Misconceptions regarding Islāmic Penal Code & distancing myself from ISIS

Having taken a neutral stance pending further information on ISIS, I would like to place on record that I now do not regard this group as worthy of the Muslims’ allegiance, especially when such allegiance implies sacrifice of wealth, abode and life. I do however maintain what I had previously stated:

1. Khilāfah is an important institution of Islām.


2. Muslims have neglected this institution.


3. That discussion on Khilāfah has been renewed is a good development in itself.


4. Whether ISIS is good and sincere or not, Allāh often uses evil people to achieve a good end, which is not clear to His slaves during the course of bad seeming events.

Why am I negative towards them?

1. Takfīr – ISIS declaring people of Sunnī belief to be unbelievers is not just unsettling in itself, but their justifications are so broad (e.g. anyone who supports the forces of disbelief is a disbeliever himself) that if applied, I cannot imagine that there are more than 100,000 Muslims left in the world. In fact I would venture to say that in time, a diseased mind of Takfīr turns against itself, and eventually there will be members of ISIS accused of apostasy.


2. To date the victims of ISIS appear to be more Sunnī than Rawāfiḍ.


3. Syria has been the home of extremely learned and pious personalities for centuries and remains so to this day. ISIS has had media channels to communicate its views, but neither through ISIS channels nor through other means, have the broader Muslim community learnt the name of a single reliable and learned person who has sworn allegiance to them.


4. The glamorous Hollywood style videos and amazing Arabic calligraphy at their disposal, whilst not evidence in itself, lends credence to Snowdon’s accusations of the leadership being a MOSSAD plant.


5. The vicious means of execution, even if the sentence were justified, is at odds with a religion which teaches humane slaughter of animals and prohibits the mutilation of dead enemy combatants.


6. How is it that an organisation which claims sufficient scholastic capacity to proclaim the Khilāfah does not have any understanding of the sublime war conventions of Islām?


7. Again, even if the sentences were justified, why is it, and why with such frequency do these atrocities have to be so broadcasted to make Islām appear as barbaric and hostile as possible?


8. In addition to lack of scholars, it is reliably reported that the populace are not at ease with ISIS rule.


9. ISIS expects global Muslim support, but consulted with nobody in proclaiming Khilāfah. So typical of autocratic regimes in Muslim countries and autocratic organisations in non-Muslim countries though!

All the above has or can be detailed by others. Instead, I now wish to discuss the application of Ḥudūd – the Islāmic Penal code, which even sincere Muslims misunderstand.

How “trigger-happy” are we supposed to be with penalties?

Amongst the “blessings” which we have enjoyed for the past century from the Saudi regime is the understanding that the primary function of the Islāmic state is to chop off hands and heads. This is the first image conjured in the minds of not just westerners, but Muslims as well. So for example when Pakistān at times discussed introducing Islāmic Law, the first topic of discussion, based on the Saudi example, was the penal code. Forget Islamic social services, education, health, finance, banking, foreign affairs, etc. Let’s initiate the Islāmic state with chopping off some hands.

I do not deny such penalties. To deny a single verse of the Qurān is apostasy. I deny the wrong implementation and the ignoring of the spirit of the Sunnah of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم .

(On a lighter note, I often say that the Qurān decreed crucifixion for highway robbers but today we instead stop at their little offices and pay them tolls)

The penalties are there in the background of a society whose moral education has been attended to. They are only implemented as a last resort and are not the first and frequent recourse of the state. Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓi records the following Ḥadīth, discarded in practice by both the Saudis and ISIS:

عن عروة عن عائشة قالت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ادرءوا الحدود عن المسلمين ما استطعتم فإن كان له مخرج فخلوا سبيله فإن الإمام أن يخطئ في العفو خير من أن يخطئ في العقوبة

Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Avert the penalties from the Muslims as far as you are able to. If there is a way out for him then let him go. It is better for the leader to err on the side of pardon than to err in punishment.”

I would hope that this clarifies the issue to those who had not understood the Sunnah in this matter. If an example is needed, then look at the example of our Master, Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم , not ISIS and the CIA regime which rules Makkah. I shall not comment after the Ḥadīth because it should be obvious how the above instruction was implemented to avert the penalty as far as possible. Many other issues such as the self-righteous attitudes of many Muslims can also be addressed from the following Ḥadīth, but that is not the topic for today.

