the claimant’s responsibility, and the person who refutes
it will have to swear an oath.[1]
In the words of Ibn Qayyim:
‫البينة في كلم ال و رسوله و كلم الصحابة اسم لكل ما يبين الحق فهي اعم من البينة في اصطلح الفقهاء حيث‬
‫خصوها بالشاهدين أو الشاهد واليمين‬
The word bayyinah in the language of the Qur’an, the Prophet (sws) and his
Companions is the name of everything by which the truth becomes evident. Hence
contrary to its connotations in the terminology of the jurists, it has a wider
meaning because they only use it for two witnesses or an oath and a witness.[2]
However, there are two exceptions to this:
Firstly, if a person accuses a chaste and righteous man or woman having a sound
reputation of fornication. In this case, the Qur’an stresses that the accuser shall have to
produce four eye-witnesses. Anything less than this will not prove his accusation.
Circumstantial evidence or medical examination in this case is absolutely of no importance.
If a person is of lewd character, such things have a very important role, but if he has a
morally sound reputation, Islam wants that even if he has faltered, his crime should be
concealed and he should not be disgraced in the society. Consequently, in this case, it
wants four eye-witnesses to testify and if the accuser fails to produce them, it regards him
as guilty of qadhf. The Qur’an says:
[1] Al-Tirmidhi,Sunan, vol. 3, 626, (no. 1341).

[2] Abu ‘Abdullah Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Ayyub ibn Sa‘d ibn Qayyim, I‘lam al-
muwaqqi‘in ‘an rabb al-‘alamin, vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-jil, 1973), 90.
‫دا لوأَوللئب ل‬j ‫ة ألبل‬j ‫اد‬
‫ك َه َم‬ ‫ة لولل تل اقبل لَ وا ل َله ام لش له ل‬j ‫ين لج ال لد‬‫ب‬ ‫ات ثَ َم للم ي أاتَوا بألرب ع بة َش ه لداء فل ب‬
‫والَ بذين ي رمو لن الام احص نل ب‬
‫وه ام ثل لم ان ل‬
َ ‫اجل َد‬
‫ال ل ل ل ا‬ ‫ال‬ ‫َ ل‬ َ‫ل ل لا‬
‫ك وألص لحوا فلبِ َن اللَه غل َف ب‬ ‫ب ب ب‬ ‫َب‬ ‫ب‬
(5-4: 24 ‫يم‬ ٌ ‫ور لرح‬ ٌ ‫ل‬ َ ‫ين تلابَوا م ان بل اعد لِل ل ل ا‬ ‫الا لفاس َقو لن ك إبَل الذ ل‬
Upon those who accuse honourable women [of fornication] and bring not four
witnesses as evidence [for their accusation], inflict eighty lashes, and never accept
their testimony in future. They indeed are transgressors. But those who repent and
mend their ways, Godis Most-Forgiving and Ever-Merciful. (24:4-5)
Secondly, to purge an Islamic state from prostitutes who, in spite of being Muslims, do not
give up their life of sin, the only thing required, according to the Qur’an, is that four
witnesses who are in a position to testify that a particular woman is a prostitute by
profession should be called forth. In this case, it is not necessary at all that they be eye-
witnesses. If they testify with full responsibility that she is known as a prostitute in the
society and the court is satisfied with their testimony, then they can be given any of the
punishments fixed by the Qur’an for habitual criminals. The Qur’an says:
‫وه َن فب ي الاب ي ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب ب‬

َ َ‫وت لحتَى يلتل لوف‬
‫اه َن‬ ََ ‫ين الا لفاح لشةل م ان نب لسائب َك ام فل ا‬
َ ‫ م ان َك ام فلبِ ان لش به َدوا فلأ المس َك‬j‫استل اش به َدوا لع لاي به َن أ الربل لع ة‬ ‫وَب ب‬
‫اللتي يلأات ل‬ ‫ل‬
‫ب‬ َ
(15:4 ‫يل‬j ‫ت أ الو يل اج لع لل اللهَ ل َله َن لس‬ َ ‫ال لام او‬
And upon those of your women [3] who commit fornication, call in four people
from among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways],
confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God formulates another
way for them. (4:15)
Barring these two exceptions, the shari‘ah does not in any way bind the court to follow any
prescribed procedure to ascertain a crime. Consequently, in cases of hudud punishments
or in those of evidence in any other crime, in the view of this writer, it has been left to the
discretion of the judge whether he accepts someone as witness or not. In this regard, there
is to be no discrimination between men and women. If a woman testifies in a clear and
definite manner, her testimony cannot be turned down simply on the basis that there is
not another woman and a man to testify alongside her. Likewise, if a man records an
ambiguous and vague statement, it cannot be accepted merely on the grounds that he is a
man. If a court is satisfied by the statements of witnesses and by any circumstantial
evidence, it has all the authority to pronounce a case as proven and if it is not satisfied, it
has all the authority to reject it even if ten men have testified.
Except in cases where the Qur’an has used the words ‫( منكم‬minkum: from among you) as in
4:15 above, similar is the case with the testimony of non-Muslims: it is left to the discretion
of a judge.
[3] Ie., those among Muslim women who habitually commit fornication.
Here it should remain clear that our jurists hold a different view in this matter. Ibn Rushd
has summed up the opinions of the jurists on this issue in his celebrated treatise Bidayah
al-Mujtahid in the following words:
‫ فرجل وامرأتان ممن ترضون من الشهداء‬: ‫واتفقوا علي انه تثبت الموال بشاهد عدل ِكر و امرأتين لقوله تعالي‬
‫واختلفوا في قبولهما في الحدود فالذي عليه الجمهور انه لتقبل شهادة النساء في الحدود لمع رجل ول مفردات‬
‫ تقبل إِا كان معه ن رجل وكان النساء اكثر من واحدة في كل شيء علي فاهر الية وق ال‬: ‫وقال أهل الظاهر‬
‫ تقبل في الموال وفيما عدا الحدود من أحكام البدان مثل الطلق والرجعة والنكاح والعتق ول تقبل عند‬: ‫ابوحنيفه‬
‫مالك في حكم من أحكام البدن واختلف أصحاب مالك في قبولهن في حقوق البدان المتعلقة بالمال مثل الوكالت‬
‫ يقبل فيه شاهد وامرأتان وقال أشهب وابن‬: ‫والوصية التي ل تتعلق ال بالمال فقط فقال مالك وابن القاسم وابن وهب‬
‫ ل يقبل فيه ال رجلن واما شهادة النساء مفردات اعني النساء دون الرجال فهي مقبولة عند الجمهور‬: ‫الماجشون‬
‫ا مثل الولدة والستهلل وعيوب النساء‬j‫في حقوق البدان التي ل يطلع عليها الرجال غالب‬
There is a general consensus among the jurists that in financial transactions a case
stands proven by the testimony of a just man and two women on the basis of the
verse: “If two men cannot be found, then one man and two women from among
those whom you deem appropriate as witnesses.” However; in cases of hudud,
there is a difference of opinion among our jurists. The majority say that in these
affairs the testimony of women is in no way acceptable whether they testify
alongside a male witness or do so alone. The Ẓahiris on the contrary maintain that
if they are more than one and are accompanied by a male witness, then owing to
the apparent meaning of the verse their testimony will be acceptable in all affairs.
Imam Abu Hanifahis of the opinion that except in cases of hudud and in financial
transactions their testimony is acceptable in bodily affairs like divorce, marriage,
slave-emancipation and raju‘ [restitution of conjugal rights]. Imam Malik is of the
view that their testimony is not acceptable in bodily affairs. There is however a
difference of opinion among the companions of ImamMalik regarding bodily
affairs which relate to wealth like advocacy and will-testaments which do not
specifically relate to wealth. Consequently, Ash-hab and Ibn Majishun accept two
male witnesses only in these affairs, while to Malik Ibn Qasim and Ibn Wahab two
female and a male witness are acceptable. As far as the matter of women as sole
witnesses is concerned, the majority accept it only in bodily affairs, about which
men can have no information in ordinary circumstances like the physical handicaps
of women and the crying of a baby at birth.[4]
The jurists have based their view upon the following verse of the Qur’an:
[4] Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi, Bidayah al-mujtahid
wa nihayah al-muqtasid, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-fikr, n.d.), 648.
‫ش له لد باء أل ان تل ب‬
َ ‫ض َل إب اح لد‬
‫اه لما‬ ‫ض او لن بم لن ال ن‬
‫ان بم َم ان تل ار ل‬
‫استل اش به َدوا لش بهي لديا بن بم ن برج الب َكم فلبِ ان للم ي َكونل ا رج لاي بن فل رج ل و اامرألتل ب‬
‫لَ ٌ ل ل‬ َ‫ل‬ ‫ال‬ ‫ا ل ا‬ ‫لو ا‬
(282:2 ‫فل تَ لذّك لر إب اح لد َاه لما االَ اخ لرى‬
And call in two male witnesses from among your men [over the document of
loan]. And if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women from
among those whom you deem appropriate as witnesses so that if either of them
gets confused the other reminds her. (2:282)
In the opinion of this writer, this view of our jurists concerning the testimony of a woman
is not correct owing to the following two reasons.
Firstly, the verse has nothing to do with the bearing of witness over an incident. It
explicitly relates to testifying over a document. It is very evident that in the second case
witnesses are selected by an external agency, while in the first case the presence of a witness
at the site of an incidence is an accidental affair. If we have written a document or signed
an agreement, then the selection of witnesses rests upon our discretion, while in the case of
adultery, theft, robbery and other similar crimes whoever is present at the site must be
regarded as a witness. The difference between the two cases is so pronounced that no law
about one can be deduced on the basis of the other.
Secondly, the context and style of the verse is such that it cannot relate to law or the
judicial forums of a state. It is not as if after addressing a court of law it has been said that if
such a law-suit is presented before them by a claimant, then they should call in witnesses in
this prescribed manner. On the contrary, this verse directly addresses people who borrow
and lend money over a fixed period. It urges them that if they are involved in such
dealings, then an agreement between the two parties must be written down, and to avoid
disputes and financial losses only witnesses who are honest, reliable and morally sound
should be appointed. At the same time, their personal involvement and occupations
should be suited to fulfil this responsibility in a befitting manner. The verse should not be
taken to mean that a law-suit will only stand proven in court if at least two men or one
man and two women bear witness to it. It is reiterated that the verse is merely a guidance
for the general masses in their social affairs and counsels them to abide by it so that any
dispute can be avoided. It is for their own benefit and welfare that this procedure should
be undertaken.
Consequently, about all such directives the Qur’an says:
(282:2 ‫اد بة لوأل ادنلى أَلل تل ارتلابَوا‬ َ ‫ط بع ان لد اللَ به لوألق لاو َم لبل‬
‫ش له ل‬ ‫ب‬
‫لِل َك ام ألق ل‬
َ ‫اس‬
This is more just in the sight of God; it ensures accuracy in testifying and is the
most appropriate way for you to safeguard against all doubts. (2:282)
Ibn Qayyim comments on this verse in the following manner:
‫فهذا في التحمل والوثيقة التي يحفظ بها صاحب المال حقه لفي طريق الحكم وما يحكم به الحاكم فان هذا شيء‬
‫وهذا شئ‬
It relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which a person of wealth

protects his rights. It has no concern with the decision of a court. The two are
absolutely different from each other.[5]
In recent times, two new arguments have been advanced by various quarters to lend
support to the view of the jurists concerning the testimony of women.
The first of these arguments is based on the words ‫( اربع ة ش هداء‬arba‘atah shuhada: four
witnesses) of 24:4 and ‫( اربعة منكم‬arba‘ataṇ minkum: four [witnesses] among you) of 4:15. It
is held that since ‫( اربعة‬arba‘atah) is in the feminine gender and according to the established
principle of Arabic grammar the ‫( مع دود‬ma‘dud: the counted object) this ‫‘( ع دد‬adad: the
numeral) qualifies should be masculine. Consequently, by the words ‫( اربعة شهداء‬arba‘atah
shuhada: four witnesses)four men are necessarily implied; women cannot be included.
On a first look, this argument seems to be based on strong grounds since it is in accordance
with the rules of Arabic grammar. However, a closer look reveals how baseless it actually is.
Any one who has some knowledge of Arabic knows that this rule not only states that from
three to ten if the ‫( مع دود‬ma‘dud: the counted object) is masculine the ‫‘( ع دد‬adad: the
numeral) is feminine but also says that if the ‫( معدود‬ma‘dud: the counted object) is a noun
that is used both for masculine and feminine entities, then also its ‫‘( عدد‬adad: the numeral)
shall necessarily be feminine.
Consequently, in the following verses the ‫‘( ع دد‬adad: the numeral) of ‫( ازواج‬azwaj: pairs),
which is the counted object is ‫( ثمانية‬thamaniyah) which is in the feminine gender:
(143:6 ‫ان اثا نل اي بن لوبم لن ال لام اع بز اثا نل اي بن قَ ال ُل َذلك لريا بن لح َرلم أبلم االَنا ثل يل اي بن‬ َ ‫اج بم لن ال‬
‫ضأ ب‬ ٍ ‫ثل لمانبيلةل أل ازلو‬
[Take] eight pairs: of sheep a pair, and of goats a pair; say, has He forbidden the
two males or the two females. (6:143)
Consider also the following verses:
[5] Ibn Qayyim, I‘lam al-muwaqqi‘in, vol. 1, 90.

