The Fifth Study
Fighting (Al-Qitaal) in defence of the public sanctities (Al-Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah) within the Islamic society
Introduction: About the definition of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) and the general Shar’iy Daleel in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of defending them.
In the previous section we spoke about fighting in defence of the private sanctities; An-Nafs (self), Al-‘Ird (honour) and Al-Maal (property), or what has been called ‘Daf’u As-Siyaal’ i.e. repelling the aggression or assault.
There is another type or form of As-Siyaal (aggression or assault) which we will discuss now. That is the Siyaal (aggression or assault) upon the society, represented in an assault undertaken against the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (the public sanctities). These public sanctities have been named by the Usooliyeen (scholars of Usool) as being the Huqooq (rights) of Allah whilst modern Islamic authors have referred to them as being the rights of the society. That is because they have been legislated for the protection of the society and for the sake of the general common or joint well-being (1).
The aggression here is manifested in the violation of those sanctities and the perpetration of Munkaraat in a brazen manner. It is where we would find ourselves in a situation of neglected obligations, widespread Muharramaat (prohibited acts) and suspended Ahkaam Shar’iyah.
Just as Islam has legislated defence by way of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the people of As-Siyaal aggressing against or assaulting the private sanctities to protect them, Islam has also legislated defence via Al-Qitaal against the people who assault and aggress against the public sanctities to protect them. This latter form of defence is what the Fuqahaa have referred to in relation to the use of the hand or weapon to remove the Munkaraat in accordance to the speech of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَانِ
Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar, then he must change it by his hand. If he cannot then he must do so by his tongue. If he cannot do that, then it must be by his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan (2).
[(1) Refer to ‘Al-Manaahij Al-Usooliyah’, Ad-Duraini: 239, (2) Saheeh Muslim: no. 49, 1/69].
The issue could be unclear in respect to some similar forms and whether they fall under the category of As-Siyaal (aggression or assault) upon the private sanctities, in which case defending them would represent a defence of the private sanctities, or under the category of the Siyaal (aggression) or assault upon the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah, where defending them would represent defending the public sanctities? This matter is quite simple and that is because whichever category it falls under, defending the Hurumaat (sanctities) is legitimate, whether they are private or public. However, from a technical or Fiqhiy angle, there is a rule or measure to distinguish between one and the other. If the Siyaal was according to its Haqeeqiy (literal) meaning: An assault (or act of aggression) by one person against another in respect to his Nafs (self/life), ‘Ird (honour) or Maal (property), then we are faced with an assault upon the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities). Consequently, the defence here would be a private (or personal) defence. This would be like if a person assaulted another to spill his blood or a Faasiq assaulted a woman forcefully to commit an evil act, or a person assaulted the property of another to destroy it or take it without right.
If, however, the Siyaal (assault) was in accordance to its Majaazi (metaphoric) meaning where it referred to the assault upon the commands of Allah and his forbiddances by going beyond or outside of their bounds, then in such a case we would be facing an assault upon the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) and consequently the defending here would be a defence of the public (Al-‘Aamm). That is like a person wanting to commit suicide as there is no assault in such a case upon anyone else but rather it represents undertaking that which Allah Ta’Aalaa had forbidden when He said:
وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَنفُسَكُمْ
And do not kill yourselves (An-Nisaa’: 29).
Or a (male) Faasiq wanting to commit an evil indecent act with a willing (female) Faasiqah. This is not considered to be an assault or act of aggression against the woman because she is volunteering and willing, however this act represents committing that which Allah Ta’Aalaa has forbidden in His Qawl:
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَىٰ
And do not approach (the act of) Az-Zinaa (fornication/adultery) (Al-Israa’: 32).
Or a person seeking to destroy or damage his own property that he owns. In this situation, there is no assault upon the property of others however it is a violation due to what the Shar’a has forbidden in respect to the squandering of property within the statement of the Nabi ﷺ:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ عُقُوقَ الْأُمَّهَاتِ وَوَأْدَ الْبَنَاتِ وَمَنْعًا وَهَاتِ وَكَرِهَ لَكُمْ ثَلَاثًا قِيلَ وَقَالَ وَكَثْرَةَ السُّؤَالِ وَإِضَاعَةَ الْمَالِ
Verily Allah has forbidden upon you disobedience to mothers, burying daughters alive, denying what you owe and demanding what you have no right to, and has disliked for you idle talk and gossip, excessive questioning, and squandering wealth (2).
The above mentioned forms of the violation of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) could resemble forms of violating the Hurumat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities) due to the unity of the subject represented in the Nafs (self/life), ‘Ird (honour) and Maal (property). However, the measure and criteria that has been mentioned clarifies which of the two categories these forms fall under.
[(1) Refer to ‘Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fi-l-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy’, Dr. Muhammad Sayyid Abdut Tawwaab: 26-85, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2408, Fat’h ul-Baari: 5/68].
Outside of these forms that resemble one another, every or any sinful suspension or abandonment of a Fard (obligation) that has been commanded or any sinful committing of a Haraam (prohibition) that has been forbidden, would represent a violation of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (the public sanctities) and the perpetration of a Munkar (1). That would be like the suspension of the Salaah, the Sawm (fasting), the Shar’iy Hijaab in relation to the women and everything like that which the Shar’iyah texts have commanded. It would also include the drinking of Khamr (intoxicants), dealing with Ribaa (usury) and Al-Qimaar (gambling) amongst other matters which the Shar’iyah texts have forbidden.
Despite that, we will restrict our study to that which is connected to Al-Qitaal (fighting) in the way of forbidding or denying (Inkaar) the Munkar or what we have called the ‘defence of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah) within the Islamic society. For that reason we will only address the following points:
Firstly: The Ahkaam (rulings) relating to the Inkaar (denial) of the Munkaar in its different circumstances or conditions.
Secondly: Is the Qitaal (fighting) to remove the Munkaraat fall under Al-Jihaad?
Firstly: The Ahkaam (rulings) relating to the Inkaar (denial) of the Munkar in its different circumstances or conditions.
1 – The original position (Al-Asl) in respect to the Inkaar (denying) of the Munkar is that it is Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency). Consequently, if some are to undertake it and fulfil it, then the Talab (demand/request) to do it falls from the remainder (of the people). The evidence for that if the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ ۚ وَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
And let there be [arising] from you a group inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful (Aali ‘Imraan: 104).
Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy said the following in ‘Al-Ihyaa’ when presenting the deduction of the Hukm of the obligation of sufficiency from this Aayah: “It includes an explanation that it (the ordering of the Ma’roof and forbidding of the Munkar) is a Fard Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency) and not a Fard ‘Ain (individual obligation). That is because if an ‘Ummah’ (group or section of the Muslims) undertakes it then the Fard falls from the rest. And it specified those who undertake it with Al-Falaah (success) and if the whole creation was to not engage in it then the sin would (inevitably) encompass them all (i.e. all of those who are capable)” (2).
[(1) Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/194, (2) Ihyaa’ ‘Uloom id-Deen, Al-Ghazaaliy: 2/211].