حدثنا عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه أن ماعز بن مالك الأسلمي أتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله إني قد ظلمت نفسي وزنيت وإني أريد أن تطهرني فرده فلما كان من الغد أتاه فقال يا رسول الله إني قد زنيت فرده الثانية فأرسل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى قومه فقال أتعلمون بعقله بأسا تنكرون منه شيئا فقالوا ما نعلمه إلا وفي العقل من صالحينا فيما نرى فأتاه الثالثة فأرسل إليهم أيضا فسأل عنه فأخبروه أنه لا بأس به ولا بعقله فلما كان الرابعة حفر له حفرة ثم أمر به فرجم قال فجاءت الغامدية فقالت يا رسول الله إني قد زنيت فطهرني وإنه ردها فلما كان الغد قالت يا رسول الله لم تردني لعلك أن تردني كما رددت ماعزا فوالله إني لحبلى قال إما لا فاذهبي حتى تلدي فلما ولدت أتته بالصبي في خرقة قالت هذا قد ولدته قال اذهبي فأرضعيه حتى تفطميه فلما فطمته أتته بالصبي في يده كسرة خبز فقالت هذا يا نبي الله قد فطمته وقد أكل الطعام فدفع الصبي إلى رجل من المسلمين ثم أمر بها فحفر لها إلى صدرها وأمر الناس فرجموها فيقبل خالد بن الوليد بحجر فرمى رأسها فتنضح الدم على وجه خالد فسبها فسمع نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سبه إياها فقال مهلا يا خالد فوالذي نفسي بيده لقد تابت توبة لو تابها صاحب مكس لغفر له ثم أمر بها فصلى عليها ودفنت

Al-Imām Muslim records that Buraydah (may Allāh be pleased with him) narrated:

Mā‘iz bin Mālik al-Aslamī came to Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and said, “O Messenger of Allāh! I have indeed wronged myself. I have committed adultery and wish for you to purify me.”

He made him leave but he returned the next day and said, “O Messenger of Allāh! I definitely committed adultery.” Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم chased him away a second time. He summoned his tribe and asked, “Do you know of any problem with his mind? Is there something you find reprehensible in him?”

They replied, “We do not know of any evil in him, and as far as his mind goes he is amongst our sound ones as far as we can see.”

He then came a third time. So he summoned the tribe and questioned them again about him. They again informed him that there was no issue with him or his sanity.

It was only when he came the fourth time that a hole was dug and he gave the command and he was stoned to death.

(The Ḥadīth continues that a woman then came and a similar incident ensued where Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم refused to stone her despite her insistence. Other narrations mention how he tried to dissuade Mā‘iz, “Perhaps you only touched her.” May Allāh be pleased with both these repentant Companions).

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Misconceptions regarding Islāmic Penal Code & distancing myself from ISIS

Having taken a neutral stance pending further information on ISIS, I would like to place on record that I now do not regard this group as worthy of the Muslims’ allegiance, especially when such allegiance implies sacrifice of wealth, abode and life. I do however maintain what I had previously stated:

1.      Khilāfah is an important institution of Islām.

2.      Muslims have neglected this institution.

3.      That discussion on Khilāfah has been renewed is a good development in itself.

4.      Whether ISIS is good and sincere or not, Allāh often uses evil people to achieve a good end, which is not clear to His slaves during the course of bad seeming events.

Why am I negative towards them?

1.      Takfīr – ISIS declaring people of Sunnī belief to be unbelievers is not just unsettling in itself, but their justifications are so broad (e.g. anyone who supports the forces of disbelief is a disbeliever himself) that if applied, I cannot imagine that there are more than 100,000 Muslims left in the world. In fact I would venture to say that in time, a diseased mind of Takfīr turns against itself, and eventually there will be members of ISIS accused of apostasy.    

2.      To date the victims of ISIS appear to be more Sunnī than Rawāfiḍ.

3.      Syria has been the home of extremely learned and pious personalities for centuries and remains so to this day. ISIS has had media channels to communicate its views, but neither through ISIS channels nor through other means, have the broader Muslim community learnt the name of a single reliable and learned person who has sworn allegiance to them.

4.      The glamorous Hollywood style videos and amazing Arabic calligraphy at their disposal, whilst not evidence in itself, lends credence to Snowdon’s accusations of the leadership being a MOSSAD plant.   