(7:58 ‫لما يل َكو َن بم ان نل اج لوى ثلللثلٍة إبَل َه لو لراب َع َه ام لولل لخ ام لس ٍة إبَل َه لو لس باد َس َه ام‬
There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among
them, – nor between five but He makes the sixth. (58:7)
As in the case of ‫( اربعة منكم‬arba‘ataṇ minkum), the ‫( مع دود‬ma‘dud: the counted object) of
‫( ثلثة‬thalathah: three) and that of ‫( خمسة‬khamsah:five) has been suppressed because it is so
obvious. The suppressed ‫( معدود‬ma‘dud: the counted object) is something to the effect of
‫( نفر‬nafr: group). Since nafr is a word that can be spoken both for masculine and feminine
genders, its ‫‘( عدد‬adad: the numeral) in the verse is also feminine.
Similar examples can be found in the following Ahadith also:
‫ام بالثا نل اي بن يلك بافي اال الربل لعةل‬

َ ‫لوطل لع‬
The food of two suffices for four.[6]
‫ان َدو لن و ب‬
‫اح ٍد‬ ‫إِا كان ثلللثلةٌ فل ي تل نلاجي اثا نل ب‬
‫ل‬ ‫ل ل‬
If there are three people [present] two [of them] should not whisper.[7]
َ‫اجنَة‬ ‫لما بم ان َم اسلب ٍم يل اش له َد للهَ ثلللثلةٌ إبَل لو لجبل ا‬

‫ت للهَ ال ل‬
If three bear witness for a Muslim, he shall definitely enter paradise.[8]
‫َرفب لع الا لق ل َم لع ان ثلللثلٍة لع ان النَائب بم لحتَي يل استل اي بق ل‬

‫ظ‬
Three people cannot be held liable: [one among them is] a person who is sleeping
until he awakens.[9]
In these Ahadith also, the numerals ‫( اربعة‬arba‘atah) and ‫( ثلثة‬thalathah) are feminine and
any one who knows the language can in no way insist that the ‫( معدود‬ma‘dud: the counted
object) of these numerals are only men and that women cannot be implied.
[6] Al-Darimi, Sunan, vol. 2, 136, (no. 2044).

[8] Al-Tirmidhi,Sunan, vol. 3, 373, (no. 1059).
[9] Abu Da’ud, Sunan, vol. 4, 139, (no. 4398).
The second of these arguments is that since 2:282 (quoted above) mentions that a woman
might get confused thereby casting a doubt in her testimony, so in accordance with the
following words attributed to the Prophet (sws) whereas a hadd punishment can in no case
be given in cases in which they have testified, a ta‘zir punishment can be given in such
cases:
‫ات‬ َ ‫اح َد او لد بالا‬

‫ش اب له ا‬ ‫ب‬
َ ‫ا اد لرَؤا ال‬
Do not enforce a hadd punishment if there is a doubt.[10]
The following Ahadith are of similar meaning also:
‫استلطل اعتَ ام‬

‫ين لما ا‬ ‫بب‬
‫ود لع ان ال َام اسلم ل‬
‫اح َد ل‬
َ ‫ا اد لرءَوا ال‬
Refrain from enforcing hudud as much as is possible for you.[11]
‫عا‬j ‫ود لما لو لج ادتَ ام للهَ لم ادفل‬

‫اح َد ل‬
َ ‫ا ادفل َعوا ال‬
Withdraw hudud wherever you can find a plea.[12]
A little deliberation shows that this argument also is baseless.
Firstly, if in a particular case a woman does in fact get puzzled while giving her testimony
and the court reaches the conclusion that her testimony has become ambiguous as a result,
it certainly has the right to disregard her testimony. However how can this be made a
general principle of law and on its basis a woman’s testimony be forsaken forever? Just as
there is a chance that she might get puzzled while giving her testimony, there is an equal if
not a stronger one that she may testify in a clear and unambiguous manner. The Qur’an
has mentioned her testifying in a state of confusion as a chance occurrence and not as a
general or a certain one. A chance is just a chance and on what grounds can it be made a
general principle?
Secondly, the Hadith in no way means that if there is some doubt, a hadd punishment
shall not be given; it only means that in case of doubt no punishment at all can be given.
The word hadd has not been used as a term here; it is used in its literal sense for the term
came into existence much after the Prophet (sws). What he has reported to have said is
based on the universal principal of the ethics of law that since in case of doubt a crime does
not stand proven, the criminal cannot be punished. Consequently, if these people say that
[10]IbnHajar, Al-Talkhis al-Habir, vol. 4, 56.

[11]Al-Tirmidhi,Sunan, vol. 4, 33, (no. 1424).
[12]Ibn Majah, Sunan, vol. 2, 850, (no. 2545).
a ta‘zir punishment can be given on the basis of a woman’s testimony, then this only
means that the crime stands proven in their eyes. But then the question arises: if the crime
stands proven, then why can a hadd punishment not be given? And if they contend that if
a woman’s testimony always leaves room for doubt then a crime cannot be considered to
be proven; so on what basis should the ta‘zir punishment be administered?
A crime, obviously, cannot be regarded to be proven ten, twenty, ninety or ninety nine
percent. It is either proven one hundred percent or not proven at all. Consequently, it is
absolutely baseless to accept a state between proof and lack of proof in a crime and in no
way can it be accepted that a hadd punishment will be administered on certain grounds
and ta‘zir punishment on certain other grounds. No doubt that the nature of the crime
and the circumstances of the criminal do have a bearing on the extent of punishment that
is to be given. However, to imply that the “extent” of proof forms a basis for punishment
is something common sense totally rejects and human nature completely discards.

Islamic Punishments: Some Important Issues
The shari‘ah ordained by the Almighty regarding punishments has already been elaborated
upon by me in my book Mizan.[1] It is shown in this book that the shari‘ah has specified
the punishments of only five crimes. [2] The punishments of all other crimes have been left
to the rulers of a state to legislate.
However, in this regard, as far as the prevailing concepts are concerned, four questions may
arise:
(1) Has not the shari‘ah fixed the punishment of drinking liquor as eighty lashes?
(2) Is death not the punishment for apostasy according to the shari‘ah?
(3) Can a state award death penalty in crimes whose punishments have not been
ordained by the shari‘ah?
(4) Can the jail punishment be given to criminals for the crimes mentioned in (3)?
I now present my viewpoint in detail on these questions.
1. The Punishment of Drinking Liquor
The answer to the first question is that the punishment of drinking liquor was fixed at
eighty lashes by ‘Umar (rta) after he in his capacity of a caliph had consulted the members
of his shura. In the time of the Prophet (sws), this offence was punished by punching and
kicking the offender, and by beating him with twisted sheets of cloth or with twisted pieces
of date-palms. The caliph Abu Bakr (rta) had decreed that this crime be punishable by
forty lashes, and then the caliph ‘Umar (rta) in his own times increased it to eighty lashes
when he saw that people were not desisting from it. In the words of Ibn Rushd: [3]
‫قياس ا‬
j ‫فعمدة الجمهور تشاور عمر والصحابة لما كثر في زمانه شرب الخمر واشارة علي عليه بان يجعل الحد ثمانين‬
‫علي حد الفرية فانه كما قيل عنه رضي ال عنه إِا شرب سكر وإِا سكر هذى وإِا هذى افتري‬
The general opinion in this regard is based on the consultation of ‘Umar(rta) with
the members of his shura. The session of this shura took place during his period
when people started indulging in this habit more frequently. ‘Ali (rta) opined that,
by analogy with the punishment of qadhf, its punishment should also be fixed at
eighty lashes. It is said that while presenting his arguments, he had remarked:
[2] Ie, Muharabah, Murder, Fornication, Theft andQadhf.
[3] Ibn Rushd, Bidayah al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, 332.
“When he [– the criminal –] drinks, he will get intoxicated and once he gets
intoxicated, he will utter nonsense; and once he starts uttering nonsense, he will
falsely accuse other people.”
It is evident from this, that the punishment of drinking is not part of the shari‘ah. It is only
the prerogative of the Prophet (sws) to regard anything as part of the shari‘ah, and if he has
done so in a particular case, Abu Bakr (rta) or ‘Umar (rta) can in no way alter it. Had this
punishment been part of the shari‘ah, neither would have Abu Bakr (rta) replaced it with
forty lashes, nor would ‘Umar (rta) have increased it to eighty lashes. It is clear that if the
Prophet (sws) punished such criminals by beating them, he did so not in the capacity of a
law-giver but in the capacity of a Muslim ruler. His successors punished such criminals by
whipping them with forty and eighty lashes respectively in their capacity as rulers.
Consequently, it can be safely said that the punishment of drinking is not a hadd; [4] it is a
ta‘zir[5] which the parliament of an Islamic State can adopt and if needed legislate afresh in
this regard.
2. The Punishment of Apostasy
The answer to the second question is that the punishment of apostasy has arisen by
misunderstanding a Hadith. This Hadith has been narrated by Ibn Abbas (rta) in the
following way:
َ‫َل بدينلهَ فلاقاتَ لَوت‬

‫لم ان بلد ل‬
Execute the person who changes his faith.[6]
Our jurists regard this verdict to have a general application for all times upon every Muslim
who renounces his faith from the times of the Prophet (sws) to the Day of Judgement. In
their opinion, this Hadith warrants the death penalty for every Muslim who, out of his
own free will, becomes a disbeliever. In this matter, the only point in which there is a
disagreement among the jurists is whether an apostate should be granted time for
repentance before executing him, and if so what should be the extent of this period. The
Hanafite jurists however, exempt women from this punishment. Apart from them, there is
a general consensus among the jurists that every apostate, man or woman, should be
punished by death.
In my opinion, this view of our jurists is not correct. The verdict pronounced in this
Hadith has a specific application and not a general one: it is only confined to the people
[4] Punishments ordained by God.

[5] Punishments legislated by the rulers of an Islamic State.
towards whom the Prophet (sws) had been directly sent to do itmam al-huujjah (conclusive
communication of the truth). The Qur’an uses the words mushrikin for these people.
I now elaborate upon this view.
In this world, we are well aware of the fact that life has been endowed to us not because it
is our right but because it is a trial and a test for us. Death puts an end to it whenever the
duration of this test is over, as deemed by the Almighty. Commonly, He fixes the length of
this period on the basis of His knowledge and wisdom. However, in case of the direct and
foremost addressees of a rasul (Messenger of God), once the truth is unveiled to them in its
ultimate form after which they have no excuse but stubbornness and enmity to deny it,
they lose their right to live. The Almighty had blessed them with life to try and test them,
and since after tmam al-hujjah this trial becomes totally complete, therefore the law of the
Almighty in this regard is that generally such people are not given any further right to live
and the death sentence is imposed upon them.
This punishment is enforced upon the direct addressees of a rasul in one of the two ways
depending upon the situation which arises. In the first case, after doing itmam al-hujjah
upon his nation, a rasul and his Companions (rta) are not able to achieve political
ascendancy in their territory and migrate from their people. In this case, divine
punishment descends upon their nation in the form of raging storms, cyclones and other
calamities, which completely destroy them. The nations of the ‘Ād and the Thamud and
the people of Noah (sws) and Lot (sws) besides many other nations met with this dreadful
fate, as is mentioned in the Qur’an. In the second case, a rasul and his companions are able
to acquire political ascendancy in a land where after doing ittmam al-hujjah upon their
people they migrate. In this case, a rasul and his Companions subdue their nation by force,
and execute them if they do not accept faith. It was this situation which had arisen in the
case of the rasul Muhammad (sws). On account of this, the Almighty bade him declare that
those people among the mushrikin who had not accepted faith until the day of hajj al-
akbar (9th hijrah) should be given a final extension by a proclamation made in the field of
‘Arafat on that day. According to the proclamation, this final extension would end with
the last day of the month of Muharram, during which they had to accept faith, or face
execution at the end of that period. The Qur’an says:
‫ص ٍد فلبِ ان تل ابَوا‬
‫وه ام لواقاعَ َدوا ل َله ام َك َل لم ار ل‬
َ ‫ص َر‬
َ ‫اح‬
‫وه ام لو ا‬
َ ‫وه ام لو َخ َذ‬
َ ‫ث لو لج ادتَ َم‬
َ ‫ين لح اي‬ ‫ب‬
َ ‫فلبِ لِا انا لسل لَ االل اش َه َر ال‬
‫اح َرَم فلاقاتَ لَوا ال َام اش برك ل‬
‫ص للةل وُتل وا ال َزلكاةل فل لخلنوا سبي لهم إب َن اللَه غل َف ب‬
(5:9 ‫يم‬ ٌ ‫ور لرح‬ ٌ ‫ل‬ ‫ل َا‬ َ ‫لوألقل َاموا ال َ ل‬
When the forbidden months are over, slay the Idolaters wherever you find them.
Seize them, besiege them and every where lie in ambush for them. But if they
repent from their ill beliefs and establish the prayer and pay zakah, then spare their
lives. God is Most-Forgiving and Ever-Merciful. (9:5)
A Hadith illustrates this law in the following manner:
‫ص لل لة لويَ اؤتَوا ال َزلك ا لة فلتب لذا فل لعلَ وا‬ ‫ب ب‬