2 – Despite that, the changing of the Munkar becomes Fard ‘Ain upon the one who witnesses the Munkar and is from those capable of removing it. That is upon the condition that he does not fear the assault upon his Hurumaat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities; life, honour and property) and as long as a Mafsadah (harm and corruption) greater than the Mafsadah of the Munkar that he is confronted with, does not result from his forbidding it (1). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
مَا مِنْ رَجُلٍ يَكُونُ فِي قَوْمٍ يُعْمَلُ فِيهِمْ بِالْمَعَاصِي ، يَقْدِرُونَ أَنْ يُغِيرُوا عَلَيْهِ ، فَلَا يُغِيرُوا إِلَّا أَصَابَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِعَذَابٍ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَمُوتُوا
There is not any man within a people amongst whom acts of disobedience (Ma’aasiy) take place, and they are capable of changing it and then don’t do so, except that Allah will afflicted them with a punishment before they die (2).
And in another narration:
مَا مِنْ قَوْمٍ يَكُونُ بَيْنَ أَظْهُرِهِمْ مَنْ يَعْمَلْ بِالْمَعَاصِي هُمْ أَعَزُّ وَأَمْنَعُ لَمْ يُغَيِّرُوا عَلَيْهِ ، إِلا أَصَابَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْهُ بِعَذَابٍ
There is not a people that have amongst them those who commit acts of disobedience whilst they are in a strong position and then they don’t change it, except that Allah will afflict them with a punishment from Him (3).
3 – If a Mafsadah (harm/corruption) greater than the Mafsadah of the Munkar that is taking place results from denying (or forbidding) it like the perpetration of other Munkaraat as a means to challenge and in contempt of those denying the Munkar, then the Inkaar (denial/forbidding) of the Munkar is prohibited in accordance to the Shar’iyah principle: “If two Mafsadahs are in conflict with each other, then the greatest in harm is observed (i.e. paid attention to) by the perpetration of the lighter (or lesser) of the two”.
And due to another Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah: “The lesser (or weaker) of the two evils is selected (or chosen)” (يُخْتَارُ أَهْوَنُ الشَّرَّينِ) (4). However, in such a case, it is obligatory for the Muslims, to work to overcome their weakness so that they become capable of removing the Munkaraat without any Mafaasid (harms and corruptions) being the consequence of it. That is because the removal of the Munkaraat is Waajib and the Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah states:
مَا لَا يَتِمُّ الوَاجِبُ إِلَّا بِهِ فَهُوَ وَاجِب
“That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (obligatory)” (5).
[(1) Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/174-175), (2) Abu Dawud, Ibn Maajah (Mushaat Al-Masaabeeh: no. 5143, 3/1423) and it is in the Sunnah of Abu Dawud: no. 4339 and in the Sunnah of Ibn Maajah: no. 4009. Al-Albaaniy said that it is ‘Hasan’ in (Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud) no. 3646, 3/819, (3) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 4/363, (4) Al-Majallah – Articled: 28 and 29 pages 14-15 and Usoolul ul-Fiqhu Al-Islaamiy, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98, (5) Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘Ali Hasaballah, and refer to ‘Al-Ihkaam’, Al-Aamidiy: The seventh issue (Mas’alah): 1/96].
4 – If the occurrence of Mafaasid (corruptions and harms) manifested in other Munkaraat being added to the original Munkar does not result from denying it but rather this denying results in harm falling upon those engaged in the denying of the Munkar just like what regularly happens from the people of Fisq and evil when they seek revenge against calling for rectification, attempt to prevent them from engaging in the obligation of denying the Munkar and to deter others from following the same course of action, in respect to cleaning the atmosphere within the lands of deviation and deviants, then in such a situation I say the following: If the harm befalls those engaged in the forbidding or denying of the Munkar without extending to their relatives, friends and others who live amongst them , then their Inkaar (denying) of the Munkar in this situation would be Mandoob (recommended) and if they were to become victims as a result of it, they would be Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) in accordance to the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
وَمَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ دِينِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ
And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (1).
The affirmation of Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) for the one who is killed whilst he is engaged in denying the Munkaraat (evils) for the sake of the Deen, is a Daleel (evidence) indicating the legal legitimacy of the action that he undertook and it being rewardable with Allah Ta’Aalaa. As for the denial of the Munkar in this case not being Waajib (obligatory), then that is because the previous Hadeeth, related by Ahmad Bin Hanbal, stipulates, in order for it be obligatory, that those undertaking it be stronger and possess a greater preventative force than the Fussaaq (the disobedient and rebellious to Allah’s commands). The opposite understood meaning (Al-Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah) of this is that there is no obligation if this condition is deficient and the Fussaaq are in a stronger position than those denouncing the Munkar. It is evident here, that what is intended by strength and weakness, relates to the ability or inability of the side of those committing or involved in the Munkaraat to bring harm, and the presence or absence of security (i.e. being free of harm) in respect to those undertaking the act of forbidding the Munkar.
This applies to the situation when the denying (Inkaar) of the Munkar results in harm befalling the people engaged in the action alone.
5 – In the case where severe harm befalls those undertaking the denying of the Munkar and others from amongst the relatives, friends and other citizens, then we will be faced with two dangers:
- Either being silent over the Munkar and as such fall into the danger or peril of leaving the condemnation or denial (Inkaar).
- Or undertaking the denial (Inkaar) and falling into the danger or peril of the severe harm that will befall others.
We have become aware from the previously situation that if harm befalls those undertaking the Inkaar of the Munkar, as a result of their action, then the Hukm (ruling) transfers from Wujoob (obligation) to Nadb (recommendation). The same applies if the harm will afflict others and that is because the Sabab (cause/reason) for the lifting of the Hukm of Wujoob is the occurrence of the harm as a consequence to the Inkaar (act of denying or forbidding the Munkar).
In this case:
If those upon whom the harm will fall are content with that and have given precedence to their Deen over their lives and interests (so as to sacrifice them for the sake of their Deen), then the Inkaar (forbidding or denouncing) would be Mandoob (recommended) and even if the harm reached the extent of death as they will be from amongst the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter) and the previously mentioned Hadeeth will apply upon them:
وَمَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ دِينِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ
And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (2).
[(1) Suna Al-Baihaqi: 3/2266 and Sunan Abi Dawud: 4772, 4/339. Al-Albaani mentioned it in: Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud: no. 3993, 3/906. Also, refer to: Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/743, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 3/266, Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/743 and the Hdeeth is in ‘Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Ash-Skeikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaani: no. 1148. 2/63].
If, however, they are not content for the harm to befall them as a result of the denouncing of the Munkar, then in such circumstances Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy views that it is permitted for those undertaking the forbidding of the Munkar to be lenient in respect to the rights of themselves, seek success and victory in terms of the reward and recompense and undertake the Inkaar (forbidding) and even if it means bearing the harm upon themselves. However, (in his opinion) it is not permitted to be lenient with the rights of others and expose them to harm. Regarding that he says the following in respect to the one who voluntarily undertakes the Inkaar of the Munkar seeking Allah’s reward within these circumstances: If that (i.e. the voluntary denouncing of the Munkar of the one seeking Allah’s reward) leads to the harming of his people then he should leave it. That is like the Zaahid (one distancing himself from the Dunyaa) who has wealthy relatives and consequently does not fear for his wealth if he accounts the authority but the ruler then seeks out his relatives to avenge him through them. If the harm was to go beyond him to reach his relatives and neighbours because of his accounting, then he should leave it as harming the Muslims is a Mahdhoor (i.e. dangerous or perilous matter) just as remaining silent over the Munkar is …” (1).
