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

Companions of the Cave – language, chauvinism & Quraan commentary

 

سَيَقُولُونَ ثَلَاثَةٌ رَابِعُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ خَمْسَةٌ سَادِسُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ رَجْمًا بِالْغَيْبِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَبْعَةٌ وَثَامِنُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ قُلْ رَبِّي أَعْلَمُ بِعِدَّتِهِمْ مَا يَعْلَمُهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلٌ فَلَا تُمَارِ فِيهِمْ إِلَّا مِرَاءً  …ظَاهِرًا وَلَا تَسْتَفْتِ فِيهِمْ مِنْهُمْ أَحَدًا

وَلَبِثُوا فِي كَهْفِهِمْ ثَلَاثَ مِائَةٍ سِنِينَ وَازْدَادُوا تِسْعًا

قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا لَهُ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَبْصِرْ بِهِ وَأَسْمِعْ مَا لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا

They will say [that there were] three [companions] the fourth being their dog. Others will five and their dog being their sixth. They but guess at the unknown. Others say seven and their eighth being their dog. Say, “My Cherishing Lord knows their number best.” None but a few knows them. So do dispute about them except for what is plain and apparent and do not enquire about them from any of them [unbelievers]….. [al-Kahf : 22]

They stayed in their cave for 300 years and increased 9. Say, “Allāh knows best how long they stayed…” [al-Kahf : 25-6]

 

Listening to the Jumu‘ah [Friday] talk, some thoughts which I had pondered on before, came to the fore. I wish to share some words on language issues and their broader context, and discuss some aspects which our attitude to knowledge reveal.

 

Respecting languages should work both ways

 

Having heard the desecration of Muḥammad into MO-HA-MID for the umpteenth time on a famous talk-radio station, I wrote to express my disappointment. When it comes to Italian or French names, the presenters take care to correctly pronounce the foreign name. Yet when it comes to Arabic names, which are far more numerous than those named in any single European language, any haphazard pronunciation will do. I did not mention that the presenter in question whom I was addressing is African, at least in terms of DNA, not Caucasian.  The station replied that they would note this for the future. Ha! Don’t hold your breath.

Conversely I find it symptomatic of the tribal chauvinism of some Muslims, as well as their academic laziness, that the entire history and geography of mankind magically conforms to their traditional language, whichever it may be. This may unfortunately include Arabic in itself for an Arab chauvinist, or Arabic vocabulary where an Arabic word is used by a non-Arab.

 

Someone told me that he had listened to a speech of a world famous scholar. He spoke on how Muslim explorers had apparently named a host of countries in the world. The examples cited seemed sensible enough, but I objected to Madagascar being al-Madīnah al-Aṣghar in origin. The grammar is incorrect. Had it been the case, it would have been al-Madīnah aṣ-Ṣughrā. The look of horror on the brother’s face, that I could DARE to have a different opinion, as well as his pious exclamation, “But that is what so-and-so said!” speaks volumes on the mentality of a good proportion of Muslims. By the way, you are welcome to do your own research on the etymology of Madagascar.   

 

Getting back to Friday, the classical commentators of the Qurān were generally monolingual. Based on their time and place, and when Arabic was the world language in terms of academia, trade, politics, literature etc, it was only practical and obvious that they would record the Greek names of the Companions of the Cave [“Seven Sleepers,” as the Christians call them] in an Arabicised form, amenable to their audience.

 

I would ask, why is it that a millennium later, Muslim scholars who are born in western lands would still not have the aptitude to pronounce the tyrant Emperor’s name as Decius instead of Diqyānūs? Is it really practical to give the name of one of the Sleepers as Miksalmīnā to a western Muslim, or would Maximillian make more sense? Are we lazy and chauvinistic, or is it just that we have as yet not worked on the balance of holding firmly onto our religion, whilst according our host countries and their cultures their respect?

 

Majority commentary, Qataadah and Greek records

 

The Qurān is a book of guidance, not a story book. It does not discuss historical details. I would not dare comment on Allāh’s Word based on my unsubstantiated opinion, but fail to see the validity of the extremism amongst Muslims. On the one hand, there are those who expect the Qurān to comply with their theories. These people lose sight of the Qurān being the absolute truth, and worship sciences whose absolutes today is discredited the next generation. If Allāh wills, I shall write one day on my discussion with a Muslim physicist in regards infinite parallel universes.