َ ‫دا لر َس او َل ال لويَق‬j ‫َاس لحتَي يل اش له َدوا أل ان لل إبللهل إبَل الَ لوال َن َم لح َم‬
َ ‫يم وا ال‬ ‫ب‬ َ ‫أ بَم ار‬
‫ت أل ان أَقلات لل الن ل‬
‫ال اس للبم و بحساب َهم لع لي ب‬
‫ال‬ ‫اء َه ام لوأ الم لوال َله ام إبَل ب لح ّق اب‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫لِلب ل‬
‫ل لَ ا‬ ‫ص َموا منّي د لم ل‬
‫ك لع ل‬
I have been directed to wage war against these people until they testify to the
oneness of God and to the prophethood of Muhammad, establish the prayer and
pay zakah. If they accept these terms, their lives will be spared except if they
commit some violation that makes them lose this protection from Islamic law and
[in the Hereafter] their account rests with God.[7]
This law, as has been stated before, is specifically meant for the mushrikin on whom
Muhammad (sws) had directly done itmam al-hujjah. Apart from them, it has no bearing
upon any other person or nation. So much so, that even the people of the Book who were
present in his times were exempted from this law by the Qur’an. Consequently, where the
death penalty for the mushrikin is mentioned in the Qur’an, adjacent to it has also been
stated in unequivocal terms that the People of the Book shall be spared and granted
citizenship if they pay jizyah. The Qur’an says:
‫ين أَوتَوا‬ ‫قل اتبلَوا الَ بذين لل ي اؤبمنَ و لن ب اللَ به ولل ب الاي وبم اال بخ بر ولل يح ّرم و لن م ا ح َرم اللَ هَ ورس ولَهَ ولل ي بدينَو لن بدين ال ب َ ب‬
‫اح ّق م لن ال ذ ل‬
‫ل ل‬ ‫لل َ ل ل‬ ‫ل َل َ ل ل ل‬ ‫ل لا‬ َ ‫ل‬
(29:9 ‫صاغ َرو لن‬ ‫ب‬ ٍ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬
‫اب لحتَى يَ اعطَوا الاج ازيلةل لع ان يلد لو َه ام ل‬ ‫الاكتل ل‬
Fight against those among the people of the Book who neither believe in God nor
in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Prophet have
forbidden and do not accept the religion of truth as their own religion, until they
pay jizyah out of subjugation and lead a life of submission. (9:29)
The foregoing discussion outlines a law of the Almighty. There is a natural corollary to this
divine law as obvious as the law itself. As stated earlier, the death penalty had been
imposed upon these mushrikin if they did not accept faith after a certain period. Hence, it
follows that if a person among the mushrikin after accepting faith reverted to his original
state of disbelief, he had to face the same penalty. Indeed, it is this reversion about which
the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: “Execute the person who changes his faith.”
The relative pronoun “who” in the above quoted Hadith qualifies the mushrikin of the
times of the Prophet (sws) just as the words “the people’ (al-nas) in the Hadith quoted
earlier are specifically meant for the mushrikin. When the basis of this law as narrated in
these Ahadith has been specified in the Qur’an, then quite naturally this specification

should also be sustained in the corollary of the law. Our jurists have committed the
cardinal mistake of not relating the relative pronoun “who” in the Hadith “Execute the
person who changes his faith” with its basis in the Qur’an as they have done in the case of
“the people” (al-nas) of the Hadith quoted above. Instead of interpreting the Hadith in
the light of the relationship between the Qur’an and Hadith, they have interpreted it in
the absolute sense, totally against the context of the Qur’an. Consequently, in their
opinion the verdict pronounced in the Hadith has a general and an unconditional
application. They have thereby incorporated in the Islamic Penal Code a punishment
which has no basis in the shari‘ah.
3. The Capital Punishment
The answer to the third question is that the death sentence can only be given to a person
who has killed someone or to someone who is guilty of spreading disorder in a society. No
other person can be punished by death. The Qur’an says:
(32:5 ‫يعا‬j ‫َاس لج بم‬ ‫س أ الو فل لس ٍاد فبي اال الر ب‬

‫ض فل لكألنَ لما قل تل لل الن ل‬ ٍ ‫سا ب لاي بر نل اف‬j ‫لم ان قل تل لل نل اف‬
He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another or
of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he had killed all of
mankind. (5:32)
This is the verdict of the Qur’an. Hence, except for these two offences, neither a person
nor an Islamic government has any right to administer the death sentence to a person.
4. The Jail Punishment
The answer to the fourth question is that the jail punishment is not merely a punishment;
it is in fact a barbarity that man has invented for himself. It is therefore not expected from
an Islamic government to include it in its penal code. No doubt, dark cells, underground
dungeons and castle turrets have always existed in the known history of mankind. The
Prophet Joseph’s tale of imprisonment has been narrated both in the Qur’an and in the
Bible. The historian’s pen also bears witness to the tragic deaths of two great scholars of
Islam, Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 767 AD) and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1327 AD), both of
whom died in captivity. But it must be borne in mind, that before the eighteenth century
jails were only used as temporary lock ups. Criminals were usually detained in them during
the course of their inquiry and investigation, or when they awaited the infliction of
punishments like whipping, execution and other similar sentences. The concept of
confining an offender behind bars for two, four or ten years as a penalty for a crime has
originated and gained acceptance only in the past three centuries. It is now a fairly
common practice to punish most criminals in this manner.
Although various institutions akin to the prison existed in Europe in the fourteenth
century like the Delle Stinche in Florence, it is generally believed that “The Walnut Street
Jail” set up in Philadelphia in 1790 was the first modern prison. Its antecedents are to be
found in the reformitories and houses of correction established in London (1557),
Amsterdam (1596), Rome (1704) and in Ghent (1773), an old city of Belgium.
Subsequently, as the Western civilization acquired ascendancy, prisons were established all
over the world. Within the precincts of these inhuman institutions, man is made to starve
the personality within him for months and years; while his offspring, unaware about the
concepts of crime and punishment, spend their childhood helplessly watching him bear
the agony of life.
The whipping sentence is over in a while, hands are cut once and for all, crucifixion ends a
criminal’s life after an extreme physical torture, and execution severs irrevocably every
string of his relation with this world; but it is this punishment in which the inner
personality of a person is continually tormented. Some of his daily routines, in which
everyone has an unconditional freedom, become totally dependent on others. He sleeps
and awakes upon the will of others. He sits and stands at the direction of others. His eating
and drinking habits are governed by others, and even in a matter as personal as relieving
one’s self, he has to seek permission from others. He is made to beg for a glass of water, a
loaf of bread and even a puff of a cigarette, and on many occasions he is made to lose his
self-respect to obtain them. He is deprived from the love and affection of his parents, wife
and children, and is made to suppress some of his desires upon which the Almighty has
posed no restriction even in the holy month of Ramadan, during which restraint and
control are the keywords. In short, he faces a Hell on earth, in which he neither lives nor
perishes.
Also, it is not the criminal alone who has to endure this punishment. His entire family is
made to suffer with him as well. The most affected among them is his wife. The extent of
moral, psychological, social and economic problems she has to bear if her husband is jailed
for nine or ten years can only be estimated by the faithful wives who themselves have
undergone this traumatic experience. The children also suffer an ordeal no less. Everyone
knows how adversely they are affected psychologically, when they observe their father
being tortured and tormented for years and years. Whipping, cutting off hands,
crucifixion and execution all are punishments which either mete out extreme physical
suffering for a while or decide the fate of a criminal once and for all. But in case of
imprisonment, every time the children visit their father confined in the clutches of a murky
cell, intense sentiments build up and strengthen in their minds, after which how can they
be expected to have poised and balanced personalities? They can rightly question the
society about the ethical grounds on which they were deprived of paternal care and
affection when the Almighty had blessed them with it.
Consider also, that every society wishes that after being punished and chastised, a criminal
should mend his ways and correct himself. It is quite evident that the most effective way to
achieve this purpose is to keep him in healthy company and in a conducive environment.
Oddly enough, through this punishment he is kept isolated from people who might have a
good influence upon him. His family, clan and even the society are in no way given the
opportunity to reform and rehabilitate him. He is put away for years in the company of
criminals in such a manner that even if he desires to reform himself, he is not given any
chance to do so. Quite expectedly, during the period of confinement, his association with
other criminals becomes a perfect source for stimulating his evil instincts. His criminal
tendencies develop further, as he begins to view everything on their basis. This
companionship also provides him with an almost unlimited opportunity of discussing,
planning and perfecting the art of breaching the law. An omnipresent mafia is a source of
perpetual inspiration for him to emulate the records set by the masterminds of the trade.
With such a set up what good a society expects from such a highly qualified law breaker
once he is injected back in the society, is something quite beyond imagination.
It should also be kept in mind that after flogging a criminal, amputating his hands and
inflicting other similar punishments upon him, we have no means to know when he
decides to change his ill-ways – an event that might occur anytime during his life.
Common sense demands that if a criminal intends to correct himself he should be readily
provided with the opportunities to change himself and to lead a life of a responsible
citizen. But of all the punishments, it is this punishment in which the law fixes for him the
time when he should actually change, even though it has no means of ascertaining it.
Owing to all these evils and ill-effects, the Islamic Penal Code though understandably
contains a provision for house arresting a criminal or exiling him with his family if needed,
it does not sanction in any way the confining of a criminal in a prison for years.

What is Diyat?
The law of diyat mentioned in the Qur’an has given rise to some questions that they have
remained a hot subject of debate in present times. They are:
1. Has the shari‘ah fixed the quantity of diyat, and in accordance with this, is the diyat
of a woman half that of a man?
2. What is the nature of diyat? Is it a financial compensation for the loss suffered by
the heirs of the slain or by the wounded person himself, or is it the price of life or a
limb, or something besides these two?
As an answer to the first question, consider the following verses of the Qur’an that have
been revealed regarding law of diyat:
‫ص َدقَوا‬ َ ‫ير لرقل بل ٍة َم اؤبمنل ٍة لوبديلةٌ َم لس لَ لمةٌ إبللى أ الهلب به إبَل أل ان يل‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫ب ب‬
َ ‫ فل تل اح بر‬j‫ ا لخطل أ‬j‫ لولم ان قل تل لل َم اؤمن‬j‫ا إَل لخطلأ‬j‫لولما لكا لن ل َم اؤم ٍن أل ان يل اقتَ لل َم اؤمن‬
‫فلبِ ان لكا لن بم ان قل اوٍم لع َدو ل َك ام لو َه لو َم اؤبم ٌن فل تل اح بر َير لرقل بل ٍة َم اؤبمنل ٍة لوإب ان لكا لن بم ان قل اوٍم بل اي نل َك ام لوبل اي نل َه ام بميثلا ٌق فل بديلةٌ َم لسلَ لمةٌ إبللى أ الهلب به‬
‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫وتل اح برير رقل ب ٍة م اؤبمنل ٍة فلمن ل ب ب‬
(93-92: 4 ‫يما‬ j ‫يما لحك‬ j ‫ م لن اللَه لولكا لن اللَهَ لعل‬j‫ام لش اه لريا بن َمتلتلا لع اي بن تل اوبلة‬ َ ‫لم يلج اد فلصيل‬ ‫لا ا‬ َ ‫ل َ لل‬
It is unlawful for a believer to kill a believer except if it happens by accident. And