6 – It could be that the one undertaking or involved in the Munkaraat is the one possessing the authority in the land (i.e. the ruler). In respect to this, the Shar’iyah texts have come explaining the details of this reality as follows:
A – It is obligatory to denounce or forbid (Inkaar) the ruler upon the level of exhortation (Wa’zh) and Nus’h (advising) by using gentle speech at the beginning of the matter. That is because the denouncing (Inkaar) in a manner that removes the Munkar is (usually) not possible as long as the power is in the hand of the one who has the authority. Consequently, the obligation of Inkaar (denouncing and forbiddance) established in the Shar’iyah texts is directed towards the act of Inkaar (denouncing) with the tongue alone. That is in accordance to the statement of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَانِ
Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar, then he must change it by his hand. If he cannot then he must do so by his tongue. If he cannot do that, then it must be by his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan (2).
It is only obligatory to provide exhortation and advice to the ruler by gentle speech at the beginning of the matter due to the Shar’iyah texts related to the necessity to preserve the standing and prestige of the ruler when advice is given to him. For that reason, using harshness or roughness (in speech) with him is not legally legitimate (Mashroo’) as that would mean belittling him (or his standing) which is a Mahdhoor (warned about) matter. From amongst the texts related to this is the speech of the Nabi ﷺ:
مَنْ كَانَتْ عِنْدَهُ نَصِيحَةٌ لِذِي سُلْطَانٍ فَلَا يُكَلِّمُهُ بِهَا عَلَانِيَةً ، وَلْيَأْخُذْ بِيَدِهِ ، وَلْيُخْلُ بِهِ ، فَإِنْ قَبِلَهَا قَبِلَهَا ، وَإِلَّا كَانَ قَدْ أَدَّى الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ وَالَّذِي لَهُ
Whoever wants to advise a sultan (leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it publicly but let him take him by the hand and go into seclusion with him. If he accepts it then he has accepted it (and that is good) and if not, then he (the adviser) has fulfilled that which was obliged upon him (to do) (3).
[(1) Ihyaa’ Uloom ud-Deen: 2/223, (2) Saheeh Muslim: no. 49, 1/69. And in the Sharh of An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 1/356, (3) Al-Baihaqi: 8/164].
B – It is recommended (Mandoob) to use harshness with the ruler when undertaking the Inkaar (denunciation and forbidding) against him and that is when the matter requires demonstrating the significance of the sanctities of Allah and making him comprehend the heinousness of what he is undertaking in terms of his departure from the Shar’a. That is undertaken in accordance to the previously mentioned Shart (condition) i.e. that the harm resulting from the utilisation of this style is restricted to the one undertaking the Inkaar alone (1). This is understood from the Hadeeth recorded by An-Nasaa’iy: Taariq Bin Shihaab related that a man asked the Nabi ﷺ when he was placing his foot in his (horse’s) stirrup:
أَيُّ الجِهَادِ أَفْضَل؟ قَال: كَلِمَةُ حَقّ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِر
Which Jihaad is best? He said: A word of truth before the unjust (oppressive) ruler (2)
He ﷺ called it Jihaad due to the risk and danger to oneself which is similar to what is present in Al-Jihaad according to its Shar’iy Haqeeqiy meaning. The venture of making the ruler hear the word of truth (Al-Haqq) in the way of denouncing or forbidding him, rests, in most cases, upon the use of the sharp word and stinging rebuke!
C – It is prohibited to use crudeness or roughness (Al-Khushoonah) when rebuking or forbidding the ruler by the tongue if that would result in the harming of others whilst they are not content and accepting to what may befall them in terms of bad results, in accordance to what was deduced previously in respect to these circumstances. In relation to this, Ibn ul-Jawziy said: “What is permitted in respect to the ordering of the Ma’roof and forbidding of the Munkar with the rulers (Salaateen) is to make them aware and to exhort (Al-Wa’zh). As for roughness or crudeness and speech like: ‘O Zhaalim (oppressor)’ or ‘O one who does not fear Allah’, an if that brings about Fitnah and its evil spreads to others, then it is not permissible. If, however, he does not fear except for himself, then it is permissible according to the Jumhoor (majority) of the ‘Ulamaa” (3).
D – It is prohibited (Haraam) to use ‘Ad-Darb’ (hitting/beating) in repelling the ruler when he is perpetrating a Munkar. That is because striking the ruler is an act negating the prestige and standing (Al-Haibah) that the Shar’a has made obligatory to be provided and afforded to him. That is in addition to what this style of forbidding the Munkar can bring in terms of inciting the ruler to seek revenge for his wounded dignity and discredited honour, which would then lead him to commit Mafaasid (corruptions and harms) that are even worse and more horrendous than the original Munkar that he was being taken to task for. The result would then be that the original Munkar would not be removed and new Munkaraat would be added to it accompanied with kinds of inflicting harm and suffering that would afflict those who are close and even possibly reach those who are far.
[(1) Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah: 1/197, (2) Sunan An-Nisaa’iy BiSharh As-Suyootiy Wa Haashiyah As-Sanadiy: 7/186, and Al-Albaaniy said: (Saheeh) in his ‘Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy’: no. 3925, 3/882, (Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah: 1/197].
E – It is Haraam (prohibited) to use the Silaah (weapon)and to revolt against the ruler if he has deviated due to a Fisq (act of rebellious disobedience) that he commits, an act of Zhulm (oppression/injustice) that he perpetrates or if an illegitimate illegal matter has come from him. In spite of that, he remains as the one who possesses the right of hearing and obedience (As-Sam’u Wa-t-Taa’ah) in respect to that which is Ma’roof (good) from Islaam and not in respect to that which departs outside of that scope. That stance is taken alongside the obligation to work to depose this deviating ruler from the authority utilising peaceful means. That is if he continues upon his deviancy and his misguidance. It is accompanied by the Inkaar (denying of his Munkar) by the tongue when possible or by the heart which represents the last matter in terms of weakness in respect to the levels and stages of denunciation when ordering the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar.
This speech refers and applies to the one who possesses the Shar’iy (legitimate and legal) authority and who has not reached in his deviation to the grave red line (if it is permitted to use such an expression). That (red line) is the Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah (the clear or explicit disbelief), whether that occurs in respect to the Aqeedah of the ruler himself or to the Aqeedah that his ruling is established upon.
We will discuss about this grave red line in the following section and so we will not present it now. We said: It is Haraam (prohibited) to utilise the weapon (i.e. force and bearing arms) to fight against the deviating ruler for the sake of denying the Munkar, whilst it is obligatory to obey him in respect to the Ma’roof (what is in conformity with Islaam) and not in respect to the Munkar (that which contravenes Islaam). In addition, that it is obligatory to deny his Munkar by the tongue and the heart or by the heart alone if that is all that he (i.e. the Muslim) is capable of and to work to depose him from the authority by peaceful means. Now we will examine the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (evidences) for these four points:
- As for the Tahreem (prohibition) of utilising the weapon to fight the deviating ruler for the purpose of denying his Munkar, then that is based upon many Ahaadeeth. They include what Muslim recorded in his Saheeh from the Nabi ﷺ that he said:
إِنَّهُ يُسْتَعْمَلُ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَرَاءُ فَتَعْرِفُونَ وَتُنْكِرُونَ ، فَمَنْ كَرِهَ فَقَدَ بَرِئَ ، وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ فَقَدْ سَلِمَ ، وَلَكِنْ مَنْ رَضِيَ وَتَابَعَ " قَالُوا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، أَلَا نُقَاتِلُهُمْ ؟ قَالَ : " لَا مَا صَلَّوْا
You will have rulers appointed over you, some of whom you approve (i.e. recognise their good) and some of whom you will disapprove (i.e. deny their wrong). He who hates will be free (of blame and sin), and he who expresses disapproval (or denounces) will be safe but he who is pleased and follows them (not be safe and free of sinful)". They (the Sahaabah) asked: “Shall we not fight them?” He replied: “No, as long as they have undertaken the Salaah” (1).
