|
 In
the Name of Allah, Most
Gracious, Most Merciful
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 Western Approach:
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 America and France.
After this there appeared a reference to the basic human rights
in the constitutions of different countries. But more often the
rights which were given on paper were not actually given to the
people in real life. In the middle of the present century, the
United Nations, which can now be more aptly and truly described
as the Divided Nations, made a Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and passed a resolution against genocide and framed
regulations to check it. But as you all know there is not a
single resolution or regulation of the United Nations which can
be enforced. They are just an expression of a pious hope. They
have no sanctions behind them, no force, physical or moral to
enforce them. Despite all the high-sounding ambitious resolutions
of the United Nations, human rights have been violated and
trampled upon at different places, and the United Nations has
been a helpless spectator. She is not in a position to exercise
an effective check on the violation of human rights. Even the
heinous crime of genocide is being perpetrated despite all
proclamations of the United Nations. Right in the neighbouring
country of Pakistan, genocide of the Muslims has been taking
place for the last twenty- eight years, but the United Nations
does not have the power and strength to take any steps against
India. No action has even been taken against any country guilty
of this most serious and revolting crime.
The Islamic Approach:
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).
5:44 The following verse also proclaims: "They
are the wrong-doers (zalimun)"
(5:45), while a third verse in the same chapter says: "They
are the evil-livers (fasiqun)"
(5:47). In other words this means that if the temporal
authorities regard their own words and decisions to be right and
those given by God as wrong they are disbelievers. If on the
other hand they regard God's commands as right but wittingly
reject them and enforce their own decisions against God's, then
they are the mischief-makers and the wrong-doers. Fasiq, the law-breaker,is
the one who disregards the bond of allegiance, and zalim is he
who works against the truth. Thus all those temporal authorities
who claim to be Muslims and yet violate the rights sanctioned by
God belong to one of these two categories, either they are the
disbelievers or are the wrong- doers and mischief-makers. The
rights which have been sanctioned by God are permanent, perpetual
and eternal. They are not subject to any alterations or
modifications, and there is no scope for any change or
abrogation.
CHAPTER TWO: BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
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.
1. The Right to Life
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 ...
(5:32)
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 Australia and the land
was cleared of the aborigines for the white man. Similarly the
aboriginal population of America was systematically destroyed and
the Red Indians who somehow survived this genocide were confined
to specified areas called Reservations. They also penetrated into
Africa and hunted down human beings like wild animals. All these
instances go to prove that they have no respect for human life as
such and if they have, it is only on the basis of their
nationality, colour or race. Contrary to this, Islam recognizes
this right for all human beings. If a man belongs to a primitive
or savage tribe, even then Islam regards him as a human being.
2. The Right to the
Safety of Life
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).
3. Respect for the
Chastity of Women
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" (17:32). Heavy punishment has
been prescribed for this crime, and the order has not been
qualified by any conditions. Since the violation of chastity of a
woman is forbidden in Islam, a Muslim who perpetrates this crime
cannot escape punishment whether he receives it in this world or
in the Hereafter. This concept of sanctity of chastity and
protection of women can be found nowhere else except in Islam.
The armies of the Western powers need the daughters of their
nation to satisfy their carnal appetites even in their own
countries, and if they happen to occupy another country, the fate
of its women folk can better be imagined than described. But the
history of the Muslims, apart from a few lapses of the
individuals here or there, has been free from this crime against
womanhood. It has never happened that after the conquest of a
foreign country the Muslim army has gone about raping the women
of the conquered people, or in their own country, the government
has arranged to provide prostitutes1for them. This is also a
great blessing which the human race has received through Islam.2
4. The Right to a Basic
Standard of Life
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.
5. Individual's Right to
Freedom
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 Africa on a very large scale, capturing
their free men, putting them in bondage and transporting them to
their new colonies. The treatment which they have meted out to
these unfortunate people has been worse than the treatment given
to animals. The books written by the Western people themselves
bear testimony to this fact.