he who kills a believer accidentally must free one Muslim slave and pay diyat to the
heirs of the victim except if they forgive him. If the victim be a Muslim belonging
to a people at enmity with you, the freeing of a Muslim slave is enough. But if the
victim belongs to an ally, diyat shall also be given to his heirs and you will also set
free a Muslim slave. Then he who does not have a slave, must fast two consecutive
months. This is from God a way to repent from this sin: He is Wise, all-Knowing.
(4:92-93)
The actual words of the verse are ‫( دي ة مس لمة ال ي اهل ه‬paying diyat to his heirs). Their most
appropriate grammatical analysis in the opinion of this writer is to regard them as the
inchoative (mubtada’) of a suppressed enunciative (khabar) ie. ‫عليه تحرير رقبة مؤمنة و دية مسلمة‬
(it is incumbent upon him to pay diyat to his heirs). The word diyat in these verses occurs
as a common noun, about which we all know that its meaning is determined by the
context in which it is used and by its linguistic and customary usage. For example, consider
the Qur’anic verse: (67:2) j‫( إب َن اللَ هل يل أ َام َرَك ام أل ان تل ذابل َحوا بل لق لرة‬Indeed, God ordains you to sacrifice a
cow, (2:67)). The word ٌ‫ بل لق لرة‬is a common noun. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that the
Jews were directed to sacrifice an animal whose name in the linguistic and customary usage
of the Arabs was ٌ‫بل لق لرة‬. If they had sacrificed any cow, they would have, no doubt, fulfilled
this divine directive. In other words, if someone obligates us about something and
mentions the obligated thing as a common noun, it simply means that he has directed us to
obey the ‫( مع روف‬custom) in this regard. Also, since a common noun denotes generality,
every meaning associated with it shall be considered as implied, without any specification,
lest something within the context poses a hindrance. Therefore, in the above verse diyat
means something which in the general custom and usage is called diyat. And the Arabic
words ‫ دية مسلمة الي اهله‬simply mean that the family of the murdered person should be given
what the general custom and tradition terms as diyat.
In Surah Baqarah, where the directive of diyat in case of intentional murder has been
given, it has been qualified by the word ‫( معروف‬custom):
‫ب‬
ٍ ‫وف وأ للداء إبل الي به ببِ احس‬ ‫ب ب ب‬ ‫ب‬
(178:2 ‫ان‬ ‫ل‬ ٌ ‫فل لم ان عَف لي للهَ م ان ألخيه لش ايءٌ فلاتّبلاعٌ بال لام اع َر ل‬
Then for whom there has been some remission from his brother, then it should be
followed according to the ma‘ruf and diyat should be paid with goodness. (2:178)
It is evident from the above mentioned verses of Surah Nisa’ and Surah Baqarah that in
case of intentional as well as un-intentional murder, diyat should be paid according to the
custom and tradition of the society. In his own period, the Prophet (sws) obeyed this
Qur’anic injunction by following the prevailing ‫( مع روف‬custom) of the Arab Society.
Whatever has been stated in the Ahadith is just an explanation of this ‫( مع روف‬custom)
during that period. It should be clear that no directive of the Prophet (sws) obligates
Muslims to follow it.
An important question that needs explanation concerns the actual Arab custom about
diyat. A study of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and the recorded account of battles between
various Arab tribes shows that the diyat of every person whose blood relation with his
tribe was ‫( صريح‬a person whose blood relation with some tribe is definite), was fixed at ten
camels. The diyat of an ally or a maid was half of the ‫ صريح‬and the diyat of a woman was
also half that of a man. The author of Āghani while describing the events of a battle
between the tribes of Aws and Khazraj writes:
‫خمسا من البل ودية الصريح عشرا‬

j ‫وكانت دية المولي فيهم وهو الحليف‬
And in their custom, the diyat of amawla ie ally was five camels and that of a ‫صريح‬
was fixed at ten camels.[1]
According to Dr Jawwad ‘Ali:
[1] Abu al-Faraj ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Asbahani, Kitab al-aghani, vol. 3 (Lebanon: Dar al-fikr li al-taba‘ah
wa al-nashr, n.d.), 41.
‫واما إِا كان القتيل هجينا فتكون ديته نصف دية الصريح وتكون دية المرأة نصف دية الرجل‬
If the slain person was a maid’s son, his diyat was half that of a sarih and the diyat
of a woman was half that of a man.[2]
Some tribes because of their high social status accepted twice the actual amount of diyat,
while some paid twice the actual amount as a favour and blessing upon the other tribe. Dr
Jawwad ‘Ali writes:
‫روى إن ال طاريف وهم قوم الحارث بن عبد ال بن بكر بن يشكر كانوا يأخذون للمقتول منهم ديتين ويعطون غيرهم‬
‫دي ة واح دة إِا وجب ت عليه م وك ان لبن ي ع امر ب ن بك ر ب ن يش كروهم م ن ال ط اريف أيض ا وق د ع رف ع امر الم ذكور‬
‫بال طريف ديتان ولسائر قومه دية وورد إن بنی السود بن رزن كانوا يودون في الجاهلية ديتين ديتين‬
It is said that Ghatarif or the people of the tribe Harith ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Bakr ibn
Yashkur used to accept two diyats for their slain, and if it became obligatory for
them to pay diyat, they used to pay a single diyat. Likewise, for Bani‘Āmir ibn Bakr
ibn Yashkur, whose ancestor ‘Āmir was, in fact, called Ghatrif, two diyats were
fixed, while for the rest of the nation it was single. Similarly, according to most
traditions, the tribe of BaniAswad ibn Razan in pre-Islamic times used to pay
double diyat to others.[3]
He goes on to say:
‫ولم يكن هذا التحديد عن ضعف وانما هو رغبة منهم في الفضال علي ِوى القتيل‬
This regularity in paying two diyats was not because of some weakness but as a
favour to the family of the slain.[4]
The diyat of kings, called the Diyat al-Muluk, was fixed at a thousand camels. Qarad ibn
Hansh al-Ṣaridi while eulogizing Bani Fazarah says:[5]
‫ونحن رهنا القوس ثمت فوديت‬

‫بألف علي فهرا الفزارى اقرعا‬
[2] Dr Jawwad ‘Ali, Al-Mufassal fi tarikh al-‘arab qabl al-islam, 2nd ed., vol. 5 (Beirut: Dar al-‘ilm li al-
malayin, 1986), 592.
[3] Ibid., 593.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Abd al-Qadir ibn ‘Umar al-Baghdadi, Khazanah al-adab wa lubb lubab lisan al-‘arab, 1st ed., vol. 7
(Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1998), 349.
Wa nahnu rahana al-qawsa thummut fudiyat
Bi alfiṇ ‘ala zahr al-fazariyyi aqra‘a
(And we pledged a bow, and from the wealth of Fazariyyi a thousand camels were
given as remittance for this.)
‫بعشر مئين للملوك سعى بها‬

‫ليوفي سيار بن عمرو فاسرعا‬
Bi‘ashri mi’ina li al-muluki sa‘a biha

Liyufiya Sayyar ubnu ‘Amriṇ fa asra‘a
(Ten hundred camels which is the diyat of kings. Sayyar Ibn ‘Amr strove to carry
out this promise and fulfilled the responsibility without delay.)
A few years before the birth of the Prophet (sws), this custom underwent a drastic change.
It is said that ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the grandfather of the Prophet (sws) vowed that if God
would bless him with ten sons, he would slaughter one of them as a sacrifice. And when
God fulfilled his wish, he set out to fulfil his own pledge. A lot was cast to select which
among the ten sons should be sacrificed. It fell upon ‘Abdullah.So when ‘Abd al-Muttalib
was on his way to sacrifice him, some people stopped him and suggested to sacrifice a
camel instead. It has been indicated before that during that time the quantity of diyat was
fixed at ten camels. Hence, once again, a lot was cast, this time in the name of ‘Abdullah
and ten camels. Again, it fell upon ‘Abdullah and the process was repeated until the
number of camels reached one hundred. According to the traditions, after this event the
quantity of diyat among the Arabs, particularly theQuraysh was re-fixed at a hundred
camels. In the words of Ibn Abbas (rta):
‫ من البل وعبد المطلب أول من سن دية النفس مائة من البل فجرت في قريش والعرب مائة‬j‫كانت الدية يومئذ عشرا‬
‫من البل‬
During that period, diyat was ten camels. It was ‘Abd al-Muttalib who first of all
fixed it at one hundred camels. As a result, this quantity was adopted by the
Quraysh and the Arabs.[6]
Zuhayr has mentioned the same amount of diyat in his poetry.While eulogizing two Arab
chiefs, Haram ibn Sanan and Harith ibn ‘Awf, because the two had paid three thousand
[6] Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Sa‘d al-Zuhri, Al-Ṭabaqat al-kubra, vol. 1, (Beirut: Dar Ṣadir, n.d.),
89.
camels as diyat to stop a war between ‘Abas and Fazarah, he says: [7]
‫تعفى الكلوم بالمئين فأصبحت‬

‫ينجمها من ليس فيها بمجرم‬
Tu‘affa al-kulumu bi al-mi’ina fa asbahat

Yunajjimuha man laysa fiha bi mujrimi
(By means of hundreds of camels the wounds shall be healed. So, those who were
just innocent began to pay these camels in small lots.)
It is evident from this couplet that after this war the diyat of the slain was paid in
instalments. According to Aghani:
‫وكانت ثلثة ُلف بعير في ثلث سنين‬
Hence it was three thousand camels which were given in three years.[8]
Zuhayr has pointed out that ‫( افال‬young camels) were given as diyat:[9]
‫فاصبح يحدى فيهم من تلدكم‬

‫م انم شتي من افال مزنم‬
Fa asbaha yuhda fihimu min tiladikum

Maghanimu shatta min ifaliṇ muzannami
(From your inherited wealth, camels of various ages which are ifal ie, well bred
young camels are sent to the families of the slain.)
About this specification of ‫( افال‬ifal), al-Zawzani, a commentator of the Sab‘ah Mu‘allaqat

writes:
‫خص الص ار لن الديات تعطي من بنات اللبون والحقاق وال جذاع‬
The poet has particularly mentioned young camels because only two-year olds,
three-year olds and four-year olds were given as diyat.[10]
[7] Al-Baghdadi, Khazanah al-adab vol. 3, 9.

[8] Abu al-Faraj al-Asbahani, Kitab aghani, vol 10, 297.
[9] Al-Baghdadi, Khazanah al-adab vol. 3, 9.
[10]Abu ‘Abdullah al-Husayn ibn Ahmad al-Zawzani,Sharh al-mu‘allaqat al-sab‘, 1st ed. (Lahore: Dar al-
The diyat of wounds also existed in Arabia. A study of pre-Islamic Arabic reveals that the
words ‫( ارش‬arsh) and ‫( ن ذر‬nadhr) were used in this meaning besides others. According to
the Lisan al-‘Arab:
‫اصل الرش الخدش ثم قيل لما يوخذدية لها ارشواهل الحجاز يسمونه النذر‬
The word ‫( ارش‬arsh) is, in fact, ‫( خدش‬khadsh) ie, bruise or wound. Then it began to
be used for the money which was exacted as diyat for wounds. The people of Hijaz
used the word ‫( نذر‬nadhr) for this.[11]
We have mentioned above that it was this Arabic custom which the Prophet (sws) while
obeying the Qur’an, enforced during his own time. Consequently, in some Āhadith it has
been mentioned that the Prophet (sws) continued with the Arabic custom in the matters of
diyat, which had existed before his own prophethood. To further quote Ibn Abbas (rta):
‫صلَي الَ لع لاي به لو لسلَ لمعلي ما كانت عليه‬ ‫ب‬

‫فجرت في قريش والعرب مائة من البل فاقرها لر َس او لل ال ل‬
Among the Quraysh and in Arabia, the quantity of diyat adopted was one
hundred camels. Consequently, later on the Prophet continued with it. [12]
In another Hadith, which linguists present in support of the word ‫( معقل ة‬ma‘qulah) and
which has also been reported in slightly different words in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn
Hanbal, this matter has been stated in the following way:
‫ فيه المهاجرون من قريش علي رباعتهم يتعاقلون بينهم معاقلهم الولي‬j‫كتب بين قريش والنصار كتابا‬
A treaty between the Ansar and the Quraysh was documented by the Prophet in
which it was written down that the Muhajirun of the Quraysh would continue
according to their previous state and the matter of diyat would be conducted
between them as before.[13]
On the contrary, in Yemen (southern Arabia), the custom was that in various forms of
murder and in various types of wounds, the amount of diyat was fixed by the ruler. But
when Yemen became a part of the Islamic State during the Prophet’s time, a letter was sent
by him to the chiefs of Yemen in which he fixed the same quantity of diyat for them which
nashr al-kutub al-islamiyyah, n.d.), 80.