(This means: the one who hated with his heart and the one who disapproved with his heart) (Translator note: This may be a mistake by the author and he intended to mean ‘tongue’ as is apparent from the following). Within the Sunan of Al-Baihaqi there is that which establishes that what is intended by ‘hate’ (كَرِهَ) is the hatred of the heart and that ‘disapprove or deny’ (أَنْكَرَ) means the that which is undertaken by the tongue (2). Therefore, in this Hadeeth the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the use of fighting when undertaking the Inkaar against the rulers who mix the Ma’roof with the Munkar in their conduct! As long as they are Muslims performing the Salaah.
[(1) Saheeh Muslim: no. 1854, 3/1482, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/158].
Al-Bazzaar related from Zaid Bin Wahb: “He said: In the time of Hudhaifah the people disapproved (and denounced) something from the Ameer (ruler). So a man headed to the Masjid, the main (or great) Masjid, passing through the people until he finally reached Hudhaifah whilst he was sitting in a circle. He then stood over him and said: “O Companion of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ! Do you not order the Ma’roof and forbid the Munkar?” So Hudhaifah raised his head and was aware about what the man was getting at! And (so) Hudhaifah then said to him: “Verily, the ordering of the Ma’roof and the forbidding of the Munkar is (all well and) good and it is not from the Sunnah to unsheathe (or draw) the sword against your Ameer” (1).
- As for the obligation of obeying the ruler in respect to the Ma’roof (i.e. that which conforms with Islaam) and not in respect to the Munkar (i.e. what violates Islaam) then this is also understood from the Hadeeth recorded by Muslim above just as it is understood from the statement of the Nabi ﷺ in another Hadeeth recorded in Saheeh Muslim stating:
خِيَارُ أَئِمَّتِكُمُ الَّذِينَ تُحِبُّونَهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَكُمْ ، وَتُصَلُّونَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيُصَلُّونَ عَلَيْكُمْ ، وَشِرَارُ أَئِمَّتِكُمُ الَّذِينَ تُبْغِضُونَهُمْ وَيُبْغِضُونَكُمْ , وَتَلْعَنُونَهُمْ وَيَلْعَنُونَكُمْ. قَالُوا : قُلْنَا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَفَلا نُنَابِذُهُمْ عِنْدَ ذَلِكَ ؟ قَالَ : لا , مَا أَقَامُوا فِيكُمُ الصَّلاةَ , إِلا وَمَنْ وُلِّيَ عَلَيْهِ وَالٍ ، فَرَآهُ يَأْتِي شَيْئًا مِنْ مَعْصِيَةِ اللَّهِ ، فَلْيَكْرَهْ مَا يَأْتِي مِنْ مَعْصِيَةِ اللَّهِ ، وَلا يَنْزِعَنَّ يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَةٍ
The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you, who you invoke Allah’s blessings upon them and they invoke His blessings upon you. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse and they curse you. It was asked (by those present): O Messenger of Allah, shouldn't we oppose them when that happens? He said: No, as long as they establish Salaah among you. One who has a governor (Waali) appointed over him and he finds that the governor indulges in an act of disobedience to Allah, he should hate what he has done in disobedience to Allah, but he must not withdraw a hand from obedience (2).
Regarding the absence of obedience in respect to the Munkar then the Nabi ﷺ said:
لَا طَاعَةَ لِمَخْلُوق فِي مَعْصِيَةِ الخَالِق
There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator (3).
And in the ‘Zawaa’id’ of Al-Bazzar he recorded:
لَا طَاعَةَ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ الله
There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah (4).
From these Ahaadeeth it is understood that the Muslim is required to bring together two matters in respect to his stance towards the deviating ruler. This refers to the ruler who is the subject of our discussion here and has perpetrated the Munkar despite not having exited from Islaam whether in respect to his Aqeedah or the ruling system. Regarding this situation I say: It is required for the Muslim to bring together, in his stance towards the ruler, obedience to him in respect to the Ma’roof and non-compliance and obedience to him in respect to the Munkar. That applies equally whether that Munkar was an act of disobedience to Allah committed by the ruler or an illegitimate illegal order that he had issued to the people. That is because the ruler must bear the responsibility of the Munkaraat that he perpetrates in respect to his own personal conduct and behaviour just as he must bear responsibility for the commands and laws that he issues which are contrary to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i. The people are free (blameless) from bearing that responsibility as long as they do not follow the ruler in each of these two cases and deny (Inkaar) him to the best of their capability. This was indicated to in the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
أَطِيعُوا أُمَراءَكُمْ مَهْما كانَ فَإِن أَمَرُوكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِمَّا لَمْ آتَكُمْ بِهِ فَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ، وَأَنْتُمْ مِنْهُ بَراء ،وَإِنْ أَمَرُوكُمْ بِشَيْءِ مَمَّا جِئْتُكُمْ بِهِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُؤْجَرُونَ عَلَيْهِ وَتُؤْجَرُونَ عَلَيْهِ
Obey your leaders whatever the case, so if they command you with a matter that I have not come to you with, then that is against them and you are free (blameless) from it, and if they command you with a matter from that which I have brought to you, then they will be rewarded for that and you will be rewarded (5).
[(1) Kashf ul-Astaar ‘An Zawaa’id Al-Bazzaar: 2/251. Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 5/224, (2) Saheeh Muslim: no. 1855, 3/1482, (3) Mushkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 2/1092 and Al-Albaaniy said: Hadeeth Saheeh, (4) Kashf ul-Astaar ‘An Zawaa’id Al-Bazzaar: 2/243. Al-Haithami said: It was related by Al-Bazzaar and At-Tabaraani in Al-Kabeer and Al-Awsat, and the transmitters of Al-Bazzaar are Saheeh, (5) Kitaab As-Sunnah, Ibn Abi ‘Aasim: 2.485 and Al-Albaaniy said: Hadeeth Saheeh].
- As for the obligation of denying or forbidding (Al-Inkaar) the deviating ruler by the tongue and the heart or by the heart alone, then this has been indicated to within the aforementioned Hadeeth related by Muslim:
فَمَنْ كَرِهَ فَقَدَ بَرِئَ ، وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ فَقَدْ سَلِمَ
He who hates will be free (of blame and sin), and he who expresses disapproval (or denounces) will be safe
The intended meaning of this Hadeeth is clarified further by what was mentioned in the Sunan of Al-Baihaqi as follows: “Al-Hasan said: So whoever disapproves (or denounces) with his tongue then he will be free (of sin and blame), and that time has passed by. And the one who hates with his heart, then this time has come”. He also mentioned another statement that said: “Qataadah said: It means, who denies (Inkaar) with his heart and who hates with his heart” (1).
I say: It may be that the specification of the hatred to the heart and the Inkaar (denunciation) to the tongue, as stated by Al-Hasan, is stronger than the view that both the hating and denouncing are connected to the heart. That is due to the suitability of the application of ‘hatred’ which represents an internal feeling or emotion and as such relates to the actions of the heart. As such we give the wording ‘Inkaar’ (denouncing/denial) another suitable meaning and that is the Inkaar by the tongue in accordance to the Qaa’idah (principle: “Founding (something new) is better than confirmation or reiteration” (At-Ta’sees Khairun Min At-Ta’keed) (2).
