Hadith 14
Prohibition of Blood of a Muslim
On the authority of Abdullah Ibn Masud (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
"It is not permissible to spill the blood of a Muslim except in three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery, a life for a life, and the one who forsakes his religion and separates from the community."
Key Takeaways
One : Hadith is a pitfall except for scholars
According to scholars such as Imam Sufyan Ibnu Uyainah, hadith is a pitfall (for the untrained eye/layman) except for the ulama (scholars) /fuqaha (those rigorously trained in Islamic jurispudence ).
This emphasises the importance of learning and seeking guidance from the learned not just merely on the authenticity of hadith but on the appropriateness of its application.
We learned that Hadith 14, for example, is a general (عَام as opposed to مُطْلَق absolute) statement that has further exceptions and specificity based on other concrete evidences established by scholars. The hadith pertains to legal penalties carried out by the Khalifah or his representative (not individuals). Without qualified scholarly conclusions, this hadith could easily be taken as absolute and the outcome could be detrimental.
Two : Islamic State Law Versus Secular State Law
The Islamic Legal Code consist of:
a) Fixed penalty (hadd , plural: hudud ) which has fixed the punishment for the crime and is most severe because of its purpose of deterrence
b) Qisas : Retaliation
c) Ta'zir : which is based on the discretion of the judge
As such, with the exception of qisas (retaliation), Islamic legal law is not too dissimilar from the secular common law in this respect
Three : Nature of Hadd
As pointed out by Sheikh Ahmad Saad Al-Azhari, the process which comes prior to the meeting of the hadd punishment is complex, complicated and rigid to the point where a speck of doubt can actually halt the proceedings of a particular case.
In traditional Islamic history, hadd for adultery is rarely implemented ('A legal fiction' as Sheikh Hamza Yusuf puts it). The cases that were implemented were mostly based on confessions.
Four :
However, the Muslim perspective has an added dimension of forgiveness and pardon. In fact, in qisas , one (who has fulfilled a set of criteria) can choose to retaliate (e.g.death sentence for the act of murder) or forgive and receive compensation.
Five : 'Separating from the majority' - two valid legal conclusions
There are two valid legal conclusion for the statement 'leaving the religion & separating from the Jamaah':
a) Disassociation from religion AND committing acts of treason
b) Openly/publicly denouncing one's faith
Our Sheikh highlighted that the prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم never ordered to kill anyone for merely denouncing one's faith. There were reportedly a number of people during his lifetime who denounced their faith but were left alone by the Prophetصلى الله عليه و سلم. Many classical scholars (e.g. As-Shafii as per the annotation for Ibn Daqeeq's) and contemporary scholars favoured the first legal conclusion; in line with the Quranic narrative that there should be no compulsion in belief. Contemporary scholars (like Syeikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah and his student, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf) further emphasised that the second legal conclusion is no longer valid in current times (where there is no proper Islamic governance, etc.), largely because the objectives (المقاصد; i.e. preservation of the Deen) of the legal penalty would not be achieved as it would in the past. Instead, it could bring about an opposite effect.
Post a Comment