[11]Muhammad ibn Mukarram ibn Manzur, Lisan al-‘arab, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar sadir, n.d.), 246.
[13]Ibn Manzur,Lisan al-‘arab, vol. 11, 462.
was enforced in his own territory. Dr Jawwad ‘Ali, while writing about this Arabic custom,
says:
‫وقد عرفت الدية عند العرب الجنوبيين كذلك ولم تحدد في القوانين وانما ترك أمر مقدارها ألي الملك‬
Diyatwas paid according to the custom in southern Arabia also, but no regular
legislation had been done in this regard; instead, the determination of its amount
had been left upon the discretion of the ruler.[14]
The epistle of the Prophet (sws) which he wrote to the people of Yemen [15] is reproduced
here:
‫الب بل وفبي االلنا ب‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫ول لوأل َن فبي النَ اف ب‬ ‫ضي أ الولبيلاء الام اقتَ ب‬ ‫ل لع ان بليّ نل ٍة فلبِنَهَ قل لو ٌد إبَل أل ان يل ار ل‬j ‫ا قل ات‬j‫ط َم اؤبمن‬
‫ف‬ ‫ م ان اب ل‬j‫س الدّيلةل مائلة‬ ‫َ ل‬ ‫أل َن لم ان ا اعتلبل ل‬
‫ضتل اي بن الدّيلةَ لوفب ي ال َذلك بر الدّيلةَ لوفب ي ال ن‬ ‫ش لفتل اي بن الدّيلةَ لوفبي الابل اي ل‬ َ ‫ان الدّيلةَ لوفبي ال‬ ‫َوعب ج ادعَهَ الدّيةَ وفبي اللّس ب‬ ‫ب‬
َ‫اب الدّيلة‬ ‫صل ب‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل ل‬ ‫إب لِا أ ل ل‬
‫اجائبلف بة‬ ‫ف الدّي بة ع وفب ي الامأاموم بة ثَلَ َ ب ب‬ ‫ب ب‬
‫ث الدّيل ة لوف ي ال ل‬ ‫لَل‬ ‫ص َ ل ل‬ ‫ف الدّيلةب [ لوفبيالايل بد نب ا‬ َ ‫ص‬‫لوفب ي ال لاع اي نل اي بن الدّيل ةَ لوفب ي ال ّر اج بل ال لاواح لدة نب ا‬
‫س‬ ّ ‫الب بل لوفبي ال‬‫لصاب بع الايل بد لوال ّر اج بل لع اش ٌر بم ان اب‬ ‫ب‬
‫الب بل لوفبي َك ّل أ ا‬ ‫ث الدّيلبة لوفبي ال َامنل ّق ل بة لخ امس لع اش لرلة بم ان اب‬
ٌ ‫س ّن لخ ام‬ ‫َصبَ ٍع م ان أ ل‬ ‫ل‬ َ َ‫ثَل‬
‫اف بدينلا ٍر‬ ‫الب بل لوأل َن ال َر َج لل يَ اقتل َل بال لام ارأ بلة لو لع لى أ اله بل ال َذ له ب‬‫س بم ان اب‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫بمن اب ب ب‬
َ ‫ب ألل‬ ٌ ‫ال بل لوفي ال َاموض لحة لخ ام‬ ‫ا‬
He who wrongfully kills a Muslim and his crime is legally proven shall be taken
revenge from, except if the heirs of the murdered person agree to accept diyat. In
this case, the diyat of life is one hundred camels and that of a nose also when it is
completely cut off. The diyat of a tongue or lips or testicles or the male
reproductive organ or the back or both eyes is one hundred camels as well. The
diyat of a single foot [and a hand], [16] however, is half. A wound which reaches the
stomach and one which reaches the brain shall have one-third diyat. The diyat of
an injury because of which a bone is displaced is fifteen camels. For each of the
fingers of the hand and feet, the diyat is ten camels, for the teeth it is five and for an
injury because of which a bone is exposed, it is five as well. A man shall be executed
in place of a woman and those who can pay diyat only in the form of gold, the
diyat is one thousand dinars.[17] (Nasa’i: no. 4853)
After this explanation about the law of diyat, it becomes evident that Islam has neither
prescribed any specific amount for diyat nor has it obligated us to discriminate in this
matter between a man or a woman, a slave or a free man and a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
[14]Dr Jawwad ‘Ali, Al-Mufassal, vol. 5, 593.
[15]A little deliberation shows that the ratios of diyats which have been stated in this epistle are the last
word as far as justice and fairness are concerned. Our rulers while legislating in this regard should take
them into consideration.
[16]These words have been taken from another text of a Hadith recorded inSunan Nasa’i in which this
epistle has been recorded. See: Al-Nasa’i, Al-Sunan al-mujtaba, vol. 8, 58, (no. 4854).
[17]al-Nasa’i, Al-Sunan al-mujtaba, vol. 8, 57, (no. 4853).
The law of diyat was in force in Arabia before the advent of Islam. The Qur’an has
directed us to pay diyat just according to this law both in case of intentional as well as un-
intentional murder. By this Qur’anic directive, diyat, became an eternal law of the shari‘ah
for all times and for every society; however its quantity, nature and other related affairs
have been left by the Qur’an upon the customs and traditions of a society. The Prophet
(sws) and his Rightly Guided Caliphs (rta) decided all the cases of diyat according to the
customs and traditions of the Arabian society during their own times. The quantities of
diyat which are mentioned in our books of Hadith and Fiqhare in accordance with this
custom and tradition, which itself has its roots in the social conditions and cultural
traditions of the Arabs. However, since then, the wheel of fortune has revolved through
fourteen more centuries and the tide of time has sped past innumerable crests and falls.
Social conditions and cultural traditions have undergone a drastic change. In present times,
it is not possible to pay diyat in the form of camels nor is it a very wise step to fix the
amount of diyat on this basis. The nature of ‫( ع اقله‬Āqilah:community/tribe) has
completely changed and various forms of un-intentional murder have come into existence
which could never have been imagined before. We know that the guidance provided by the
Qur’an is for all times and for every society. Hence, in this regard, it has directed us to
follow the ‫( مع روف‬custom) which may change with time. As per this Qur’anic directive,
every society is to obey its custom, and since in our own society no law about diyat
previously exists, those at the helm of affairs of our state can either continue with the
above mentioned Arab custom or re-legislate in this regard; whatever they do, if the society
accepts this legislation, it will assume the status of our ‫( مع روف‬custom). It is obvious that
those in authority in any society can revise and re-structure the laws which are based on the
‫( معروف‬custom), keeping in view the collective good of the masses. Ibn ‘Ābidin, a celebrated
Hanifite scholar, writes:
‫اعلم أن لمسائل الفقهية أما إن تكون ثابتة بص ريح النص وهى الفصل الول واما إن تكون ثابتة بضرب اجتهاد ورأي‬
‫وكثير منها ما يبنيه المجتهد علي ماكان في عرف زمانه بحيث لوكان في زمان العرف الحادث لقال بخلف ما‬
‫ق اله أول وله ذا ق الوا ف ي ش روط الجته اد ان ه لب د في ه م ن معرف ة ع ادات الن اس فك ثير م ن الحك ام تختل ف‬
‫باختلف الزمان لت ير عرف أهله أو لحدوث ضرورة أو فساد أهل الزمان بحيث لوبقى الحكم علي ماكان عليه‬
‫أول للزم منه المشقة والضرر بالناس ولخالف قواعد الشريعة المبنية علي التخفيف والتيسير ودفع الضرر والفساد‬
It should be noted that juristic issues either stand proven by a categorical

injunction which is the first type, or stand proven by ijtihad and opinion [which is
the second type]. Most issues of the second category are based by the Mujtahids
upon the customs and traditions of a particular period in such a way that if they
would have been present in this age which has a certain custom and tradition, they
would have given a different opinion. Hence, about the conditions of ijtihad, they
also state the condition that it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the
habits and common practices of the people because with the change in times a lot
of the directives change. This may be due to a number of reasons. For example, a
change in the general custom, requirement of a situation or fear of disorder in the
general condition of the people in case a directive is continued in its original state it
might create difficulties for them or inflict a loss upon them. This would be against
the principles of the shari‘ahwhich are based upon facility, comfort, and
prevention of damage and disorder.[18]
Consider now the second question: what is the nature of diyat? In this matter, there are
generally two views. One group of scholars regards it as the monetary value of human life,
while another group considers it to be the monetary compensation of the financial loss
inflicted by the murderer upon the family of the murdered person.
In the opinion of this writer, both these views are incorrect. The first one is merely based
upon a misconception. In the pre-Islamic Arab society, cases of murder were usually
settled by ‫( ث ار‬thar: revenge), ‫( قص اص‬qisas) and diyat respectively. As is evident from the
order, ‫( ثار‬thar) was the foremost objective of the Arabs. They used to believe that the soul
of the deceased is transformed into a bird which flies away, and unless revenge is taken, it
wanders about in the wilderness crying out ‫( اسقوني اسقوني‬isquni! isquni: quench my thirst!
quench my thirst!). Some of them believed that only that slain person remains alive in his
grave whose death had been avenged, and if his murder is not avenged, his soul dies and
darkness descends upon his grave. Due to these beliefs, they always preferred ‫( ثار‬thar) and
accepted ‫( قص اص‬qisas) only when they could not help it, let alone diyat. Umm Shamlah
says:[19]
‫فياشمل شمر و اطلب القوم بالذى‬

j‫ ول عقل‬j‫أصبت ول تقبل قصاصا‬
Fa ya shamlu shammir watlubi al-qawma billadhi

Usibta wa la taqbal qisasaṇ wa la ‘aqla.
(Therefore, O Shamlah! rise and get ready to avenge the harm inflicted upon you
by your enemies and listen! Do not accept qisas or diyat at any cost.)
‘Abbas ibn Mirdas, while inciting ‘Āmir, a tribesman of the Khuda‘ah tribe to revenge
says:[20]
[18]Ibn ‘Ābidin,Rasa’il,1st ed. (Damascus: Al-Maktbah al-hashimiyyah, 1325 AH), 125.

[19]Al-Tabrizi, Sharh Diwan al-hamasah li Abi al-Tammam, vol. 1, 292.
[20]Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Sayyidah,. Al-Muhkam wa al-muhit al-a‘zam 1st ed., vol. 10 (Beirut: Dar al-
kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2000), 347.
‫ول تطمعن مايعلفونك انهم‬
‫أتوك علي قرباهم بالمثمل‬
Wa la tatma‘an ma ya‘lifunaka innahum

Atawka ‘ala qurbahumu bi al-muthammali
(And don’t even think about the diyat they are tempting you with, for, in spite of
having a blood relationship, they have brought a deadly poison for you.)
In this matter, the severity of their emotions, even after accepting Islam can be seen from
the following verses of Miswar ibn Ziyadah, when he was offered seven diyats upon the
murder of his father by the governor of Madinah, Sa‘id ibn al-‘Ās. He says: [21]
‫أبعد الذي بالنعف نعف كويكب‬

‫رهينة رمس ِي تراب وجندل‬
A ba‘ad alladhi bi al-na‘afi na‘afi kuwaykibiṇ

Rahinati ramsiṇ dhi turabiṇ wa jandali
(What! after the person who was buried at the foot of Mount Kuwaykab in a grave
of mud and stone.)
‫اِكر بالبقيا علي من أصابني‬

‫وبقياى اني جاهد غير مؤتل‬
Udhakkaru bi al-buqya ‘ala man asabani

Wa buqyaya anni jahiduṇ ghayru mu’tili
(I am being advised to show mercy upon a cruel person who has inflicted me with
this grief. The only mercy I can show is to take revenge at all costs.)
‫فان لم أنل ثأري من اليوم اوغد‬

‫بني عمنا فالدهر ِومتطول‬
Fa in lam anal tha’ri min al-yawmi aw ghadiṇ

Bani ‘ammina fa al-dahru dhu mutatawwali
(O you, the sons of my paternal uncle, it does not matter if, today or tomorrow, I
[21]Al-Tabrizi, Sharh Diwan al-hamasah li Abi al-Tammam, vol. 1, 83-84.
am not able to take revenge, for this world has a long life.)
‫فليد عني قومي ليوم كريهة‬

‫لئن لم اعجل ضربة أو اعجل‬
Fa la yad‘uni qawmi liyawmi karihatiṇ

la in lam u‘ajjil darbataṇ aw u‘ajjali
(If, without any hesitation, I do not attack my enemies or become a target of their
attack, my nation should never call me for any battle.)
‫انختم علينا كلكل الحرب مرة‬

‫فنحن منيخوها عليكم بكلكل‬
Anakhtamu ‘alayna kalkal al-harbi marrataṇ

Fa nahnu manikhuha ‘alaykum bikalkali
(You have placed the chest of war upon us; so listen! we have also decided that
unless we place it upon you, we would not remain at ease.)
‫يقول رجال ما أصيب لهم أب‬

‫ول من أخ اقبل علي المال تعقل‬
Yaqulu rijaluṇ ma usiba lahum abuṇ

Wa la min akhiṇ aqbil ‘ala al-mali tu‘qali
(Those people are offering me diyat and urging me to accept money, whose fathers
and brothers never fell prey to the sword of a killer.)
Hence, it was a result of these emotions that they considered the acceptance of diyat as
shameful, and regarded it to be equivalent to selling the blood of the murdered person.
Rabi‘ah ibn ‘Ubayd, a poet of the tribe Bani Nasr says:[22]
‫أِواب اني لم أهبك ولم أقم‬

‫للبيع عند تحضر الجلب‬
A dhuwabu inni lam ahabka wa lam aqum

Li al-bay‘i ‘inda tahadhdhuri al-ajlabi
[22]Al-Tabrizi, Sharh Diwan al-hamasah li Abi al-Tammam, vol. 1, 349.

