Murder, Manslaughter & Terrorism
All in the Name of Allah

I. Introduction

Often, criminals are of two kinds: there are those who know that the wrong they do is wrong -- and there are those who think -- who actually believe -- that their deeds are virtuous. When those of the latter category have a religious basis for their activities, they can rarely be dissuaded by legal and penal measures alone, for bearing chastisement is in itself sublime to them -- something that gives them a cause to rejoice in being 'persecuted for righteousness' sake' -- something that only adds to their commitment. The best Defence against these people is an attack on the religious foundation their leaders use to convince them. A fortiori, legal and penal measures must be accompanied by propagation of counter arguments. For this purpose, arguments developed on the basis of superficial study won't do. No one is easily convinced into becoming a murderer on religious grounds and no one is easily dissuaded once so convinced. Only arguments truly emanating from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and cogent enough can be effective. Unfortunately, very little work has been done in this regard by government as well as private institutions.

It is important to know what arguments the militants use to justify their deeds and to see whether these arguments have any basis in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This dissertation discusses some pertinent issues in this regard, including incendiary questions as the following:

• Does Islam give an individual or a group the right to use violence to end wrong? 

• What arguments do the militant Islamists have to justify their acts of terrorism and violence? 

• Is the government of Pakistan un-Islamic? 

• When is an individual or a group allowed by Islam to rebel against the State? 

• What are the punishments in Islam for those who rebel against the State or cause disruption in society? 

• What exactly is the meaning of Jihad and who has the right to wage it? 

• Is 'turning the other cheek' a Christian belief only? 

• What are the rules for a preacher in Islam? 

• What is the actual responsibility of religious leaders? 

• Does an individual or a group have the right to declare a Muslim a Kafir? 

• What are the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic State? 

• Who has the authority to punish a person or a group for blasphemy? 

• What steps does the government need to take to end violence and terrorism now rampant in our society in the name of religion?

This dissertation, a major part of which is based on Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's research work (a meritorious religious scholar and founder of Al-Mawrid, an institute of Islamic education), has three main sections: 

1. The first gives a summary of the main conclusions drawn in the article, 

2. The second recommends certain strategies to the government for dealing with sectarian violence and terrorism, and 

3. The last section contains the main article. An appendix at the end responds to some criticisms on the views expressed in the dissertation.

II. Summary of the main conclusions

A. Taking the law into one's own hands amounts to either Fasad fi'l-Ard (creating disorder) or Muharabah (rebellion) -- both of which are punishable by death in Islam.

B. The Prophet's saying (saws) usually cited to give credence to the idea that Islam allows an individual or a group the use of force to end wrong is actually related to the use of power within the confines of the social and legal authority.

C. In Islam, there is no concept of Jihad (Qital to be more precise -- that is militant struggle in the way of Allah) or the implementation of punishments without the authority of the State.

D. The argument that the government in Pakistan is not Islamic is baseless. In an independent State, any government formed on the basis of amruhum shura baynahum (their affairs are by consultation among them) -- in modern times through the vote of the Muslim citizens in an election -- is an Islamic government so long as the rulers do not unequivocally deny Islam or their faith in it.

E. Rebellion against the State (Khuruj) is allowed -- that is it is permissible not obligatory -- only when all of the following three conditions exist:

• The Rulers unequivocally deny Islam.

• The government is a dictatorship and does not have the support of the Muslims and cannot be changed by their vote.

• The leader of Khuruj is one who, without any doubt, has the support of the majority of the nation.

Moreover, in case of an armed rebellion, there is an additional condition: the leader of the Khuruj must migrate with his followers to another land and form an independent State.

In the absence of even one of these conditions, those leading the Khuruj can be sentenced to death by the State under Islamic law.

F. Allegiance to the Islamic State and obedience to its government are obligatory on a Muslim even if the rulers are morally corrupt. According to a reported saying of the Prophet (saws), he who detaches himself from the collectivity of the Muslims and dies in that condition dies the death of ignorance.

G. No individual or group has the right to declare a person a Kafir (one who deliberately denies Islam even after its truth has been made clear to him/her by the Prophet (saws); plural: Kuffar). Takfir -- declaring someone a Kafir is the prerogative of the Prophet (saws) -- who does that through Divine revelation. Declaring someone a non-Muslim is the prerogative of the collectivity of the Muslim community represented by their State.