- Regarding the obligation to work to depose such a ruler from the authority by peaceful means, then although this point has been dealt with by the early Fuqahaa and modern Islamic authors and opinions in respect to it have become many, we will only be approaching it from a specific angle which is: When Islam forbade fighting the ruler due to a limited deviation that he has proceeded upon, it did not however prescribe upon the Ummah that it should be a captive to that deviation and with its hands tied towards it. No, but rather Islam made it obligatory upon the Ummah to work to depose the ruler by peaceful means. However, the completion of his deposal from the authority may take time, which could be lengthy and could be short in respect to solving this problem whilst acknowledging that it is not from amongst the simple problems. In such a situation, do we leave the land in chaos where those who cause and bring corruption exploit the difficult circumstances so that the people then live in a land of corruption?!
In such a situation do we suspend the Masaalih (interests) of the Ummah under the argument and pretext of the deviation of the ruler, the obligation to depose him and the non-presence of the one whose obedience is obligatory?
[(1) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/158, (2) At-Ta’reefaat, Al-Jurjaaniy: p71, and Al-Ashbaah Wa-n-Nazhaa’ir, As0Suyootiy: p135].
Islam has dealt with and treated this Mas’alah (issue). It made it obligatory upon the Ummah to obey the deviating Haakim (ruler) in other than the Ma’siyah (disobedience to Allah) and to work to depose him at the same time. As for obedience to him in other than the Ma’siyah (disobedience to Allah), then we have already presented the texts indicating that. Regarding the obligation to work to depose him by peaceful means, then that is because his deviation takes him outside of Al-’Adaalah (justice or being just) and consequently a condition from among the conditions of the validity of his contraction of the authority would have been violated. That is because it is from the conditions (Shuroot), for the contraction of the authority to take place, that the ruler is ‘Adl (just) based on the Daleeel (evidence) that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has stipulated the Shart (condition) of ‘Adl (justice) in respect to the Shaahid (witness) for his testimony to be accepted. That is in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا شَهَادَةُ بَيْنِكُمْ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ حِينَ الْوَصِيَّةِ اثْنَانِ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ
O you who have believed, testimony [should be taken] among you when death approaches one of you at the time of bequest - [that of] two just men from among you … (Al-Maa’idah: 106).
That is in the case where the Haakim (ruler) is greater than the Shaahid (witness) and it is more befitting and appropriate that ‘Adaalah (justice) be stipulated as a condition for him. In addition, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has stipulated, that the one who judges in respect to the recompense for the act of killing game by someone in the state of Ihraam, be ‘Adl (just). Allah Ta’Aalaa says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقْتُلُوا الصَّيْدَ وَأَنتُمْ حُرُمٌ ۚ وَمَن قَتَلَهُ مِنكُم مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاءٌ مِّثْلُ مَا قَتَلَ مِنَ النَّعَمِ يَحْكُمُ بِهِ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ
O you who have believed, do not kill game while you are in the state of Ihraam. And whoever of you kills it intentionally - the penalty is an equivalent from sacrificial animals to what he killed, as judged by two just men among you … (Al-Maa’idah: 95).
Therefore, the one who rules and judges over the Ummah as a whole is Awlaa (more deserving and fitting) to be stipulated by the condition of ‘Adaalah (justice) than the one who judges in the issue of the killed game of the Muhrim (one in a state of Ihraam)!
Al-‘Adl according to the Fuqahaa as mentioned by Al-Jurjaaniy in his book ‘At-Ta’reefaat’ (Definitions) is: “The one who avoids the Kabaa’ir (major sins) and does not persist upon the Saghaa’ir (minor sins), his right conduct (Sawaab) dominates and stays away from the vile or despicable actions (Al-Af’aal Al-Khaseesah)” (1).
In addition, that which a condition for the validity (Sihhah) of the contraction of the authority initially is also a condition (Shart) for its continuance. Regarding the Imaam whose ‘Adaalah (justice) has become deficient by “his committing of prohibited acts and his proceeding upon Munkaraat”, Al-Maawardiy says about his condition and the obligation in respect to him: “This Fisq (wilful disobedience) prevents the contracting of the Imaamah (i.e. for him to assume the leadership and authority as the Imaam) and it prevents his continuance. Consequently, if that happened to someone whose Imaamah (leadership has been contracted, he would have left it. Then, if he was to return to justice he would no longer be regarded in the position of leadership unless a new contract was convened. Some of the Mutakallimeen: He returns to the Imaamah (leadership) by returning to justice (Al-‘Adaalah) without renewing a contract or Bai’ah (pledge) for him due to the generality of his Wilaayah (ruling responsibility) and because of the hardship associated with the renewing his Bai’ah” (2).
[(1) At-Ta’reefaat’, Al-Jurjaaniy: 191, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 17].
In ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ by Al-Faraa’ he states the opposite to this as follows: “If they attributes are present, meaning the conditions for the validity of the Imaamah, then they were to cease to be present after the contraction, I have viewed that: If he was deficient in respect to his justice, by Fisq (wilful disobedience), then that does not prevent the continuance of his Imaamah (leadership), whether it (the Fisq) was related to acts of the limbs like the perpetration of prohibited acts and undertaking Munkaraat in following his desires, or related to the I’tiqaad (belief) where it is interpreted (or understood) due to an apparent Shubhah (doubt/suspicion) that he has gone in a direction in respect to it in opposition to the Haqq (truth) (1).
Our opinion is that the ‘Adaalah (justice) is stipulated as a condition for the person of authority initially and for continuality. That is because the Shar’iy text that we have presented stipulated that the judge (Haakim) in the small issue of the recompense (or penalty) related to hunting must be ‘Adl (just) for his judgment to be accepted, whilst the judge or ruler (Haakim) of the Ummah manages her affairs at every moment as a ruler. Based upon that, it is necessary for him to be characterised by the attribute of being ‘Adl (just) at all times for his rule to be valid and so that he can continue in his post.
Following on from that, by combining the view stating that the ruler goes outside from the authority due to the dictates of not fulfilling the condition of ‘Adaalah (justice) with the evidences that make obedience to the ruler obligatory even if he commits Fisq (wilful disobedience to Allah), it is our view, that it is obligatory to continue to obey him accordance to the previously mentioned Shar’iyah texts indicating that, whilst also working (at the same time) to depose him from the authority in accordance to what the violation of the condition of justice (Al-‘Adaalah) requires. His deposal from the authority would be by peaceful means in accordance to the previously mentioned Shar’iyah texts that guide to the forbiddance of unsheathing the sword against the ruler who deviates.
The author Muhammad Asad holds the opinion that the direction (or competent authority) that determines the dismissal or deposition of the Imaam from the authority, if a dispute arises between the people of Shouraa representing the Ummah, in this regard, is a neutral high ruling body specialising in constitutional affairs, composed of distinguished judges and leading authorities in Islamic state law (2).