(O Dhuwab! I have not forgiven your murder; nor in the midst of business in the
market of Ukaz am I selling your blood (ie, accepting your diyat).)
However, it is evident that such emotional utterances have got nothing to do with the
actual nature of diyat. They can only be regarded as sentimental statements over the loss of
dear ones, and one often comes across such instances in one’s life. People who have tried to
ascertain the nature of diyat from these utterances can only be regarded as those who are
devoid of any linguistic appreciation. They probably did not realize that human life or
human limbs are priceless. No mother, father, brother or son, at any rate, can ever be
willing to accept diyat on the pretext that the monetary worth of the deceased son, brother
or father is what is actually being received. Hence, if this opinion is accepted, the result,
obviously, would be that a society would never benefit from the expediency upon which
the law itself is based. On these grounds, this opinion, regrettably, stands rejected.
As far as those people are concerned who regard it to be a monetary compensation of the
inflicted economic loss, they must realize that the basic nature of a thing must exist in every
small or large part it constitutes. Even a cursory look at the law of diyat reveals that diyat is
not given solely in cases of murder, but in case of loss of a human organ or limb like a nose,
ear, eye and tooth as well. It is quite evident that the loss of such limbs does not result in
any economic loss for the affected person or family. After all, if a toe or a finger, or even a
tooth is lost, what financial damage is incurred? Apart from other reasons, this internal
contradiction in the premises of the view is enough to prove it a fallacy.
Since both the views about the nature of diyat are not correct, what then is the correct view
point? To answer this question, it is necessary to have recourse to ancient Arabic traditions
for a solution.
We find a lot of instances, in which the subject of diyat has been discussed in pre-Islamic
Arabic poetry. Episodes of homicide and murder were so rampant in the ancient Arab
society that the subjects of ‫( ثار‬thar), ‫( قصاص‬qisas) and ‫( ديت‬diyat) were often versified in
their poetical compositions. No doubt, they often used to challenge the sense of honour of
those who accepted diyat, and provoked them to revenge, but apart from these sentimental
utterances, we find many instances where a more serious treatment of the topic reveals very
clearly their own concepts about the actual nature of diyat.
A careful study shows that in such instances they used the words ‫( غرامة‬gharamah) or ‫م رم‬
(maghram) which literally means “penalty.” Just as in English, these words imply the
exaction of fine from an offender as a punishment for a crime, the word ‫( غرامة‬gharamah)
denotes this meaning in Arabic. It has been indicated before that the Arab poets used this
word in instances when they talked about the nature of diyat. To quote Zuhayr: [23]
[23]Al-Baghdadi, Khazanah al-adab vol. 3, 10.
‫ينجمها قوم لقوم غرامة‬
‫ولم يهريقوا بينهم مل محجم‬
Yunajjimuha qawmuṇ liqawmiṇ gharamataṇ

Wa lam yuhariqu baynahum mil’a mihjami
(In small lots those camels began to be given by one nation to the other, as a fine;
though the givers did not even shed a drop of blood among those who were
receiving it.)
This same concept about diyat continued to persist in later times as well. ‘Ujayr al-Saluli, a
poet of the Umayyad period has said:[24]
‫فالم‬
j ‫ ويرضيك‬j‫يسرك مظلوما‬
‫ويكفيك ما حملته عند م رم‬
Yasurruka mazlumaṇ wa yurdika zalimaṇ

Wa yakfika ma hammaltahu ‘inda maghrami
(If you are oppressed he makes you happy by taking revenge, and if you are the
oppressor, he pleases you by taking your side; and as a result of this oppression,
when you are paying a fine (diyat), whatever amount you burden him with, he
alone pays it.)
Hence, it is quite evident from this discussion that diyat is neither a monetary
compensation for an economic loss nor a monetary worth of human life. By nature, it is
‫( غرامة‬gharamah) ie, a fine or penalty imposed on the criminal in lieu of ‫( قصاص‬qisas) in case
of intentional murder and, indeed, in all cases of un-intentional murder.
Verdicts of God
If, after the truth is conclusively conveyed by messengers of God, they and their
[24]Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Bahar al-Jahiz, Al-Bayan wa al-tabyin (Beirut: Dar mus‘ab, n.d.), 121.
companions are able to acquire political authority in some place, it is the verdict of God
that there are only two situations which will be faced by their rejecters. If there are
polytheists among them, they shall be put to death and if there are people among them
who are monotheists to any extent, they shall be subjugated. It was in order to implement
this verdict that the Almighty directed Muslims to wage war and to carry out mass killings
of the polytheists of Arabia in Surahs Baqarah, Anfal and Tawbah. This directive has
nothing to do with the shari‘ah and its injunctions. In my book, Mizan, I have written:
It is evident from these details that all these armed campaigns and offensives were
not merely qital(war), they were in reality a divine punishment. This punishment,
which is meted out to those to whom the truth is communicated to such an extent
that they are left with no excuse to deny it, is an established practice of God. As a
divine scheme, it descended first upon the Idolaters and the People of the Book of
Arabia and then to certain other nations outside it. Consequently, it is absolutely
certain that fighting those who have deliberately rejected the truth and forcing the
vanquished to lead a life of subjugation by imposing jizyah on them is no longer
allowed. Till the Day of Judgement, neither can any one attack any nation of the
world for this purpose, nor does he have the authority to subjugate the vanquished
by imposing jizyah on them. For Muslims, the only ground for war is injustice and
oppression. This is the sole reason for warfare which they can now justify. They
cannot wage war in the name of religion on any other ground.[1]
About the progeny of Abraham (sws) also, the verdict of God is that if they adhere to the
truth andpresent it to other peoples of this world with full certainty and while maintaining
full integrity of its contents, the Almighty will grant them dominance over their addressees
who reject them. However, if the progeny of Abraham (sws) do not adhere to the truth,
then the Almighty will mete out the punishment of humiliation and subjugation to them
through these very addressees. This promise is both to the Israelites and the Ishmaelites.
The Qur’an (22:78) has specifically pointed out that the Ishmaelites were chosen to bear
witness to religion in the same way that the Israelites were chosen for this task before them.
So, the promises which are mentioned in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy, 28:1-25) for
the Israelites, and the Qur’an has referred to them at various places, (eg. 2:40; 17:8), will be
understood to also exist for the Ishmaelites. However, this does not mean that the
Ishmaelites can take the initiative with regard to themselves and attack various nations of
the world. They have been given this right neither in the Old Testament, nor in the
Qur’an. The promise of dominance manifests itself at the behest of God and it is brought
about by God Himself through various circumstances that He Himself creates. The only
obligation of the Ishmaelites is to follow all the directives of God, and to discharge, as
much as they can, the responsibility of bearing witness to religion with sincerity and
honesty – the responsibility for which God has chosen them.
[1] Ghamidi, Mizan, 599.

One corollary of this verdict is that the Almighty has specifically allocated the area of
Palestine and its surrounding land of Kanan to the Israelites and the area of the Arabian
peninsula to the Ishmaelites so that all the nations of the world are able to observe God’s
close link with these nations and receive guidance. Thus, for this very reason, He directed
the Israelites to expel the inhabitants of this area of their inheritance, leave no polytheist or
disbeliever alive in that area and leave no territory adjacent to this area in the political
control of the polytheists or disbelievers except if they agreed to live in subservience by
paying tribute. If these nations did not agree to this, then the Israelites were directed to
execute their men and enslave their women and children. In the twentieth chapter of the
book of Deuteronomy, this directive is mentioned in full detail. It is on the basis of this
directive that the Prophet Solomon (sws) forced the queen of Sheba to submit to his rule.
After the conquest of Makkah, all contracts with the Idolaters of the Arabian peninsula
were revoked on its basis as well. The injunction of ‫( ل يجتمع دينان في جزيرة العرب‬two religions
cannot exist together in the land of Arabia) [2] should also be seen in the light of this
directive. Consequently, on this very basis, in the land of Arabia, neither can a place of
worship be built to worship someone other than God nor can a polytheist or a disbeliever
be allowed to live. All these directives are related to this centre of monotheism – the land
of Arabia and do not relate to any other part of the world.
These are the verdicts of God which are mentioned very clearly in divine scriptures. The
Torah also elucidates them with all their details and so does the Qur’an. Muslims are
unfortunate that in recent times some of their celebrated thinkers have been unable to
understand the true nature of these verdicts. The political interpretation of Islam has been
born from the womb of these verdicts. It is under the influence of this interpretation that a
number of militant and jihadi movements have sprung up all over the globe and as a result
the entire Muslim ummah is suffering its consequences. In order to redress this state of
affairs, it is essential that an awareness be created about these verdicts at the global level and
people be educated about them so that no extremist is left with a possibility of creating
nuisance by wrongly generalizing the scope of these verdicts.
The Lawful and the Unlawful

The Arabic word zinat refers to an object which a person uses to embellish something to
[2] Malik ibn Anas, Mu’atta’, vol. 2, 892, (no. 1584).

satisfy his aesthetic taste. Thus, dress and jewellery are the zinat of the body; curtains, sofas,
carpets, rugs, sculptures, portraits and paintings are the zinat of the house; orchards,
gardens and buildings and other similar things are the zinat of the city; music is the zinat of
the voice and poetry is the zinat of words. The sufistic interpretation of religion and
sufistic religions consider these things to be an optical illusion, and generally regard them
to be prohibited, undesirable, worthy of being forsaken and impediments to spiritual
advancement. However, the Qur’an does not subscribe to this view. It refutes all these
religions, and vehemently says that all these things are lawful; in fact, it chidingly inquires
of the person who dares regard as unlawful what God has created for man:
(7:32 ‫ات بم لن ال ّراز بق‬

‫قَل من ح َرم بزينلةل اللَ به الَتبي أل اخرج لب بعب باد بت والطَيّب ب‬
‫لل ل ل ل‬ ‫ا لا ل ل‬
Tell [them]: “Who has forbidden you the zinat which the Almighty has created
for His servants, and who has forbidden the wholesome among the edibles?” (7:32)
Not only this, the Qur’an goes on to declare that the wholesome among edibles, and all
these objects of zinat have been created in this world solely for the believers, and as such
only belong to them. The rejecters of God receive these through them as a by-product and
because of the period of trial which they have to endure in this world. Thus, in the
Hereafter, they shall solely be reserved for the believers; the rejecters will have no share in
them; they shall be deprived of them forever:
(7:32 ‫ات لبلق اوٍم يل اعل َمو لن‬

‫صل االي ب‬ ‫ يل اولم ال باقيل لام بة لك لذلب ل‬j‫صة‬
‫ك نَ لف ّ َ ل‬
‫ب‬ ‫قَل بهي لبلَ بذين ُمنَوا فبي ال ب‬
‫احيلاة الدننا يلا لخال ل‬
‫ل‬ ‫ل ل‬ ‫ا ل‬
Tell [them]: “They are for the believers in this world [though shared by others];
but on the Day of Judgement, they shall be theirs alone.” Thus do We explain Our
revelations for those who want to know. (7:32)
This is an amazing declaration of the Qur’an. Contrary to general religious concepts and
teachings of sufistic religions, it presents a completely different aspect of religious life.
Instead of urging people to forego the pleasures of this world in order to attain the
nearness of God and union with Him, it urges the believers to abstain from being
spendthrifts but to benefit without any hesitation from all the objects of zinat within the
limits prescribed by God and to show gratitude on His favours.
‫ب‬ ‫ُد لم َخ َذوا بزينلتل َك ام بع ان لد َك ّل لم اس بج ٍد لوَكلَوا لوا اش لربَوا لولل تَ اس برفَوا إبنَهَ لل يَ بح ن‬
‫ب ال َام اس برف ل‬
(7:31 ‫ين‬ ‫يلابلنبي ل‬
Children of Adam! Embellish yourselves with zinat whenever you attend your
mosques and eat and drink, but avoid excess. He does not love those who commit
excesses. (7:31)
After this, the question arises: what exactly are the things regarded prohibited or unlawful
by the shari‘ah? The Qur’an has answered this question in the succeeding verses of Suah
A‘raf quoted above: besides some edibles, only five things are unlawful: lewd acts,
usurping the rights of others, wrongful oppression, polytheism and religious innovations.
Only these things are unlawful and prohibited in the shari‘ah of God. Nothing else is
unlawful in it. This verse, in fact, is a divine declaration on what is unlawful; thus, no one
has the right to declare anything as unlawful besides these. Consequently, now something
can only be regarded as unlawful if it contains traces of any of the unlawful things
mentioned above. Narratives of the Prophet (sws) and of the Companions (rta), historical
reports and the statements of previous scriptures will be understood in the light of this
verdict of the Qur’an. Anything which deviates from it or is against it shall not be
accepted. The Qur’anic words are:
‫ا لوأل ان‬j‫لم يَنل ّز ال ب به َس الطلان‬ ‫ب ب‬ ‫ش لما فل له لر بم ان لها لولما بلطل لن لو اب‬

‫الثا لم لوالابل ا لي ب لاي بر ال ل‬
‫اح ّق لوأل ان تَ اش برَكوا اللَه لما ل ا‬
‫ب‬
‫قَ ال إبنَ لما لح َرلم لربّ لي الا لف لواح ل‬
(7:33 ‫تل َقولَوا لع لى اللَ به لما لل تل اع ل َمو لن‬
Tell [them]: “My Lord has only forbidden all lewd acts, whether overt or
disguised, and usurping the rights of others and wrongful oppression and that you
worship with Him what He did not sanction and that you tell of God what you
know not.” (7:33)
Forbidding Wrong
One of the necessary requirements of faith is that people be exhorted to do good and to
abstain from wrong. Both the exhortation and admonition should be done with sagacity
and benevolence in the manner of suggestion and advice. The righteousness or deviation
of people is a matter that is in God’s hands. He is aware of those who have deviated from
His path as well as of those who will be guided. Therefore, in calling people to truth and
justice, no one should play the keeper of morals or decree Heaven or Hell for any of his or
her addressees. It is obvious from the Qur’an that, in his role of calling people to the truth,
none of the messengers of God was allowed to go beyond effective and clear
communication or exhortation and reminding. God Almighty says:
(22-21 :88 ‫ت لع ل اي به ام ب َم لس اي بط ٍر‬ ‫إبنَ لما ألنا ل‬