H. The argument of the militant Islamists that their aggression is in self-Defence is baseless. The difference between self-Defence and aggression is manifest. Also, the law of Qisas in Islam is to be implemented by the State not by any individual or group. The aggrieved person has the right to demand Qisas, and it is the responsibility of the State to provide him with justice. The aggrieved or his heir also has the authority to forgive the offender and demand penalty. But there is no room in Islam for personal vendettas, in which people take the law into their own hands.

I. Religious scholars and leaders of religious movements can best serve Islam by staying out of politics and confining themselves to academic work and Da'wah (propagation of religion). They must remember that their primary responsibility is Indhar (admonition) and Da'wah. Their goal should be conquering the hearts of people rather than killing them. For the conquest of hearts one has to be slain rather than slaying others. One has to forgive rather than avenge. And one has to repel evil with goodness.

Some other points of relevance to which this article alluded are:

A. Death punishment for apostasy was confined only to the people the Prophet (saws) was directly sent to -- the Banu Isma'il. No one can now be punished to death on that basis as no one after the Prophet (saws) can claim to have done Itmamu'l-Hujjah (manifesting the truth to such an extent that no excuse whatsoever is left for a person to deny it) in his individual capacity. (Of his direct addresses, the People of the Book were not given death punishment as they did not profess polytheism as their religion. However, they were given certain other punishments).

B. There are only two valid reasons for Qital: 

• Injustice and oppression and 

• Itmamu'l-Hujjah. 

After the Prophet (saws), his authorized companion were Divinely appointed witnesses to the truth of Muhammad's religion - Shuhada 'ala'l-Nas (2:143). They had the authority to extend his mission to other specified non-Muslim states. In other words, they had the authority to invite these states to accept Islam on the basis of Itmamu'l-Hujjah done by the Prophet (saws) or face war. After the Prophet (saws) and his authorized Companion, no individual or group or state has the right to wage war against any non-Muslim country for the propagation of Islam. Now Jihad, or Qital to be more precise, can be done by an Islamic state only for purpose of ending oppression (4:75).

C. Lynching non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic State for blasphemy is absolutely against Islam even if the criminal is caught red-handed. Punishing a person or a group for any crime against anybody is the prerogative of the Islamic State -- which does that through its organ, the judiciary, after determining for sure that the crime had actually been committed and deciding on the appropriate punishment.1

No individual has the right to take the law into his own hands on any account. Even the closest of the Prophet's companions (saws) never killed a single of his opponents even when invectives were hurled at him day and night in the first thirteen years of his Da'wah at Makkah. Nor did they kill anyone in retaliation when he was pelted with stones at Ta'if.

III. Recommendations

In relation to the points discussed above, the following measures are suggested to the government of Pakistan:

IV. Text of the dissertation 

Murder, Manslaughter and Terrorism All in the Name of Allah

The Qur'an says:

... that whoever took a life7, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth8, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind. (5:32)

And:

And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93)

How can someone who believes in this book commit murder?

Here's how:

In his mind -- and perhaps even in his heart -- the murder he commits is not murder: it is an act of virtue.

Those who do evil can be of two kinds. There are those who know that the evil they do is evil, and there are those who don't. In fact, those of the latter kind might even be absolutely certain that the evil they do is not evil but virtue. When that is the case, murder and terrorism can, in their minds, become Jihad.

The good intentions of these 'pious evil-doers' might become an excuse for them on the Day of Judgement, but in this worldly life of ours, when murder and terrorism are the issue, their error of judgement -- howsoever noble their intentions might be -- does not, in any way, exonerate them from the responsibility for causing disruption and disorder in society. Therefore, these people need to be dealt with -- and when human lives and law and order are at stake, there can be two ways of doing that: either you succeed in convincing them that their 'virtue' is actually evil and that their Jihad is in reality Fasad9 or Muharabah10 or you sentence them to death.

Two pertinent questions are: how do you convince them? and would the State be morally justified if, after having taken reasonable measures to solve the problem through dialogues and discussions, it has to award them the death punishment?