And Ash-Sheikh Taqi-ud-Deen An-Nabahaani views that the direction (or competent authority) that settles the issue is the ‘Mahkamat Al-Mazhaalim’ (Court of Unjust Acts). That is because when the Khalifah perpetrates a matter from amongst the matters by which dismissal or deposition from the authority is deserved, like Fisq, then in such circumstances he would have brought about a Mazhlamah (act of injustice) from amongst the Mazhaalim (unjust acts) that must be removed. The court of unjust acts specialises in removing such acts and it is the court that examines and looks into matters of dispute between the Ummah and the authorities within the state. Determining whether the occurrence or reality is a Mazhlamah or not requires proof (and evidence to substantiate it. Consequently, the Mazhaalim judge will be specialise in investigating and examining them and if a Mazhlamah is established in his view, the court’s decision to depose the Khalifah or anyone holding a position of authority within the state whose continuation in his post would represent a Mazhlamah (injustice) from amongst the Mazhaalim (acts of injustice) (1).
We can say that these two opinions are close to each other even if the speech of Ash-Sheikh Taqi-ud-Deen An-Nabahaani is closer to the Islamic Fiqh in respect to what he has provided and the Ahkaam in terms of Istidlaal (the manner of evidential deduction).
We have now finished this point which was related to the Ahkaam of Inkaar (denying or forbidding) the Munkaraat under different circumstances. We will now come to the second point:
Secondly: The Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in relation to denying (Inkaar) the Munkaraat and the levels or grades of denying or forbidding that precede Al-Qitaal
There are levels in respect to the Inkaar (denying or forbidding) of the Munkaraat which a Muslim must observe when he is upon his path of eliminating the Munkaraat that he has come across within his Islamic society. That is so that he can safeguard and protect the society’s ship and integrity from those who wreck or ruin it, the people of corruptions and evils, those who if not taken to task will create breaches in that ship from which Munkar will erupt and cause the ship to finally sink with everyone who is upon it including the corrupters and the righteous.
This image related to the effects of the Munkaraat within the society was laid out before us in the Prophetic Hadeeth narrated by Al-Bukhaari from Nu’maan Bin Basheer who said:
مَثَلُ الْقَائِمِ عَلَى حُدُودِ اللَّهِ وَالْوَاقِعِ فِيهَا كَمَثَلِ قَوْمٍ اسْتَهَمُوا عَلَى سَفِينَةٍ، فَأَصَابَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَعْلاهَا وَبَعْضُهُمْ أَسْفَلَهَا، فَكَانَ الَّذِينَ فِي أَسْفَلِهَا إِذَا اسْتَقَوْا مِنَ الْمَاءِ مَرُّوا عَلَى مَنْ فَوْقَهُمْ، فَقَالُوا: لَوْ أَنَّا خَرَقْنَا فِي نَصِيبِنَا خَرْقًا وَلَمْ نُؤْذِ مَنْ فَوْقَنَا، فَإِنْ يَتْرُكُوهُمْ وَمَا أَرَادُوا هَلَكُوا جَمِيعًا، وَإِنْ أَخَذُوا عَلَى أَيْدِيهِمْ نَجَوْا وَنَجَوْا جَمِيعًا
The likeness of the man who observes the limits prescribed by Allah and that of the man who transgresses them is like the people who get on board a ship after casting lots. Some of them are in its upper deck and some of them in its lower (deck). Those who are in its lower (deck), when they require water, go to the occupants of the upper deck. So they said: “If we make a hole in our part of the ship, we will not disturb those above us”. If they (the occupants of the upper deck) were to leave them to carry out their design they all will all perish (i.e. drown). But if they prevent them they will be saved and everyone will be saved (2).
It is correct to say that there are levels in the path of eliminating the Munkaraat from the Islamic society and they are as follows:
1 - To identify the Munkaraat without spying due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
وَلَا تَجَسَّسُواْ
And do not spy on each other (Al-Hujuraat 12).
And due to the Qawl (speech) of the Messenger ﷺ:
إِنَّكَ إِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ عَوْرَاتِ النَّاسِ أَفْسَدْتَهُمْ أَوْ كَدْتَ تُفْسِدَهُمْ
Verily, if you were to pursue the faults of people you would have brought ruin to them or nearly accomplished that (1).
It was related that whilst Ibn Mas’ood (ra) was teaching the people matters of their Deen in Koufa, it was said to him: This person (meaning Al-Waleed Bin ‘Uqbah), his beard drips with alcohol (i.e. the one speaking about Al-Waleed and his habit of drinking alcohol). If we were to investigate that now we would find him like that (i.e. drinking). Ibn Mas’ood (ra) then said: Verily, we have been forbidden to spy on one another but if a matter becomes apparent to us (i.e. visible before us) then we deal with it”! (2).
2 - Identify the people of the Munkaraat in respect to them undertaking an illegal act. Then provide them with gentle exhortation in speech, then use strong speech if such a style is beneficial in respect to removing the Munkar which there is no difference amongst the Mujtahideen regarding it being a Munkar. The following was mentioned in ‘Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah’: “There is no Inkaar (denying or forbidding of the Munkar) in which there is a difference of opinion within the branches upon the one who may Ijtihaad in it or made Taqleed to a Mujtahid in respect to it… They gave examples such as drinking a little Nabeedh (3) and marrying without a Waliy”. He then stated: “Ash-Sheikh Muhyiy-ud-Deen An-Nawawiy that there is no Inkaar in that which has been differed in respect to it. He said: However, if he recommends him by way of advice to leave the matter of disagreement then that is well and good and recommended (commendable) and to follow his action (or opinion) in a gentle kind manner. He mentioned others from the Shaafi’iyah in respect to this issue of the Wajhaini (two perspectives) and he mentioned the issue of the Inkaar (denying and forbidding) against the one who reveals his thighs and that it has two perspectives” (4). The intended meaning of Wajhain (two perspectives) in this speech is that there is a perspective stating that the Inkaar (forbidding of the Munkar) takes place in issues of disagreement and difference and there is another view of perspective that states that there is no Inkaar in such circumstances.
[(1) Al-Ihsaan Bi Tarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 7/506. Sunan Abi Dawud: no. 4888, 4/375 and Al-Albaaniy said: ‘Saheeh’ [Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud. Al-Albaaniy] no. 4088, 3/924, (2) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 320. I say: And the Hadeeth is in the Sunan of Abi Dawud: no. 4890, 4/375. Al-Albaaniy said: ‘Saheeh Al-Isnaad’ [Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud, Al-Albaaniy] no. 4090. 3/925, (3) Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid: “As for Al-Khamr, then they have agreed upon the prohibition (Tahreem) of a little or a lot. I mean: That which is squeezed from grapes. As for the Anbidhah (pl. of Nabeedh) then they have disagreed in respect to a little of its consumption that does not intoxicate whilst they held a consensus that intoxication (Al-Muskir) from it is Haraam” [Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah]: 6/316-317, (4) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/190-191. And refer to what An-Nawawiy transmitted in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim: 1/359].
The following was also mentioned in ‘Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah’ about the issue of denying the Munkar of the woman revealing her face upon the road: “Al-Qaadiy Al-‘Iyaad said: In the Hadeeth of Jareer (ra) he said:
سَأَلْتُ رَسولَ اللهِ عَن نَظَرِ الفَجْأَة - فَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَصْرِفَ بَصَرِي
I asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the sudden glance and he commanded me to divert my gaze (1).
And the ‘Ulamaa (May Allah Ta’Aalaa’s mercy be upon them) said: “This contains a proof (Hujjah) indicating that the woman does not have to cover her face on her way (i.e. upon the path) but rather that is only Sunnah Mustahabbah (recommended) …” (2). He then states in relation to the Inkaar (forbidding) of the one looking at the face of the foreign (i.e. non-Mahram) woman: “As for our opinion and the opinion of a group from the Shaafi’iyah amongst others: Looking at the foreign (non-Mahram) woman is permitted without desire and seclusion (Khalwah) and so Al-Inkaar is not justified” (3).