The Slave Trade of
Western Nations:
After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three
hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The
African coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were
brought from the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing
out from those ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast. During
only one century (from 1680 to 1786) the total number of free
people who were captured and enslaved only for British Colonies
amounts, according to the estimate of British authors, to 20
million human beings. Over the period of only one year (1790) we
are told that 75,000 human beings were captured and sent for
slave labour in the Colonies. The ships which were used for
transporting the slaves were small and dirty. These unfortunate
Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships like cattle
right up to the top and many of them were chained to the wooden
shelves on which they could hardly move because these were only
eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other. They were
not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill or were
injured, no attempt was made to provide them with medical
treatment. The Western writers themselves state that at least 20%
of the total number of people who were captured for slavery and
forced labour perished during their transportation from the
African coast to America. It has also been estimated that the
total number of people who were captured for slavery by the
various European nations during the heyday of the slave trade
comes to at least one hundred million. This is the record of the
people who denounce Muslims day and night for recognizing the
institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding his
finger of blame towards an innocent man.
The Position of Slavery
in Islam:
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 Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways
to set their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in
expiation of some of their sins they should set their slaves
free. Freeing a slave by one's own free will was declared to be
an act of great merit, so much so that it was said that every
limb of the man who manumits a slave will be protected from
hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him. The
result of this policy was that by the time the period of the
Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia
were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves.
The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated
70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd
al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly
other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of
slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and
books of history of that period.
Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short
period of thirty or forty years. After this the only form of
slavery which was left in Islamic society was the prisoners of
war, who were captured on the battlefield. These prisoners of war
were retained by the Muslim Government until their government
agreed to receive them back in exchange for Muslim soldiers
captured by them, or arranged the payment of ransom on their
behalf. If the soldiers they captured were not exchanged with
Muslim prisoners of war, or their people did not pay their ransom
money to purchase their liberty, then the Muslim Government used
to distribute them among the soldiers of the army which had
captured them. This was a more humane and proper way of disposing
of them than retaining them like cattle in concentration camps
and taking forced labour from them and, if their women folk were
also captured, setting them aside for prostitution. In place of
such a cruel and outrageous way of disposing of the prisoners of
war, Islam preferred to spread them in the population and thus
brought them in contact with individual human beings. Over and
above, their guardians were ordered to treat them well. The
result of this humane policy was that most of the men who were
captured on foreign battlefields and brought to the Muslim
countries as slaves embraced Islam and their descendants produced
great scholars, imams, jurists, commentators, statesmen and
generals of the army. So much so that later on they became the
rulers of the Muslim world. The solution of this problem which
has been proposed in the present age is that after the cessation
of hostilities the prisoners of war of the combatant countries
should be exchanged. Whereas Muslims have been practising it from
the very beginning and whenever the adversary accepted the
exchange of prisoners of war from both sides, it was implemented
without the least hesitation or delay. In modern warfare we also
find that if one government is completely routed leaving her in
no position of bargaining for the prisoners of war and the
winning party gets its prisoners easily, then experience has
shown that the prisoners of war of the vanquished army are kept
in conditions which are much worse than the conditions of slaves.
Can anyone tell us what has been the fate of the thousands of
prisoners of war captured by Russia from the defeated armies of
Germany and Japan in the Second World War? No one has given their
account so far. No one knows how many thousands of them are still
alive and how many thousands of them have perished due to the
hardship of the Russian concentration and labour camps. The
forced labour which has been taken from them is much worse than
the service one can exact from slaves. Even perhaps in the times
of ancient Pharaohs of Egypt such harsh labour might not have
been exacted from the slaves in building the pyramids of Egypt,
as has been exacted from the prisoners of war in Russia in
developing Siberia and other backward areas of Russia, or working
in coal and other mines in below zero temperatures, ill-clad,
ill-fed and brutally treated by their supervisors.
6. The Right to Justice
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.
7. Equality of Human
Beings
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.
7. Freedom of
Association
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.
8. Freedom of
Conscience and Conviction
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.
9. Protection of
Religious Sentiments
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.