5.      The vicious means of execution, even if the sentence were justified, is at odds with a religion which teaches humane slaughter of animals and prohibits the mutilation of dead enemy combatants.

6.      How is it that an organisation which claims sufficient scholastic capacity to proclaim the Khilāfah does not have any understanding of the sublime war conventions of Islām?

7.      Again, even if the sentences were justified, why is it, and why with such frequency do these atrocities have to be so broadcasted to make Islām appear as barbaric and hostile as possible?

8.      In addition to lack of scholars, it is reliably reported that the populace are not at ease with ISIS rule.

1.      ISIS expects global Muslim support, but consulted with nobody in proclaiming Khilāfah. So typical of autocratic regimes in Muslim countries and autocratic organisations in non-Muslim countries though!

All the above has or can be detailed by others. Instead, I now wish to discuss the application of Ḥudūd – the Islāmic Penal code, which even sincere Muslims misunderstand.

How “trigger-happy” are we supposed to be with penalties?

Amongst the “blessings” which we have enjoyed for the past century from the Saudi regime is the understanding that the primary function of the Islāmic state is to chop off hands and heads. This is the first image conjured in the minds of not just westerners, but Muslims as well. So for example when Pakistān at times discussed introducing Islāmic Law, the first topic of discussion, based on the Saudi example, was the penal code. Forget Islamic social services, education, health, finance, banking, foreign affairs, etc. Let’s initiate the Islāmic state with chopping off some hands.

I do not deny such penalties. To deny a single verse of the Qurān is apostasy.  I deny the wrong implementation and the ignoring of the spirit of the Sunnah of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم .

(On a lighter note, I often say that the Qurān decreed crucifixion for highway robbers but today we instead stop at their little offices and pay them tolls)

The penalties are there in the background of a society whose moral education has been attended to. They are only implemented as a last resort and are not the first and frequent recourse of the state. Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓi records the following Ḥadīth, discarded in practice by both the Saudis and ISIS:  

عن عروة عن عائشة قالت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ادرءوا الحدود عن المسلمين ما استطعتم فإن كان له مخرج فخلوا سبيله فإن الإمام أن يخطئ في العفو خير من أن يخطئ في العقوبة

 

Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم   said, “Avert the penalties from the Muslims as far as you are able to. If there is a way out for him then let him go. It is better for the leader to err on the side of pardon than to err in punishment.”

I would hope that this clarifies the issue to those who had not understood the Sunnah in this matter. If an example is needed, then look at the example of our Master, Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  , not ISIS and the CIA regime which rules Makkah. I shall not comment after the Ḥadīth because it should be obvious how the above instruction was implemented to avert the penalty as far as possible. Many other issues such as the self-righteous attitudes of many Muslims can also be addressed from the following Ḥadīth, but that is not the topic for today.

حدثنا عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه أن ماعز بن مالك الأسلمي أتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله إني قد ظلمت نفسي وزنيت وإني أريد أن تطهرني فرده فلما كان من الغد أتاه فقال يا رسول الله إني قد زنيت فرده الثانية فأرسل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى قومه فقال أتعلمون بعقله بأسا تنكرون منه شيئا فقالوا ما نعلمه إلا وفي العقل من صالحينا فيما نرى فأتاه الثالثة فأرسل إليهم أيضا فسأل عنه فأخبروه أنه لا بأس به ولا بعقله فلما كان الرابعة حفر له حفرة ثم أمر به فرجم قال فجاءت الغامدية فقالت يا رسول الله إني قد زنيت فطهرني وإنه ردها فلما كان الغد قالت يا رسول الله لم تردني لعلك أن تردني كما رددت ماعزا فوالله إني لحبلى قال إما لا فاذهبي حتى تلدي فلما ولدت أتته بالصبي في خرقة قالت هذا قد ولدته قال اذهبي فأرضعيه حتى تفطميه فلما فطمته أتته بالصبي في يده كسرة خبز فقالت هذا يا نبي الله قد فطمته وقد أكل الطعام فدفع الصبي إلى رجل من المسلمين ثم أمر بها فحفر لها إلى صدرها وأمر الناس فرجموها فيقبل خالد بن الوليد بحجر فرمى رأسها فتنضح الدم على وجه خالد فسبها فسمع نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سبه إياها فقال مهلا يا خالد فوالذي نفسي بيده لقد تابت توبة لو تابها صاحب مكس لغفر له ثم أمر بها فصلى عليها ودفنت

Al-Imām Muslim records that Buraydah (may Allāh be pleased with him) narrated:

Mā‘iz bin Mālik al-Aslamī came to Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم   and said, “O Messenger of Allāh! I have indeed wronged myself. I have committed adultery and wish for you to purify me.”