‫ت َم لذ ّك ٌر ل ا‬
‫لس ل‬
Your task is to admonish; you are not responsible for their supervision. (88:21-22)
However, matters are different in the domain of authority. For example, on attaining
maturity, a man may become a husband to a wife and, as a consequence of this
relationship, a father to his children. Nature and religion entail that a certain degree of
authority be granted to him in both these roles. Similar is the role of institutions and
governments. When they are formed, their heads are also granted a certain degree of
authority. It is regarding the ambit of this authority that the Prophet (sws) is reported to
have said:
‫اليم ب‬
‫ان‬ ‫ف اب ل‬ ‫را فل لايَ ليّ ارتَ بيدت فلبِ ان لم يل استل بط اع فلبلب لسانببه فلبِ ان لم يل استل بط اع فلب لق الب به لو لِلب ل‬j ‫من لرألى بم ان َك ام َم ان لك‬
‫ك أل ا‬
َ ‫ض لع‬
He amongst you who sees a wrong should redress it by hand; if he does not find in
himself the strength to do it, then by his tongue; and, if even that is not possible,
he should despise the wrong in his heart -- and this is the lowest level of faith.[1]
The Arabic word used here for “wrong” is munkar. It does not refer to sins of purely
religious nature; instead, it refers to those wrongs that all humankind, regardless of religion
or creed, regards as evil. Theft, perjury, dishonesty, misappropriation, embezzlement,
fraud, adulteration, violation of others’ rights, indecency, causing injury to life or damage
to property or honour, and other violations of these kinds fall within the category of
munkar. This statement attributed to the Prophet (sws) also relates to these wrongs. It is
an offshoot of the Qur’anic directive of amr bi’l-ma‘ruf (commanding right) and nahi ‘an
al-munkar (forbidding wrong). The Prophet (sws) has warned that, if, in the realm of one’s
authority, one does not even regard these wrongs as evil, one falls below the lowest level of
faith.
The words in lam yastati‘ also need to be properly understood. They do not refer to the
kind of ability that entails responsibility. The reason is that in the absence of this kind of

ability, a person does not remain accountable and therefore does not fall in the levels of
faith. In this reported statement, the words connote “strength” and “courage” that may
increase or decrease with the level of one’s faith. It is therefore only in the sphere of one's
authority that one might be considered as having fallen to lower levels of faith if one does
not remedy a wrong by hand. The reason for this difference is that, in this latter case, the
person does not make the required endeavour to eradicate evil despite having the right and
the authority to do so. The moral imperative here does not at all mean that, for achieving a
higher level of faith, people have the right to gather their followers on their own and go
out as vigilantes to end wrong. Such steps, if taken, translate into the worst kind of
disorder, which has no sanction at all in religion. All directives in religion are given in
relation to one’s ability and authority. ‫ف اللَهَ نل افسا‬
َ ّ‫[( إبَل َو اس لع لها ل يَ لكل‬in His directives,] God does
not burden any soul with what is beyond it, (2:286)) is an unequivocal principle that is
kept in consideration in all the directives of religion and the divine law. It is this principle
that should be kept in mind to understand the Prophet’s statement regarding the
prohibition of wrong.
Transfer of Reward to the Dead

As a principle, the Almighty has made it clear in the Qur’an that each person is responsible
for his deeds. No one else can be held accountable for what a person does; nor can a person
himself take responsibility of some other person’s deeds. Similarly, the Qur’an has also
made it clear that on the Day of Judgement whatever a person will earn will be as a result of
his own deeds:
:53 ‫اء اال الوفل ى‬ ‫أَلل تل بزر وا بزرةٌ بوازر أَ اخ رى ك وأل ان ل الي س لب ابلناس ب‬
‫ان إبَل لم ا لس لعى ك لوأل َن لس اعيلهَ لس او ل‬
‫اج لز ل‬
‫ف يَ لرى ك ثَ َم يَ اج لزاتَ ال ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫َل ل ل ل ل‬
(41-38
That no soul shall bear another’s burden and that [in the Hereafter] a man shall
only receive that which he strove [for in this world] and that what he has earned
shall soon be shown to him; he shall then be fully rewarded. (53:38-41)
It is also is a fact that it is not the form of a person’s deeds which reaches the Almighty and
makes that person eligible to reward; on the contrary, it is the piety of the heart which
makes him eligible to this reward. This piety obviously is not something transferable. It
resides in the heart of a person. It cannot be acquired from there and transferred to some
other place so that a person is able to benefit from its blessings. Animal sacrifice is a great
worship ritual. While sacrificing an animal, we offer it to God by placing it in the direction
of the Baytullah and by turning our own selves in its direction with the sentiment that it is
in fact we who are offering ourselves to God. The Qur’an states:
(37:22 ‫لك ان يلنلالَهَ التَ اق لوى بم ان َك ام‬

‫ال اللَهل لَحومها ولل بدما َؤها ول ب‬
‫َ َل ل ل ل ل‬ ‫لن يلنل ل‬
‫لا‬
The flesh and blood [of] these [sacrificed animals] does not reach God; it is only
your piety that reaches Him. (22:37)
If both these verses of the Qur’an are considered, then only one option remains: viz a viz a
person benefiting or being penalized for a good or evil deed done by someone else: his
intention or efforts directly or indirectly affect the other person’s good or evil deeds. This
can have many forms. For example, he instructed and educated someone in goodness and
piety or set a practical example of some virtuous act or played a role in providing resources
for the virtuous deed. On this very basis, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
‫صالب ٍحيل اد َعو له‬ ٍ ‫ب‬ ‫ٍ ٍ ب‬ ٍ

‫ص لدقلة لجا بريلة أو عل ٍام يَ انتل لف َع به أو لوللد ل‬ ‫ات اب‬
‫النا لسا َن انا لقطل لع عنه لع لملَهَ إل من ثلللثلة إل من ل‬ ‫إِا لم ل‬
When a person dies his deeds too end with his death. However, three things are an
exception to this: sadaqah-i jariyah, knowledge which is beneficial and pious
children who pray for their parents.[1]
The mention of children in this narrative should not be a cause for surprise. The fact is

that children are nothing but the effort of their parents. This is because if the parents are
true believers, then they will be the first ones to teach and instruct their children about
praying to God, keeping fasts, offering the hajj, paying zakah as well as other virtuous
deeds. Thus if because of some reason they are unable to do a virtuous deed, then there is
no harm if their children complete their good intention about a virtuous deed by
practically carrying it out. In fact, it is evident from various sayings of the Prophet
Muhammad (sws) that it is in accordance with obedience and decency that children should
do so. By having an intention to do such a virtuous deed the parents will also be rewarded
for its practical completion by their children. It is reported that a lady from the tribe of
Kath‘am asked: “O Messenger of God! The hajj is obligatory upon my father but he is so
old that he cannot even sit on an animal of conveyance; can I offer the hajj for him.” The
Prophet (sws) replied: “Yes.”[2] Similarly, a lady from the tribe of Juhaynah inquired from
the Prophet (sws): “My mother had vowed to offer the hajj; now she has died; can I offer it
for her.” He replied: “You should certainly offer it; would you not have paid back a loan
she had borrowed? This is a loan taken from God; so pay it back and the obligation to pay
back the loan to God is more [than any other].”[3]
In the life of a person, this status of the parents can also be held by some other individual.
For example, his teacher or some elderly person. Thus such individuals too must be
included in the sphere of application of this issue. All narratives on this topic must be
interpreted in the light of this principle. Without its existence, if a person does a deed for
someone, then he alone will receive its reward because it is he who did it. It is reported
about the Prophet (sws) that a lady raised her child towards him and said: “Can he also
offer the hajj?” The Prophet (sws) replied: “Yes, but the reward of this hajj shall go to
you.”[4] What at best can be inferred from this narrative of the Prophet (sws) is that even if
there is no possibility of transferring the reward of a virtuous deed to the individual for
whom it is done, there is no harm in doing such a deed; its reward shall be reaped by its
doer at all cost. However, this does not mean that this saying in any way provides a basis to
allow gatherings which are so rampant among the Muslims today by the name of isal-i
thawab (transfer of reward to the dead). All such gatherings indeed come under the label
of religious innovation (bid‘ah). No basis can be found for them in the Qur’an and
Sunnah.
However, this much should remain clear in this issue that the style adopted in (39:53) ‫س‬ ‫ل الي ل‬
‫ لب ابلناس ب‬is meant to negate entitlement to reward and the principle stated in it relates
‫ان إبَل لما لس لعى‬ ‫ل‬
to the occasion when the decision of Paradise or Hell is to be made for a person. This
[4] Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 2, 974, (no. 1336). It is this principle which the Prophet (sws) explained
regarding doing some virtuous deed on behalf of someone viz. the reward is for the person who does
that particular deed. All narratives which discuss this subject should be understood in the light of this
principle.
principle does not relate to the situation in which a person has already become entitled to
Paradise on the basis of his faith and deeds. In such cases, a person can receive many
favours and gifts of God. Thus the Qur’an has specified that if children become worthy of
the lowest level of Paradise because of the extent of their faith, then the Almighty in order
to complete His favour on their parents will increase the level of the children and unite
them with their parents residing at a higher level. The Qur’an states:
(21:52 ‫اه ام بم ان لع لملب به ام بم ان لش اي ٍء‬

َ ‫اح اقنلا ب به ام َِ ّريَتل َه ام لولما ألل الت نل‬ ٍ ِ‫والَ بذين ُمنَوا واتَ ب ع ات َهم َِ ّريَتَ َهم بب‬
‫يمان ألل ل‬
‫ا ل‬ ‫ل ل ل ل لل ا‬
And those who had accepted faith, and their children had followed them in their
faith, We shall unite their children with them [with the status they are in] and not
even slightly diminish their deeds. (52:21)
It emanates from this verse that same should be the case when parents reside at a lower
level in Paradise. The reason for this is that the affection which is becoming the cause for
lifting the children to the level of parents is present in this case as well.
Compulsive Knowledge
Knowledge is categorised into badihi (self-evident) and nazari (acquired).[1] Badihi is said
[1] Badihi and nazari are also referred to as immediate and mediate knowledge, respectively (See
to be spontaneously acquired without thought and deliberation, whereas nazari is
considered to be derived, through thought and deliberation, from badihi. As a result of
this categorisation, badihi stands as fundamental and every other form of knowledge its
corollary. Philosophy began with discussion and analysis of the external world.
Afterwards, when the reality of the sensory perception came to the forefront of
philosophical discussion and badihi was regarded as fundamental, it was understood to be
that knowledge which no one disagrees with. But as man has a tendency to disagree with
anything, this tendency finally took over, and doubts and speculations started to emerge.
Now the situation is that (out of the four major schools of sceptics), [2] one school insists
that we only know what is perceptible to us, and that is foundational, since all thoughts
and ideas originate from what we perceive through our senses. The brain is a tabula rasa,
i.e., a clean slate with nothing registered in there prior to our sensory perceptions. The
second school claims that knowledge is a function of the self and, except our conscious self,
we do not certainly know of anything else that exists. The third school claims that nothing
is certain except for the perceptible effects. The fourth school has declared that both the
sensory data and thought cannot be trusted; therefore, nothing in this world can be
referred to as absolute and certain.
What is the outcome of these schools? The first school has negated the intellect, the soul
within man, God, and the resurrection; the second does not accept the existence of the
external world; the third disagrees with both of them and does not recognize anything
except for ‘ilm-e-mahd (sheer knowledge),[3] whereas, the fourth completely denies
knowledge and certainty and is not ready to accept any of the aforesaid entities. When
Descartes (d. 1650) professed: “I think; therefore, I exist” he, after Socrates and Aristotle,
once again attempted to free knowledge and philosophy from such scepticism. [4] However,
in the post-modernist era, the same “sophist” mind-set wants to prove its point through
dissolution of language. It claims that no symbol or word (signifier) of a language defines
the meaning of any particular entity (signified), since no particular entity has any absolute
existence. The meaning of each word is determined on the basis of other words present
within a sentence. If you add or subtract one word, the meaning of the whole sentence
would alter. Thus, meaning is neither in words nor sentences; it does not exist. No word in
Aristotelian logic). – Junaid Hassan (J. H.)