To convince such Islamist groups as resort to murder and terrorism that, howsoever noble the goals, their methods are against the teachings of their own religion, one has to understand the arguments they themselves use to justify their deeds. Of such arguments some of the more important ones are discussed here.

One of their arguments is based on a narration in which the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said:

He amongst you who sees any wrong should change it with his hand11; if that is not possible for him, then with his tongue; if that is not possible for him, then [he should condemn it] in his heart -- and that is the weakest level of faith. (Muslim, Kitabu'l-Iman)

Ghamidi points out that this statement of the Prophet (saws) has a specific context in reference to which the statement merely means that it is the duty of every Muslim to try for the eradication of evil within the confines of the social and legal authority he or she has12. For example, parents are afforded the authority by the conventions of society to use some mild form of physical punishment, if required, for the proper upbringing of their children. This obviously does not mean that they have the authority to batter their children. Similarly, the government -- a court of law to be more precise -- has the legal authority to award a suitable sentence to an offender if he is found guilty. Now, if some parents did not use their authority to stop their children from becoming heroin addicts, they would certainly be at a weaker level of faith, especially if physical punishment of a sort would have helped and it were love which stopped them from using their authority. Love does not mean that you let those you love do wrong. Similarly, a judge who, under some pressure, gave a lighter punishment to an offender would certainly be at a weaker level of faith. Indeed, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, he might even be regarded as being devoid of faith altogether on the Day of Judgement.

The Prophet of Allah (saws) never took the law into his own hands. During the thirteen years he preached Islam in Makkah, he never went beyond the confines of the law of the land. The few companions and followers he had during those years were indeed more loyal to him -- and hardly any Muslim would doubt that -- than his followers today can ever claim to be. Many a Muslim today will hardly take any time to decide that it is a matter of his faith to kill anyone -- even the most influential person around -- who blasphemes -- or is even suspected of blaspheming -- against the Prophet (saws). But the followers of the Prophet (saws) never murdered even a single of his opponents even when he was pelted with stones at Ta'if. In Makkah, invectives were hurled against him day and night, yet none of his followers regarded it a matter of his faith to kill a few offenders to avenge the Prophet (saws). Had all of his companions -- even those truly close to him as Abu Bakar (raa) and Ali (raa) -- chosen to remain at a weaker level of faith? And had the Prophet (saws) himself chosen not to do anything about the weak faith of his companions? Why didn't he exhort them to do something in retaliation?

It was only after the Prophet (saws) had established an independent State at Madinah that laws were enacted and implemented by him -- and that too was done gradually so as to avoid imbalance in society. The reason for this restraint is that in Islam armed struggle is allowed only at the level of the State13. An individual or a group is not permitted to wage an armed struggle so that anarchy does not prevail in society.

Militant struggle by an individual or a group in an Islamic State amounts to Fasad (disorder, disruption, etc) or, when it becomes a rebellion against the State, Khuruj (rebellion, revolt, etc). In either case, the Islamic State has the right to give the militants a severe death sentence.14 Only when certain conditions have been met is Khuruj allowed.15

The militant Islamists would argue that (a) the government in Pakistan is not Islamic and (b) they -- the militants -- are fighting against Kuffar (sing. Kafir: infidel), who ought to be killed to save Islam from its enemies.

It should be obvious from the points made above that even if Pakistan were not an Islamic State and some of those accepted by the State as Muslims were Kuffar, there would still be no room in Islam for the militant Islamists to take the law into their own hands and kill people. The militants are not more pious than the Prophet (saws) and his close companions (raa).

But let's take a look at this stance as well. Does a State having a morally and religiously corrupt government become un-Islamic? And who has the right to declare a group (or a person) in the Ummah (the whole Muslim community) as non-Muslims or Kuffar?