He made him leave but he returned the next day and said, “O Messenger of Allāh! I definitely committed adultery.” Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم   chased him away a second time. He summoned his tribe and asked, “Do you know of any problem with his mind? Is there something you find reprehensible in him?”

They replied, “We do not know of any evil in him, and as far as his mind goes he is amongst our sound ones as far as we can see.”

He then came a third time. So he summoned the tribe and questioned them again about him. They again informed him that there was no issue with him or his sanity.

It was only when he came the fourth time that a hole was dug and he gave the command and he was stoned to death. 

(The Ḥadīth continues that a woman then came and a similar incident ensued where Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم   refused to stone her despite her insistence. Other narrations mention how he tried to dissuade Mā‘iz, “Perhaps you only touched her.” May Allāh be pleased with both these repentant Companions). 

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Radio Islam Podcast: Muslim in Crisis

Podcast of Panel discussion on Radio Islam held on 15 August 2014. Mawlana Muhammad Kara hosted Mawlana Yusuf Abed and myself.
Questions which were posed to me:

• What are your reflections on the current situation Mulsim across the world?
• Gaza, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim World are in turmoil and chaos   –  Do we need to use divine logic to make sense of events.
•  We receive most of our information from western media outlets.  Are most people being given the correct representation of what is really happening?
•  Is there an Ideological vacuum within the Muslim Ummah?
• There has been rising elements of ‘extremist’ in certain parts of the Muslim World. Are they causing more damage?
•  What directives have Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam given us - as to how we should conduct ourselves at the times of Fitna?
•  How should the Muslim Ummah be responding to the current crisis?

سليمان الكندي

Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Islamic State & Khilafah - Allah does not need pious instruments

Q: would it be too much for me to ask you for a blog post on the Islamic State and this establishment of the caliphate?

My reply:

Khilāfah [Caliphate] was established from the beginning of Islām, so it is nothing novel, but yes it is novel to our era. We have completed a full 9 decades of the first time in the history of Islām when the world has not seen Khilāfah. As such, it is understandable that Muslims think of this as something new and expect guidance. I regret that I cannot provide clear cut answers to a situation that is so nebulous, but I do hope to share some food for thought that this declaration entails.

 

An Essential Institution of Islām

في حديث عبد الله بن عمر عن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال [من خلع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية

‘Abdullāh ‘Umar رضي الله عنه narrates that the Prophet صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  said, “He who withdraws a hand from obedience [to the Khalīfah] will meet Allāh on the Day of Resurrection without any proof [for his disobedience] and he who dies without the pledge of allegiance [to the Khalīfah] around his neck, dies the death of pre-Islāmic Ignorance .” [Muslim]

If nothing else, the declaration on 1^st Ramaḍān 1435, has at least broken the silence and apathy of Muslims on the essential institution of Khilāfah, abolished by Jewish Ataturk on Monday 28^th  Rajab 1342 (3^rd March 1924) and aided by the Satanic Saudi regime at the Makkah Conference two years later. This institution’s importance can be gauged from the actions of the two greatest, most pious and most learned Muslims upon the departure of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  from this world, i.e. Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه and ‘Umar رضي الله عنه. It would be expected that these two distinguished personalities who bore him such love as we can never imagine, would have attended to the following as ultimate priorities:

·         Washing the body of Muḥammad  Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  

·         Shrouding the body of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم .

·         Arranging the funeral prayers for Allāh’s Messengerصلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  .

However important these may be, the command of Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  took precedence to their personal feelings. They hastened to establish the Khilāfah before any of the above three stupendously important deeds. In my view, no amount of academic wrangling can match the singular example of Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه and ‘Umar رضي الله عنه in their haste to establish the Khilāfah.