 

 On the other hand, some confine their minds to a single tradition. Findings from science, history, geography etc are of less than zero relevance to them, even when these fields are used as mere supporting evidence to an existing orthodox view in Islām, NOT primary proof. Any deviation from a school’s thought is disrespect to the instructors and pious predecessors. That is the problem of holding the middle ground amongst extremists. To the former, I am Neanderthal idiot, to the latter a disrespectful rebel verging on heresy.

 

 The commentary of Qatādah – Allāh’s mercy be upon him – appealed far more to me than the majority opinion when we studied the story of the Companions of the Cave as students.  

 

They majority view is that, “They stayed in their cave for 300 years and increased 9” means that they stayed for 300 solar equivalent to 309 lunar years in the cave. Qatādah however opined that the Verse is actually quoting the speculation of the unbelievers, just as they were quoted in regards their number speculation. Both the numbers and years are guesses in the unknown, hence the next Verse, Say, “Allāh knows best how long they stayed…”

 

Why I prefer Qataadah

 

• Decius ruled 249 -251. So there is no harm with the Greek dating of 250.
• If 300 is absolute, they awoke in 550.
• This is a mere 2 decades before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
• The Commentators explain that the story had been revealed in response to the unbelievers testing the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam with an incident so ancient, that the time and place had been lost to history. How is 20 years ancient lost history?
• The way Qatādah explains the speculation and that Allāh knows best, has a better logical flow that appeals to me.

All that being said, I can be wrong and 309 is clear and correct!

What then, is my point?

 

Deterioration in Muslim thinking

 

The point of this article is not to espouse my acceptance of Qataadah’s commentary, but to ask the reader to ponder over some points:

 

• The early commentators disagreed with Qatādah but mentioned his view with equal respect.
• Today it is not mentioned at all. 309 is mentioned as an absolute, with no difference.
• To me this but an example of the narrowing of Muslim thinking and inability to be open to differing opinions. A single monolithic narrative is the imperative and the diversity of the earliest Muslims is null and void.
• The above Verses clarify that the unbelievers should not be our point of reference. “…do not enquire about them from any of them.” Thus the Greek period of 180 years for them having slept is not a fact which can be used to interpret the Qurān. However, when the Greeks have a complete historical record of when the pagan Decius and believer Theodosius II ruled, can the historical Greek record not be utilised as supporting evidence for an existing view within Islām?
• My aim is to point out the forgotten middle path. Do we keep being in two groups, one worshipping science, the other living in an intellectual vacuum? Think about it. 

Companions of the Cave – language, chauvinism & Quraan commentary

سَيَقُولُونَ ثَلَاثَةٌ رَابِعُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ خَمْسَةٌ سَادِسُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ رَجْمًا بِالْغَيْبِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَبْعَةٌ وَثَامِنُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ قُلْ رَبِّي أَعْلَمُ بِعِدَّتِهِمْ مَا يَعْلَمُهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلٌ فَلَا تُمَارِ فِيهِمْ إِلَّا مِرَاءً  …ظَاهِرًا وَلَا تَسْتَفْتِ فِيهِمْ مِنْهُمْ أَحَدًا

وَلَبِثُوا فِي كَهْفِهِمْ ثَلَاثَ مِائَةٍ سِنِينَ وَازْدَادُوا تِسْعًا

قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا لَهُ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَبْصِرْ بِهِ وَأَسْمِعْ مَا لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا

They will say [that there were] three [companions] the fourth being their dog. Others will five and their dog being their sixth. They but guess at the unknown. Others say seven and their eighth being their dog. Say, “My Cherishing Lord knows their number best.” None but a few knows them. So do dispute about them except for what is plain and apparent and do not enquire about them from any of them [unbelievers]….. [al-Kahf : 22]

They stayed in their cave for 300 years and increased 9. Say, “Allāh knows best how long they stayed…” [al-Kahf : 25-6]

Listening to the Jumu‘ah [Friday] talk, some thoughts which I had pondered on before, came to the fore. I wish to share some words on language issues and their broader context, and discuss some aspects which our attitude to knowledge reveal.

Respecting languages should work both ways

Having heard the desecration of Muḥammad into MO-HA-MID for the umpteenth time on a famous talk-radio station, I wrote to express my disappointment. When it comes to Italian or French names, the presenters take care to correctly pronounce the foreign name. Yet when it comes to Arabic names, which are far more numerous than those named in any single European language, any haphazard pronunciation will do. I did not mention that the presenter in question whom I was addressing is African, at least in terms of DNA, not Caucasian.  The station replied that they would note this for the future. Ha! Don’t hold your breath.