The Islamic principle on which a State is founded is described in the Qur'an (42:38) in the words amruhum shura baynahum (their affairs are through consultation amongst them)16. This principle entails that the State affairs be run by the vote of the majority of Muslim citizens. When a people establish their government in a geographically independent area over which they have power and authority, the State is formed. Therefore, when the majority of Muslims in a geographically independent area, over which they have power and authority, form their own government through consultation -- elections in modern times --, that government, in accordance with the verse quoted above, represents the Islamic State. Allegiance to that government is a religious obligation on the Muslim citizens of that State17:

Obey Allah and the Prophet and those who are in authority among you. Then if there is difference of opinion among you, refer it back to Allah and the Prophet (The Qur'an 4:59) 

The Qur'ânic words 'obey Allah and the Prophet...' require that a Muslim not obey any command against the directives of Allah and the Prophet (saws). But even then, he is not allowed to disrupt the system or commit murders. The reason is that when a government is formed in accordance with the Qur'ânic principle of amruhum shura baynahum and can be changed or deposed on the same basis, any rebellion against that government amounts to a rebellion against the collectivity of Muslims, which in Islamic terminology, is Muharabah and which, as the statement of the Prophet (saws) quoted earlier explains, is an offence punishable by death.

Prominent people of this Ummah as Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik ibn Anas and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal never resorted to violence, vandalism, terrorism or rebellion in spite of facing extreme hardships to propagate the truth.21 In Al-Masa'il al-Rasa'il al Marwiyyah 'an Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ahmad ibn Hanbal is reported to have said: Far be it from Allah [all that is wrongly associated with Him], blood is but blood22. I do not believe in it nor do I recommend it. Enduring what is on us23 is better than disruption, in which blood is shed, people's wealth is expropriated and things and matters sacred are desecrated.24

In Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal25, the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said26: I order you five things: pledging allegiance to the State, listening to and obeying [your rulers in that State], Hijrah27 and Jihad in the way of Allah.

In Bukhari's Kitabu'l-Fitan, the Prophet (saws) is also reported to have said28: He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the State and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance.

In another version in the same collection of his sayings, the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said29: He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the Sovereignty and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance (Kitabu'l-Fitan)

Ghamidi explains that in these two versions, the words Al-Jama'ah (the State) and Al-Sultan (the Sovereignty) have been used interchangeably, which clearly shows that this directive of the Prophet (saws) pertains to such a body as has political sovereignty in a geographically independent area in which there is a system of government.30

Ghamidi has explained in detail the conditions that must be fulfilled before rebellion against the State is allowed.32 A brief mention of these conditions would not be out of place here:

The first condition is that the rulers unequivocally deny Islam or any of its directives. The fourth verse of the 59th chapter of Qur'an quoted earlier points out that obedience to rulers is obligatory as long as they are from within the Muslims ('those in authority among you').

The Prophet (saws) is also reported to have laid down the same condition for refusal to accept the authority of the rulers.

... when you see unequivocal denial by them and in a matter regarding which you have an explicit directive from Allah. (Muslim, Kitabu'l-Imarah)

The second and the third conditions, based on amruhum shura baynahum -- 'their affairs are by consultation among them' (the Qur'an 42:38) --, are that the government against which Khuruj is taken place should be a dictatorship which does not enjoy the support of the masses and that the leader of the Khuruj should be a person who has the indubitable support of the nation.

All these conditions are essential in that even if one of them is missing, Khuruj is not permissible.

Furthermore, in case of militant struggle, there is another condition: the rebels must migrate to another land and form an independent State there.

Before discussing the basis and the reason for this condition, it would be pertinent to point out here that the militant Islamists often term all their subversive activities as Jihad. Actually, Jihad is a nomen verbum of Jahada, which means to make one's utmost effort. In Islamic terminology, the word denotes one's utmost effort in the way of Allah. One of the connotations of the word is making one's utmost effort in a militant struggle for Allah. In that sense it is used as a synonym for Qital fi sabil Allah (killing in the way of Allah), which is the more precise term for any kind of militant religious struggle -- be it a battle or war or a rebellion (Khuruj). And in any case, Qital fi sabil Allah is a prerogative of the State. In other words, in Islam there is no concept of Jihad or Qital (militant struggle) of any kind without the authority of the State.