10. Protection from
Arbitrary Imprisonment
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 Karachi (Pakistan), a man was
suspected of being involved in a bomb throwing incident. In the
course of police investigation he was subjected to horrible
torture in order to extract a confession from him. When he
insisted on his innocence, then the police arrested his mother,
his wife, daughter and sister and brought them to the police
station. They were all stripped naked in his presence and he
was stripped naked of all his clothes before their eyes so that
a confession of the crime could be extracted from him. It
appears as if for the sake of investigation of crime it has
become proper and legal in our country to strip the innocent
women folk of the household in order to bring pressure on the
suspect. This is indeed very outrageous and shameful. This is
the height of meanness and depravity. This is not a mere
hearsay which I am repeating here, but I have full information
about this case and can prove my allegations in any court of
law. I would here like to ask what right such tyrants who
perpetrate these crimes against mankind have to tell us that
they are Muslims or that they are conduct- ing the affairs of
the state according to the teachings of Islam and their state
is an Islamic State. They are breaching and flouting a clear
law of the Holy Quran. They are stripping men and women naked
which is strictly forbidden in Islam. They disgrace and
humiliate humanity and then they claim that they are Muslims.
11. The Right to Basic
Necessities of Life
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.
12. Equality Before
Law
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"
(9:11). The Prophet has said that: "The
life and blood of Muslims are equally precious"
(Abu Dawud; Ibn Majjah).
In another hadith he has said: "The
protection given by all Muslims is equal. Even an ordinary man
of them can grant protection to any man"
(al-Bukhari; Muslim; Abu
Dawud). In another more
detailed Tradition of the Prophet, it has been said that those
who accept the Oneness of God, believe in the Prophet- hood of
His Messenger, give up primitive prejudices and join the Muslim
community and brotherhood,
"then they have the same rights
and obligations as other Muslims have"
(al-Bukhari; al-Nisa'i).
Thus there is absolute equality between the new converts to
Islam and the old followers of the 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).
13. Rulers Not Above
the Law
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 Egypt, whipped an Egyptian. The Egyptian
went to Medina and lodged his complaint with the Righteous
Caliph, who immediately summoned the Governor and his son to
Medina. When they appeared before him in Medina, the Caliph
handed a whip to the Egyptian complainant and asked him to whip
the son of the Governor in his presence. After taking his
revenge when the Egyptian was about to hand over the whip to 'Umar,
he said to the Egyptian: "Give one stroke of the whip to the
Honourable Governor as well. His son would certainly have not
beaten you were it not for the false pride that he had in his
father's high office." The plaintiff submitted: "The person who
had beaten me, I have already avenged myself on him." 'Umar
said: "By God, if you had beaten him (the Governor) I would not
have checked you from doing so. You have spared him of your own
free will." Then he ('Umar) angrily turned to 'Amr ibn al-'As
and said: "O 'Amr, when did you start to enslave the people,
though they were born free of their mothers?" When the Islamic
State was flourishing in its pristine glory and splendour, the
common people could equally lodge complaints against the caliph
of the time in the court and the caliph had to appear before
the qadi to answer the charges. And if the caliph had any
complaint against any citizen, he could not use his
administrative powers and authority to set the matter right,
but had to refer the case to the court of law for proper
adjudication.
14. The Right to Avoid
Sin
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:
-
The executive head of the
government and the members of the assembly should be elected
by free and independent choice of the people.
-
The people and their representatives should have the right to
criticize and freely express their opinions.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
1. The Security of
Life and Property
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 Muslim State): "One
who kills a man under covenant (i.e. a dhimmi) will not even
smell the fragrance of Paradise"
(al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud).
Islam prohibits homicide but allows only one exception, that
the killing is done in the due process of law which the Quran
refers to as bi al-haqq (with the truth). Therefore a man can
be killed only when the law demands it, and it is obvious that
only a court of law can decide whether the execution is being
carried out with justice or without justification. In case of
war or insurrection a just and righteous government alone,
which follows the Shari'ah or the Islamic Law, can decide
whether a war is just or unjust, whether taking of a life is
justified or not; and whether a person is a rebel or not and
who can be sentenced to death as a punishment. These weighty
decisions cannot be left in the hands of a court which has
become heedless to God and is under the influence of the
administra- tion. A judiciary like this may miscarry justice.