Yes it is true that if the head of the Islamic state adopts a specific Hukm Shar’iy in the issues of difference of opinion, like in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of drinking An-Nabeedh, listening to musical instruments and playing them and the Hijaab of the woman for example, then this adopted Hukm (ruling) becomes the basis upon what the Inkaar (forbidding) takes place or does not take place. That is because: “If the Imaam of the Muslims commands the specification of an action with an opinion from amongst the Masaa’il (issues) of the Mujtahid that he has selected specifically, it is obligatory to act in accordance to his opinion” (4). However, if the Imaam has not adopted a particular opinion then the matter is like what Al-Ghazaaliy said in ‘Al-Ihyaa’: “Everything that is open to Ijtihaad, then there is no Hisbah (reckoning or being held to account) in respect to it” (5).
3 - Then there is from amongst the levels of denying the Munkar the use of the strike by the hand or the foot that does not include the drawing of a weapon. Regarding this Al-Ghazaaliy says: “It is permitted for individuals, upon the condition of necessity (Daroorah), and by restricting (their action) to the (minimum) required amount to accomplish the repelling (or prevention)” (6). The reality is that this Usloob (style) is included within the speech of the Nabi ﷺ:
مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ...
Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar (evil act/matter) then he must change it with his hand… (7).
Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy provides an example of that when he said: “It includes a reality like if a Faasiq took hold of a woman … and between him and the one accounting him lies an obstructing river or preventative wall, and he takes his bow and says to the man: ‘Let her free or I will shoot you’. Then if he does not release her, he has the right to shoot but on the condition that he does not aim to kill him but rather aim at his leg, thigh or somewhere similar. All of that falls under the repelling of the Munkar and repelling it is Waajib with all that is possible (to be used)” (8).
[(1) Saheeh Muslim: no. 2159, 3/1699, (2) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/316, (3) Same page as previous, (4) Majallah Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah: p10, (5) Ihyaa ‘Uloom id-Deen, Al-Ghazaaliy: 2/224, (6) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230, (7) Saheeh Muslim: no. 49, 1/69, (8) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230].
4 - Al-Ghazaaliy then talks about the last level from amongst the levels of removing the Munkar when the one who is zealous about the sanctities of Allah is incapable when he sees the Munkar in front of him of changing it by himself and “He needs those who will assist him and draw weapons, and perhaps the Faasiq (transgressor) will also depend upon his assistants (and helpers), thus leading to the two rows facing each other off” (1).
Regarding such a situation Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy says: “The difference (or dispute) could manifest in his need for the permission of the Imaam: Some have said: “Individuals from amongst the citizens are not independent in that (i.e. to decide to undertake such a course of action), because it could lead to inciting Fitan (pl. of Fitnah, trials and great problems amongst the people), draw corruption and wreck the land!”. Others have said: “Permission is not needed, and this is the most correct by analogy. That is because if it permitted for individuals to order the Ma’roof and the first of its levels draws to the second level, and the second level leads to the third, and it has reached where it is not possible except by conflict, and such conflict requires cooperation, then (in such a case) it is not necessary to pay heed to the dictates of commanding the Ma’roof! Its conclusion is: Recruiting soldiers for the pleasure of Allah and to repel the acts of disobedience to Him. We have permitted individuals from the fighters (Al-Ghuzaah) to gather together and to fight against whom they will from amongst the disbelieving groups and factions to suppress the people of Kufr. Similarly, suppressing the people of Fasaad (corruption and evil) is permitted! That is because there is no problem (or issue) in respect to killing the Kaafir and if he (the Muslim) is killed he is Shaheed. Similarly, in respect to the Faasiq (corrupt and evil) who fights and struggles in defence of his Fisq (corruption and evil), there is no issue in killing him and the one who is accounting is worth of martyrdom if he is killed wrongly or unjustly without right (Mazhlooman) … Then he says: Anyone who is capable of repelling a Munkar then it is within his right to do so by his hand, by his weapon, by his life and by his supporters (i.e. those who assist him) …” (2).
In respect to this Mas’alah, the issue of Al-Qitaal (fighting and using force) if the matter makes it necessary, in order to defend the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) and remove the Munkaraat, then is that permissible for individuals without the state’s permission or is the state’s permission necessary or (even) is the undertaking of this task restricted to the state alone and forbidden for individuals to undertake?
[(1) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230, (2) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230 and refer to the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 1/361-362].
I say: Regarding this Mas’alah (issue) the author of ‘I’aanat At-Taalibeen’ stated the following: “Whoever comes across a Muharram (prohibited act) then is it for the individuals to prevent it and even by Al-Qitaal (fighting and use of force)?”.
“The Usooliyoon (scholars of Usool) said: No”. “The Fuqahaa said: Yes! Ar-Raafi’iy said: It has been transmitted until they said: “Whoever knows of the drinking of alcohol (taking place) … in a person’s house, has the right to pounce upon (or assail) him and remove that. Then if he refuses he fights him and if he kills them there is no Damaan (guarantee or surety) upon him and he is rewarded for that. It is evident that this is Halaal, as long as the Fitnah from an oppressive governor (Waaliy) is not feared because endangering the life and exposing oneself to the punishment of the unjust (and oppressive) rulers is forbidden” (1).
Ibn Al-Jawziy outweighed as the strongest opinion that it is forbidden to use weapons to Inkaar (deny or forbid) the Munkar apart from with the state’s permission and he regarded the opposing view to be a weak one. He stated the following: “Striking by the hand and the foot and other than that which does not include drawing a weapon or sword is permitted for individuals on the condition that it is a necessity and that it is limited to what is required. If he needs supporters (or assistants) to draw weapons due to his inability to deny or forbid (Al-Inkaar) by himself, then the correct view is that that requires the permission of the Imaam because (otherwise) it leads to Fitan (discord) and an eruption of corruption. And it is said: The permission of the Imaam is not stipulated as a condition for that” (2).
Whilst keeping in mind that this discussion is still about an Islamic society and a legitimate (Shar’iy) Islamic authority where Munkaraat have appeared within the society and individuals have resorted to using weapons to remove them, I say: The opinion that we view to be correct in this issue is divided into two case or circumstances:
A - A specific (or special) situation or circumstance (Haalah Khaassah): This is the case when the Munkar is being attempted and it is not possible to take steps to prevent it (i.e. to plan and prepare for it). This would be like the example of a man attempting to assault a woman in which case we must repel him from her according to levels (of the action). Consequently, if the Faasiq was using a weapon to perpetrate his crime, then it is for us to use a weapon to repel him from the Munkar by force. In such a situation there is no need for the permission of the state and that is because the Munkar is about to take place and any attempt to inform the authorities or request a permission to be issued to use force to repel this Munkar, that is about to take place, would mean that its purpose would not be fulfilled and the object of caution would take place! From amongst the Adillah (evidences) for the permissibility of Al-Qitaal (fighting) here is the Hadeeth:
وَمَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ دِينِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ
And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (3).
The angle of deduction is: That when the one killed in such a situation is considered to be a Shaheed (martyr), that indicates the permissibility to engage in the Qitaal (fighting) that leads to the death. And there is no doubt that defending a woman from an assault against her represents a defence of the Hurumaat (sanctities) of the Deen.