The basis for this condition is that God Almighty did not ever give the permission to use the sword even to the Prophets (saws), who are the final manifestation of the truth for their people, until they had established their rule over their followers as their political sovereigns after migrating with them to another land and forming an independent State there. Moses (As) was given the directive for Jihad only after this condition had been met and, similarly, the Prophet (saws) and his followers were also allowed to do Jihad only when after the Pledge of 'Aqabah they were able to establish an independent State at Yathrib (later known as Madinah).33

The reason for this condition is that without the authority of the State Jihad often becomes Fasad. A group which does not even have the legal authority to sentence a criminal cannot be allowed to gamble with the lives and property of people. For this reason, Muslim jurists have always regarded this condition as essential:

And the third category of collective duties is one in which [the authority] of the Head of the State is a necessary condition, for example Jihad and the implementation of the Islamic law of punishments.34 

This is the gist of augments given by Ghamdi for the conditions for Khuruj. Earlier, Hamidu'l-Din Farahi and Amin Ahsan Islahi, two exegetes of the Qur'an, had also expressed similar views in very strong tones. Writes Farahi: Jihad in one's own country is not allowed unless one migrates to another land. Accounts of Abraham's life (As) and other verses [of the Qur'an] related to Hijrah (migration) also point up this principle. The events of the Prophet's life (saws) also corroborate it. The reason for this principle is that without the authority of one who represents the collectivity of the Muslims in the State and has political sovereignty, Jihad is merely chaos and disruption and anarchy and disorder.35

The second reason is that the import of the authority which a group engaged in war gets over the life and property of human beings is so great that such authority cannot be given to a group in which the authority of the leader over his followers is merely moral36. Mere moral authority is not a sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from Fasad fi'l-Ard37. Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords38 merely on the basis of his spiritual relationship with them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Those revolutionary groups the object of which is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games -- and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous group must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the lives and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances or create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end.39

It should be obvious from the passage quoted above that the right to wage war cannot be given to a group of individuals, who do not even have the legal authority to award punishment to a criminal. Without political sovereignty, Jihad is often nothing short of Fasad. Thus, such militant groups as mislead their followers into believing that their terrorism is a form of Jihad have no Islamic basis whatsoever for their claim.40

Now, let us analyse the next argument of the Islamist militants: that they only kill Kuffar41, who are out to destroy Islam. Let's see who is really a Kafir (singular of Kuffar) and who is not. And let's also take a look at whether any individual or group has the authority to declare a Muslim a Kafir.

Ghamidi believes that Takfir, or declaring anyone a Kafir, was the prerogative of the Prophet (saws) -- who did that on the basis of Divine revelation. The authorized companions of the Prophet (sws) had the Divine sanction to give the punishment for Takfir to other specified non-Muslim nations apart from the direct addressees of the Prophet (saws) on the basis of Itmamu'l-Hujjah done by him. After the Prophet (saws) and his Companions, no one has the right to declare anyone a kafir.

The reasons Ghamidi gives for this principle are as follows:

A Kafir as a Qur'ânic term refers to one who denies a Rasul even after the truth of his message has been made absolutely clear to him. Such manifestation of the truth by those messengers of God (termed Rusul; sing. Rasul) who are sent as His final judgment to a people may be termed as Itmamu'l-Hujjah. This takfir, therefore, is actually done by God Himself. The polytheists of Banu Isma'il received death punishment on this basis as is described in Surah Tawbah (9:5 & 9:11). Of the Prophet's direct addressees, the People of the Book were given other punishments (described in the same surah) but were spared the death punishment as they did not profess polytheism as their faith.42

Thus we have made you an intermediate group so that you be witnesses [of this religion] over the nations, and the Rasul be such a witness over you. (2:143)

Ghamidi believes that this special status of the Companions ended with them, no one now has the right to declare anyone a Kafir or to punish him on that basis.

As far as the issue of declaring someone a non-Muslim is concerned, Ghamidi regards it as essentially a legal one. Therefore, in his opinion only the state has the right to decide in this regard. A person who professes Islam is a Muslim unless the Islamic State, which represents the opinion of the Muslims in a land, declares him otherwise. Ideally, effort should be made to convince him of a truth (without coercing him in any manner). If it all he has to be declared a non-Muslim, it should preferably be done at the level of not one Islamic State but at the level of a body representing all Islamic States so that a person is not a Muslim in one Islamic State and a non-Muslim in another. According to Ghamidi, the Qur'ânic guideline to the Islamic State in this regard in Surah Tawbah (9:5 & 9:11) is that a person who professes to be a Muslim should be considered one if he:

accepts the fundamentals of Islam (what are those fundamentals can again be decided on the basis of amruhim shura baynahum in relation to the Qur'an and the Sunnah).

says the obligatory prayer, and

pays zakah (the obligatory payment of tax on Muslims).45

However, all these principles do not indicate that Muslims should be indifferent to dissents and heresies in religion. It is especially incumbent upon scholars and intellectuals to carry on the task of Da'wah (propagation of the truth) and of Indhar (admonition).