Nor can the crimes of state be justified on the authority of
the Holy Quran or Traditions (hadith) when the state murders
its citizens openly and secretly without any hesitation or on
the slightest pretext, because they are opposed to its unjust
policies and actions or criticize it for its misdeed, and also
provides protection to its hired assassins who have been guilty
of the heinous crime of murder of an innocent person resulting
in the fact, that neither the police take any action against
such criminals nor can any proof or witnesses against these
criminals be produced in the courts of law. The very existence
of such a government is a crime and none of the killings
carried out by them can be called "execution for the sake of
justice" in the phraseology of the Holy Quran.
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).
2. The Protection of
Honour
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.
3. The Sanctity and
Security of Private Life
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.
4. The Security of
Personal Freedom
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" (4:58). And
the Prophet has also been asked by God: "I have been ordered to
dispense justice between you." This was the reason why the
Caliph 'Umar said: "In Islam no one can be imprisoned except in
pursuance of justice." The words used here clearly indicate
that justice means due process of law. What has been prohibited
and condemned is that a man be arrested and imprisoned without
proof of his guilt in an open court and without providing him
an opportunity to defend himself against those charges. If the
Government suspects that a particular individual has committed
a crime or he is likely to commit an offence in the near future
then they should give reasons for their suspicion before a
court of law and the culprit or the suspect should be allowed
to produce his defence in an open court, so that the court may
decide whether the suspicion against him is based on sound
grounds or not and if there is good reason for suspicion, then
he should be informed of how long he will be in preventive
detention. This decision should be taken under all
circumstances in an open court, so that the public may hear the
charges brought by the government, as well as the defence made
by the accused and see that the due process of law is being
applied to him and he is not being victimized.
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.
5. The Right to
Protest Against Tyranny
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.
6. Freedom of
Expression
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.
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.
The Rights of the
Non-Combatants:
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.
1. Torture with Fire
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.
2. Protection of the
Wounded
"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.
3. The Prisoner of War
Should not be Slain
"No prisoner should be put to the sword"-a very clear and
unequivocal instruction given by the Prophet (S).
4. No one Should be Tied
to be Killed
"The Prophet has prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied or
is in captivity."
5. No Looting and
Destruction in the Enemy's Country
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.
6. Sanctity of Property
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.
7. Sanctity of a Dead
Body
Islam has categorically prohibited its
followers from disgracing or mutilating the corpses of their
enemies as was practised in Arabia before the advent of Islam. It
has been said in the hadith: "The
Prophet has prohibited us from mutilating the corpses of the
enemies" (al-
Bukhari; Abu Dawud). The occasion on
which this order was given is highly instructive. In the Battle
of Uhud the disbelievers mutilated the bodies of the Muslims, who
had fallen on the battlefield and sacrificed their lives for the
sake of Islam, by cutting off their ears and noses, and threading
them together to put round their necks as trophies of war. The
abdomen of Hamzah, the uncle of the Prophet, was ripped open by
Quraysh, his liver was taken out and chewed by Hind, the wife of
Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Meccan army. The Muslims were
naturally enraged by this horrible sight. But the Prophet asked
his followers not to mete out similar treatment to the dead
bodies of the enemies. This great example of forbearance and
restraint is sufficient to convince any reasonable man who is not
blinded by prejudice or bias, that Islam is really the religion
sent down by the Creator of the universe, and that if human
emotions had any admission in Islam, then this horrible sight on
the battlefield of Uhud would have provoked the Prophet to order
his followers to mutilate the bodies of their enemy in the same
manner.
8. Return of Corpses of
the Enemy
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 Medina. The unbelievers
presented ten thousand dinars to the Prophet and requested that
the dead body of their fallen warrior may be handed over to them.
The Prophet replied "I do not sell dead bodies. You can take away
the corpse of your fallen comrade."
9. Prohibition of Breach
of Treaties
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.
10. Rules About
Declaration of War
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"
(8:58). In this verse, Muslims have been prohibited from opening
hostilities against their enemies without properly declaring war
against them, unless of course, the adversary has already started
aggression against them. Otherwise the Quran has clearly given
the injunction to Muslims that they should intimate to their
enemies that no treaty exists between them, and they are at war
with them. The present day 'inter- national law' has also laid
down that hostilities should not be started without declaration
of war, but since it is a man-made rule, they are free to violate
it whenever it is convenient. On the other hand, the laws for
Muslims have been framed by God, hence they cannot be violated.
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.
|