Conversely I find it symptomatic of the tribal chauvinism of some Muslims, as well as their academic laziness, that the entire history and geography of mankind magically conforms to their traditional language, whichever it may be. This may unfortunately include Arabic in itself for an Arab chauvinist, or Arabic vocabulary where an Arabic word is used by a non-Arab.

Someone told me that he had listened to a speech of a world famous scholar. He spoke on how Muslim explorers had apparently named a host of countries in the world. The examples cited seemed sensible enough, but I objected to Madagascar being al-Madīnah al-Aṣghar in origin. The grammar is incorrect. Had it been the case, it would have been al-Madīnah aṣ-Ṣughrā. The look of horror on the brother’s face, that I could DARE to have a different opinion, as well as his pious exclamation, “But that is what so-and-so said!” speaks volumes on the mentality of a good proportion of Muslims. By the way, you are welcome to do your own research on the etymology of Madagascar.   

Getting back to Friday, the classical commentators of the Qurān were generally monolingual. Based on their time and place, and when Arabic was the world language in terms of academia, trade, politics, literature etc, it was only practical and obvious that they would record the Greek names of the Companions of the Cave [“Seven Sleepers,” as the Christians call them] in an Arabicised form, amenable to their audience.

I would ask, why is it that a millennium later, Muslim scholars who are born in western lands would still not have the aptitude to pronounce the tyrant Emperor’s name as Decius instead of Diqyānūs? Is it really practical to give the name of one of the Sleepers as Miksalmīnā to a western Muslim, or would Maximillian make more sense? Are we lazy and chauvinistic, or is it just that we have as yet not worked on the balance of holding firmly onto our religion, whilst according our host countries and their cultures their respect?

Majority commentary, Qataadah and Greek records

The Qurān is a book of guidance, not a story book. It does not discuss historical details. I would not dare comment on Allāh’s Word based on my unsubstantiated opinion, but fail to see the validity of the extremism amongst Muslims. On the one hand, there are those who expect the Qurān to comply with their theories. These people lose sight of the Qurān being the absolute truth, and worship sciences whose absolutes today is discredited the next generation. If Allāh wills, I shall write one day on my discussion with a Muslim physicist in regards infinite parallel universes.

 On the other hand, some confine their minds to a single tradition. Findings from science, history, geography etc are of less than zero relevance to them, even when these fields are used as mere supporting evidence to an existing orthodox view in Islām, NOT primary proof. Any deviation from a school’s thought is disrespect to the instructors and pious predecessors. That is the problem of holding the middle ground amongst extremists. To the former, I am Neanderthal idiot, to the latter a disrespectful rebel verging on heresy.

 The commentary of Qatādah – Allāh’s mercy be upon him – appealed far more to me than the majority opinion when we studied the story of the Companions of the Cave as students.  

The majority view is that, “They stayed in their cave for 300 years and increased 9” means that they stayed for 300 solar equivalent to 309 lunar years in the cave. Qatādah however opined that the Verse is actually quoting the speculation of the unbelievers, just as they were quoted in regards their number speculation. Both the numbers and years are guesses in the unknown, hence the next Verse, Say, “Allāh knows best how long they stayed…”

Why I prefer Qataadah

·         Decius ruled 249 -251. So there is no harm with the Greek dating of 250.

·         If 300 is absolute, they awoke in 550.

·         This is a mere 2 decades before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

·         The Commentators explain that the story had been revealed in response to the unbelievers testing the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam with an incident so ancient, that the time and place had been lost to history. How is 20 years ancient lost history?

·         The way Qatādah explains the speculation and that Allāh knows best, has a better logical flow that appeals to me.

All that being said, I can be wrong and 309 is clear and correct!

What then, is my point?

Deterioration in Muslim thinking

The point of this article is not to espouse my acceptance of Qataadah’s commentary, but to ask the reader to ponder over some points:

·         The early commentators disagreed with Qatādah but mentioned his view with equal respect.

·         Today it is not mentioned at all. 309 is mentioned as an absolute, with no difference.

·         To me this but an example of the narrowing of Muslim thinking and inability to be open to differing opinions. A single monolithic narrative is the imperative and the diversity of the earliest Muslims is null and void.

·         The above Verses clarify that the unbelievers should not be our point of reference. “…do not enquire about them from any of them.” Thus the Greek period of 180 years for them having slept is not a fact which can be used to interpret the Qurān. However, when the Greeks have a complete historical record of when the pagan Decius and believer Theodosius II ruled, can the historical Greek record not be utilised as supporting evidence for an existing view within Islām?

·         My aim is to point out the forgotten middle path. Do we keep being in two groups, one worshipping science, the other living in an intellectual vacuum? Think about it. 

سليمان الكندي