Experience has shown that scholars and intellectuals can best fulfill this responsibility by staying out of politics. It is indeed very fortunate when a political leader is religious, but when a religious leader is political he usually ends up being neither a politician nor a religious leader. Moreover, religious leaders need to understand that there are occasions when speaking out the truth is a requirement of faith and there are occasions when restraining oneself is a requirement of sagacity -- and that the Qur'an requires Da'wah with wisdom and sagacity: a Da'wah which vanquishes the hearts of people rather than killing or battering them.46

Some militant Islamists also argue that their militancy is for self-Defence. Their argument is that as a result of their Da'wah, opposing groups become aggressive, which entails self-Defence.

There is a big difference between what can legitimately be termed as 'self-Defence' and the 'aggression for the sake of self-Defence' that these Islamists usually commit. Extending the meaning of self-Defence to include downright aggression is carrying things too far. Many of these groups argue that not retaliating to aggression is a Christian attitude of 'turning the other cheek'. Islam gives the concept of Qisas, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

It should be borne in mind that an Islamic State has not only the responsibility but also the sole authority to implement the Law of Qisas. Qisas has often been rendered into English as 'retaliation'47 -- a translation which has misled many into believing that personal vendettas are allowed -- in fact encouraged -- in Islam (for example, a report on terrorism 'Bosnia -- A Springboard for Terrorism' prepared by a special task force of the U.S. Senate presents the same view of Islam, which viewpoint is further stressed in the Task Force's reply to a letter of protest by the American Muslim Council). It seems that the argument rests on an incorrect understanding of a Qur'ânic verse: And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir the authority. Therefore, he [the heir] should not exceed in killing, for verily he has been helped. (17:33)

The last part of the verse 'for verily he has been helped' refers to the fact that the State and the law are on his side. 'We have given his heir the authority' means that the heir has the authority to either demand Qisas or forgive the offender. 'He should not exceed in killing' means that since the society is now on the heir's side he should not exceed the limits either by taking the law into his own hand or by demanding a greater punishment than what the offender actually deserves. Ghamidi points out that the fact the Islamic penal laws were implemented only after the establishment of the State and the fact that the whole society has specifically been addressed in most Qur'ânic verses (for instance 6:178-179 and 5:45) pertaining to these laws prove beyond doubt that the directive of implementing the law of Qisas relate to the whole society -- which obviously works through the State and its organs (as the judiciary in this case)48. Therefore, lynching and engaging in personal vendettas have no room in Islam. As already explained, prominent Muslim jurists have always maintained that in some matters related to the collectivity of the Muslims, the authority of the Sovereignty is a necessary condition, for example Jihad (that is Qital) and the implementation of the law of punishments (Iqamatu'l-Hudud):

And the third category of collective responsibility is that in which the authority of the Sovereignty is a necessary condition, for example Jihad and the law of punishments.49

Nothing could be farther from the truth than the idea that Qisas refers to retaliation by an individual or a group. Such retaliation, even if equal harm is done to the offender, simply negates the purpose of the law of Qisas. The words of the Qur'an 'In Qisas there is life for you' refer to the fact that when the State does not provide the people in a society with justice, they often resort to personal vendettas and revenge, which shake the very foundation on which the edifice of a social set-up rests.

