|
Contents:
Important Notes:
Note 1: Arabic Terms &
Qur’anic References.
Note 2: Terms of Reverence.
Note 3: Quotations
Dishonestly Presented.
Note 4: Judge a Religion
by its Teachings.
Note 5: Beware of Biased Experts!
Note 6: One Side of the Picture.
Introduction:
Chapter One:
The penalty of apostasy in the light of the Holy Qur’an and the true practice of
the Messenger
Firstly: The
word "Hadd", generally interpreted to mean "penalty" or "punishment", is
used in the Holy Qur’an to mean "the truth" or " the law", not to mean
punishment.
Secondly: The
position of the Holy Qur’an regarding accusation of apostasy.
Thirdly: The position of the Holy
Qur’an regarding the verdict of executing someone outside the principle of:
"a life for a life".
Fourthly: The penalty of apostasy in
the light of the true practice of the Messenger.
Chapter
Two:
The penalty of apostasy in the books of ancestors and in the history of
Muslims.
Firstly: The
events in the Prophet's life negate the existence of a penalty for apostasy.
Secondly:
The penalty of apostasy and the war with the apostates.
Thirdly: Developing the
penalty of apostasy between the two scholars "Al-Awza'ee" and "lkremah".
The
Tradition of Al-Awza'ee As Reported In Sahih Muslim
Discussing
Ikremah's Hadith in: "Sahih-ul-Bukhari"
Fourthly: Is it
permissible to put people to death based on traditions that have been reported
by one person?
The Verdict
Conclusion:
The penalty of apostasy, a verdict to kill all people
The western reader may find some difficulty in understanding the few Arabic terms used in this translation, therefore every Arabic term in the book is followed by an English explanation which may not be necessarily present in the original Arabic text. Gender references are to both males and females unless otherwise stated. Qur’anic references follow immediately the English translation of Qur’anic verses between two parenthesis in the format of two numbers separated by a colon. The first number refers to the number of the Chapter from the Holy Qur’an, while the second number refers to the number of the verse in that Chapter. Some publishers of the Holy Qur’an count the opening verse: In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful; as the first verse of every Chapter in which it appears, other publishers do not. The author followed the referencing of the later publishers. Readers whose Holy Qur’an are published by the former publishers should add 1 to the verse number of the Qur’anic references mentioned in this book.
The western reader may not be familiar with the terms of reverence used generally by Muslims in conjunction with names of some personalities. Therefore, it is better to present an explanation of such terms:
1. "sa" following the name of "the Prophet or
"the Messenger" is an abbreviation of: Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, which
means: Peace and blessings of God be upon him. This term of reverence is usually
reserved for the Prophet Muhammad. Also whenever the term "Prophet or
"Messenger" is mentioned without specifying a name, then such term refers
exclusively to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Needless to explain that the term
"Holy" when used with the name of the Prophet does not mean in any way that the
Prophet Muhammad is divine or being worshipped beside God. It is just a term of
reverence used in English language to indicate that a specific person has a
special relationship with God, as it is usually referred to a prominent
religious personality by the term: "His Holiness". Also the Qur’an is referred
to by the term: "The Holy Qur’an", meaning that the Qur’an is a divinely
revealed book, as it is usually referred to the Bible by the term: The Holy
Bible.
2. "as" is an abbreviation of Alaihis Salam; which means: Peace be on
him. This term of reverence is usually reserved for the prophets of God.
3. "ra" is an abbreviation of: Radiya-llahu Anhu; which means: May God be
pleased with him or her. This term of reverence is usually reserved for
prominent companions of the prophets, males and females.
It is not essential in Islam to pronounce these terms of reverence every time the name of a person is being mentioned. In fact, the term of reverence is not to be pronounced when the name of a person is mentioned in conjunction with the name of God. For example, in the article of faith, it is said: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Here, the name of the Holy Prophet is to be mentioned without the term of reverence; i.e. without saying Muhammad. There is no abbreviation nor there is any specific term of reverence for the name of God. The Exalted, the Great, the All-Mighty and all other Divine Attributes can be used as terms of reverence when mentioning the name of God.
In order to explain the historical background of the events leading to legislating a penalty for apostasy in Islamic jurisprudence, it is necessary to present the views of some fanatic Muslim scholars in order to show how the opinions of these scholars are in complete contradiction with the peaceful and logical teachings of Islam.
It is very unfortunate though, that some people, who are themselves fanatic opponents of Islam, take the quoted views of the fanatic Muslim scholars out of context and give such quotations wide spread publicity, misleading the reader by presenting the quotations as if they were actually the teachings of Islam. A quotation was taken out of context from the book: "Murder in the name of Allah" and was published on the Internet. The dishonest person who published the quotation did not have any sense of shame to make him desist from adding a comment warning the readers against being misled by what he called Islamic propaganda. He emphasized that the quotation which he dishonestly quoted represented the true teachings of Islam.
It is indeed very sad to know that there are such dishonest people who are willing to commit these kinds of nefarious actions in order to oppose and misrepresent Islam, or any other religion for that matter. However, such nefarious actions should not hinder any author from presenting the facts as they are. Caution should be taken though. The author does not have to publish the actual quotation or the reference of such a quotation, if it can be misused by the opponents of Islam. This was the course of action followed in translating this book, as much as possible, without any compromise to the integrity of the translation.
In order to form an unbiased opinion concerning any religion, it is imperative for every sensible person to judge the actual teachings of a religion, as presented by its holy book, not as presented by the opinion of its followers or by their actions. If, for example, we were to judge Christianity as presented by the opinion of Christian scholars in the medieval era of Europe, or by the actions of Christian people throughout the ages, we must conclude that Christianity is a terrible religion. Yet we know that Jesus as was a peace-loving person who preached peace and love. However, the atrocities committed by the Christian Priesthood in the medieval ages are unparalleled in the history of religion. No people have ever invented and used killing machines and weapons of mass destruction as the Christians have done. No people have ever plunged the world into two world wars as the Christians have done. No people have ever taken advantage of underdeveloped nations of the world and colonized their countries as the Christians have done in the last three centuries, claiming that this colonialist domination was the very will of God! No people have ever committed crimes against humanity as the Christians have done against the Jews in Europe and the native people in the Americas and Australia. No people have ever conducted mass slavery raids to enslave people as have done the Christians against the people of Africa. No people have ever mistreated minorities as the Christians have mistreated the blacks in Africa and America. The list can go on and on, but no sensible person would condemn Christianity due to the actions of its followers. Why then condemn Islam due to the actions of its followers?
Among the followers of every religion one may find those fanatics who misinterpret and misrepresent its teachings. Would any sensible person consider the atrocities of the Papacy to be the true presentation of Christianity? Would any sensible person consider the interpretation of the Holy Bible by the Klu Klux Klan and the White Supremacists to be the true interpretation of Christianity? Why then any sensible person should consider the opinions of some politically-driven Muslim scholars with medieval eras' mentality to be the true interpretation of Islam? A religion should be judged by the teachings of its holy book not by the actions and the opinions of its followers.
The problem of misrepresentation is a very serious one particularly in the realm of religion. In the past, up to the early part of the twentieth century, illiteracy in the West was wide-spread. It was not possible for the common man to get the required information directly from textbooks and references. With increased literacy, knowledge became easily accessible. However, religious knowledge remains, somewhat, out of reach for many, either for lack of interest on their part or because of misinformation.
Generally, common people will not go into deep study of any religion to understand its true teachings. Usually, they depend on what the experts would say, or what is read in the newspapers, or what is seen of specially produced documentaries on television. If the experts are honest, and the media are not biased, there is a good chance that the common people will be well informed of a certain issue. It is very unfortunate though, that when it comes to religion, particularly Islam, many experts are dishonest, and in general, the media are biased. What is meant by "experts" here is those who have the means and are able to make an impression on public opinion.
As an example of dishonesty of the experts, I may quote from the writings of the renowned American writer Mark Twain, in his book: "Letters From The Earth". He quoted a chapter from the Holy Bible referring to the teachings of God to Moses on how to deal with the Midianites. Some of the verses are as follows:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites, …and they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males, and they slew the kings of Midian, …, and the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoils, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts, and they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil unto Moses and Eleazar the priest,…And Moses said unto them, Have you saved all the women alive? .... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him".
Mark Twain was biased against the Bible. He wanted to prove the savage nature of its teachings as he perceived it. He wanted to impress upon the reader that the Bible teaches extermination of people on large scale and massacre of women and even children. He sarcastically tells the reader:
"The Biblical law says: `Thou shalt not kill'. The law of God planted in the heart of man at his birth says: `Thou shalt kill'. The chapter I have quoted shows you that the book-statute is once more a failure. It cannot set aside the more powerful law of nature".
If we were to add to the above quotations some verses from the New Testament, about the teachings of Christ, the picture drawn in the mind of the unaware reader becomes horrible. It is written in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that Jesus have said:
"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes shall be they of his own household". (Matthew 10:33-36)
"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" (Luke: 12:49-51)
To complete the terrible picture of this seemingly horrifying teachings, and to present Jesus himself as being the leader of an armed gang, carrying swords to fulfill his bloody and divisive mission, one may quote his instructions to his disciples:
"And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, and he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords..." (Luke 22:36-38).
All the above quotations are indeed from the Bible, but the message they give is not from the Bible. The quotations were taken out of context. The message which Mark Twain wanted to give the reader is completely wrong. He did not tell the reader why God decided to punish the Midianites and why He commanded Moses and the children of Israel to wage war against them. He did not tell the reader that God informed Moses of the evil and the atrocities committed by the Midianites. Mark Twain was not alive during World War II, but had he been alive at that time, he would not have condemned England and America for going to war against Nazi Germany. No sensible person would have condoned the evils and the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Europe. Waging war against Nazi aggression was perfectly justified. Similarly, waging war against the evil and aggressive Midianites was equally justified. However, Mark Twain did not tell the reader all the facts, he mentioned only part of it. Although the verses which he quoted were indeed from the Bible, yet the message he gave the reader was absolutely erroneous.
It is very unfortunate that many of those so-called "experts" who write about Islam, use the same technique. They give the reader part of the truth, but not all the truth. They may quote some verses, extract few excerpts from some writings, or report some historical incidents, all out of context; in order to paint in the reader's mind some erroneous picture. The majority of readers do not have the time, nor do they make the effort, to verify everything they read. They believe what the "experts" say. Islam is a victim of this misrepresentation. Sometimes, the perpetrators are also Muslim scholars. This is how the penalty of apostasy was infused in extreme Islamic jurisprudence.
In order to historically trace the events and the circumstances which led to inventing a penalty for apostasy, the author has presented one side of the history of the Umayyad and Abbasyd dynasties. He described the rulers as being totalitarians who justified their actions by sponsoring some scholars who were ready to issue religious verdicts to please the rulers. It was these scholars who invented the penalty of apostasy.
The reader who is unaware of Islamic history could conclude that the Muslim state at the time of the Umayyads and the Abbasyds was a corrupt, evil, bloody and inhumane dictatorship. Yet, the truth is that the Umayyads and the Abbasyds have contributed substantially to the advance of science, spreading of knowledge and the welfare of human society. By the standards of their times, they were oases of democracy and a sanctuary of human rights for the masses in a world darkened by tyranny and absence of basic rights for the common people. In comparison, they were not far off the great democracies of our time.
To give a parallel from our contemporary history, one may quote the case of how Afro-American people were treated in the United States, the greatest democracy of our time.
It is well known that the President of the United States nominates the judges to the Supreme Court. Their appointment is approved by the representatives of the people in the Senate. It sounds very democratic, and the whole system seems to be based on absolute justice. However, one cannot deny that when there are certain issues expected to be presented to the Supreme Court, the President will nominate the judges whom he knows to be supportive to his government's decisions.
Although the American Constitution gives equal rights to all citizens of the United States, yet, women in the United States did not have the right to vote until 1919. The Supreme Court gave that right to white women only, but denied it to black people, men and women alike. Indeed the Judges appointed by the President of the United States to the Supreme Court have ruled that black people do not have the right to enjoy the same privileges as white people.
After the Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King in the sixties, and after the change in heart of the government, the same Supreme Court ruled for equality between blacks and whites, ending apartheid in America.
In the United States, the government is usually represented by the Republicans or the Democrats, both parties are bound by the Constitution of the United States. Yet both have manipulated the law and through the Supreme Court, they gave legal justification to what they wanted to accomplish, whether to establish apartheid or to uproot it.
Similarly, in the era of the Umayyad and Abbasyd dynasties, the government was represented either by the Umayyads or the Abbasyds, both were bound by the teachings of the Holy Qur’an and the practice of the Holy Prophet. Yet both have manipulated the law, and through the verdicts of some scholars, who were very popular with the public, they gave legal justification to what they wanted to accomplish.
The similarity between the government of the United States, led by the Republicans and the Democrats; and the government of the early Muslim era, led by the Umayyads and the Abbasyds may not be absolute. Taking into consideration the difference in time, being more than 10 centuries, yet we find that each government came to rule through its supporters from among the people, each government was bound by a constitution, and each government had to justify legally its actions. By the standards of the world more than a thousand years ago, the Umayyad and the Abbasyd dynasties were not totalitarian nor dictatorships. They were indeed very advanced democracies, almost similar to the democracy of the United States in the twentieth century. Yes, both dynasties did not conform totally to the teachings of Islam concerning establishment of government, such teachings are more lofty and supreme than any communist or capitalist democracy.
It may be argued though, that both the Umayyads and the Abbasyds have seized power through a revolution against an established government or after a civil war. That may be the case, but according to the rules of democracy in the West, this is very acceptable. The victor always has the right to enforce the law, and it is considered democratic! Take the French revolution, it established democracy through revolution. Take the American civil war, the victor North imposed upon the defeated South its own ideas. It is the American version of democracy!
If, after more than a thousand years, someone were to write the history of the plight of the American blacks in the United States, and say that the United States was a country which enslaved its black citizens, a country of which the founding fathers did not consider black people to be citizens of the country, not even humans but subhumans, and that is why they did not give them any right in the American Constitution, a country in which black people were treated like dogs, to the degree that until the middle of the twentieth century there were signs in some places reading: "No dogs or blacks", a country in which blacks were not allowed to worship God in churches frequented by white people, a country in which some religious groups, like the Klu Klux Klan, used to hunt blacks and kill them like animals, and so on and so forth; such a historian will be giving one side of the picture. Indeed he will be concerned with the plight of the black people not with the whole history of America. Yet, the reader at that time, after more than a thousand years, who may not be aware of the bright side of the American history, will get a bleak and horrible picture about the history of the United States.
The author of this book has done the same. In order to trace the historical events leading to institutionalizing the penalty of apostasy, he presented the bleak side of the Umayyad and Abbasyd history, leaving the bright and the illustrious side. The reader who is unaware of that history will definitely get a horrific one-sided picture of those two great dynasties. The author is not to be blamed for this. He wrote his book for the Arabic-speaking reader who is generally aware of that history. Besides, it was not his responsibility to mention all the historical aspects of the Umayyad and the Abbasyd dynasties. It was not the subject matter of his book. However, a couple of lines in his introduction to remind the reader of the great accomplishments of those two great dynasties may have been sufficient. This note is included to serve that purpose.
Mostafa Sabet Toronto, Canada 1998
In the name of Allah, The Gracious, The Merciful
"slay not the soul,
the slaying of which Allah has
forbidden, except for a just cause"
(6:151) - (17:33)
Truthfully speaks Allah the Great!
In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
It is very important to start by calling things by their real name in order to do justice to the great religion of Islam, apart from the attitude of some Muslims.
First of all, we have to differentiate between Islam and the Muslims.
Islam is believed to be the religion of Allah, the Great, Who commands justice, beneficence and urges to adopt high moral values. The Holy Qur’an is believed to be the true charter for this godly religion. The practice of the Messenger, is considered to be the practical and literal application of the Holy Qur’an. The Prophet was known to be the embodiment of the "Qur’anic Morals", as he was described by God to have: i.e. "Great Morals". These "Great Morals" are derived from "The Great Qur’an".
It is natural to find a gap between the laws of the "Great Qur’an", as were truly applied in practice by the Prophet, and the jurisprudence of some Muslims during the periods in history following the period of the Prophet and that of of AI-Khilafat-ur Rashid Rashida, i.e. the Rightly-guided Successorship.
The period of the Prophet and that of the Rightly-guided Khilafat was the period in which the Holy Qur’an was revealed and its teachings were put into practice. It is regrettable, though, that much of the recording of the Islamic literary heritage took place during the periods which followed, i.e. during the dictatorships of the Umayyad and the Abbasyd dynasties. During such periods, political efforts tried to colour this heritage with a religious colour in order to bridge the gap between the teachings of the Qur’an, on one side, and the attitudes of the Khulafa (i.e. Successors) and the clerics, on the other side. Bridging such a gap was done by fabricating certain traditions (i.e. sayings of the Prophet) and attributing them to the Prophet. Needless to say that such fabricated traditions were in contradiction with the teachings of the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet.
The penalty of apostasy was born during such periods as an expression of certain political circumstances that required shedding the blood of opponents of various regimes. Since the teachings of the Holy Qur’an prevented categorically blood-shedding except for lawful reasons (as a penalty for murder or in defensive wars to suppress aggression), the clerics invented the penalty of apostasy by fabricating two traditions and attributing them to the Holy Prophet. They wanted to provide the totalitarian rulers with a religious justification to eliminate their opponents.
The present advocates of political Islam keep demanding that Islamic Shariah, i.e. religious jurisprudence, should be applied as the law of the land. They do not have the time, nor the urge, to enquire which Shariah they demand to be applied: Is it the jurisprudence of the Holy Qur’an or that of the clergy in the Abbasyd period? It seems that the advocates of political Islam prefer much better the jurisprudence of the Abbasyd clergy because it provides them with a sharp sword to be used against their political foes and opponents. Such sharp sword is the penalty of apostasy. It would be easy for the leaders of political Islam to accuse their opponents of apostasy and then raise such a sword at their faces. It will be easy for the leaders of political Islam to terrorize their foes by accusing them of apostasy if such foes should demand of them to come up with a practical political program that defines their theoretical mottos of "Islam is the solution" and "Rulership belongs to God".
Again, if any person asks the advocates of political Islam to accept some progressive opinions in order to solve the economic, social and political problems that lie in the way of applying Islamic jurisprudence, they will be able to accuse such a person of opposing the application of Shariah. Such opposition will be interpreted as committing apostasy. Accordingly, such a person can be terrorised by the penalty of death.
The Egyptian thinker Dr. Farag Foda paid his life as a price for daring to challenge, in his writings and debates, the advocates of political Islam, to come up with a specific and detailed political programme. Shortly before his assasination he demanded of those advocates to come up with modern laws derived from Islamic Shariah. Although he made it very clear that he was in full support of the current Egyptian constitution which is based upon Islamic Shariah, yet their answer to him was his assassination, thereby they gave their actual and practical way of dealing with their intellectual and political opponents.
They have succeeded in converting the trial of Farag Foda's killers to a trial for Farag Foda himself. They made out of that trial an occasion to terrorise their opponents. The defence in the case demanded that the testimony of some advocates of political Islam should be heard. Their leader gave his verdict that whoever opposes the application of Islamic Shariah is an apostate who deserves to be executed, and that any person from the public who kills him should not be punished by the authorities, even though such a person has taken away the right of the state by taking the law into his own hands.
This bloody verdict was transmitted to the public through the media. The newspapers of political Islam very happily welcomed it. No less enthusiasm was shown by their supporters working in the government official newspapers.
A political and intellectual debate, for and against, erupted around the penalty of apostasy. It was discovered during this debate that there was nothing in the Holy Qur’an to support the penalty of apostasy, and that this penalty was based upon two dubious traditions attributed to the Prophet. It also came to be known that the Messenger has never executed anyone of the hypocrites, who were the first to be condemned by the Holy Qur’an as apostates. Consequently, it was concluded that had there been a penalty for apostasy, the Messenger would have had applied it.
The author of this book belongs to the school of fundamental thinking, but he is on the side of true fundamentalism. He believes that Islam today requires someone who is ready to struggle in order to bring to light its facts. Islam does not need those who use its great name in their own world of politics to serve their personal worldly objectives. It is the duty of everyone who loves God, His Messenger and the religion of Islam to defend this great religion against the evils attributed to it during the dictatorship era. One of such evils is the penalty of apostasy.
What is known as the penalty of apostasy is based upon two traditions only. One of such traditions was reported by Bukhari, which states: "Whoever changes his religion should be killed". The other tradition was reported by Saheeh Muslim which states: "It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three situations: A life for a life, a married man who commits adultery and a man who leaves his religion and abandons his people".
The way this book deals with the subject of the penalty of apostasy starts by tracing the subject in the Holy Qur’an as well as during the era of the Messenger, then during the era of the Rightly-guided Khilafat, followed by the era of the Umayyads and the Abbasyds. It studies the two traditions upon which the alleged authenticity of the penalty of apostasy was based. It is a fundamental study of the traditions' reporters, the categorization of the traditions, the chains of reporters and the opinions of the scholars regarding the validity of any law based upon a tradition categorized as being: "Ahaad', (i.e. a tradition which was heard by one person); in addition to the opinions of the scholars of Al Azhar Institution. At the end, the author presents a conclusion in which he underlines the con-sequential dangers of legislating a penalty for apostasy. Thus, he presents his testimony for history in order to do justice towards Islam and to purify it's name from the sins of some Muslims.
Allah is sought for help.
Dr. Ahmad Subhy Mansour
August 1993
Chapter One
The penalty of apostasy in the light of the Holy Qur’an
and the true practice of the Messenger.
Firstly: The word "Hadd", generally interpreted to mean: "penalty" or "punishment", is used in the Holy Qur’an to mean "the truth" or "the law", not to mean punishment.
Secondly: The position of the Holy Qur’an regarding accusation of apostasy:
It is not permissible for a Muslim to call another "apostate", nor to set up Court of Inquisition to search in the hearts of people.
Thirdly: The position of the Holy Qur’an regarding the verdict of executing someone outside the principle of: "a life for a life".
Fourthly: The penalty of apostasy in the light of the true practice of the Messenger's.
Chapter One
The penalty of Apostasy in the light of the Holy Qur’an
Firstly:
The word "Hadd", generally interpreted to mean: "penalty" or "punishment", is used in the Holy Qur’an to mean: "the truth" or "the law", not to mean punishment.
The word "Hudood' (plural of "Hadd') is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an 14 times. In all times it meant God's rights and His Laws. It never meant "punishment" nor "penalty" as it is wrongly used in the expressions "(Hadd) the penalty of apostasy", "(Hadd) the punishment of adultery" and "applying (Hudood) the penalties of Shariah".
It occurred two times, meaning the ordinances of God and His limits as in the verse:
"The Arabs of the desert are worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and most apt not to know (Hudood) the ordinances of the revelation which Allah has sent down to His Messenger" (9:97)
Similarly, in describing the attributes of the believers, God says:
"who enjoines good and forbid evil, and who watch
(Hudood) the limits set by Allah" (9:112)
It came once concerning the commandment of fasting in the verse:
"It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast, …These are (Hudood) the limits fixed by Allah, so approach them not" (2:187)
It came two times in the laws of inheritance. At the end God says:
"These are (Hudood) the limits set by Allah; .... And whoso disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His (Hudood) limits, He will make him enter into Fire; therein shall he abide" (4:13-14)
It came nine times in the legislations concerning marriage and divorce:
Once is related to the subject of "Zehar", i.e. when a husband makes a vow to terminate the sexual relationship with his wife, which was a custom among the Arabs before Islam. Islam states that he should make an atonement before approaching his wife. At the end of the subject God says:
"... these are (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah" (58:4)
It came four times in one verse relating to limiting the number of times a divorce is allowed between a husband and a wife to two times. God says:
"Such divorce may be pronounced twice; then, either retain them (i. e. the wives) in a becoming manner or send them away with kindness. And it is not lawful for you to take away anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they cannot observe (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah. But, if you fear that they cannot observe (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah, then it shall be no sin for either of them in what she gives to get her freedom. These are (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah, so transgress them not; and whoso transgresses (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah, it is they that are the wrongdoers" (2:229)
It came twice in the following verse relating to the third divorce between a husband and a wife and the necessity that the wife should marry another person
"And if he divorce her the third time, then she is not lawful for him thereafter, until she marries another husband, and, if he also divorce her, then it shall be no sin for them to return to each other, provided they are sure to observe (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah. And these are (Hudood) the limits prescribed by Allah which He makes clear for the people who have knowledge" (2:230)
It also came twice forbidding to send out the divorced wife from her home before the end of the waiting period. It says:
"Turn them not out of their houses, nor should they themselves leave, unless they commit an act which is manifestly foul. And these are (Hudood) the limits set by Allah; and whoso transgresses (Hudood) the limits of Allah, he indeed wrongs his own soul" (65:1)
These are all the places wherein the term: "Hudood" was mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. The term always meant the laws and the ordinances of God. It never meant one of the penalties prescribed in the Holy Qur’an such as the penalty of theft, adultery, murder, road-hijacking or defaming. Nothing is mentioned also about the penalties invented in the period of the Abbasyd dynasty for drinking, apostasy or for not offering prayers.
This proves that the clergy of the Abbasyd period have fabricated certain terms which did not agree with the commandments of the Holy Qur’an.
It also proves that in the period of the Messenger' which was closely related to the Holy Qur’an, the term: "Hadd" was not understood to mean: "penalty", although there were many penalties mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. For example, when the Holy Qur’an stated the punishment for adultery, it did not use the expression: "Hadd of adultery". Similarly, it did not use this term to describe the penalty of other offences like theft, defaming or murder. This can be clearly verified by a study of the Holy Qur’an.
This emphasizes the essential difference between the true religion of God and the types of religions that were invented by human beings at various stages of human development.
God revealed His religion in a clear and pure way in order to elevate the people and uplift them. However, when humans interfere in religion, they put their fingerprint on it by infusing their own understanding. Consequently, a gap is created between the true religion and the religion of humans. They invent certain formulae for the the religion they practice. Usually, the so-called "experts" of jurisprudence perform this task. It is natural then, that differences always erupt between various schools creating sectarianism. It is also natural for the gap to widen between sectarian jurisprudence and the original pure religion. Sectarian jurisprudence is influenced by social, political and psychological circumstances which may affect the founder of a sect.
Thus it was not strange for human jurisprudence to invent new judicial expressions not mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. Also, it was not strange for human jurisprudence to invent new penalties that contradicted the jurisprudence of the Holy Qur’an. One of such inventions is called the penalty of apostasy.
Before we discuss the position of Qur’anic jurisprudence with respect to the penalty of apostasy, we shall discuss the position of the Holy Qur’an towards accusing someone of being an apostate. Apostasy is the base upon which human jurisprudence has created such a penalty. In order to apply the penalty of apostasy, it is imperative to find the accused guilty of apostasy by setting up a court which tries to penetrate in his heart and mind, and then condemns his beliefs.
So, is it permissible for a Muslim in Islamic jurisprudence to accuse another Muslim of being an apostate?
This is the following topic in our discussion.
Secondly:
The Position of the Holy Qur’an Regarding
Accusation
of Apostasy.
It is not
permissible for a Muslim to call another
"apostate" nor to set up Court of Inquisition to search
in the hearts of people.
God has granted human beings freedom to believe or to disbelieve regarding His Being. The evidence supporting this fact is very clear in the life of the masses, in their attitude, words, acts and their history, past and present.
The Holy Qur’an, being the Word of God, contains the practical proof supporting the absolute freedom to believe or to disbelieve. This is clearly mentioned in the Qur’anic stories about the idolaters. It is also clear in the Qur’anic injunctions to conduct dialogues with the disbelievers and to convince them by logic and arguments. Had not God permitted religious freedom, such dialogues would not have been conducted and no effort would have been made to persuade them logically. Thus the Holy Qur’an emphasizes that people are free to believe or to disbelieve. On the Day of Judgment they will be held accountable for such freedom. At such time they will be asked about the consequences of their choice. God says:
"And say, `It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will believe, and let him, who will, disbelieve.' Verily, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose flaming canopy shall enclose them. And if they cry for help, they will be helped with water like molten lead which would scald their faces. How dreadful the drink and how evil is the Fire as a resting place!" (18:29)
In addition, the Holy Qur’an did not omit the insults of the disbelievers which they have attributed to God. For example, the Jews said:
"Allah is poor and we are rich" (3:181)
and they said:
"Allah's hand is tied up" (5:64)
When the disbelievers refused to accept the principle of giving alms they said:
"Shall we feed him whom Allah would have fed, if He had so willed" (36:47)
The Holy Qur’an recorded these statements and did not exclude them from the text. Such statements together with the reply, became part of the verses of the Holy Qur’an which a Muslim recites as an act of worship.
It is logical, of course, that the Holy Qur’an, being the Word of God, would refute all the statements levelled against the religion of God. This is God's right, not only because He is the Lord of mankind, their Creator and the One Who revealed His religion, but also because He deals with people on the basis of justice. He gave them the right to believe and to disbelieve, also He granted them the freedom to declare their disbelief and the freedom to attribute to Him the defects which may be in their minds, and even to fabricate and twist His words. In return, He gives Himself the right to describe them as apostates and to consider them as disobedient. It is also within His right to refute their allegations and to sanctify His Holy Being from having a son or taking a partner. These are matters that concern Him and it is He Who should refute them.
However, God's justice is manifest through the way He deals with various types of humans. When He condemns someone as being a disbeliever, He gives the reasons and explains the causes for disbelief. For example, when He says:
"Indeed, they are disbelievers who say, `Surely, Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary'…They surely disbelieve who say, `Allah is the third of three' (5:72-73)
He does not condemn everyone among the Christians as being a disbeliever, but only those who subscribe to such beliefs. In the meantime, He considers those who believe in Him and the Last Day and do good works from among the believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabians, to be His friends who should have no fear nor should they feel any sorrow. He says:
"Surely, those who believe and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians, whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve". (2:62)
Also God says:
"Surely, those who have believed, and the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians; whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds, on them shall come no fear, nor shall they grieve". (5:69)
which means that God is not biased towards or against anyone. Thus whoever believes in Him and in the Last Day and do good works then such a person is considered to be God's friend whose abode is Paradise, but whoever attributes a son to Him or takes a partner beside Him, then God considers such a person to be a disbeliever.
This is what belongs to Him. He is the One Who revealed the religion. He is the King of the Day of Judgment, and He is the One Who can categorize people as believers if they adopt true beliefs, or consider them as disbelievers if they chose to subscribe to false and wrong beliefs.
God did not give anyone the right to pass judgment over other people or condemn them as disbelievers. Hence He commands the believers to reason with others using wisdom and good advice, without any feeling of superiority and without condemning others, leaving judgment for God on the Day of Judgment. This was the commandments given to the Seal of the Prophets.
Let us take some Qur’anic examples:
God commands that the dialogue with the People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) should be conducted in the best manner. He says:
"And argue not with the People of the Book except with what is best; but argue not at all with such of them as are unjust. And say, `We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit' (29:46)
Thus arguing with the People of the Book is forbidden except if it is conducted in the best manner, that is to say, if an objective discussion using reason and arguments is carried out without hurting their feelings. However, those whom are described as: [those who are unjust], there should be no discussion with them, so that the discussion may not develop into exchange of insults. God has forbidden any argument which may result in exchange of insults. He says:
"And revile not those whom they call upon beside Allah, lest they, out of spite, revile Allah in their ignorance". (6:108)
As for those who are unjust , or the fanatics, as we call them by our present terminology, God commands the Prophet:
"And if they contend with thee, say, `Allah knows best what you do; Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that about which you differ'. (22:68-69)
which means that there is no point in holding a useless discussion with the fanatics. It is better that a believer should leave such people alone. This is the attitude which behoves a believer. God says concerning the behaviour of the believers towards those fanatics who commit excesses:
"And when they hear idle talk, they turn away from it and say, `For us our works and for you your works. Peace be upon you. We have no concern with the ignorant' (28:55)
This verse was revealed concerning the believers among the People of the Book. It provides the best method of having a dialogue or conducting a discussion in the best manner. It also provides the proper attitude regarding avoiding having an idle talk with the fanatics.
Thus conducting a discussion "in the best manner" is the feature that should be present in every discussion between the believers in the Holy Qur’an and the believers among the People of the Book. This is the meaning of the verse:
"And argue not with the People of the Book except with what is best; but argue not at all with such of them as are unjust". (29:46)
In order that a Muslim should not fall in the evil of accusing the People of the Book of being disbelievers, the Holy Qur’an defines the manner of the dialogue between the two sides, thus says God:
"And say, `We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit'. (29:46)
which means that both of us believe together in One God; and we believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed to us; and we have submitted to God. He did not say: `and say you are disbelievers', because it is forbidden for a Muslim to accuse someone else of being a disbeliever.
Similarly, it is not mentioned that a believer should quote in his discussion with the People of the Book the words which the Lord of Glory has used to condemn those who claim that God is third of three or those who claim that God is Jesus son of Mary, because those were the words He chose for Himself to condemn their claims. As for us, we are not to argue except in the best manner and leave condemnation, related to matters of faith, for God on the Day of Judgment.
It is mentioned in the third chapter of the Holy Qur’an, Sura Aali-Imran, the facts about the birth of Jesus" and also about his mission, following which God says:
"That is what We recite unto thee of the Signs and the Reminder, full of wisdom. Surely, the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam. He created him out of dust, then He said to him, `Be', and he was. This is the truth from thy Lord, so be thou not of those who doubt". (3:58-60)
After this clarification about the humanity of the Messiah and about his message, what should be the position of the Holy Prophet when the People of the Book come to argue with him? Should he accuse them of disbelief? Should he call them names or condemn them as being misguided? Should he threaten them to be among the dwellers of Hell?
Let us read the following verse to know the answer to these questions, keeping in mind that the chapter of the Holy Qur’an containing this verse has been revealed in Medina during the time when the Muslims have established their state and gained power. It says:
"Now whoso disputes with thee concerning him, after what has come to thee of knowledge, say to him, `Come, let us call our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and our people and your people; then let us pray fervently and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie". (3:61)
which means that whoever argues with you about the nature of the Messiah after what has been revealed to you of the knowledge contained in the Qur’an, then you should call them to participate in a "Mubahala", i.e. a prayer duel, in which both parties should put the whole matter before God. Such prayer duel should be performed by both parties, calling women and children. Both sides should pray to God that He may curse the side that lies. The Holy Qur’an did not tell the Prophet that if they argued with you then condemn them as misguided disbelievers whose abode is Hell. No, only to pray to God that His curse should fall upon the side that lies. Naturally, every side believes to be truthful.
This means that the decision should be left to God Who is the only One Who has the right to call anyone among His servants as a believer or a disbeliever, but the Prophet does not have this right of his own.
Thus the Holy Qur’an defines the appropriate manner which Muslims should follow in their discussions with the People of the Book. It instructs the Prophet to say:
Say, `O People of the Book! come to a word equal between us and you - that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partner with Him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside Allah'. But if they turn away, then say, `Bear witness that we have submitted to God'. (3:64)
This is the highly appropriate manner which should be followed by Muslims when inviting the People of the Book to a word equal between both sides, to which they should commit themselves: Worship God alone without setting any partner with Him and without setting "Priesthood" and making gods out of humans. If they refused such a commitment then the Muslims should not accuse them of disbelief, nor should they talk on their behalf, nor should they pass any judgment over them on behalf of God, but only to say: Bear witness that we have submitted ourselves to God alone.
The Holy Qur’an did not say: If they turn away then bear witness that we have submitted to God but you are disbelievers. It is not within the right of a Muslim to accuse other people of being disbelievers. It is enough for a Muslim to declare his submission to God. It is a great honor for him to be indeed submissive to God.
In conclusion, it is only within the right of God alone to say about some of the People of the Book:
"Indeed, they are disbelievers who say, `Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary' (5:72)
Similarly, it is He alone Who has the right to say about the People of the Book:
"They are not all alike. Among the People of the Book there is a party who stand by their covenant; they recite the Word of Allah in the hours of night and prostrate themselves before Him. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin good and forbid evil, and hasten to vie with one another in good works. And these are among the righteous." (3:113-114)
It is God alone Who:
"He knows the treachery of the eyes and what the breasts conceal". (40:19)
In addition, it is God alone Who knows best the true faith in the bosoms of individuals, sects and nations. He says:
"And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another". (4:25)
As for us, human beings, it is imperative that we should follow the commandments of God if we consider ourselves to be true believers. Accordingly, we should not tell other people anything except that which is good, as God says:
"And speak to people kindly" (2:83)
This also means to argue with them in the best manner. Is there anything more wonderful than what God has mentioned concerning the principles of inviting other people to the way of God and conducting a discussion with them than what He has said:
"And who is better in speech than he who invites people to Allah and does righteous deeds and says, `I am, surely, of those who submit'? And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best. And lo, he, between whom and thyself was enmity, will become as though he were a warm friend". (41:33-34)
It may be argued, though, that God has commanded His Messenger to say:
"Say, `O ye disbelievers! I worship not as you worship'. (109:1-2)
which means that the Prophet can call them disbelievers, and tell them: "O ye disbelievers".
The answer is that the enemies of the Prophet' in Mecca took much pride in opposing him and declared openly their disbelief, thus calling them "disbelievers" was not insulting to them in any way. It was they who used to accuse the Prophet of lying, of using magic and of madness. It was they who considered it a crime worthy of persecution and war, to believe in the Holy Qur’an.
Thus telling them: "O ye disbelievers" did not imply hurting their feelings, but it was a statement which they liked and took pride in. What is important is that the essence of his address to them emphasized the freedom of conscience which was specified at the end of the same Sura:
"For you your religion, and for me my religion". (109:6)
What is more important is the etiquette established for conducting a dialogue with those who used to take pride in their disbelief and considered it a crime to believe in God and His Messenger. Such etiquette excluded accusing them of being misguided and consequently condemning them to Hell.
Let us read the Qur’anic statements which God revealed to His Messenger about conducting such a dialogue with those people:
"Say, `Who gives you sustenance from the heavens and the earth'? Say. `Allah. Either we or you are on right guidance or in manifest error'. (34:24)
Thus God did not command His Messenger to tell the idolaters in a course of an argument: "I am on the right way and you are in manifest misguidance", but God commanded him to say that one party among us is rightly guided and the other is manifestly misguided.
Then the immediately following verse explains:
"Say, `You will not be questioned as to our sins, nor shall we be questioned as to what you do'. (34:25)
In other words, God did not command the Prophet to tell the opponents: you are not responsible for our sins nor are we responsible for your sins. He was commanded to attribute the sins to himself, though he was the Prophet. However, he should not attribute to the idolaters but their works.
To such extent the etiquette of conducting a dialogue with the disbelievers was clearly defined, even when such a dialogue was to be conducted with the idolaters who were bitter opponents. Hence, the verse immediately following states:
"Say, `Our Lord will bring us all together; then he will he judge between us with truth, and He is the Best Judge, the All-Knowing". (34:26)
which means that the Prophet should leave the final verdict to God on the Day of Judgment.
This was regarding how the Prophet should conduct a discussion with the idolaters.
It was not for him to accuse his enemies of disbelief. Similarly, it was not for him to accuse any Muslim of disbelief.
Consequently, anyone who accuses another of being a disbeliever puts himself above the Prophet. He even takes for himself the right of God.
It is in the nature of Priesthood to talk on behalf of God. Therefore, wherever there is a Priesthood there is always accusation of others of disbelief and setting up of Inquisition Courts. In Islam there is no such a Priesthood. Let us remember that God invited the People of the Book to discard Priesthood when He said:
"Say, `O People of the Book! come to a word equal between us and you - that we worship non but Allah, and that we associate no partner with him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside Allah'. But if they turn away, then say, `Bear witness that we have submitted to God' . (3:64)
This is the reality of Islam. There is no room for gods or Priesthood or intermediaries. However, the reality of Muslim history is different. They obeyed their scholars, saints and Imams as if they were gods. It became a taboo to criticize their opinions. Any criticism directed to any of them was taken to be an attack against Islam itself This is the same concept of the priests who consider themselves and their leaders to be the only representatives of the faith and the only authority that has the right to speak on its behalf.
Therefore, in order to do justice to Islam, it is our obligation and duty to defend it against the deeds of the Muslims which contradict the beloved Book of God.
The danger of Priesthood is that when it accuses someone of disbelief, it sets up Inquisition Courts and passes a judgment to execute him. This is another contra-diction to the Law of the Holy Qur’an. The Prophet' himself has never set up Inquisition Courts for the hypocrites in Medina when he lived in it as the sole and obeyed ruler. The hypocrites represented religious and political opposition. They used to plot against him in times of war and peace, which in any present democratic society, a government would have the right to put them on trial for committing crimes equivalent to high treason.
Let us take some examples from the Holy Qur’an to explain the position of the Prophet' regarding the hypocrites and the idolaters.
Some of them used to hasten to apostate and go back to disbelief which used to sadden the Messenger', but he did not have the right to put them on trial; nor to pass any judgment against them; nor to apply what is known now as `the penalty for apostasy'; nor to set up Inquisition Courts. All what he could do was to feel sad for such people. His Lord tells him in the Holy Qur’an:
"O Messenger! let not those grieve thee who hasten to fall into disbelief - those who say with their mouths, `We believe,' but their hearts believe not". (5:41)
God assured him that those who hastened to apostatize and went back to disbelief will have no part in the blessings of the life to come. This would be enough as their punishment. Therefore there is no need to persecute or prosecute them in this life. God says:
"And let not those who hasten to fall into disbelieve grieve thee; surely, they cannot harm Allah in any way. Allah desires not to assign them any portion in the life to come; and they shall have a severe punishment". (3:176)
An apostate cannot do any harm to God. Enough is the punishment that such a person will receive on the Day of Judgment if he or she died as an apostate. Some of the hypocrites used to exceed the limits to the degree of plotting against the Prophet' and against the believers during times of war. In spite of this, the Prophet did not set up Inquisition Courts.
Pointing to the plots they used to plan against the Prophet, God says:
"And they say: `Obedience is our guiding principle;' but when they go forth from thy presence, a section of them spends the night scheming against what thou hast said. Allah records whatever they scheme by night. So turn away from them, and put thy trust in Allah. And sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of affairs". (4:81)
They used to offer the Prophet' a lip service and appeared before him to be obedient. When they went to have a meeting with him they declared their obedience, but as soon as they departed from his presence they started plotting against him. They spread lies and fabrications against him. However, when God informed His Messenger of their plots and recorded their hostile attitude, He commanded the Prophet to turn away from them, and to put his trust in God alone Who is Sufficient for him as a Disposer of Affairs. His Lord did not tell him to set up Inquisition Courts for them, nor to condemn them as apostates and pass a judgment against them to execute them for the crime of apostatizing or for committing high treason.
In difficult times, such hypocrites used to plot against the Muslims and the Prophet, particularly in time of battles of wars with the idolaters, which in present times is considered to be high treason. They used to oscillate in their loyalty between the Muslims and the idolaters. They joined the victor among the two sides. Thus God says about them:
"Those who await your ruin. If you have a victory from Allah, they say, `Were we not with you?' And if the disbelievers have a share of it, they say to them, `Did we not on a previous occasion get the better of you and save you from the believers?' Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will not grant the disbelievers a way to prevail against the believers". (4:141)
Yes, God tells the Prophet and the believers:
"Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection" (4:141)
which means that the final judgment is postponed until the Day of Judgment, because there is no room in a true Muslim state to set up any type of Court of Inquisition. Similarly, in no place in the true and pure Law of Islam there is such a penalty called `a penalty for apostasy'. Had there been any penalty for apostasy, the Prophet would have been the first to apply such a penalty against the hypocrites who were described by the Lord of Glory:
"The hypocrites shall surely be in the lowest depths of the Fire, and thou shalt find no helper for them". (4:145)
The postponement of the final judgment until the Day of Judgment regarding matters related to faith and the rights of God is one of the principles clearly mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. Such a principle is considered to be one of the important features of a true religion in the realm of belief in God and belief in the Last Day.
This is what has been revealed in divine messages and what has been emphasized by various prophets and messengers sent by God. It is also what God has explained in the Holy Qur’an.
God told Jesus Son of Mary:
"O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ". (3:55)
Clearly it is only God Who will judge between the Christians concerning the differences that have erupted between them. Such judgment will take place on the Day of Judgment. Had they believed in this, they would not have set up Court of Inquisition nor would they have burnt people at the stake accusing them of apostasy and heresy.
Similarly God says about the Jewish People:
"The punishment for profaning the Sabbath was imposed only on those who had differed about it and thy Lord will surely judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differed". (16:124)
Evidently, it is only God Who will judge between the Jews concerning the differences between them. Such judgment will also take place on the Day of Resurrection.
The idolaters from Quraish as well as other idolaters have disblieved in the Holy Qur’an and denied the sanctity of this divine Book. Their judgment is also postponed till the Day of Judgment which is called also "The Day of Deen", when all the kingdom shall manifestly belong to God alone. It is only He Who has revealed this Deen, (i.e. religion). He is also the King of the Day of Judgment. Thus God says about those who disbelieved in the Holy Qur’an:
"And those who disbelieve will not cease to be in doubt about it until the Hour comes suddenly upon them, or there comes to them the punishment of a destructive day. The Kingdom on that day shall be Allah's. He will judge between them". (22:55)
When they used to come to the Messenger of God and argue with him in the worst manner, God told him:
"And if they contend with thee, say, `Allah knows best what you do; Allah will judge between you and me on the Day of Resurrection concerning that about which you differ". (22:68)
which means that the final judgment between them and him is postponed till the Day of Judgment.
For this, God used to command the Messenger" to be patient until the time comes for the "True Promise", which is the Day of Judgment. On that day will be fulfilled all that God has promised His Messenger. On that day the great Court will be set up. God says:
"So be thou patient. Surely, the promise of Allah is bound to be fulfilled. And whatever We show thee in this life part of what We have promised them or whether We cause thee to die before the fulfillment of Our promise, to Us will they be brought back". (40:77)
Also God tells His Messenger:
"And if We show thee in thy lifetime the fulfillment of some of the things with which We have threatened them, thou wilt know it; or if We cause thee to die before that, then to Us is their return". (10:46)
What is unique about the Great Trial is that God is the Witness over what they do, and also He is the Wakeel, i.e. their representative, on Whom the believers depend. Enough is He as a Witness and enough is He as a Wakeel.
When a believer understands these meanings, he feels pity for those who are tempted by Satan and led into misguidance. Therefore, God commands the believers to forgive those who are misguided. He says:
"Tell those who believe to forgive them who persecute them and fear not the Days of Allah, that He may requite a people for what they earn. Whoso does good, does it for his own soul; and whoso does wrong, does so to its detriment. Then to your Lord will you all be brought back". (45:14-15)
When a believer reflects upon the punishment awaiting the misguided in the life to come, then the pity he feels for them changes to pardon and forgiveness. A believer will never think of persecuting them nor of bringing them to trial. God says:
"And the Hour is sure to come. So do thou forebear with goodly forbearance". (15:85)
How can anyone compare these highly noble commandments to the demand of those fanatics who call for setting up of Inquisition Courts?
Some of those who are over-enthusiastic religious zealots raise their voices accusing others of apostasy. Such people should better raise their prayers towards heaven. These prayers were raised during the time in which the Holy Qur’an was being sent down and are being raised now. The Holy Qur’an condemns the attitude of such over-enthusiastic religious zealots:
`We call to witness the Prophet's repeated cry: `O my Lord! these are a people who will not believe'. And Our reply was, `So turn aside from them, and say, `Peace'. And soon shall they know". (43:88-89)
Thus the proper reply to such people is to say: `Peace' and to forgive them. They will realize the truth on the Day of Judgment.
To set up Court of Inquisition to judge people based on their beliefs and to watch over the whispers of their hearts is beyond the capacity of humans. Hence such courts are unjust courts. Not only because they plagiarized one of the special rights of God Who is the Single Being able to judge over the faith and beliefs of people, and not only because such courts are against the divine Law which decreed to postpone the final judgment concerning the differences between various doctrines till the Day of Judgment, but also because such courts have been imposed upon private thoughts which are hidden in the bosoms.
It is only God Who knows the treachery of the eyes and what the breasts conceal. This is exactly what the Lord of Glory has said while talking about the great trial on the Day of Judgment, or the Day of Meeting, as the following verses explain:
"... that He may give warning of the Day of meeting. The day when they will all come forth, nothing concerning them will be hidden from Allah. `Whose is the Kingdom this day!' It is Allah's, the One, the Most Supreme. This day will every soul be requited for that which it has earned. No injustice this day! Surely, Allah is swift in reckoning. And warn them of the day that is fast approaching, when the hearts will reach up to the throats, full of suppressed grief. The wrongdoers will have no warm friend, nor any intercessor whose intercession would be accepted. He knows the treachery of the eyes and what the hearts conceal. And Allah judges with truth, but those upon whom they call beside Him cannot judge at all. Surely, Allah is the All-Hearing, the All-seeing". (40:15-20)
Thus the Day of Meeting, (Talaqee), is the day on which everyone will meet his Creator. It is the day when mankind will stand before the Lord of all the worlds, that is the Day of Judgment. On such day, all people shall appear for meeting with God and nothing concerning them would be concealed from Him. It is the day when it shall become manifest that all the Kingdom belongs only to Him. It is also the day when every soul will be judged according to what it has earned, when injustice will exist no more because it is God alone Who will judge with absolute justice and truth and it is He alone Who knows the unseen.
It is one of the features of that great day that the Lord of Glory will take account from everyone regarding their secrets. He says:
"On the day when secrets shall be disclosed". (86:9)
which means that God will examine the secrets.
Such a judgment will be carried out with absolute justice, because the Judge knows the secrets and what is concealed in the bosoms. This knowledge belongs only to God which He did not grant to anyone else, not even to His Messenger who was appointed as the Seal of the Prophets.
The Messenger did not know what was concealed in the bosoms of his Companions. Some of those who were in his company were the worst hypocrites. They got used to hypocrisy to the degree they became addicted to it, and became very crafty in the art of putting the appearance of true believers. Consequently, God says to the Prophet and to the believers:
"And of the desert Arabs around you some are hypocrites; and of the people of Medina also. They persist in hypocrisy. Thou knowest them not We know them". (9:101)
God clearly explains the situation of those who "persist in hypocrisy", pointing out: `You do not know them'. Because the knowledge of what is in the bosoms belongs only to God not to anyone else. Glory be to Him Who knows the unseen!
The Priesthood raises itself over and above the prophets because it claims to know what is unseen in the bosoms. It also puts itself on the same level of the Lord of Glory by judging, in the name of God, but of course falsely and calumny, whoever it differs with concerning matters of faith and belief. God tells the Prophet:
"And let not those who hasten to fall into disbelief grieve thee; surely, they cannot harm Allah in any way. Allah desires not to assign them any portion in the life to come; and they shall have a severe punishment". (3:176)
It is not for anyone to judge people in matters of belief and disbelief. These matters belong to God alone, not to anyone else, not even to His Prophet. A prophet is not responsible for anything except to deliver the message, to give glad tidings and to communicate the warnings he received from his Lord. So, when some of his followers go back on their faith and apostatize, he should not grieve himself over them. Having apostatized is a matter that does not concern him. It is a matter that concerns God, though they cannot harm God in any way by hasting to apostatize. God's decree concerning such apostates is that they should be deprived of Paradise and should be punished in hell.
God says to the Prophet:
"Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher; Thou art not appointed a keeper over them. But whoever turns away and disbelieves, Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment. Unto Us, surely, is their return. Then, surely, it is for Us to call them to account". (88:21-26)
To control the feelings and the emotions of other people and to watch over their beliefs is beyond the capacity of the Prophet. Therefore God told him: You are not Musaytir, i.e. not their keeper. Although the Prophet had political control over Medina, being the head of state, yet such political control did not give him the right to have religious control over the hearts of all its inhabitants. The hypocrites were living there. As for the believers who were living in Medina, their hearts were united in love through the grace of God not through the effort of the Prophet alone. God says:
"And He has put affection between their hearts. If thou hast expended all that is in the earth, thou couldst not have out affection between their hearts, but Allah has put affection between them". (8:63)
The only one who has control over the hearts is God alone. It was His will to leave the hearts free to believe or to disbelieve, to obey or to disobey, to love or to hate. Thus God forbade the Prophet to exceed any limit in inviting people to the faith by forcing them in any way, shape or manner. He told the Prophet:
"And if thy Lord had enforced His Will, surely, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wilt thou, then, force people to become believers? And no soul can believe except by the permission of Allah". (10:99-100)
Thus bringing them to trial and punishing them belongs to God alone. It is only He Who has this right and no one else. Whoever gives himself this right is usurping the right of God and is setting himself as a god beside God.
History proves that Court of Inquisition and persecution of the opponents in matters of faith always occurred during the times in which the Priesthood had control, or during the times in which people have deified other human beings such as saints, imams, clerics, priests and monks. Such phenomenon never existed during the times very close to the beginning of Islam.
In the time of the Messenger and the Rightly-guided Successors, the early Muslims have never had Court of Inquisition or what is called `the penalty of apostasy'. Nevertheless, persecution of religious opponents did exist at that time by the Byzantine Empire which was persecuting the Copts of Egypt for religious differences concerning the nature of the Messiah. Hence the Egyptians welcomed whole heartedly the Islamic conquest of Egypt to save themselves from the Roman's religious persecution.
Then the "microbes" of religious persecution were transferred to the Muslims during the periods of totalitarian control and the successors who were "unrightly guided". There and then, the Muslims came to know the Court of Inquisition and the penalty of apostasy for reasons that were not related to religion but in which religion itself was abused. Religion was the means by which the Priesthood had to protect its unfounded doctrines for justifying religious and political dictatorships.
God did not make any law for humans to punish those who hasten to apostate after they had believed, as they cannot harm God in any way:
"Surely, they cannot harm Allah in any way". (3:176)
but the religious and political Priesthood hasten to persecute and punish its opponents because such opponents can do it a lot of harm.
Usually, Priesthood exists on basis that are illogical. It often sets itself to oppose truth and to contradict the true religion of God. Whenever Priesthood looses the battle of logic and reason then the only way left is to resort to use of force. Thus the Priesthood appoints a judgment day before the Judgment Day of God and sets up Court of Inquisition before the final day in which every one will give account for his/her actions. The Priesthood claims to rule and judge in the name of God while in reality it usurps His right.
Setting up laws for Court of Inquisition under the pretext of "Asking the apostate to repent":
They gave themselves the right to ask people to repent infront of them, though repentance is not permitted except before God alone. It is only God Who accepts repentance of a person who sincerely repents to Him. God did not give anyone else the right to accept repentance.