[(1) I’aanat At-Taalibeen, As-Sayyid Al-Bakriy: 4/173, (2) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/195, (3) Kanz ul-‘Umaal: 11180, 4/416 and the Hadeeth is in the Saheeh of the Sunan of At-Tirmidhi, Al-Albaaniy: 1148].
B - Haalah ‘Aammah (general situation or circumstance): This is where the removal of the Munkar requires the force of those denying the Munkar to meet the force of the people of the Munkaraat by weapons, which could then lead to Fitan (disorders) and blood being shed. In this case, it is our opinion that the role of those denying the Munkar be restricted to informing the relevant competent authorities within the Islamic State to undertake their responsibility in relation to removing the Munkar (1). This could be like the existence of a shop selling alcohol, casino or club for dancing and corruption (Fasaad). If the responsible officials within the Islamic state fall short in respect to removing this Munkar, then it would represent a Mazhlamah (injustice) from among the Mazhaalim (injustices) afflicting the Islamic society which are raised to the judges of unjust acts. Therefore, either the one in the position of authority removes this injustice (Mazhlamah) from the society via the force and power of the state or he grants permission to those who wish for the Munkar to be removed to remove it by force, or the issue of withdrawing the legal legitimacy (Shar’iyah) from him becomes the subject of investigation. That is from the angle of the ruler’s incompetence or inability to take care of the affairs of the Ummah according to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i which falls under what was previously discussed in relation to the violation of the Shart (condition) of ‘Adaalah (justice) in respect to the person of the Haakim (ruler). In this case, it would reflect the violation of a condition from among the conditions of the contraction of the authority to the ruler and that condition is the Qudrah (capability) to undertake the caretaking of the affairs of the Ummah in accordance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i. the following was mentioned in ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ by Al-Faraa’ when discussing the conditions of the Imaamah (post of leadership): “And thirdly: To be a (responsible) caretaker of the matter of war and politics, establishing the Hudood and that he is not characterised by leniency (or weakness) in respect to that and in respect to defending the Ummah” (2).
Therefore, the one who is incapable of establish the Hudood and preventing the Mufsideen (those who bring corruption) would have violated a condition from amongst the conditions of the validity of the initial contract of assuming the authority and would have consequently also violated a condition for the validity of his continuance in that position of authority.
The Mazhaalim judges within the Islamic State are the body specialising in the examination of this issue and it is this body or institution that issues the verdict.
As for individuals resorting to Al-Qitaal (fighting) by their own accord to prevent the Munkaraat behind the back of the state, then this represents a matter that by its nature could open the door to fighting between different groups and factions within the Ummah. This type of fighting is one of the types of the fighting of Fitnah (disorder) and we have presented many Shar’iyah texts in respect to its forbiddance within the section of this book entitled: “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” (the fighting of Fitnah) (3).
We will now leave this point to discuss our final point in this section which is:
[(1) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah: 1/219, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Faraa’: p4 (3) This will be discussed in the following section: “Qitaal ul-Fitnah”].
Thirdly: Is the Qitaal to remove the Munkar in defence of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?
This question relates to the cases where Al-Qitaal is legally legitimate and these are:
- The special or specific case: When an individual repels an attempt to commit a Munkar that he is not able to take steps for in terms of preparation or planning (because it is taking place right at that time and needs an immediate solution). An example of that would be an assault against the honour of a woman.
- The general case: This is where the state has provided permission to individuals wanting to deny the Munkar to oppose the people committing or behind the Munkaraat by force, if that is necessary.
- Or the state has dispatched a military force to undertake this task.
Is this legally legitimate Qitaal (fighting and use of arms) in defence of the Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities) of Allah, Jihaad in the way of Allah in accordance to its Shar’iy meaning?
The reality is that the Shar’iyah texts about the Inkaar (denying and forbidding) of the Munkar in their unrestricted form, without specification in terms of being Qitaal (fighting) or other than Qitaal, have come naming it all with the name of ‘Al-Jihaad’, as found within a number of Ahaadeeth:
This includes:
- The Qawl of the Nabi ﷺ:
أَفْضَلُ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ عَدْلٍ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ أَوْ أَمِيرٍ جَائِرٍ
The best Jihaad is the just word before the unjust (oppressive) ruler or leader (1).
- And the his Qawl ﷺ:
الْجِهَادُ أَرْبَعٌ : أَمْرٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ، وَنَهْيٌ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ، وَالصِّدْقُ فِي مَوَاطِنِ الصَّبْرِ ، وَشَنَآنُ الْفَاسِقِينَ
Al-Jihaad is (of) four (types): Commanding the Ma’roof, forbidding the Munkar, truthfulness in the situations of patience and enmity towards the Faasiq (2).
- In Saheeh Muslim it was related by ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (ra) from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he said:
مَا مِنْ نَبِيٍّ بَعَثَهُ اللَّهُ فِي أُمَّةٍ قَبْلِي إِلَّا كَانَ لَهُ مِنْ أُمَّتِهِ حَوَارِيُّونَ وَأَصْحَابٌ يَأْخُذُونَ بِسُنَّتِهِ وَيَقْتَدُونَ بِأَمْرِهِ ثُمَّ إِنَّهَا تَخْلُفُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ خُلُوفٌ يَقُولُونَ مَا لَا يَفْعَلُونَ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا لَا يُؤْمَرُونَ فَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِيَدِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ وَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِلِسَانِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ وَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِقَلْبِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ وَلَيْسَ وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ الْإِيمَانِ حَبَّةُ خَرْدَلٍ
Never a Prophet had been sent before me by Allah to his people but he had, among his people, (his) disciples and companions, who followed his ways and obeyed his command. Then there came after them their successors who proclaimed what they did not practise, and practised what they were not commanded to do. And (he) who strove (Jaahada) against them with his hand is a believer; he who strove (Jaahada) against them with his heart is a believer; and he who strove (Jaahada) against them with his tongue is a believer, and beyond that there is not even a mustard grain of Faith (3).
In addition, we have previously discussed in the first chapter of this volume that Al-Jihaad according to its Shar’iy, ‘Urfiy (customary) and Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning is “The fighting (Qitaal) of the disbelievers to raise high the word of Allah” and what is linked to that. We stated that if the Lafzh (wording) ‘Al-Jihaad’ has been mentioned with other than this meaning then it would be Jihaad in accordance to its linguistic meaning which is ‘every effort that is expended in the way of (accomplishing) something)’ or according to its Majaaziy (metaphorical) meaning as explained earlier. Based upon that, naming or calling the Inkaar of the Munkar within the Islamic society, to repel the Fussaaq (those intending evil) from perpetrating the Munkaraat, ‘Jihaad’, is only in accordance to its linguistic or Majaaziy meaning.
The selection of the wording of ‘Al-Jihaad’ and applying it upon Al-Qitaal or upon other than Al-Qitaal in terms of Islamic actions in other than the Shar’iy meaning for ‘Al-Jihaad’, is only done to suggest that the Islamic act is similar to ‘Al-Jihaad’ in respect to its impact and reward. Those who undertake it are similar to the Mujaahideen in terms of the efforts they have expended, the risks and dangers they have exposed their lives to and the great victory and success as a result of that. Additionally, in respect to this, it is not essential for there to be equality between any Islamic action and between Al-Jihaad or between those undertaking the Islamic action and the Mujaahideen!
Comments