If nothing else, at least the symbol

The Khilāfah of course did not remain in its pristine  form, and did not always fulfil the functions of succession to Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم . Let alone all the duties of tending to the political, spiritual, social, welfare, military, education etc needs of the Muslims, there were times when the Khalīfah functioned in nothing but name. Nevertheless the Muslims recognised the command of Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  and the practical benefit for a single symbolic leader. Notably when the Mongols massacred Baghdād and the last ‘Abbāsī ruler, al-Musta‘ṣim, in 1258 (with Rāfiḍī collaboration), a relative of al-Musta‘ṣim fled to Egypt. There the generally accepted greatest living scholar, ‘Izzuddīn bin ‘Abdis Salām  - Allāh’s mercy be upon him – pledged allegiance to him as the new Khalīfah. Understand that this Khalīfah had zero political function. His only function was to continue the office so that it would continuously run for 13 centuries. The Khalīfah only gained practical powers when the Turks assumed the office in 1517.

Not that it can be claimed that we were united before, but the degree of pettiness our fights have gained would have been tempered by the unifying figure of the Khalīfah. Thus when scholars of the Indian subcontinent sensed the danger the Khilāfah faced a century ago, they initiated the Khilāfah Movement to defend the institution by their word, deed, blood and wealth. On the other hand, ask why the Rawāfiḍ have never raised this issue since their 1979 revolution in Iran. Anything which will lead to the victory of the Sunnah (Islām) is not in their interests.

Allāh is not in need of the perfect pious to implement His will

I have not pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī, for want of information and direction. Yet I must say that the objections that the declaration is invalid and must be recanted, appear to me to be nothing more than one-liners giving no theological references.  Some statements seem tinged with panic, ego and personal interests.  It might be that the declaration is in fact invalid. Yet I want substance and not ego when making a religious argument. Furthermore, where were these scholars when they allowed the Jewish and Saudi plan of eliminating Khilāfah to go unchallenged for almost a full century?

What can the possible scenarios be?

·         The declaration is valid. The Islāmic State is composed of the righteous and must be assisted. The CNN reports of atrocities are lies and it is immature of certain Muslims to condemn without verifying the facts on the ground, in a land they have never been to.

·         The reports are correct, but distorted, not explaining actions for which there may be validity only comprehensible to those living there.

·         The Islāmic State folk are really bad guys.

Even if the third scenario is true, and we are to disassociate from them, I would ask Muslims to reflect on the possibility that since they have done nothing to restore the Khilāfah for almost a century, might it not be that Allāh choses His instrument to wake us up, even if the instrument appears wrong to us? A good deed is not nullified because the performer is bad. A charity worker is indeed a hypocrite if he abuses his wife, but can we deny that he was the instrument to fill the bellies of the hungry? Consider the following:

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه …. لا يدخل الجنة إلا نفس مسلمة وإن الله ليؤيد هذا الدين بالرجل الفاجر

Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه  narrates that Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  ordered Bilāl رضي الله عنه  to announce, “None but a Muslim soul will enter Paradise, but indeed Allāh can strengthen this religion via the sinful man.” [al-Bukhārī]

Rather than our favourite pastime of fault finding, I would say that Muslims should instead discuss their forgotten obligation of restoring the  Khilāfah. Indeed in Sūrah al-Isrā, Allāh calls Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم , ‘abd, “His Slave”. Four verses later He refers to the pagan Babylonians by the same word, in plural form, “Our Slaves,” simply because they were His instruments of punishing the rebellious Israelites. So let us not lose track of the real issue, simply because the instruments are imperfect or even bad people.

A more recent example is Tanzania. Oman ruled her with a harsh hand and treated the land as nothing but a means of acquiring slaves. Thus the name of Oman, Arabs and Islām stank in the nostrils of the locals. Germany expelled Oman, ended slavery and built infrastructure making transport to the interior possible. Muslims were no longer slavers and travelled to the interior to preach Islām. Islām spread more rapidly under Christian German rule than under Muslim Omani rule! Allāh fulfils His will as he wishes, not as we think to tell Him.

Mahdī

Allāh alone knows the future, but from the signs the Ḥadīth mention, it seems that time is running out. The Ḥadīth commands us to join with the Syrians when such time comes. Are we witnessing the preliminary events in our lifetime? Allāh knows best.

سليمان الكندي

 Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

  

سليمان الكندي

 Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi