Syed Abul A'la Maududi
Before
I discuss the human rights in Islam I would like to explain a few points about
two major approaches to the question of human rights: the Western and Islamic.
This will enable us to study the issue in its proper perspective and avoid some
of the confusion which normally befogs such a discussion.
The people in the West have the habit of attributing every good
thing to themselves and try to prove that it is because
of them that the world got this blessing, otherwise the world was steeped in
ignorance and completely unaware of all these benefits. Now let us look at the
question of human rights. It is very loudly and vociferously claimed that the
world got the concept of basic human rights from the Magna Carta
of Britain; though the Magna Carta itself came into
existence six hundred years after the advent of Islam. But the truth of the
matter is that until the seventeenth century no one even knew that the Magna Carta contained the principles of Trial by Jury; Habeas
Corpus, and the Control of Parliament on the Right of Taxation. If the people
who had drafted the Magna Carta were living today
they would have been greatly surprised if they were told that their document
also contained all these ideals and principles. They had no such intention, nor
were they conscious of all these concepts which are now being attributed to
them. As far as my knowledge goes the Westerners had no concept of human rights
and civic rights before the seventeenth century. Even after the seventeenth
century the philosophers and the thinkers on jurisprudence though presented
these ideas, the practical proof and demonstration of these concepts can only
be found at the end of the eighteenth century in the proclamations and
constitutions of
The second point which I would like to clarify at the very outset
is that when we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that these rights
have been granted by God; they have not been granted by any king or by any
legislative assembly. The rights granted by the kings or the legislative
assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are
conferred. The same is the case with the rights accepted and recognized by the
dictators. They can confer them when they please and withdraw them when they
wish; and they can openly violate them when they like. But since in Islam human
rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or any
government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change
in the rights conferred by God. No one has the right to abrogate them or
withdraw them. Nor are they the basic human rights which are conferred on paper
for the sake of show and exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is
over. Nor are they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind
them.
The charter and the proclamations and the resolutions of the
United Nations cannot be compared with the rights sanctioned by God; because
the former is not applicable to anybody while the latter is applicable to every
believer. They are a part and parcel of the Islamic Faith. Every Muslim or
administrators who claim themselves to be Muslims will
have to accept, recognize and enforce them. If they fail to enforce them, and
start denying the rights that have been guaranteed by God or make amendments
and changes in them, or practically violate them while paying lip-service to
them, the verdict of the Holy Quran for such governments is clear and
unequivocal:
Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are
the dis Believers (kafirun).
The first thing that we find in Islam in this connection is that
it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words it means that
every man whether he belongs to this country or that, whether he is a believer
or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest or is found in some desert,
whatever be the case, he has some basic human rights simply because he is a
human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim. In fact it will be his
duty to fulfil these obligations.
The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and
respect human life. The Holy Quran lays down:
Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason
like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all
mankind ... (
As far as the question of taking life in retaliation for murder or
the question of punishment for spreading corruption on this earth is con- cerned, it can be decided only by a proper and competent
court of law. If there is any war with any nation or country, it can be decided
only by a properly established government. In any case, no human being has any
right by himself to take human life in retaliation or for causing mischief on
this earth. Therefore it is incumbent on every human being that under no
circumstances should he be guilty of taking a human life. If anyone has
murdered a human being, it is as if he has slain the entire human race. These
instructions have been repeated in the Holy Quran in another place saying:
Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred
except through the due process of law ... (6:151)
Here also homicide has been distinguished from destruction of life
carried out in pursuit of justice. Only a proper and competent court will be
able to decide whether or not an individual has forfeited his right to life by
disregarding the right to life and peace of other human beings. The Prophet, may God's blessings be on him, has declared homicide
as the greatest sin only next to polytheism. The Tradition of the Prophet
reads: "The greatest sins are to associate something with God and to kill
human beings." In all these verses of the Quran and the Traditions of the
Prophet the word 'soul' (nafs) has been used in
general terms without any distinction or particularization which might have
lent itself to the elucidation that the persons belong- ing
to one's nation, the citizens of one's country, the people of a particular race
or religion should not be killed. The injunction applies to all human beings
and the destruction of human life in itself has been prohibited.
'The Right to Life' has been given to man only by Islam. You will
observe that the people who talk about human rights if they have ever mentioned
them in their Constitutions or Declarations, then it is clearly implied in them
that these rights are applicable only to their citizens or they have been
framed for the white race alone. This can clearly be gleaned by the fact that
human beings were hunted down like animals in
Immediately after the verse of the Holy Quran which has been
mentioned in connection with the right to life, God has said: "And whoever
saves a life it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind" (5:32).
There can be several forms of saving man from death. A man may be ill or
wounded, irrespective of his nationality, race or colour.
If you know that he is in need of your help, then it is your duty that you
should arrange for his treatment for disease or wound. If he is dying of
starvation, then it is your duty to feed him so that he can ward off death. If
he is drowning or his life is at stake, then it is your duty to save him. You
will be surprised to hear that the Talmud, the religious book of the Jews,
contains a verse of similar nature, but records it in altogether different
form. It says: "Whoever destroyed a life of the Israelite, in the eyes of
the Scripture, it is as if he destroyed the whole world. And whoever protected
and saved one life of the Israelite, in the light of the Scripture, it is as if
he saved the whole world." Talmud also contains the view that if a
non-Israelite is drowning and you tried to save him then you are a sinner. Can
it be given a name other than racialism? We regard it as our duty to save every
human life, because it is thus that we have been enjoined in the Holy Quran. On
the other hand, if they regard it necessary to save the life of a human being
at all, it should be the life of an Israelite. As far as other people are
concerned, according to this view, they do not seem to be human enough to
deserve protection of their persons. In their literature the concept of 'Goyim'
for which the English word 'Gentile' and the Arabic word ummi
(illiterate) is used, is that they enjoy no human rights; human rights are
reserved only for the children of Israel. The Quran has mentioned this belief
of the Israelites and quotes the Jews saying: "There is no
blame on us (for anything we may do) with regard to the unlettered folk (i.e.
the ummi)" (3:75).
The third important thing that we find in the Charter of Human
Rights granted by Islam is that a woman's chastity has to be respected and
protected under all circumstances, whether she belongs to our own nation or to
the nation of an enemy, whether we find her in the wild forest or in a conquered
city; whether she is our co-religionist or belongs to some other religion or
has no religion at all. A Muslim cannot outrage her under any circumstances.
All promiscuous relation- ship has been forbidden to him, irrespective of the
status or position of the woman, whether the woman is a willing or an unwilling
partner to the act. The words of the Holy Quran in this respect are: "Do
not approach (the bounds of) adultery" (
Speaking about the economic rights the Holy Quran enjoins upon its
followers:
And in their wealth there is acknowledged right for
the needy and destitute. (51:19)
The words of this injunction show that it is a categorical and un-
qualified order. Furthermore this injunction was given in Makkah
where there was no Muslim society in existence and where generally the Muslims
had to come in contact with the population of the disbelievers. Therefore the
clear meaning of this verse is that anyone who asks for help and anyone who is
suffering from deprivation has a right in the property and wealth of the
Muslims; irrespective of the fact whether he belongs to this nation or to that
nation, to this country or to that country, to this race or to that race. If
you are in a position to help and a needy person asks you for help or if you
come to know that he is in need, then it is your duty to help him. God has
established his right over you, which you have to honour
as a Muslim.
Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive
practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him into
slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of the Prophet (S) are
as follows: "There are three categories of people against whom I shall
myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him
and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah). The words of
this Tradition of the Prophet are also general, they have not been qualified or
made applicable to a particular nation, race, country or followers of a
particular religion. The Europeans take great pride in claiming that they
abolished slavery from the world, though they had the decency to do so only in
the middle of the last century. Before this, these Western powers had been
raiding
After the occupation of
Briefly I would like to tell you about the position and nature of
slavery in Islam. Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that were in
Thus the problem of the slaves of
This is a very important and valuable right which Islam has given
to man as a human being. The Holy Quran has laid down:
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression" (5:2).
"And do not let ill-will towards any folk incite you so that you
swerve from dealing justly. Be just; that is nearest to
heedfulness" (5:8). Stressing this
point the Quran again says: "You who believe stand steadfast before
God as witness for (truth and) fairplay" (4:135).
This makes the point clear that Muslims have to be just not only with ordinary
human beings but even with their enemies. In other words, the justice to which
Islam invites her followers is not limited only to the citizens of their own
country, or the people of their own tribe, nation or race, or the Muslim
community as a whole, but it is meant for all the human beings of the world.
Muslims therefore, cannot be unjust to anyone. Their permanent habit and
character should be such that no man should ever fear injustice at their hands,
and they should treat every human being everywhere with justice and fairness.
Islam not only recognizes absolute equality between men
irrespective of any distinction of colour, race or
nationality, but makes it an important and significant principle, a reality.
The Almighty God has laid down in the Holy Quran: "O mankind, we have
created you from a male and female." In other words all human beings are
brothers to one another. They all are the descendants from one father and one
mother. "And we set you up as nations and tribes so that you may be able to
recognize each other" (49:13). This means that the division of
human beings into nations, races, groups and tribes is for the sake of
distinction, so that people of one race or tribe may meet and be acquainted
with the people belonging to another race or tribe and cooperate with one
another. This division of the human race is neither meant for one nation to
take pride in its superiority over others nor is it meant for one nation to
treat another with contempt or disgrace, or regard them as a mean and degraded
race and usurp their rights. "Indeed, the noblest among you before God
are the most heedful of you" (49:13). In other words the
superiority of one man over another is only on the basis of God-consciousness,
purity of character and high morals, and not on the basis of colour, race, language or nationality, and even this
superiority based on piety and pure conduct does not justify that such people
should play lord or assume airs of superiority over other human beings.
Assuming airs of superiority is in itself a reprehensible vice which no God-fearing
and pious man can ever dream of perpetrating. Nor does the righteous have more
privileged rights over others, because this runs counter to human equality,
which has been laid down in the beginning of this verse as a general principle.
From the moral point of view, goodness and virtue is in all cases better than
vice and evil.
This has been exemplified by the Prophet in one of his sayings
thus: "No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab
have any superiority over an Arab. Nor does a white man have any superiority
over a black man, or the black man any superiority
over the white man. You are all the children of Adam, and
Adam was created from clay" (al-Bayhaqi and al-Bazzaz). In this manner
Islam established equality for the entire human race and struck at the very
root of all distinctions based on colour, race,
language or nationality. According to Islam,God has given man this right of equality as a
birthright. Therefore no man should be discriminated against on the ground of
the colour of his skin, his place of birth, the race
or the nation in which he was born. Malcolm X, the famous leader of African
Negroes in America, who had launched a bitter struggle against the white people
of America in order to win civil rights for his black compatriots, when he went
to perform the pilgrimage, and saw how the Muslims of Asia, Africa, Europe,
America and those of different races, languages and colours
of skin, were wearing one dress and were hurrying towards God's House-the
Ka'bah and offering prayers standing in one row and there was no distinction of
any kind between them, then he realized that this was the solution to the
problem of colour and race, and not what he had been
trying to seek or achieve in America so far. Today, a number of non- Muslim
thinkers, who are free from blind prejudice, openly admit that no other
religion or way of life has solved this problem with the same degree of success
with which Islam has done so.
Islam has prescribed a general principle of paramount importance
and universal application saying: "Co-operate with one another for
virtue and heedfulness and do not co-operate with one another for the purpose
of vice and aggression" (5:2). This means that the man who
undertakes a noble and righteous work, irrespective of the fact whether he is
living at the North Pole or the South Pole, has the right to expect support and
active co-operation from the Muslims. On the contrary he who perpetrates deeds
of vice and aggression, even if he is our closest relation or neighbour, does not have the right to win our support and
help in the name of race, country, language or nationality, nor should he have
the expectation that Muslims will co-operate with him or support him. Nor is it
permissible for Muslims to co-operate with him. The wicked and vicious person
may be our own brother, but he is not of us, and he can have no help or support
from us as long as he does not repent and reform his ways. On the other hand the
man who is doing deeds of virtue and righteousness may have no kinship with
Muslims, but Muslims will be his companions and supporters or at least his
well- wishers.
We have discussed the human rights in general. Now we would like
to take up the question of rights of the citizens in an Islamic State. As these
rights are more extensive than the general human rights which have been
described earlier, they need separate treatment.
In the address which the Prophet delivered on the occasion of the
Farewell Hajj, he said: "Your lives and properties are forbidden to one
another till you meet your Lord on the Day of Resurrection." God Almighty
has laid down in the Holy Quran: "Anyone who kills a believer
deliberately will receive as his reward (a sentence) to live in Hell for ever.
God will be angry with him and curse him, and prepare dreadful torment for him" (4:93).
The Prophet has also said about the dhimmis (the
non-Muslim citizens of the
Along with security of life, Islam has with equal clarity and
definiteness conferred the right of security of ownership of property, as
mentioned earlier with reference to the address of the Farewell Hajj. On the
other hand, the Holy Quran goes so far as to declare that the taking of
people's possessions or property is completely prohibited unless they are
acquired by lawful means as permitted in the Laws of God. The Law of God
categorically declares "Do not devour one another's wealth by
false and illegal means" (2:188).
The second important right is the right of the citizens to the
protection of their honour. In the address delivered
on the occasion of the Farewell Hajj, to which I have referred earlier, the
Prophet did not only prohibit the life and property of the Muslims to one
another, but also any encroachment upon their honour,
respect and chastity were forbidden to one another. The Holy Quran clearly lays down:
(a) "You who believe, do
not let one (set of) people make fun of another set. (b) Do not defame one
another. (c) Do not insult by using nicknames. (d) And do not backbite or speak
ill of one another" (49:11-12).
This is the law of Islam for the protection of honour
which is indeed much superior to and better than the Western Law of Defama- tion. According to the
Islamic Law if it is proved that someone has attacked the honour
of another person, then irrespective of the fact whether or not the victim is
able to prove himself a respectable and honourable
person the culprit will in any case get his due punishment. But the interesting
fact about the Western Law of Defamation is that the person who files suit for
defamation has first to prove that he is a man of honour
and public esteem and during the interrogation he is subjected to the
scurrilous attacks, accusations and innuendoes of the defence
council to such an extent that he earns more disgrace than the attack on his
reputation against which he had knocked the door of the court of law. On top of
it he has also to produce such witnesses as would testify in the court that due
to the defamatory accusations of the culprit, the accused stands disgraced in
their eyes. Good Gracious! what a subtle point of law,
and what an adherence to the spirit of Law! How can this unfair and unjust law
be compared to the Divine law? Islam declared blasphemy as a crime irrespective
of the fact whether the accused is a man of honour or
not, and whether the words used for blasphemy have actually disgraced the
victim and harmed his reputation in the eyes of the public or not. According to
the Islamic Law the mere proof of the fact that the accused said things which
according to common sense could have damaged the reputation and honour of the plaintiff, is enough for the accused to be
declared guilty of defamation.
Islam recognizes the right of every citizen of its state that
there should be no undue interference or encroachment on the privacy of his
life. The Holy Quran has laid down the injunction: "Do not spy on
one another" (49:12). "Do not enter any houses except your own
homes unless you are sure of their occupants' consent" (24:27).
The Prophet has gone to the extent of instructing his followers that a man
should not enter even his own house suddenly or surreptitiously. He should
somehow or other inform or indicate to the dwellers of the house that he is
entering the house, so that he may not see his mother, sister or daughter in a
condition in which they would not like to be seen, nor would he himself like to
see them in that condition. Peering into the houses of other people has also
been strictly prohibited, so much so that there is the saying of the Prophet
that if a man finds another person secretly peering into his house, and he
blinds his eye or eyes as a punishment then he cannot be called to question nor
will he be liable to prosecution. The Prophet has even prohibited people from
reading the letters of others, so much so that if a man is reading his letter
and another man casts sidelong glances at it and tries to read it, his conduct
becomes reprehensible. This is the sanctity of privacy that Islam grants to
individuals. On the other hand in the modern civilized world we find that not
only the letters of other people are read and their correspondence censored,
but even their photostat copies are retained for
future use or blackmail. Even bugging devices are secretly fixed in the houses
of the people so that one can hear and tape from a distance the conversation
taking place behind closed doors. In other words it means that there is no such
thing as privacy and to all practical purposes the private life of an
individual does not exist.
This espionage on the life of the individual cannot be justified
on moral grounds by the government saying that it is necessary to know the
secrets of the dangerous persons. Though, to all intents and purposes, the
basis of this policy is the fear and suspicion with which modern governments
look at their citizens who are intelligent and dissatisfied with the official
policies of the government. This is exactly what Islam has called as the root
cause of mischief in politics. The injunction of the Prophet is: "When the ruler
begins to search for the causes of dissatisfaction amongst his people, he
spoils them" (Abu Dawud). The Amir
Mu'awiyah has said that he himself heard the Prophet
saying: "If you try to find out the secrets of the people, then you will
definitely spoil them or at least you will bring them to the verge of
ruin." The meaning of the phrase 'spoil them' is that when spies (C.I.D.
or F.B.I.agents) are spread all around the country to
find out the affairs of men, then the people begin to look at one another with
suspicion, so much so that people are afraid of talking freely in their houses
lest some word should escape from the lips of their wives and children which
may put them in embarrassing situations. In this manner it becomes difficult
for a common citizen to speak freely, even in his own house and society begins
to suffer from a state of general distrust and suspicion.
Islam has also laid down the principle that no citizen can be
imprisoned unless his guilt has been proved in an open court. To arrest a man
only on the basis of suspicion and to throw him into a prison without proper
court proceedings and without providing him a reason- able opportunity to
produce his defence is not permissible in Islam. It
is related in the hadith that once the Prophet was delivering a lecture in the
mosque, when a man rose during the lecture and said: "O Prophet of God,
for what crime have my neighbours been
arrested?" The Prophet heard the question and continued his speech. The
man rose once again and repeated the same question. The Prophet again did not
answer and continued his speech. The man rose for a third time and repeated the
same question. Then the Prophet ordered that the man's neighbours
be released. The reason why the Prophet had kept quiet when the question was
repeated twice earlier was that the police officer was present in the mosque
and if there were proper reasons for the arrest of the neighbours
of this man, he would have got up to explain his position. Since the police
officer gave no reasons for these arrests the Prophet ordered that the arrested
persons should be released. The police officer was aware of the Islamic law and
therefore he did not get up to say: "the administration is aware of the
charges against the arrested men, but they cannot be disclosed in public. If
the Prophet would inquire about their guilt in camera I would enlighten
him." If the police officer had made such a statement, he would have been dis- missed then and there. The fact that the police
officer did not give any reasons for the arrests in the open court was
sufficient reason for the Prophet to give immediate orders for the release of
the arrested men. The injunction of the Holy Quran is very clear on this point.
"When- ever you judge between people, you should judge with (a sense
of) justice" (
The correct method of dealing with such cases in Islam is
exemplified in the famous decision of the Prophet which took place before the
conquest of Makkah. The Prophet was making
preparations for the attack on Makkah, when one of
his Companions, Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah sent a letter
through a woman to the authorities in Makkah
informing them about the impending attack. The Prophet came to know of this
through a Divine inspiration. He ordered 'Ali and Zubayr:
"Go quickly on the route to Makkah, at such and
such a place, you will find a woman carrying a letter. Recover the letter from
her and bring it to me." So they went and found the woman exactly where
the Prophet had said. They recovered the letter from her and brought it to the
Prophet. This was indeed a clear case of treachery. To inform the enemy about a
secret of an army and that too at the time of a war is a very serious offence
tantamount to treachery. In fact one cannot think of a more serious crime
during war than giving out a military secret to one's enemy. What could have
been a more suitable case for a secret hearing; a military secret had been
betrayed and common sense demanded that he should be tried in camera. But the
Prophet summoned Hatib to the open court of the
Mosque of the Prophet and in the presence of hundreds of people asked him to
explain his position with regard to his letter addressed to the leaders of Quraysh which had been intercepted on its way. The accused
said: "O God's Messenger (may God's blessings be on you) I have not
revolted against Islam, nor have I done this with the intention of betraying a
military secret. The truth of the matter is that my wife and children are
living in Makkah and I do not have my tribe to
protect them there. I had written this letter so that the leaders of Quraysh may be indebted to me and may protect my wife and
children out of gratitude." 'Umar rose and
respect- fully submitted: "O Prophet, please permit me to put this traitor
to the sword." The Prophet replied: "He is one of those people who
had participated in the Battle of Badr, and the
explanation he has advanced in his defence would seem
to be correct."
Let us look at this decision of the Prophet in perspective. It was
a clear case of treachery and betrayal of military secrets. But the Prophet
acquitted Hatib on two counts. Firstly, that his past
records were very clean and showed that he could not have betrayed the cause of
Islam, since on the occasion of the Battle of Badr
when there were heavy odds against the Muslims, he had risked his life for
them. Secondly, his family was in fact in danger at Makkah.
Therefore, if he had shown some human weakness for his children and written
this letter, then this punishment was quite sufficient for him that his secret
offence was divulged in public and he had been disgraced and humiliated in the
eyes of the believers. God has referred to this offence of Hatib
in the Holy Quran but did not propose any punishment for him except rebuke and
admonition.
The attitude and activities of the Kharijis in the days of the Caliph 'Ali are well-known to the
students of Muslim history. They used to abuse the Caliph openly,
and threaten him with murder. But whenever they were arrested for these
offences, 'Ali would set them free and tell his officers "As long as they
do not actually perpetrate offences against the State, the mere use of abusive
language or the threat of use of force are not such offences for which they can
be imprisoned." The imam Abu Hanifah has
recorded the following saying of the Caliph 'Ali (A): "As long as they do
not set out on armed rebellion, the Caliph of the Faithful will not interfere
with them." On another occasion 'Ali was delivering a lecture in the
mosque when the Kharijis raised their special slogan
there. 'Ali said: "We will not deny you the right to come to the mosques
to worship God, nor will we stop to give your share from the wealth of the
State, as long as you are with us (and support us in our wars with the
unbelievers) and we shall never take military action against you as long as you
do not fight with us." One can visualize the opposition which 'Ali was
facing; more violent and vituperative opposition cannot even be imagined in a
present-day democratic State; but the freedom that he had allowed to the opposi- tion was such that no
government has ever been able to give to its opposition. He did not arrest even
those who threatened him with murder nor did he imprison them.
Amongst the rights that Islam has conferred on human beings is the
right to protest against government's tyranny. Referring to it the Quran says:
"God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by some- one who
has been injured thereby" (4:148). This means that God
strongly disapproves of abusive language or strong words of condemna-
tion, but the person who has been the victim of
injustice or tyranny, God gives him the right to openly protest against the
injury that has been done to him. This right is not limited only to
individuals. The words of the verse are general. Therefore if an individual or
a group of people or a party usurps power, and after assuming the reins of
authority begins to tyrannize individuals or groups of men or the entire
population of the country, then to raise the voice of protest against it openly
is the God-given right of man and no one has the authority to usurp or deny
this right. If anyone tries to usurp this right of citizens then he rebels
against God. The talisman of Section 1444 may protect such a tyrant in this
world, but it cannot save him from the hell-fire in the Hereafter.
Islam gives the right of freedom of thought and expression to all
citizens of the Islamic State on the condition that it should be used for the
propagation of virtue and truth and not for spreading evil and wickedness. This
Islamic concept of freedom of expression is much superior to the concept
prevalent in the West. Under no circumstances would Islam allow evil and
wickedness to be propagated. It also does not give anybody the right to use
abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism. The right to freedom of
expression for the sake of propagating virtue and righteousness is not only a
right in Islam but an obligation. One who tries to deny this right to his
people is openly at war with God, the All-Powerful. And the same thing applies
to the attempt to stop people from evil. Whether this evil is perpetrated by an
individual or by a group of people or the government of one's own country, or the government of some other country; it is the
right of a Muslim and it is also his obligation that he should warn and
reprimand the evil-doer and try to stop him from doing it. Over and above, he
should openly and publicly condemn it and show the course of righteousness
which that individual, nation or government should adopt.
The Holy Quran has described this quality of the Faithful in the
following words: "They enjoin what is proper and forbid what is
improper" (9:71). In contrast, describing the qualities of a
hypocrite, the Quran mentions: "They bid what is improper and
forbid what is proper" (9:67). The main purpose of an Islamic
Government has been defined by God in the Quran as follows: "If we give
authority to these men on earth they will keep up prayers, and offer poor-due,
bid what is proper and forbid what is improper" (22:41).
The Prophet has said: "If any one of you comes across an evil, he should
try to stop it with his hand (using force), if he is not in a position to stop
it with his hand then he should try to stop it by means of his tongue (meaning
he should speak against it). If he is not even able to use his tongue then he
should at least condemn it in his heart. This is the weakest degree of faith" (Muslim). This
obligation of inviting people to righteousness and forbidding them to adopt the
paths of evil is incumbent on all true Muslims. If any government deprives its
citizens of this right, and prevents them from performing this duty, then it is
in direct conflict with the injunction of God. The government is not in
conflict with its people, but is in conflict with God. In this way it is at war
with God and is trying to usurp that right of its people which God has
conferred not only as a right but as an obligation. As far as the government
which itself propagates evil, wickedness and obscenity and interferes with
those who are inviting people to virtue and righteousness is concerned,
according to the Holy Quran it is the government of the hypocrites.
Islam has also given people the right to freedom of association
and formation of parties or organizations. This right is also subject to
certain general rules. It should be exercised for propagating virtue and
righteousness and should never be used for spreading evil and mischief. We have
not only been given this right for spreading righteousness and virtue, but have
been ordered to exercise this right. Addressing the Muslims, the Holy Quran
declares:
You are the best community which has been brought
forth for mankind. You command what is proper and forbid what is improper and
you believe in God ... (3:110)
This means that it is the obligation and duty of the entire Muslim
community that it should invite and enjoin people to righteousness and virtue
and forbid them from doing evil. If the entire Muslim community is not able to
perform this duty then "let there be a community among you who
will invite (people) to (do) good, command what is proper and forbid what is
improper, those will be prosperous" (3:104). This clearly indicates
that if the entire Muslim nation collectively begins to neglect its obligation
to invite people to goodness and forbid them from doing evil then it is
absolutely essential that it should contain at least a group of people which
may perform this obligation. As has been said before this is not only a right
but an obligation and on the fulfilment of which
depends success and prosperity here as well as in the Hereafter. It is an irony
with the religion of God that in a Muslim country the assembly and association
that is formed for the purposes of spreading evil and mischief should have the
right to rule over the country and the association and party which has been
formed for propagating righteous- ness and virtue should live in perpetual fear
of harassment and of being declared illegal. Conditions here are just the
reverse of what has been prescribed by God. The claim is that we are Muslims
and this is an Islamic State5 but the work that is being done is directed to
spreading evil, to corrupt and morally degrade and debase the people while there
is an active and effective check on the work being carried out for reforming
society and inviting people to righteousness. Moreover the life of those who
are engaged in spreading righteousness and checking the spread of evil and
wickedness is made intolerable and hard to bear.
Islam also gives the right to freedom of conscience and conviction
to its citizens in an Islamic State. The Holy Quran has laid down the
injunction: "There should be no coercion in the matter of faith" (2:256).
Though there is no truth and virtue greater than the religion of Truth-Islam,
and Muslims are enjoined to invite people to embrace Islam and advance
arguments in favour of it, they are not asked to
enforce this faith on them. No force will be applied in order to compel them to
accept Islam. Whoever accepts it he does so by his own choice. Muslims will
welcome such a convert to Islam with open arms and admit him to their community
with equal rights and privileges. But if somebody does not accept Islam,
Muslims will have to recognize and respect his decision, and no moral, social
or political pressure will be put on him to change his mind.
Along with the freedom of conviction and freedom of conscience,
Islam has given the right to the individual that his religious sentiments will
be given due respect and nothing will be said or done which may encroach upon
this right. It has been ordained by God in the Holy Quran: "Do not abuse
those they appeal to instead of God" (6:108). These instructions are
not only limited to idols and deities, but they also apply to the leaders or
national heroes of the people. If a group of people holds a conviction which
according to you is wrong, and holds certain persons in high esteem which
according to you is not deserved by them, then it will not be justified in
Islam that you use abusive language for them and thus injure their feelings.
Islam does not prohibit people from holding debate and discussion on religious
matters, but it wants that these discussions should be conducted in decency.
"Do not argue with the people of the Book unless it is in the
politest manner" (29:46)-says the Quran. This order is not merely limited to
the people of the Scriptures, but applies with equal force to those following
other faiths.
Islam also recognizes the right of the individual that he will not
be arrested or imprisoned for the offences of others. The Holy Quran has laid
down this principle clearly: "No bearer of burdens shall be made to
bear the burden of another" (6:164). Islam believes in
personal responsibility. We ourselves are responsible for our acts, and the
consequence of our actions cannot be transferred to someone else. In other words
this means that every man is responsible for his actions. If another man has
not shared this action then he cannot be held responsible for it, nor can he be
arrested. It is a matter of great regret and shame that we are seeing this just
and equitable principle which has not been framed by any human being, but by
the Creator and Nourish- er of the entire universe,
being flouted and violated before our eyes. So much so that a man is guilty of
a crime or he is a suspect, but his wife being arrested for his crime. Things
have gone so far that innocent people are being punished for the crimes of
others. To give a recent example, in
Islam has recognized the right of the needy people that help and
assistance will be provided for them. "And in their
wealth there is acknowledged right for the needy and the destitute" (51:19).
In this verse, the Quran has not only conferred a right on every man who asks
for assistance in the wealth of the Muslims, but has also laid down that if a
Muslim comes to know that a certain man is without the basic necessities of
life, then irrespective of the fact whether he asks for assistance or not, it
is his duty to reach him and give all the help that he can extend. For this
purpose Islam has not depended only on the help and charity that is given
voluntarily, but has made compulsory charity, zakat
as the third pillar of Islam, next only to profession of faith and worship of
God through holding regular prayers. The Prophet has clearly instructed in this
respect that: "It will be taken from their rich and given to those in the
community in need" (al-Bukhari and Muslim). In addition
to this, it has also been declared that the Islamic State should support those
who have nobody to support them. The Prophet has said: "The Head of
state is the guardian of him, who has nobody to support him" (Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi). The word wali which has been used by the Prophet is a very
comprehensive word and has a wide range of meanings. If there is an orphan or
an aged man, if there is a crippled or unemployed person, if one is invalid or poor
and has no one else to support him or help him, then it is the duty and the
responsibility of the state to support and assist him. If a dead man has no
guardian or heir, then it is the duty of the state to arrange for his proper
burial. In short the state has been entrusted with the duty and responsibility
of looking after all those who need help and assistance. A truly Islamic State
is therefore a truly welfare state which will be the guardian and protector of
all those in need.
Islam gives its citizens the right to absolute and complete
equality in the eyes of the law. As far as the Muslims are concerned, there are
clear instructions in the Holy Quran and hadith that in their rights and
obligations they are all equal: "The believers are brothers (to
each other)" (49:10). "If they (disbelievers) repent and keep
up prayer and pay the Ipoor-due, they are your
brothers in faith" (
This religious brotherhood and the uniformity of their rights and
obligations is the foundation of equality in Islamic society, in which the
rights and obligations of any person are neither greater nor lesser in any way
than the rights and obligations of other people. As far as the non- Muslim
citizens of the Islamic State are concerned, the rule of Islamic Shari'ah (law) about them has been very well expressed by
the Caliph 'Ali in these words: "They have accepted our protection only
because their lives may be like our lives and their properties like our
properties" (Abu Dawud). In other words, their (of the
dhimmis) lives and properties are as sacred as the
lives and properties of the Muslims. Discrimination of people into different
classes was one of the greatest crimes that, according to the Quran, Pharaoh
used to indulge in: "He had divided his people into different
classes," ... "And he suppressed one group of them (at the cost of
others)" (28:4).
Islam clearly insists and demands that all officials of the
Islamic State, whether he be the head or an ordinary
employee, are equal in the eyes of the law. None of them is above the law or
can claim immunity. Even an ordinary citizen in Islam has the right to put
forward a claim or file a legal complaint against the highest executive of the
country. The Caliph 'Umar said, "I have myself
seen the Prophet, may God's blessings be on him, taking revenge against himself
(penalizing himself for some shortcoming or failing)." On the occasion of
the Battle of Badr, when the Prophet was
straightening the rows of the Muslim army he hit the belly of a soldier in an
attempt to push him back in line. The soldier complained "O Prophet, you
have hurt me with your stick." The Prophet immediately bared his belly and
said: "I am very sorry, you can revenge by doing the same to me." The
soldier came forward and kissed the abdomen of the Prophet and said that this
was all that he wanted.
A woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in
connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet, and it was
recommended that she may be spared the punishment of theft. The Prophet
replied: "The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because
they punished the common men for their offences and let their dignitaries go
unpunished for their crimes; I swear by Him (God) who holds my life in His hand
that even if Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, has
committed this crime then I would have amputated her hand." During the
caliphate of 'Umar, Muhammad the son of 'Amr ibn al-'As the Governor of
Islam also confers this right on every citizen that he will not be
ordered to commit a sin, a crime or an offence; and if any govern- ment, or the administrator, or the head of department
orders an individual to do a wrong, then he has the right to refuse to comply
with the order. His refusal to carry out such crime or unjust instructions
would not be regarded as an offence in the eyes of the Islamic law. On the
contrary giving orders to one's subordinates to commit a sin or do a wrong is
itself an offence and such a serious offence that the officer who gives this
sinful order whatever his rank and position may be, is liable to be summarily
dismissed. These clear instructions of the Prophet are summarized in the
following hadith: "It is not permissible to dis- obey God in
obedience to the orders of any human being" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal). In other
words, no one has the right to order his subordinates to do anything against
the laws of God. If such an order is given, the subordinate has the right to
ignore it or openly refuse to carry out such instructions. According to this
rule no offender will be able to prove his innocence or escape punishment by saying
that this offence was committed on the orders of the government or superior
officers. If such a situation arises then the person who commits the offence
and the person who orders that such an offence be committed, will both be
liable to face criminal proceedings against them. And if an officer takes any
improper and unjust measures against a subordinate who refuses to carry out
illegal orders, then the subordinate has the right to go to the court of law
for the protection of his rights, and he can demand that the officer be
punished for his wrong or unjust orders.
According to Islam, governments in this world are actually
representatives (khulafa') of the Creator of the
universe, and this responsibility is not entrusted to any individual or family
or a particular class or group of people but to the entire Muslim nation. The
Holy Quran says: "God has promised to appoint those of you who believe
and do good deeds as (His) representatives on earth" (24:55).
This clearly indicates that khilafah is a collective
gift of God in which the right of every individual Muslim is neither more nor
less than the right of any other person. The correct method recommended by the
Holy Quran for running the affairs of the state is as follows: "And their
business is (conducted) through consultation among themselves" (42:38).
According to this principle it is the right of every Muslim that either he
should have a direct say in the affairs of the state or a representative chosen
by him and other Muslims should participate in the consultation of the state.
Islam, under no circumstance, permits or tolerates that an individual or a
group or party of individuals may deprive the common Muslims of their rights,
and usurp powers of the state. Similarly, Islam does
not regard it right and proper that an individual may put up a false show of
setting up a legislative assembly and by means of underhand tactics such as
fraud, persecution, bribery, etc., gets himself and men of his choice elected
in the assembly. This is not only a treachery against the people whose rights
are usurped by illegal and unfair means, but against the Creator Who has
entrusted the Muslims to rule on this earth on His behalf, and has prescribed
the pro- cedure of an assembly for exercising these
powers. The shura or the legislative assembly has no
other meaning except that:
1.
The executive head of the government
and the members of the assembly should be elected by free and independent
choice of the people.
2.
The people and their representatives
should have the right to criticize and freely express their opinions.
3.
The real conditions of the country
should be brought before the people without suppressing any fact so that they
may be able to form their opinion about whether the government is working
properly or not.
4.
There should be adequate guarantee that
only those people who have the support of the masses should rule over the
country and those who fail to win this support should be removed from their
position of authority.
After dealing with the rights of the citizens of an Islamic State,
I would like to briefly discuss the rights which Islam has conferred on its enemies.
In the days when Islam came into focus the world was completely unaware of the
concept of humane and decent rules of war. The West became conscious of this
concept for the first time through the works of the seventeenth century
thinker, Grotius. But the actual codification of the
'international law' in war began in the middle of the nineteenth century. Prior
to this no concept of civilized behaviour in war was
found in the West. All forms of barbarity and savagery were perpetrated in war,
and the rights of those at war were not even recognized, let alone respected.
The laws which were framed in this field during the nineteenth century or over
the following period up to the present day, cannot be
called 'laws' in the real sense of the word. They are only in the nature of
conventions and agreements and calling them 'international law' is actually a
kind of misnomer, because no nation regards them binding when they are at war,
unless, of course, when the adversaries also agree to abide by them. In other
words, these civilized laws imply that if our enemies respect them then we
shall also abide by them, and if they ignore these human conventions and take
recourse to barbaric and cruel ways of waging war, then we shall also adopt the
same or similar techniques. It is obvious that such a course which depends on
mutual acceptance and agreement cannot be called 'law'. And this is the reason
why the provisions of this so-called 'inter- national law' have been flouted
and ignored in every way, and every time they have been revised, additions or
deletions have been made in them. Law of War and Peace in Islam:
The rules which have been framed by Islam to make war civilized
and humane, are in the nature of law, because they are the injunctions of God
and His Prophet which are followed by Muslims in all circum- stances,
irrespective of the behaviour of the enemy. It is now
for the scholars to find out how far the West has availed of the laws of war
given by Islam thirteen hundred years ago; and even after the adapta- tion of some of the laws
of Islam how far the West attained those heights of civilized and humane
methods of warfare which Muslims reached through the blessings of Islam.