God tells the believers:
"And turn ye to Allah all together, O believers". (24:31)
Also He says:
"O ye who believe! turn to Allah in sincere repentance". (66:8)
Thus it is only God to Whom people should offer their repentance, and it is He alone Who accepts repentance of the Prophet and the believers, as He says:
"Allah has certainly turned with mercy to the Prophet and to the Emigrants and the Helpers who followed him in the hour of distress". (9:117)
This shows that the Prophet himself does not have the right to accept the repentance of any person nor does he have the right to forgive the sins of the sinners. God tells the Prophet:
"It is none of thy concern whether He may turn to them in mercy or punish them, for they are wrongdoers. And to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. He forgives whomsoever He pleases and punishes whomsoever He pleases, and Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful". (3:128-129)
And because there is no god but Allah, none else has the right to accept repentance or to receive repentance of anyone. This was what God commanded His Prophet to proclaim:
"Say, `He is my Lord; there is no god but He. In Him do I put my trust and towards Him is my return". (13:30)
which means that I repent only to God.
This was what the Prophet used to say and to proclaim.
However, the Priesthood elevates itself above the Prophet. While the Prophet, as indicated by the Qur’an, had no concern in the matter of reward and punishment, yet the Priesthood gives itself every right concerning everything. While repentance is directed towards God alone and no one can receive repentance of humans and none can judge them except God, yet the Priesthood appoints itself to be a partner with God and gives itself the right to judge its opponents and even to punish them according to what is called the penalty of apostasy.
During the times when political and religious Priesthood had the upper hand, the religious clergy wrote a lot on the subject of "receiving repentance of the apostate". Some of the present-day scholars, like Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq [Considered one of the extremists among present-day clergy. He used to belong to Muslim Brotherhood organization and is said to have issued some verdicts to justify few political assassinations. (The translator)] has copied what was written in the far past and reproduced it in his book: "Fighus-Sunnah". He writes that the apostate must be made to repent even if his apostasy is repeated, and he should be given a period of time to himself so that he may reflect about the matter. All his self-whispers should be refuted and his thoughts should be discussed. If he changed his position and announced that he rejected every religion except Islam then his repentance should be accepted, otherwise the "penalty of apostasy" should be carried out!
Also he says: "some of the scholars have estimated the time period granted to an apostate to repent by three days while others have not defined the time. However, it is necessary to instruct him repeatedly and to hold a discussion with him until it is concluded that he will not return back to Islam, then the penalty of apostasy should be applied. It is also said that he should be killed immediately." [Fiqhus-Sunnah: part 2 page: 388]
They also came up with a murky reason to justify accusing someone of committing apostasy. It is not clearly defined and can be interpreted according to one's desire. Such a reason is: "To deny what is necessarily known of religion". Obviously, the expression: "What is necessarily known of religion" is a jurisprudent expression that has surfaced in recent times. It is not clearly defined and there is no agreement between the scholars concerning it. It was not known during the period of the Messenger sa nor in the time of the Rightly-guided Successors. There is no list, agreed upon, of that which is necessarily known of religion. The Holy Qur’an did not provide such an agreed upon list neither such defined list has ever existed in true traditions of the Prophet, or even in the false traditions. In the various writings of the jurists, one finds no such list. Every scholar may give some examples of what is necessarily known of religion, only examples which can be added to or taken away from, increased or decreased. Accordingly, one may find a list which may represent the opinion of a particular scholar, his time, his knowledge and his understanding.
Sheikh Syyed Sabiq, in his book "Fiqhus-Sunnah" has provided some examples of that which is necessarily known of religion, in which he expressed his opinion and stated his position relating to some matters in our political life. He defines the one who denies what is necessarily known of religion, and consequently deserves to be killed, as the one who makes lawful that which the Muslims have agreed upon to be considered unlawful, or to make unlawful that which the Muslims have agreed upon to be lawful, or the one who insults the Prophet, or insults Islam or makes accusations against the Holy Book and the Sunnah and leaves acting upon them preferring to follow the laws made by people, or the one who claims that he has received a revelation from God, or throws the Holy Book in the dirt, or throws the books of traditions giving no importance to them or their value ...etc.' [Fighus-Sunnah: part 2 page: 384]
In the past periods of time, it was not one of items in the list of "what is necessarily known of religion" to include preferring the rule of the Book and the Sunnah to the civil laws. Such an item was not even mentioned in the writings of earlier scholars. The reason is that applying the Shariah was not a political issue during the Abbasyd or the Mamluks' eras.
It means that Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq has introduced a new item in the list of "what is necessarily known of religion", an item which the early scholars had not known before. The reason is that at the time of Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq, there has been so many secular movements that took a stand regarding the demands raised by some religious groups to apply the Shariah. Therefore, we understand why the Sheikh threatened them with the "penalty of apostasy"; because, according to him, they denied "what is necessarily known of religion". Consequently, the list of "what is necessarily known of religion" could be increased or decreased according to various circumstances, depending on time, and depending on the views of each scholar. It starts by denying the existence of the Divine and goes on to include throwing the books of traditions in the dirt, according to the opinion of Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq, and also throwing the books of Shariah, i.e. Jurisprudence, as stated by a book of jurisprudence, which adds: "spitting on the books of jurisprudence or mixing the books with spitting, is considered a legitimate reason to accuse someone of apostasy and to kill him, even though the saliva itself is considered to be clean and pure"!
This means that some people have made of religion a private kingdom over which they wanted to impose their own opinion and their own books. If the people refused to yield to such opinions, they will be threatened by a Court of Inquisition and by execution!
It is no wonder after all of this that a legislation presented to the Egyptian Parliament calling for the application of Islamic Shariah has included the penalty of apostasy. It defined apostasy as: "Denying what is necessarily known of religion". Thus this elastic definition remains as a drawn sword over the necks of those who dare to oppose the clergy. However, the law was generous with the victims, so instead of three, it gave the apostate thirty days as a grace period to receive his repentance before executing him!
The danger of the accusation of "denying what is necessarily known of religion" is not only that such an accusation is very elastic, not defined in specific number of items which do not increase nor decrease and are not added to nor subtracted from. All this is not the only danger.
The real danger is the ambiguity of the items in such a list. The ambiguity of these items opens the door for personal interpretations and various, understandings according to personal desire.
For example, Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq says that the apostate is the one who attacks the Holy Book and the Sunnah. Such an accusation is very elastic. The Holy Qur’an contains many matters on which Muslims have differed, such as the meaning of Sitting on the Throne, the subject of seeing God, and the matter of Destiny and Decree. Every party of Muslims use certain arguments from the Holy Qur’an they feel supportive to their views. Therefore, according to the Sheikh's opinion, every party can accuse the other of attacking the Holy Book by misinterpreting it.
As for the definition of "Sunnah", it becomes more elastic and ambiguous. Each of the scholars of Hadith (i.e. the traditions of the Prophet) has collected and verified a number of traditions which he has considered to be the Sunnah of the Messenger. All of them differ with each other. Then came after them other scholars who differed much more than before. Because of the ambiguous definition of the terms in the list used to accuse someone of apostasy, each party of scholars of Hadith can have the right to accuse other parties of attacking the books of Sunnah. Consequently, every party would be able to set up a Court of Inquisition for the others. History of Muslims in the time of Abbasyds and the Mamluks was full of hundreds of inquisition courts and so many accusations of apostasy. The ruling authorities have been involved in such inquisition courts according to their own political and ideological inclinations. Usually the party that had the upper hand was able to accuse others of apostasy and the loosers would be punished according to the penalty of apostasy.
This theological disagreements among Muslims made some scholars decide to apply the penalty of apostasy to the Zendeeq, i.e. the heretic, without giving him a chance for a fair trial. Thus he is deprived of the right to defend himself or to present his arguments. In other words, he is denied the right to "offer his repentance"!!
One outrageous example is presented by an author of a book on jurisprudence, stating that a Zendeeq should be executed immediately after being caught, without asking him to repent. Such a person used to be considered "a hypocrite" in the time of the Prophet. However, according to the newly invented jurisprudence, such a person should be killed even if he repented! !
The reader may imagine that a Zendeeq is someone who is a blasphemous or a disbeliever or an atheist who does not believe in God, His Messengers and His Books. No! He is a believer. He believes in God and His Messengers and His Books, but he is a thinker who has an independent opinion. His major mistake is that his views may differ with those of other scholars. Such a difference may be tantamount to what others may consider to be denial of "what is necessarily known of religion". So, he deserves to be killed even if he repented. And because he is a person of opinion, supported by arguments and proofs, then the religious Priesthood deprives such a person of the right to a fair trial which may be granted to a regular apostate who turns back to disbelief. The reason for this is that the regular apostate may not have the arguments and the proofs which the Priesthood is afraid of. As for a person who is accused of being a Zendeeq, being a person of opinion, the Priesthood clergy cannot face him in a fair trial, so there is no need for him to be brought to trial! It is better to get rid of him and to kill him quickly!
Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq says that the Zendeeq is a person who believes in Islam inwardly and outwardly. Thus he believes with his tongue and heart. How then he is considered to be a Zendeeq? The Sheikh says in explanation: "... but he may interpret some of what is necessarily known of religion in a different way from that which the Companions and those who came after them and all the Ummah (i.e. all the Muslims), have agreed upon".
In other words, one is considered to be a Zendeeq because one used one's mind, thought about some matters and came up with new opinions that may differ with what is commonly known and "what we found our fathers following", irrespective of whether one has got evidence to support one's opinions or not. What only matters is that the evidence may differ from the interpretation of the Companions and those who came after them and has been agreed upon by the Ummah!