[2] All parenthetical additions are mine. – J. H.
[3] ‘Ilm-e mahd implies that, though, it is a fact that something is in our knowledge but what it is, we do
not know; we have no means to analyze it. It is just a state of knowledge that we find ourselves in.
Neither do we know who the perceiver is, nor do we know what it is that is being perceived, nor do we
know of anything (if at all) in the external world. (Information in this footnote was provided by the
author in a personal phone conversation, Apr. 14, 2012).
[4] Cogito ergo sum. This attempt of Descartes, like that of his predecessors, could not be decisive because
he, too, did not base his argument on the foundation on which badihi concepts stand within the
human nature. Thus, Jacques Derrida (d. 2004), first and foremost, criticizes this very tradition based
on the metaphysical status of existence and insists that even “my own self” has no reality because it
also has no absolute meaning.
a sentence carries meaning completely on its own; therefore, it defers the meaning to some
other word or words of the sentence. Thus using a collection of words, meanings indicate
their direction; context of a passage continuously keeps changing them; they can never be
certain and final. Therefore, the values associated with words are also meaningless; they too
cannot be absolute.[5] This is the account of those who tried to pursue truth without divine
guidance. Iqbal (d. 1938) was not wrong when he remarked:
‫ہے دانش برہان حیت ک فراوان‬

[6]
In contrast to this, the Qur’an places its argumentation and reasoning on that fitri
(natural) knowledge which is revealed within the human mind. All human knowledge and
action, thought and reasoning is, in fact, based on fitri knowledge. No doubt, what catches
the eye in the first place is badihi (self-evident) knowledge; therefore, on its basis man starts
his intellectual quest. He does not realize that it is, in fact, his fitri knowledge that leads
him to badihi concepts and further to higher ideas and theories. If fitri knowledge were
not there, neither badihi nor thought and reason would be possible. This is because what
we receive from the external world are merely subjects. We do not receive any verdict
(predicate or copula) associated with them from the external world; the verdicts to be
associated are already present within our minds. [7] It is the mind that passes verdicts on
subjects and continuously transforms them into new subjects to pass new verdicts on
them.[8] This (fitri knowledge innate within the mind) manifests as human relish and
perception, where the relish is the source of action and the perception the source of
knowledge. It is this knowledge which is the source of discrimination we make between the
self and its attributes, possessor and possession, action and reaction, good and bad, wisdom
and foolishness, and personality and its disorders. On the basis of the effects that reach our
[5] Proponents of this view do not realize that this argument of theirs itself manifests their belief in the
soundness of reason and intellect. Negation of a belief cannot be accomplished but by another higher
belief; this is man’s compulsion. Thus, the result of every attempt of negation (of one concept) is
affirmation (of another concept), but man’s tragedy is that he ignores facts in the heat of emotions.
Individual freedom and individualism, for which these people strive hard, is also a value, so insisting
on negating all values eventually leads to nothing but to the affirmation of yet another value. The
situation is thus: ‫( نہ جاے ماندن نہ پاے رفت‬neither a place to stay, nor a foot to go).
[6] Discursive reasoning is an ocean of confusion.
[7] Appreciation of shapes (square, rectangle, or triangle) and colours, fragrance, music, or taste (sour,
sweet, or bitter) etc. are already present within our minds as jadhri (foundational) knowledge.
Whenever we encounter, for example, an apple in the external world, our mind applies its
foundational (inherent) conception of colour and shape on it, which enables us to recognize the apple
as a round, colourful object – a manifestation of foundational knowledge, which we refer to as fitri
(natural) knowledge. (Information in this footnote is based on a telephonic conversation with the
author, Apr. 14, 2012).
[8] For example, our mind may pass the following verdict on crows: Crows are black, where “crows” are a
subject, “are” a copula, and “black” is a predicate. After this, it may take “black” as a subject and pass a
new verdict on it, such as: Black is a colour. – J. H.
mind through our senses, the very knowledge enables us to argue for the effectors – this is
what gives us conviction in the existence of the external world. As long as one is a human
being, one cannot deny the conclusions and verdicts of fitri knowledge, for it reigns over
the human mind. Therefore, submission to the verdicts of this knowledge is not optional
but man is as bound to accept them as he is to accept his instincts. You may ask when man
can deny anything, why can he not deny fitri knowledge? Of course, he can do so in words
but as soon as he utters this denial, his actions and state of affairs negate him. Thus, it
becomes evident on every humble man that this denial is obviously stubbornness. This is
why Imam Hamid al-Din Farahi (d. 1930) referred to fitri knowledge as idtarari
(compulsive) and rightly claimed that the human mind possesses a place which is divinely
guided – the place that should be called the centre. This centre yields the knowledge that
we would call fitri. After this come badihi (self-evident) and nazari (acquired). Therefore,
knowledge should not only be classified into these two but into jadhri (foundational),[9]
fitri (natural), badihi and then nazari, respectively, as this is what the facts demand. Let us
proceed in the light of the above discussion.
The Qur’an (See 7:172–174) tells that it is within the nature of creatures to acknowledge
their Creator; their being is such that it obligates a creator. If we need to affirm the
existence of our Creator, we need not to indulge in any logical argument about it but
simply mention it and, thus, remind each other. Therefore, it is a fact that no (cognizant)
creature denies its Creator; instead, when reminded, it approaches Him with the similar
zeal with which a famished approaches food. The Qur’an informs that when God asked
mankind if He is not their Lord, all unequivocally replied that indeed He is. Nonetheless,
we know that in this worldly life, man sometimes denies. This is merely haughtiness
because the moment he is denying God, within his scope of knowledge, at the same time
he is still looking for an actor for every action, a planner for every plan, a character for every
characteristic, an agent for every outcome, and a knowledgeable and wise organizer for
every organization.[10] His entire knowledge is the account of this contradiction. This is
how the actions of such a person defy him and completely unveils the haughtiness behind
his denial of God.
Similar is the case of the sense of good and evil. The Qur’an (91:7–8) states that the
distinction between good and evil and the acknowledgement of good as good and evil as
[9] Fitri knowledge is placed somewhere in the mind. Its sheer presence, before its manifestation, is
referred to as jadhri knowledge. (Information in this footnote was provided by the author in a
personal phone conversation, Apr. 14, 2012).
[10]Here one may argue that this is not always the case. For example, Atheist Darwinists do not look for a
knowledgeable and wise organizer for the organization present within a living cell; rather they
attribute that to “blind, random, purposeless, and unguided” processes (mutation and natural
selection) working over long periods of time. Actually, this is the very contradiction that the author
intends to highlight here. Nowhere else in their lives would they accept to recognize an organized
system without an organizer – such recognitions only show up when their faith in naturalism compels
them to defy the supernatural. – J. H.
evil are revealed within man at the time of his creation. Nonetheless, man sometimes
denies but this denial is, again, nothing but haughtiness. That is because, while denying, if
man himself becomes a victim of evil, he without any hesitation refers to evil as evil and
launches a strong protest against it. Not only that but if he receives something good, he
shows respect and gratitude for it. Furthermore, whenever he forms a society, he certainly
sets up a system of justice within it. His laws, courts, and international institutions, all bear
witness to his inner sense of good and evil.
Similar is the case of meanings that words of a language communicate. The Qur’an claims
that it is sent down as a criterion to distinguish between right and wrong (17:42) and as a
judge to settle disputes (in religious matters) within mankind (5:48). It goes on to say that
it has communicated its message with so much of certainty that, on its basis, mankind will
be held answerable on the Day of Judgement, and people will either be destined to
Paradise or Hell (See, for example, 26:193–195 and 39:28). This claim of the Qur’an is
established on the innate faith that man has always had on the certainty and accuracy of his
lingual ability and what he communicates through it. Thus, scholars of Hadith and Islamic
jurisprudence state the following as an established principle: ‫م ا ثب ت بالکت اب قطع ی م وجب للعل م‬
‫( والعمل‬what is mentioned in the Qur’an is definitive; it necessitates the beliefs and deeds).
Nonetheless, the Kalamists – inspired by the labyrinths of philosophy – do not accept this
principle. They insist that the meanings that words of a language communicate are
speculative; therefore, instead of the words of the Qur’an, rational arguments are the
criterion for distinguishing right from wrong.[11] If critically analyzed, this also turns out to
be outright haughtiness because the moment they are claiming this, precisely at the same
time they are communicating their viewpoint in words without showing any hesitation
whatsoever that their viewpoint will not reach their audience with full certainty. More so,
while listening to others and reading their texts, they also never show any hesitation. When
arguing and debating, their each and every word bears witness to their faith in words. This
is the testimony of the human soul against itself; no other testimony could be greater than
this. The Qur’an states:
‫ب ب‬
‫ َوللو اللا ٰقی مع ب‬،ٌ‫صي رة‬ ‫ب‬
(15-14 :75 ‫اِيا لرت‬ ‫لل‬ ‫بل بل االنا لسا َن لع ٰلی نل افسه بل ا ل ا‬
Man himself is a witness against his own soul, no matter how many lame-excuses
he may invent.’ (75:14–15)
Ibn Qayyim (d. 1350 AH) writes:
‫ لن العل م بم رادت موقوف علی العلم بانتف اء عشرة اشياء فهو‬،‫من ادعی انه ل طريق لنا الی اليقين بم راد المتکل م‬
[11]Post-modernist thinkers are striving to snatch this pillar of faith as well from man. After this, nothing
would remain in man’s hands except meaninglessness and extreme faithlessness. How far its painful
consequences would reach, no one can estimate.
،‫ وبطلت فائدة التخاطب‬،‫ملبوس عليه ملبس علی الناس؛ فان هذا لوصح لم يحصل لحد العلم بکلم المتکلم قط‬
‫وه ذا باطل‬
ٰ ،‫ ولما علم غرض هذا المصنف من تصنيفه‬،j‫ بل اسوأ حال‬،‫ وصار الناس کالبهائم‬،‫وانتفت خاصية النسان‬
(١٠٩ /٣ ‫وجها مذکورة فی غير هذا الموضعَ اعلم الموقعين‬
j ‫ وبطلنه من اکثر من ثلثين‬،‫بضرورة الحس والعقل‬
Those who claim that we have no means to acquire the message of a speaker with
full certainty – arguing for this on the basis that the knowledge of what he intends
to say is only possible if we first deny ten facts [12] – are not only muddled
themselves but want to muddle others too. If what they claim were true, then the
information within the speech of a speaker could never be acquired; talking would
have been meaningless; man would have lost his distinctive asset that makes him a
human being, and people would have become worse than animals. Even what this
writer intends to achieve from this writing could not be identified. Therefore,
intellect and sense both suggest that this claim is utterly wrong. There are more
than thirty reasons why it is wrong, which I have listed elsewhere.[13]
(Translated by Junaid Hassan)
[12]That is the denial of homonymy of words, figurative use of words, alteration (evolution) in the
meaning of a word over time, specific and general connotations of words (according to the “universe
of discourse” of the speaker), and such use of a word that makes the text contradictory to some logical
premise (and, hence, forces the reader to take the word in some other or figurative meaning to avoid
the contradiction) etc. (According to the sceptics, each of these contributes to muddle the meaning of
what is said. – J. H.) For details, see ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Jurjani, Sharh al-Mawaqif, 1st ed., vol. 2
(Cairo:1325 AH), 51.
[13]Ibn Qayyim, I‘lam al-muwaqqi‘in, vol. 3, 109.

Selected Essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selected Essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selected Essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selected Essays of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

This religion has reached us through two ways:

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)

(Translated by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)

[1] English title: Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

2. Explanation of independent directives and teachings whether these directives and

3. An example of practically following these directives and teachings.

[1] English title: Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

[2] Ghamidi, Mizan, 57-61.

In order to understand any research being conducted on Hadith, it is essential to

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

Consequently, it is a reality that in current times many ijtihads pertaining to political,

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

Our jurists have generally regarded the consensus of the Muslims to be an

[1] Wahid al-Din Khan, Masadir-i shari‘ah Al-Risalah 7 (2011): 5.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

[3] Tirmidhi, Sunan, vol. 4, 466, (no. 2167).

[1] The Qur’an, 62:2.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

[5] The Qur’an, 4:135; 5:8.

(You are in a state of humiliation because of leaving aside the Qur’an.)

Thirdly, Muslims have shown an utter indifference to their moral instruction. It is as a

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

In my opinion, both these arguments need to be reconsidered.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

These can be explained as follows:

5. Madrassas should be acknowledged as institutes of higher educations like institutions of

(Translated by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

Third, she can be punished physically.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

Thirdly, such a situation should be considered analogous to wiping of socks (mash). So if

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

[1] Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih.vol. 2, 2036, (no. 2643).

The Almighty has said:

‫ واِا اراد ال خلق شيئ لم يمنعه شيي‬،‫مامن کل الماء يکون الولد‬

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

[2] Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih.vol. 4, 1740, (no. 2219).

(Guarding the Private Parts)

‫اء لِلب ل‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب ب‬

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

Go to them from where God has enjoined you, (2:222)).

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

[2] Ibid., vol. 1, 527.

‫ك لم ا اللَ هَ َم اب بد بيه لوتل اخ لش ى‬ ‫ك لواتَ بق اللَهل لوتَ اخ بفي فبي نل اف بس ل‬

‫ب‬ ‫النَب ني ألوللى بالام اؤبمنب ب‬

‫ب ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ولل أل ان تل ان بكحوا أل ازو ب ب ب‬

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

‫هل تصلح له انما هي ابنة اخيه‬

(Is she allowed to him? She is the daughter of his brother!)[1]

[1] Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol, 6, 210, (no. 25810).