Western writers have often asserted that the Prophet had borrowed everything in
his teachings from the Jews and the Christians. Instead of saying anything in
its refutation I will only recommend the reader to refer to the Bible6 so that
he can see which methods of war are recommended by the sacred Book of these
Western claimants to civilization and culture.
We have examined in some detail the basic human rights that Islam
has conferred on man. Let us now find out what rights and obligations Islam
recognizes for an enemy.
Islam has first drawn a clear line of distinction between the
combatants and the non-combatants of the enemy country. As far as the
non-combatant population is concerned such as women, children, the old and the
infirm, etc., the instructions of the Prophet are as follows: "Do not kill any
old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud). "Do not
kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are
sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).
During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the
ground and observed: "She was not fighting. How then she came to be
killed?" From this statement of the Prophet the exegetists
and jurists have drawn the principle that those who are non-combatants should
not be killed during or after the war.
Now let us see what rights Islam has conferred on the combatants.
In the hadith there is a saying of the Prophet that: "Punishment by
fire does not behove anyone except the Master of the
Fire"
(Abu
Dawud). The injunction deduced from this saying is that
the adversary should not be burnt alive.
"Do not attack a wounded person"-thus said the Prophet.
This means that the wounded soldiers who are not fit to
fight, nor actually fighting, should not be attacked.
"No prisoner should be put to the sword"-a very clear
and unequivocal instruction given by the Prophet (S).
"The Prophet has prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied
or is in captivity."
Muslims have also been instructed by the Prophet that if they
should enter the enemy's territory, they should not indulge in pillage or
plunder nor destroy the residential areas, nor touch the property of anyone
except those who are fighting with them. It has been narrated in the hadith:
"The Prophet has prohibited the believers from loot and plunder" (al-Bukhari; Abu Dawud). His
injunction is: "The loot is no more lawful than the carrion" (Abu Dawud). Abu Bakr al-Siddiq used to instruct
the soldiers while sending them to war, "Do not destroy the villages and
towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the
cattle." The booty of war which is acquired from the battleground is
altogether different from this. It consists of the wealth, provisions and
equipment captured only from the camps and military headquarters of the
combatant armies.
The Muslims have also been prohibited from taking anything from
the general public of a conquered country without paying for it. If in a war
the Muslim army occupies an area of the enemy country, and is encamped there,
it does not have the right to use the things belonging to the people without
their consent. If they need anything, they should purchase it from the local
population or should obtain permission from the owners. Abu Bakr
al-Siddiq, while instructing the Muslim armies being despatched
to the battlefront would go to the extent of saying that Muslim soldiers should
not even use the milk of the milch cattle without the
permission of their owners.
Islam has categorically prohibited its followers from disgracing
or mutilating the corpses of their enemies as was practised
in
In the Battle of Ahzab a very renowned
and redoubtable warrior of the enemy was killed and his body fell down in the
trench which the Muslims had dug for the defence of
Islam has strictly prohibited treachery. One of the instructions
that the Prophet used to give to the Muslim warriors while sending them to the
battlefront was: "Do not be guilty of breach of faith." This order
has been repeated in the Holy Quran and the hadith again and again, that if the
enemy acts treacherously let him do so, you should never go back on your
promise. There is a famous incident in the peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah,
when after the settlement of the terms of the treaty, Abu Jandal,
the son of the emissary of the unbelievers who had negotiated this treaty with
the Muslims, came, fettered and blood-stained, rushing to the Muslim camp and
crying for help. The Prophet told him "Since the terms of the treaty have
been settled, we are not in a position to help you out. You should go back with
your father. God will provide you with some other opportunity to escape this
persecution." The entire Muslim army was deeply touched and grieved at the
sad plight of Abu Jandal and many of them were moved
to tears. But when the Prophet declared that "We cannot break the
agreement", not even a single person came forward to help the unfortunate
prisoner, so the unbelievers forcibly dragged him back to Makkah.
This is an unparalleled example of the observance of the terms of agreement by
the Muslims, and Islamic history can show many examples of a similar
nature.
It has been laid down in the Holy Quran: "If you apprehend
breach of treaty from a people, then openly throw the treaty at their faces" (
This is a brief sketch of those rights which fourteen hundred
years ago Islam gave to man, to those who were at war with each other and to
the citizens of its state, which every believer regards as sacred as law. On
the one hand, it refreshes and strengthens our faith in Islam when we realize
that even in this modern age which makes such loud claims of progress and
enlightenment, the world has not been able to produce juster
and more equitable laws than those given 1400 years ago. On the other hand it
hurts one's feelings that Muslims are in possession of such a splendid and
comprehensive system of law and yet they look forward for guidance to those
leaders of the West who could not have dreamed of attaining those heights of
truth and justice which was achieved a long time ago. Even more painful than
this is the realization that throughout the world the rulers who claim to be
Muslims have made disobedience to their God and the Prophet as the basis and
foundation of their government. May God have mercy on them and give them the
true guidance.