The Sheikh presents his own opinion by saying: "As the jurisprudence has ordained putting a person to death as a penalty for apostasy in order to make it a restraint against apostatizing, similarly it has ordained putting a person to death as a penalty for being a Zendeeq in order to make it a restraint against heresy and for protection against any wrong interpretation which is unacceptable. Therefore, anyone who denies intercession; or denies seeing God the Exalted on the Day of Judgment; or denies punishment of the grave and questioning by the two interrogating angels: "Naker & Nakeer"; and who denies the Judgment and the Narrow Way, whether one says: `I do not trust these reporters', or says: `I trust the reporters but the tradition has a different interpretation', then one gives a wrong interpretation which has not been heard of before, then such a person is considered to be a Zendeeq. The majority of the later scholars of the Hanafi and Shafe'ee schools of jurisprudence have agreed to put such a person to death".[Fighus-Sunnah part 2 page 391]
This is absolutely outrageous, because all these are points upon which Muslims have differed, and still differ. The Mu'tazala and Hanbalis have differed upon such points like seeing God, and creation of the Qur’an. All have differed upon intercession and the punishment in the grave and the requital of the grave. On points of difference, it happens that every side supports his views by interpreting the verses of the Holy Qur’an and by examining the position of the Traditions and refuting the arguments of the other side. Such refutation and intellectual debates were the norm during the era of intellectual progress of Muslims. However, in the time of rigidity and sticking to traditions, the later jurists have relieved themselves of the trouble of having a debate or making a research by erecting a wall which is called: "What is necessarily known of religion". They raised the sword of apostasy and accusation of sanctimony and putting to death everyone who may try to be diligent and to think. The later jurists have slept for long in the shadow of a wall called: "What is necessarily known of religion". Unfortunately, they are still asleep.
Wake up ye people!
The greater injustice is to kill the soul that God has forbidden to kill, then attribute this nefarious action to God the Exalted.
Thirdly:
The position of the Holy Qur’an regarding
the verdict of executing someone
outside
the principle of: "life for a life".
The first world war can be considered to have occurred between the two sons of Adam when one of them had murdered the other. The victim had never in his life committed a murder. In other words, the executer has executed him without any reason to justify the execution.
The Lord of Glory narrated the story of that first crime committed in the history of humans. From its text we can understand what were its objectives.
God says:
"And relate to them with truth the story of the two sons of Adam, when they each offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. The latter said:. `I will surely kill thee'. The former replied, `Allah accepts only from the righteous. If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear Allah, the Lord of the Universe". (5:27-28)
The meaning of killing and executing a soul was understood by all. The wrongdoing involved in the act of killing a human soul was also known, particularly to the brother victim who preferred not to stretch his hand to kill his brother because he feared the Lord of the Universe. He told his brother:
"`I wish that thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me as well as of thine own sin, and thus be among the inmates of the Fire, and that is the recompense of those who do wrong'. (5:29)
The sin of committing a murder and its evil was not absent from the mind of the aggressor brother. Therefore, after he threatened to kill his brother, he stayed for sometime hesitant, then he issued a verdict to kill his brother, or as the Qur’anic expression states it:
"But his evil self induced him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became one of the losers". (5:30)
And because it was the first murder crime in history, and because Adam, their father, was still alive and has not died yet, and because the corpse of the victim was the first corpse in the history of mankind, God the Exalted sent a raven to teach the murderer how to hide the corpse of his brother:
"Then Allah sent a raven which scratched in the ground, that He might show him how to hide the corpse of his brother. He said, `Woe is me! Am I not able to be even like this raven so that I may hide the corpse of my brother?' And then he became remorseful". (5:31)
The focus of this case concentrates on God's saying:
"But his evil self induced him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became one of the losers". (5:30)
In other words, the concentration is not only on the crime of murder itself but on what is more evil than murder; which is the verdict of unjustly putting someone to death, i.e. to legislate killing of a soul that did not deserve to be killed.
The Qur’anic expression here is so clear: "his evil self induced him to kill his brother", meaning that his evil self has made it permissible, legislated and then issued a verdict to kill the brother. Such legislation was then put into practice, thus "he killed him", afterwards he "became one of the losers".
Because the focus of the story warns against the danger of "inducing to kill", i.e. making a verdict to kill someone unjustly, God pointed directly to the objective and said:
"On account of this, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person - creating disorder in the land it shall be as if he had killed all, mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind". (5:32)
“On account of this", that is to say, on account of what tas been mentioned in the story regarding the son of Adam inducing himself to kill his brother who did not deserve to be killed;
“We prescribed for the Children of Israel", that is to say, God made it a commandment in the Law of the Torah;
“that whosoever killed a person unless it be for killing a person", which means that whosoever killed a soul that had not committed a murder, or killed a person outside the principle of: "a life for a life";
"creating disorder in the land", the disorder mentioned in the verse is a description for the crime of killing a soul that did not deserve to be killed. Thus the expression: "creating disorder" is analogous to the killing;
"it shall be as if he had killed all mankind". Here we may have a problem: How is it possible that killing one soul is equal to killing all of mankind? In other words, if we were to assume that one person has killed one man, while another person has killed a million men, how then can both be equal in the weight of the crime? Of course: No.
The equality in committing such a crime as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an is not related to the actual act of killing. It is related to the more dangerous and grievous crime, which is producing a verdict to kill someone unjustly. The focus of the story was, as stated by the Qur’anic expression: "his evil self induced him to kill his brother". This means that the person who issues a verdict to kill someone who did not commit a murder, or to kill someone unjustly, or to kill someone outside the law of requital; then such a person is considered to have killed all of mankind, because he issued a verdict for killing. Such verdict can be executed and carried out at all times, in every era and in every place. In short, such a person has issued a verdict to kill all of mankind.
The only justifiable act of killing is according to the law of requital, that is to kill the murderer as a punishment for his crime. This is the commandment of God in the Torah. If we were to exceed the limits set out by God, transgress His laws and pass a judgment that was not in agreement with His Revelation, then we would be like a person who passed a judgment of execution against all of mankind. Thus what God the Exalted said:
“On account of this, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person - creating disorder in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind". (5:32)
does not relate to the actual act of killing but relates to the more dangerous crime which is issuing a verdict to kill a person who does not deserve to be killed. Therefore the description of this more dangerous crime was mentioned by God the Exalted to be: "creating disorder in the land". Hence, inducing killing, outside the law of requital, is considered to be the most grievous crime of creating disorder.
The Holy Qur’an made this objective very clear by pointing to issuing of such unjust verdict not to the mere act of killing.
Then God the Exalted says:
"and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind". (5:32)
What is meant by saving a life is not related to the murderer who murdered someone. Naturally, the person who kills someone cannot bring him back to life. The objective of the verse is very clear, it intends to say that the greatest crime is to issue a verdict of unjust killing, and whosoever fights issuing such verdicts and proves that it is not a law revealed by God, then such a person saves all of mankind from the effect of these poisonous and destructive verdicts. It is as if he had saved the life of all mankind.
Whoever issues such criminal verdicts kills all of mankind, and whoever fights such verdicts and proves the falsehood of such practice saves all of mankind from their evil effect. This is the meaning of God's words:
"On account of this, We prescribe for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person - creating disorder in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind" (5:32)
The Lord of Glory has mentioned this divine jurisprudence in the Torah. He said about the Children of Israel and the Torah:
"And therein We prescribed for them: Life for life" (5:45)
which means that there is no justification for killing a soul except when it had committed a murder, i.e. as requital.
In Islamic jurisprudence, the penalty for murder has been commuted by introducing an alleviation by which the murderer may be saved from execution if the victim or his family agreed to accept the blood-money. God says:
"O ye who believe! equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you; the free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But for him who is granted any remission by his injured brother, pursuing the matter for the realization of the blood-money shall be done with fairness, and the murderer shall pay him the blood-money in a handsome manner. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy". (2:178)
Paying the blood-money in a handsome manner after the family of the victim agreed to accept it, is the alleviation introduced by God in the Holy Qur’an as a mercy.
Thus there is an exception in the rule of: "life for life". Such exception is paying the blood-money. Accordingly, the murderer may not be killed in all cases.
However, the law of retaliation is always applicable, whether the murderer pays with his soul or with his money. For this, God the Exalted says:
"And there is life for you in the law of retaliation" (2:179)
The rule of retaliation is a fundamental rule, even when fighting in the cause of God. Surely, in the Law of God there is life, justice and beneficence for the people.
God the Exalted forbids aggression and made fighting lawful in defence of the state if an aggression was committed against it:
"And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors". (2:190)
The legislation of retaliation came as fundamental rules concerning fighting as mentioned in the Word of God the Exalted:
"The violation of a Sacred Month may be retaliated in the Sacred Month; and for all sacred things there is the law of retaliation. So, whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him". (2:194)
which means that God the Exalted forbids the Muslims to exceed the law of retaliation in their war with the aggressors. If the aggressor happened to kill ten persons from among the Muslims, then the Muslims are not allowed to kill more than ten persons. This is the law of retaliation in which there is life for Muslims and for all others as well.
This being the case in the legislation for fighting an enemy who committed an act of aggression, then what about dealing with a peaceful person who did not raise a sword? Of course, there is no justification in killing such a person except in one case only: If he had committed a murder and the family of the victim refused to accept the blood-money insisting that he should pay with his life for his crime.
It is the utmost and extreme injustice to issue a verdict to kill a soul for any other reason outside the law of retaliation, and then to ascribe such unjust verdicts to the religion of God the Exalted, while the religion of God is absolutely free of such horrible acts.
In order to emphasize this rule, God has made it a fundamental legislative rule and repeated it three times in the