A Muslim who has been wronged has the right to demand Qisas and it is the duty of the State to provide him with justice. The Qur'an entails that much. But the Qur'an also goes further than that. It gives a high place to an attitude of forgiveness. Turning the other cheek is not merely a Christian attitude. Jesus (sws) was not telling the judge in a court of law to turn the other cheek while deciding the fate of a serial killer. He was not telling that to the State facing an enemy State in war. He was telling that to a preacher out to conquer the hearts of people. To conquer hearts one never slays, but is slain. One does not take revenge, but forgives. These are the rules for a preacher. Though not the law, they are a great honour and a great privilege. The Qur'an says: The good and the evil are not equal. Repel evil with that which is better than all others; then you will see that he, between whom and you there was enmity, has become as if he were a truly close friend. And this sagacity is not afforded to anyone except those who persevere and this wisdom is not granted except to those who are indeed very fortunate. And if you feel any evil incitement from Satan, seek refuge of Allah. Verily, He is the Hearer, the knower. (41:34-36)

This is the attitude of a Muslim towards those who wrong him because of his Da'wah -- an attitude the Qur'an terms as something truly sublime. With this line of thinking, how is it possible to think of retaliation and personal vengeance? And more than that, how is it possible for any Muslim to believe that he will be able to justify himself on the Day of Judgement for killing innocent people? 

V. Appendix

Response to some criticisms on the views presented in the dissertation 

Question:

In article 'Terrorism, Murder and Manslaughter -- All in the Name of Allah' (published March-April, 1997), you have tried to prove that there is no concept of Jihad -- militant struggle to be more precise -- in Islam without the authority of the State. In this regard, I have four questions:

A. Abu Basir, a convert to Islam in the Prophet's time (saws), formed a base near Duh'l-Marwah and launched guerrilla warfare from there, ultimately forcing the Quraysh to make peace with him. Wouldn't you agree that his stance proves your point invalid?

B. Isn't your idea a negation of the Jihad in Kashmir?

Answer:

A. Abu Basir was bound by the Pact of Hudaybiyyah to remain in Makkah, but he defected to the Muslims in Madinah. The Prophet (saws), in accordance with the terms of the pact, returned him to the Quraysh by handing him over to two representatives from their side. Abu Basir killed one of them on the way back; the other ran away and came to the Prophet (saws). Abu Basir also returned to the Prophet (saws) and told him that by handing him over to the Quraysh the Prophet (saws) had fulfilled his promise and that thenceforth Abu Basir was himself responsible for all his actions. Thereafter, Abu Basir left Madinah and went to 'is near Dhul'l Marwah. Soon a number of other defectors joined him and began ambushing the trade caravans of the Quraysh. Finally, the Quraysh relaxed the conditions of the pact for him, and he, along with his companions, settled down in Madinah.50

I find it hard to understand how Abu Basir's story can become a basis for equating the looting of caravans with Qital fi sabil Allah. How can one ignore the fact that Abu Basir, after killing one man, told the Prophet (saws) that he was then responsible for his own actions and that the Prophet (saws) had fulfilled his promise by handing him over to the Quraysh. The only thing that went in favour of Abu Basir was that he got lucky enough to get a relaxation from the Quraysh, who had become tired of his ambushes.

The chance that God afforded to Abu Basir in the form of pardon by the Quraysh might be indicative of His mercy for a convert to Islam, but it does not in any way negate a principle emanating from the Qur'an and the Sunnah for Qital.

B. 'No Qital without the authority of the State' is not 'my idea'. It is a deduction from the Qur'an for which deduction detailed arguments were given in the article. Calling this deduction 'your idea' does not prove it wrong. You can call it anything that pleases you: your idea, your imagination, your trickery, but only sound counter arguments from the Qur'an and the Sunnah can negate what is presented on these bases.

Regarding the struggle in Kashmir, I should like to ask you if you regard all what Muslims do as truly Islamic. Isn't it possible -- as has been the case many a time in our history -- that a Muslim or a group of Muslims -- despite our emotional attachment to that person or group -- may be doing something against the Qur'an without realising it? What are the criteria? That is the question. Are the criteria the Qur'an and the Sunnah or actions and emotions of the Muslims? If actions and emotions are the criteria, 'Umar (raa) should not have submitted to Abu Bakr's argument (raa) when he recited the Qur'an on the death of our Prophet (saws).

In Kashmir, different factions fighting Indian hegemony have different objectives and strategies. Which objectives and strategies are right and which are wrong? Is Kashmir another Afghanistan in the making (where Muslims fought and killed Muslims)? These questions should be of interest to every patriot.